Episode 184: The Gospel of Matthew #3—The ‘Greater Than’ Motif/Second Moses

A huge early theme of the Gospel of Matthew that carries throughout is the portrayal of Yeshua as the latter and greater Moses. In addition to this, He also declares Himself to be greater than the Temple and a whole lot of other sacred cows of the first century. This week, we will investigate these claims and find out why they are so important to Matthew’s particular audience.

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here. If you prefer YouTube, click here.

Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, we see Yeshua/Jesus telling His audience that “something greater than this or that” is here. He outright claims to be greater than the Temple, Jonah, and Solomon. Through parables and teachings, He also makes it clear that He is greater than Moses, any interpretation of the Torah apart from His own, the Sabbath, sacrifices, paying Temple taxes, and King David. But, by far, the most obvious of these is the ongoing comparison to Moses—from his birth story to His role as a teacher far greater than Moses, who only prophesied about Yeshua but failed to enter into the Land because of his sin and rebellion. I will just be glossing over most of these as I will cover them in depth when I get to them in the series, but I want you to get a feel for what Matthew is saying here because it will be important from the very beginning.

Remember from last time, Matthew is a polemical text making the case to post-Temple Jews of why they should follow Yeshua instead of the Pharisees, who were growing in power after the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent ruin of the Sadducean high priestly family. Pharisaic Judaism was morphing into the Rabbinic Judaism of the Middle Ages but it wasn’t there yet, not by a long shot. Matthew is making the case that it is Yeshua who represents true Judaism, as opposed to the more mainstream Pharisees who (by and large) didn’t accept Yeshua as the long-awaited Messiah and therefore the only true teacher and arbiter of the will of God. In fact, during the second century, led by Rabbi Akiva (a former Gentile), they would side with Shimon bar Kochba in his temporarily successful rebellion against Rome, which disastrously led to the permanent expulsion of the Jews until the 7th century.  But when Matthew was written, this was all in the future and the battle was on for which sect within Judaism would come out on top. Matthew obviously wanted the victor to be Yeshua so he had to make sure to make a strong case for it. To accomplish this for his Jewish audience of Jews evangelizing other Jews and proselytes, he had to make a clear case that Yeshua is greater than anyone in the Torah and also greater than the Torah, as Paul had also written decades earlier. In Galatians 2:21 and Romans 8, Paul explains that Torah was weakened by the sin of the hearers and unable to save or render a person truly righteous within. Although Yeshua was likely considered to be the living law, as were all ancient kings, that is a reflection of His unique position as the arbiter of justice and instruction in righteousness and not a way to make Him simply co-equal with the Torah, the five books of Moses or even the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have years’ worth of blogs at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on Amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids. I also have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for adults and kids. You can find the links for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com, and transcripts for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah. All Scripture this week is from the CSB, the Christian Standard Bible, unless I say otherwise.

Let’s look at the collection of “greater than” verses as well as where Yeshua implicitly claims authority over and on all things held sacred by the Jewish world:

 

I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. (Matt 12:6)

The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at Jonah’s preaching; and look—something greater than Jonah is here. (Matt 12:41)

The queen of the south will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and look—something greater than Solomon is here. (Matt 12:42)

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matt 12:8)

While the Pharisees were together, Jesus questioned them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They replied, “David’s.” He asked them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’: The Lord declared to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet’?  “If David calls him ‘Lord,’ how, then, can he be his son?” (Matt 22:41-45)

“You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you… 27 “You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you… “It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce. But I tell you… “Again, you have heard that it was said to our ancestors, You must not break your oath, but you must keep your oaths to the Lord. But I tell you… “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you… (Matt 5:21-38, edited)

As Kevin said in Home Alone, I have to say to those who claim that Yeshua never claimed to be anything other than a normal human being, “You guys give up, or are you hungry for more?” Greater than Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived but who tore the Kingdom apart with forced labor to build palaces for his bevy of booty call beauties. Greater than Moses, who gave the law but made allowances for human hard-heartedness (Mark 10). Greater than the Temple, which was supposed to be inhabited by the presence of God but had been abandoned since the days of Ezekiel before the Babylonian conquest—even though God commanded Haggai and Zerubbabel to rebuild it and continue with the offerings. Greater than Jonah who preached to the Gentiles but out of a wrathful and bitter heart, wanting them to perish and afraid that God would have mercy if he obeyed. Greater than the Sabbath because He understands that Sabbath is a gift so that men and women could rest and not something burdensome that people need to be paranoid about breaking. Greater than David because, well, you know but also because David himself recognized that Messiah was his Lord. Greater than the Torah, because He can do what the Torah never could—allow for perfection through the circumcision of the heart. Torah still allowed the evils of the world while lessening them, according to Yeshua, but Yeshua made allowances for perfection and provided the only way to the New Creation life. Torah prophesied about Yeshua, and so it serves Him and not the other way around. We obey it as a starting place but Yeshua beckons us to strive for perfection and not be satisfied with treating the commandments like an inclusive “to do” list or to search them to see what we can get away with while still claiming to be Torah Observant.”

Let me just say this—many people would rather be Torah observant (or at least pretend to be because so much of it is land, cultural, and Temple based that it is impossible) than to follow the Messiah because it is a heck of a lot easier. You can still do some nasty, selfish, and evil things to other people and claim to be obedient, but Yeshua strips away all our pretensions with the Sermon on the Mount and we are so aghast that we come up with reasons why He wasn’t really serious about putting us in danger. Folks, until the time of Constantine, the church took it seriously. But with a standing army comes less trust, more fear, and the desire to conquer, dominate and convert by force. The teachings of Yeshua were often pushed aside in favor of using examples from the OT out of context to justify war for pretty much any reason to the point that, today, we pick and choose our wars based on financial motives and other worldly concerns and call it good while referring to ourselves as a Christian nation. Last month, I saw people calling for the deaths of innocent Palestinians and even children to avenge what their terrorist political leadership has done. But if we are going to follow Yeshua, we need to pray for and bless our enemies and if we are to do that for actual enemies, we should do even more for those who are suffering right now because they were born into an impoverished terrorist state. They could be us, under different circumstances. Condemn evil. Condemn violence. But be careful not to become the types of people who would want a people group slaughtered wholesale just because their leadership wants to do that to Israel. As in the Bible, it was the leadership responsible for the death of the Messiah and not the regular folks. We are all products of environments that we never chose for ourselves.

But the good news is that Yeshua came, promoting Himself as greater than everything and everyone on earth. Greater than the wisdom and wealth of Solomon. Yeshua is greater than the prophet Jonah, who ran away from God’s will instead of diligently carrying His own Cross toward a terrible death. Yeshua is greater than the Temple, which had become a source of false security and national pride. Yeshua was the presence of God, without priestly mediation and go-betweens, with no buffer between Himself and humanity. Blessings flowed from Him as they were supposed to flow from the Temple, but no longer were due to corrupt leadership. Yeshua was greater than David, who became the sort of ancient Near Eastern king whom Samuel had warned the Israelites about. Yeshua was greater than Moses, putting Himself over and above Moses with the “but I say to you” statements after speaking the words of Moses. Sometimes He kept the traditions of His day and at other times, he utterly ignored them.

But before that, we have His origin story which is purposefully tied to Moses. A miraculous birth, unlike Moses, but followed by persecution from a modern-day Pharaoh in Herod who also killed Jewish baby boys. Journeys to and from Egypt to escape danger. Following the Spirit for forty days of temptation in the wilderness echoing the forty years of Moses following the Spirit in the wilderness where Israel was tempted and failed. A mountaintop sermon delivering the law of the Kingdom of Heaven. The division of Matthew into five sections echoing the five books of Moses. Yeshua is going to not only be compared to Moses but also to Israel. Yeshua will succeed in everything Israel failed. Yeshua will be the perfect Son of God—not the stiff-necked generation in the wilderness. This is the story Matthew is telling, post 70 CE when the nation is having to face another Temple destroyed due to what the Talmud later described as “gratuitous hatred” among the factionalized Jews (Yoma 9b). Follow Yeshua, who got it right, endured to death like the prophets of old, resisted temptation, and who was vindicated by God as the first raised permanently from the dead and who has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Live in this radical way He showed us to live because doing things the Pharisaic way didn’t stop our Temple from being destroyed, our people slaughtered, and our nation scattered.

It is time for new leadership—true leadership. That’s the story Matthew is telling. Yeshua is the greater Israel, the greater Son, who did everything right and was killed for it by the leadership—and some of those leaders were Pharisees. Even if they didn’t cause the problem, they did nothing to stop it when the Sanhedrin met to consider the recommendation of the High Priest’s informal hearing the night before. Matthew didn’t even include Yeshua’s request that they be forgiven because they didn’t know what they were doing because to do so would weaken his argument. Yes, there is forgiveness for all who repent but Matthew was portraying the Pharisaic influence as to be avoided and not as forgiven.
Those are the things I want us to notice as we are going through this Gospel. Everything in it is designed to show Matthew’s fellow Jews, living either in or in close proximity to the Land, the way forward for true Judaism, the way of the Kingdom of Heaven, at their cultural crossroads after the destruction of the Temple.




Episode 182: Matthew #1—The who, what, why and when of the “first” Gospel.

Why is the Gospel of Matthew called a biography when it looks absolutely nothing like our modern biographies? What were the rules of writing an ancient life story and how did Matthew use this genre to communicate the story of the Messiah to his very unique audience at a very tumultuous time in history?

(My affiliate links for Amazon products are included in the post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

Welcome to my first episode in this new series on Matthew, which I am teaching in tandem with the Psalms because they truly do go great together as will become more obvious as we get deeper in.

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here. If you prefer a longer video version, click here.

Just as we did with the Gospel of Mark, overwhelmingly believed to be the first written Gospel, we need to take some time to explore the author, what exactly they were writing, when they wrote it, and what purpose it served within the community where it originated. Mark is largely attributed to Peter’s companion John Mark, most famous for ditching Paul in Pamphylia and for being the cousin of Barnabus plus the reason for the splitting up of certainly the greatest missionary team in history. So, not likely an author that anyone would have made up, as his history is a bit sketchy. Mark was almost certainly written to a Roman audience and not a primarily Jewish audience because of his frequent usage of Latin loan words and his explanations of concepts unique to first-century Judaism that wouldn’t need explanation if the audience was Jewish. Mark was likely written sometime around 60 CE, give or take a few years. His intention was to declare Yeshua/Jesus as the fulfillment of “Jewish” prophecy in being the Yahweh-Warrior and Arm of the Lord prophesied in Deutero-Isaiah, and we covered that in a series as well–performing miracles, feedings, and healings for both Jews and Gentiles as a glimpse of the future Messianic Kingdom that was inaugurated at the Cross and Resurrection. I mention all of this because it will be important in understanding how Matthew is very different even though it uses over 90% of the material found in Mark—but adds a whole lot more and emphasizes the same material in different ways.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have years’ worth of blogs at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on Amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids (affiliate link). I also have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for adults and kids. You can find the links for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com, and transcripts for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.

Let’s look at the author of Matthew; the earliest church tradition identifies him as the apostle Matthew, certainly one of the more obscure apostles whom we certainly wouldn’t even think twice about without this Gospel and the fact that before conversion, he was a traitor to his people, being a tax collector for the Romans. Not in terms of going to ordinary Jews and collecting taxes like the Sheriff of Nottingham, but specifically collecting tolls from merchants in places like Capernaum among those who shipped fish throughout the area. Maybe it wasn’t that Matthew at all, but Papias claimed it was, and he was born only 30 years after the Resurrection, placing him within a stone’s throw of the events. Doubting him really serves no purpose. Eusebius claimed that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic) and translated, but experts tend to agree that it really doesn’t read as though it was. The current “ancient” copy of Hebrew Matthew dates to like the 14th century by the Ba’al Shem Tov, and there is no reason to suspect it was the product of a scribe copying an earlier document. Scholars tend to believe that it was translated from Catalan, which was derived from a manuscript in Provencal, which was itself based upon the Latin Vulgate. The Baal Shem Tov was a polemicist against Christianity in favor of Judaism, and it was in his best interest to translate the Catalan into Hebrew. But it is a very layered manuscript, showing the telltale signs of having gone through many translations. And, of course, the originals for the Vulgate translation were in Greek. Truth be told, all of our manuscripts of “Hebrew Matthew” are dated from the 15th through 17th century, and none claim ancient roots. There are only 28 manuscripts out there. So, there is no benefit in claiming these represent the originals, and we gain nothing—although more than a few people speaking outside their field of expertise have made a lot of money doing it. Nuff said.

As for the “what,” Matthew covers the same material as did Mark but in sometimes completely different ways and to highlight a very different story. For Mark, Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah who didn’t destroy the armies of the Gentiles but instead the armies of the demonic powers and principalities oppressing both Jew and Gentile. Yeshua combatted hunger, spiritual and physical deafness and blindness, sickness, physical and mental infirmities, demonic oppression, as well as the leadership of the Temple and the regions of Judea and Galilee (which were not united as one country and had entirely different power structures and political realities). The only thing they had in common was the presence of Jews and being ruled by the Roman Empire through vassals and governors. But the culture was incredibly different, and so were the accents. Matthew, on the other hand, is clearly a Jew who never feels the need to explain Jewish concepts because his audience already knows that information. Parchment is expensive, and this is a long Gospel as it is! Matthew’s Gospel is in the form of an ancient biography, so that’s what we will be talking about today. Ancient biographers didn’t play by our rules but according to their own cultural expectations for what it meant to properly communicate the life story of an important person. A fabulous book on this is Keener’s Christobiography (affiliate link)–not light reading, let me tell you.

Matthew is presenting the story of Yeshua in a way that proves He is the (1) Second Moses, (2) heir of the Davidic throne, the “Son of David” who is ruler over the Greater Kingdom of Heaven, (3) Israel’s definitive teacher, (4) the divinely conceived Son of God, (5) the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, (6) the one who is “greater than” the Temple, Jonah, Moses, etc. because He is the unique incarnation of the Son of God, (7) the true way of Judaism, as opposed to the Pharisees and the now defunct priesthood (if this was indeed written after the destruction of the Temple) and (8) the one who gathers the Nations into faith in Yahweh. Matthew puts Yeshua on such a high pedestal that it should be no shock that his last recorded words of Yeshua are that He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth and that we all need to obey all He commanded. Yes, that would include the Sermon on the Mount!

As for the when, that’s a bit more tricky. It wasn’t likely written before Mark, and anyone studying the transmission of ancient stories knows that they get longer and not shorter with time. There were no Reader’s Digest Abridged Versions of the Gospels. Matthew is most likely longer because he took the material gathered together by Mark (from Peter—things Matthew didn’t see because he wasn’t one of the inner circle “three”) and used that as a base to tell the story that best served his own community of Jewish Christians, but also a community inclusive of Gentile Christians. But the real question that scholars grapple with is whether it was written before or after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 CE. There are good arguments for both, and so I am going to suggest a date after the destruction for a few reasons—but mostly because I believe the problem faced by Matthew’s community is a battle between his sect and the Pharisees for dominance of the hearts and minds of the Jewish people after the destruction of the Temple, when tempers were running high and intra-Jewish controversies and infighting were feverish, to say the least. At this point, the Sadducees were gone because without a Temple, the upper echelon of the priesthood was shattered and they were powerless. The Essenes/Qumran sectarians were always a small offshoot who mostly kept to themselves anyway and so were never very influential. The Pharisees had moved to Yavneh and other locations, setting up learning centers and trying to salvage the remains of Palestinian Judaism (Palestine being the name used by the Greeks from 500 BCE (derived from ancient Assyrian), which was used by Josephus and Philo and which was later made official during the second century by Rome—so not to be confused with referring to the modern Palestinian people).

Imagine a post-apocalyptic world (yes, I am aware I am using that word wrong, but everyone knows what I mean) where different factions are trying to shape the world around their unique way of thinking and doing things. I cannot stress enough how devastating the loss of Jerusalem and the Temple were to the Jews. Their identity was in tatters, and the future of the faith was anything but certain. It was the perfect time to make their case for who truly represented the authentic people of Israel and whose ways were more pleasing to God, whose ways would bring the nation that was so divided into sects that really hated one another with a vengeance—long before Yeshua was born—back together in worship and observance of the Torah. What did the nation need to do in order to merit the Messiah who would overthrow the Roman legions? As for the people, what do you hope for when the world is a shambles around you? Do you go with the Pharisees as they began their journey into the Rabbinic Judaism of the Middle Ages? Or do you follow the nutty believers in a crucified Rabbi who they actually believed rose from the dead? The infighting between the Jewish believers in Yeshua and the Jewish unbelievers had gotten Rome into such a state of irritation that Emperor Claudius expelled them all. Rome didn’t care for religious drama—after all, they were a “peaceful” people bringing peace and joy to all the world. *cough*

Of course, Christians made up about 20% of Jews in the Roman Empire in the first century, which is a lot. However, that left 80% who weren’t, and the Pharisees won both the day and the overall battle even to modern times. In addition to the Jews killed in the Temple revolt, about half as many were recorded as killed in 135 CE at the end of the Bar Kochba Revolt. Some estimates have the number of dead at as much as 1.7 million in all. I don’t think it was anywhere near that high, but I also don’t want to have anything to do with counting such things. The decrease in population is just staggering. People were desperate—how do you please God without a Temple in the ancient world? The Pharisees promoted Torah learning, prayer, and charity as equivalent to Temple observances. The Christians, on the other hand, promoted allegiance to a crucified Messiah. Let’s just say it was a hard sell in an honor/shame society.

And so, it would have been a time of polemics between Jews who did and did not ally themselves with Yeshua. It is no different than we see in ancient schools of Philosophy among the Greeks and Romans. Teachers would gather disciples, lay out standards of moral living through stories and proverbs, and do verbal battle against rival teachers to grow their own school and decrease the following and honor of other teachers and schools. Really, the Rabbi/disciple model we see within first century Judaism was very much inspired by the Greek model. Apart from all the shameful polemical name-calling (a lot of it would make you blush, I promise), it really was an effective system. If the Greeks and Romans were good at anything, it was organization and administration. The Jews actually benefitted greatly from it in some ways and not so much in others.

What do you do when two factions are battling for the hearts and minds of their own people? You promote your teacher, promote their teachings, promote their teaching abilities, promote their authority in all things pertaining to virtue and wisdom, lay out the way of life advocated by that teacher, increase their honor, and decry the other schools of thought. This was the way of the ancient world, including the Jewish world. It was how things were done. It was how John the Baptist did things and how Yeshua did things—not because it represents an ideal form of communication but because it was understood. We look back, and we base our political conversation on it—I mean, Thomas Jefferson’s campaign called John Adams a hermaphrodite. Like, dang. So harsh.

And so, Matthew wrote an ancient biography of Yeshua, doing all that and more. Now, biographies in the ancient world weren’t like the biographies out there today, which are often written about people who are still alive or recently died. In fact, that’s what makes Yeshua’s biography strange. Ancient Historians generally wrote about people long dead, who no one alive had ever had contact with. Easier and safer that way! Their biographies played fast and loose with the historical facts in order to tell a story about the person in question—but you shouldn’t mistake that for ancient biographies qualifying as fiction. People expected a story and not just boring facts and figures. Biographies, then and now, are always an act of interpreting someone else’s life. We don’t know what really happened behind closed doors or who said what and how it was said without it being recorded. And even if it is recorded, the different people in the room will have different vantage points and might perceive the same situation differently. And, in their own way, they might all be correct.

A lot of people get their panties into a bunch when multiple Gospels describe the same exact story in different ways—with a different number of people or changing the circumstances a bit. But that was not only normal but expected in the ancient world. There is no chance in heck that the Gospel writers would divert from the other accounts if there was even remotely a chance that they would be perceived to be untrustworthy. And notice that Rabbinic writings have zero problems with how the Gospels were written—because they did things the exact same way. All the ancient world wrote these types of texts with just enough creative license to tell the truth—which is sometimes easier if you aren’t bogged down with a need for scientific-level accuracy. Accuracy being important is part of our culture because of the Age of Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. And believe me, when you are combining chemicals, accuracy is absolutely important. I know this personally as a chemist. But for Mark to show Yeshua as a warrior, and for Matthew to show Yeshua as the greater Moses, and for Luke to write “an orderly account” of the life and ministry of Yeshua and for John to be utterly esoteric, they had to emphasize some aspects of the story and ignore others that didn’t contribute to that particular facet of the diamond. If I were to tell the story of my own life, I would first decide what I wanted to emphasize and then pick and choose material and decide how to present it to make my point. Otherwise, history is super boring for most people.

And remember, they didn’t consider this to be fiction. From Genesis through Revelation and from narratives to poetry to wisdom literature to biographies to letters to apocalyptic literature, God entered into our world through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in speaking to Israel; He did it through the various writers during their different historical periods and according to the literary constructs of the time (after all, how could they understand Him with no common ground for reference?), languages, legends, and understandings of things like science. Peter Enns calls this Incarnational Biblical Authority (affiliate link)—in that Yahweh inhabited our lives first and foremost through communicating with humans on their terms in ways they could understand. In the same way, Matthew presents Yeshua as God doing the exact same thing in entering the world in flesh (and specifically in the flesh of a Jewish male who was descended physically from a son of David and was adopted into the royal Davidic line). As such, He was perfectly situated to communicate to the very audience He would send out into the world. At the age of thirty, given the high death rate in Judea and Galilee, at thirty years of age, Yeshua was an elder in the community—giving Him voice and a measure of honor. He was a male, which meant that people in that culture would listen to Him. He spoke like a Biblical scholar, worked miracles, and performed exorcisms—which the people of that time and place were primed to see as proof of the legitimacy of His ministry. Both Jew and Gentile, actually. He was brilliant in verbal confrontations, a must in that culture. Were Yeshua to appear today, He would appear in somewhat different ways while saying the same thing with different words, but how different is anyone’s guess. Whatever form He would take would be based upon common modern shared experience and values. Yahweh enters into our world to communicate with us, and thank God He does not communicate with us according to where He is. What a nightmare that would be when we are less than toddlers compared to Him.

And this is where we need to understand that the stories about Yeshua weren’t taken down by a scribe following Him around. In the ancient world, oral accounts were believed to be superior to written because (1) oral accounts could be expounded upon in a superior fashion to written notes, (2) they understood that tone is every bit as important as words, and (3) not much was really written down because it was largely impractical and literacy rates were extremely low until just recently. This means the Gospels were oral accounts until after the time of Paul and his letters. It was only when the Church had spread out so far and wide that certain people took to compiling the accounts of Yeshua that were being taught in the synagogues, private homes, open-air gatherings, and rented halls. These accounts were then copied for nearby congregations, and the best of them survived in the forms of the three synoptics plus John. As heresies began especially creeping into the ever-expanding Church, there was a need for formal accounts based on apostolic witness or at least those who were the safe keepers of the memories of the Apostles, many of whom were dead or elderly by the time the accounts were actually formally written down. The business of the Church, of course, was to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth in anticipation of the return of Christ. Likely, they originally believed (as it is clear that Paul and many others did) that the return would be very soon. In fact, every generation has looked at the Scriptures and believed the exact same thing. So, the need for written accounts that could be disseminated and largely controlled didn’t exist in the beginning—as we should expect and respect in an oral culture where everyone had terrific memories but very few could read. We are the opposite and have books so we don’t have to memorize everything.

Next time, I think we will focus on Matthew’s love of the phrase “the Kingdom of Heaven” and what it meant to Him and the story He wanted to tell about the Messiah to his largely Jewish, post-Temple audience and how and if it differs from Mark and Luke’s “Kingdom of God.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




Episode 144: Mark 72 The Ninth Hour and the Centurion’s Declaration

There is far more to the account of Yeshua’s/Jesus’s death than meets the eye. We’re going to be talking about the Tamid offerings and their timing, the cosmic event language in Matthew and Mark concerning the darkness and the torn veil, and the importance of the Centurion’s declaration that, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

(My affiliate links for Amazon products are included in the post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here.

33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.  34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 35 And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, he is calling Elijah.” 36 And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. 38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” 40 There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 When he was in Galilee, they followed him and ministered to him, and there were also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

So last time, we covered the concept of hours and how they were based on the position of the sun in the sky and not according to a set timekeeping system like we have now, with their daytime hours being longer in summer and shorter in winter and the opposite being true for the nighttime hours. And I told you that this week we would be talking about the apocalyptic, cosmic language of this section and why that was so important and what it would have communicated to the author’s Rome-based audience. We have the top slice of bread on this Markan sandwich with the Centurion’s declaration, and the shocking (to them) mention of the women who stayed by Him and were His followers all along, despite no one mentioning it until just now and we will talk about why that is so significant and in a few weeks, we will see what this mention is all leading to in the scandalous climax to the story.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have six years’ worth of blog at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids (affiliate link) and I have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for both adults and kids. You can find the link for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com and transcripts can be had for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.

All Scripture this week comes courtesy of the ESV, the English Standard Version but you can follow along with whatever Bible you want. A list of my resources can be found attached to the transcript for Part two of this series at theancientbridge.com.

Review from the last few weeks (1) Yeshua/Jesus was replaced as the main character during the trial with Pontius Pilate the Procurator (according to Tacitus) or Prefect (according to Josephus and the inscription unearthed in 1961) but in the Gospel of Mark he is called the hegemoni. In reality, there isn’t much difference so don’t let the different terms confuse you. From there, we come across various groups who become the center of the action, all described as “they”—the soldiers, the ones who tried to give Him a narcotic in His wine (possibly the wealthy women of Jerusalem who were said to have done this for the condemned), the pilgrims walking by on the roads from Bethlehem and Joppa, the chief priests and their scribes, and the two lestes, social revolutionaries, who were crucified alongside Him. The actions of the world are now completely in focus and Yeshua has become nothing more than the direct object of their actions. He has become all but inanimate, a background character; (2) According to Joan Taylor, an expert in this field, Yeshua was right outside the Genneth Gate, outside the gates as claimed in Hebrews 13:12, and the chief priests were in attendance making sure that the pilgrims coming into the city on both roads were being inundated with the propaganda of why He deserved this and the Judeans coming in from their homes were evidently eating it up because Yeshua’s ministry was in Galilee and He would not be well known in the south; (3) Yeshua’s crucifixion happened at the third hour, which was the time when the morning Tamid offering was slaughtered in the Temple, and the morning Shacharit prayers were going up—one of which was a request for the offspring of David to be exalted, and soon; (4) Yeshua has now suffered through five mockings—by the chief priests and their scribes, by the centurions, by the festival pilgrims passing by, by the chief priests and scribes again, and by those crucified alongside Him. From top to bottom socially, from Jew to Gentile, and even the criminals, Yeshua is symbolically denounced by the entire world—almost. Let’s get to the text, starting in verse 33 of Matthew 15:

33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Now, the six hour is what we would call noon but in reality, would be anywhere from like 11:30 to 1:30, and on the Passover, it was somewhere around 12:30pm, so if someone says noon, they aren’t really that far off. Daylight hours are about 65 minutes long in Israel during that time of year, at Passover. This was the time in the Temple where the evening Tamid was brought out and the afternoon prayers began, but the afternoon Tamid offering was not slaughtered until the ninth hour. This is obviously very important to Mark’s narrative in equating Yeshua not only to the Passover but to both Tamid offerings, aka the continual offering that burned all day and all night every day. Mark is very adeptly portraying Yeshua as the substance of both the daily and the festival offerings. But unless we study the Temple in depth through extra-biblical sources, we totally miss it. These hours are not to be found in the Torah, or the minutiae of Temple procedures. A very useful study course on this, that I went through years ago and it took me a few years of in-depth study, is www.jerusalemtemplestudy.com and the teachers are my wonderful friends Joseph Good and Edgar Ramos. It’s so easy to get things wrong when we don’t know the Temple and the many kinds of sacrifices and their accompanying drink and grain offerings–it is a very complex subject. No one can just read Scripture and get it because the ancient Near Eastern context of things like appeasement, blood rituals, leaven, the concept of drawing near, and so many other things are not in the text in any obvious way to our modern eyes and some things aren’t there at all and have only become understood through archaeology. We can know how and why they did just about everything, but we can’t learn it from the Bible.

So, we have the sixth hour, when the afternoon Tamid lamb was brought out for display, and an unnatural darkness came over the “whole land.” This darkness is very important. This was not a solar eclipse as the moon would have been on the wrong side of the earth at that point in time. You can have a lunar eclipse at the Passover, but not a solar eclipse because that is the time of the month where the moon is entirely or almost full. It is simply astronomically impossible because the moon must pass between the earth and the sun but that time of the month it is not possible. So, what is this darkness? For that we have to look at the Hebrew Scriptures and cosmic symbolism. At creation, the darkness was separated from the light and it was called good, and so on one level here, we have the beginning of a cosmic reset. Yeshua rested in a garden tomb, representing the second and third days of Creation when the land appeared and green things grew, and on the third day He rose, representing the creation of the sun, moon and stars. Whether this really happened or Mark was simply expressing the event in terms of apocalyptic eschatology is unknown. If it didn’t happen, it doesn’t matter because, like Matthew’s account of the earthquake and the graves coming open, this communicated literary truths about what was happening in the world and to the world and behind the cosmic veil, when Yeshua was crucified. I know that might disturb some folks who want everything to be literal, but this was what made sense to them so we have to play by their rules. These people knew when and when not to expect eclipses, and if it went dark unexpectedly there would have been panic, which wasn’t mentioned. But if Mark is expressing a rebooting of Creation, this is the exact kind of symbolism he would use.

Darkness is often a cosmic event in the Bible—whether it be referring to the chaos before Creation, or judgment, as in the ninth plague against Egypt: 21 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, a darkness to be felt.” 22 So Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven, and there was pitch darkness in all the land of Egypt three days (Ex 10). We also see darkness in the story of Abram, when a “great and horrifying” darkness came over him in a supernaturally induced sleep. I make mention of this because this, in Gen 15, marks the very cosmic event of the Covenant of the Pieces, where Yahweh made a very specific kind of covenant with Abram. In the ancient Near East, two people or two groups would cut animals down the middle and place the halves on either side of an open area, and the participants would walk in between those animals and they would swear, “May whoever breaks the words of this covenant suffer the same fate as these animals!” But in this case, Abram was asleep and He watched as an smoking fire pot and a blazing torch passed through the pieces as God promised Abram and his descendants the Land of Israel.

Yahweh would again appear to the children of Israel in the form of fire and smoke as they passed through the halves of the Yam Suf, sometimes popularly translated as Red Sea, and through the wilderness journeys. The presence in the form of fire and smoke was an ongoing reminder of Yahweh’s promise to deliver them into the promised Land. But you might ask what that has to do with this? Remember that Mark has been building up to the second and greater exodus all this time, Isaiah’s “new exodus” led by Yahweh Himself. The Israelites were perennially unfaithful to the covenant, but only Yahweh passed through the pieces in the form of the Angel of the Lord, whom we know to be Yeshua. Yahweh is the only one who can redeem His people and deliver them from the Pharaoh of sin and death and into the promised Land of the New Creation. And so right before the death of the firstborn, the tenth plague on the very night of Passover, we see that motif of absolute darkness over the whole land. The original Passover is becoming the greater Passover, and the first Exodus is making way for the Greater Exodus, the daily Tamid is only a shadow of the eternal Tamid, and the salvation of the few is becoming the salvation of the world, and the Temple of Jerusalem will be replaced with a worldwide Temple of living stones. Yeshua’s Passover is greater. His Exodus is greater. His salvation is greater. His Temple is greater. His sacrifice will be greater.

34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

At the ninth hour, Yeshua breaks His silence in a loud voice that must have shocked the bystanders. In fact, the word for “cried” here is the same word used to describe John the Baptist crying out in the wilderness. We are beginning and ending the story of Yeshua with a crying out. That’s not coincidental. As the afternoon Tamid was brought to the north of the altar and prepared for slaughter, Yeshua speaks in Aramaic the first verse of Psalm 22: “Eloi, Eloi, kema sabachthani?” which the author then translates because his audience is Roman and even the Jews in the congregation would more likely speak Greek than Aramaic. For those who claim Aramaic primacy on all NT documents, it just doesn’t make contextual sense as so many of the writings were for Gentile believers throughout the Empire. Does He say this as the darkness breaks? It doesn’t say, or do His words themselves break the darkness? That seems more likely to me. He is, after all, the Word of God through whom all that was created was created, according to John. His voice, therefore, separates light from the darkness. Again, this is a cosmic event, the second we have seen this week. First the darkness falls over the whole land, as it did in Egypt when Pharaoh was judged, and then the voice of Yeshua breaks the darkness and brings out the light again as at Creation.

And people say that Yeshua is quoting Psalm 22:1 in order to be symbolic but He is in the midst of drinking the cup of wrath. If He was in agony and torment in the Garden, so much that He was barely functional, how is He better off now or how is He logically plotting out what He should say in order to make an “aha” point? I believe this is a genuine crying out. He cries out to God and not to Father, as He normally did. I don’t think Yeshua planned this any more than the soldiers planned to fulfill Ps 22:16-18, or the crowd planned to fulfill Ps 22:6-8. This is prophecy being played out, not in a contrived way but instead as prophecy always plays out—in fulfillment of something that could never have been predicted beforehand. Remember, when we studied Isaiah, I told you that predictive prophecy isn’t given to us so that we can know ahead of time what till happen. It is given to us so that after it comes to pass, we can say, “Aha! Look at the glorious works of Yahweh! Can any other god give us the future before it happens??” Predictive prophecy was for the glory of Yahweh and as witnesses of His power. No one could have ever predicted that Psalm 22 would play out as it did. And the most heartbreaking thing of all is that Yeshua receives no answer whatsoever. All of those things He said about being handed over, paradidomi, the Septuagint word for God handing His people over to the Gentiles (usually) for discipline, have come to pass.

35 And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, he is calling Elijah.” 

What we do not know here is if they are serious or mocking Him. Later Rabbinic legends have Elijah coming to earth disguised as an angel and saving people, most notably renowned teachers in peril. Were these legends in circulation at this time? No way of really knowing. Or were they hypothesizing about the words of the prophet in Malachi 5? “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.” After all, if the sky had gone dark for three hours, and Yeshua had worked many amazing miracles—and even if they wanted to at this point, no one can get Him down off the Cross because the Romans would kill (or worse) anyone who tried. This has gone past the point of no return. No one can stop this except God at this point, or His agent Elijah who could call down fire and kill every Roman in the city. Of course, we know that Elijah had already come (despite the claims of twelve people who have sent me friend requests on social media that they are Elijah), as Yeshua had told the Twelve in chapter nine: 11 And they asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” 12 And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” Not only have the crowds missed the Messiah, they have also missed the forerunner. Ironically, the bulk of Judaism is still waiting for both Messiah and Elijah. I am certain that Paul and the other apostles never dreamed it would still be this way. But, it is changing all the time.

36 And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 

Psalm 69 is another Messianic Psalm, the one where we see the phrase “zeal for your house has consumed me”, and verse 21 mentions sour wine, “They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.” According to Plutarch in Cato Major I.3, sour wine was the Gatorade of the ancient world (full disclosure, he didn’t mention Gatorade). In fact, it was the common drink of soldiers because the water they had access to was really undrinkable on its own. You know it’s bad when vinegar makes the water taste better. The word for reed is kalamos, the same as the word used for whatever it was that the soldiers were hitting him with. Remember that Yeshua would only have been about seven feet off the ground and so the reed would not have to be enormously long to reach his mouth, unless they were treating Him as more of a celebrity and then perhaps they used a taller post. The paintings obviously wanted him up higher and more prominent but from what Mark has said, we really are not privy to that information. So, the sour wine would presumably not be an act of mercy but a way of energizing Yeshua in order to give Elijah more time to show up, if they were serious, or as another form of mocking—but of course, John the Baptist was dead as well and would not be showing up.

37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. 

This would have been shocking to the Roman soldiers, who had seen crucifixions all their lives. As children they would have passed by crucified bodies from time to time, it was appallingly normal. The victims would slowly suffocate or fade away from blood loss or dehydration. But this is not what happened. Six hours on the Cross, and before that a brutal scourging over every surface of his body. It was roughly 4:30 in the afternoon and He had not eaten or drank anything since at least midnight, and he hadn’t slept in at least thirty-two hours. The word for loud cry is the same as loud voice in verse 34. How can it be possible for a man who was about to breathe His last breath, that He could manage to cry out loudly and coherently not once but twice? This death was both unexpected and violent and preceded by a show of strength and power. It was as though He died but wasn’t defeated—they didn’t get to watch Him slowly linger and waste away. This will be important when we come to verse 39 and is often missed.

38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 

The Talmud does record some things that happened forty years before the destruction of the Temple, but this was not one of them. There are a number of possible reasons for this, but first let’s look at what they admit did happen: The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn white, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually. And the doors of the Sanctuary opened by themselves as a sign that they would soon be opened by enemies, until Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai scolded them. He said to the Sanctuary: Sanctuary, Sanctuary, why do you frighten yourself with these signs? I know about you that you will ultimately be destroyed, and Zechariah, son of Ido, has already prophesied concerning you: “Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars” (Zechariah 11:1), Lebanon being an appellation for the Temple.” (Yoma 39B, Sefaria.org)

So, what did happen? One, the curtain might not have torn—and besides that we don’t even know if this is referring to the inner or outer curtain. This might be more cosmic language, as with the darkness falling but everyone not going into a total panic, and would communicate that the barrier between heaven and earth was eradicated and replaced with Yeshua, who is a mediator and not a separating force (not to be confused with the wall of separation around the Temple complex which kept the Gentiles at a distance from the Azarah, the 500×500 amot (royal cubit which was quite larger than the standard 18” cubit) raised platform on which Solomon’s Temple, Palace, and the House of the Forest of Lebanon were all built.) To the audience, who were very familiar with the concept of holy space (Jew or Gentile made no difference in this), and who would understand that the curtain, whichever one it was, was in place to both protect the presence of God from defilement and the people from encroaching on sacred space and dying. The curtain itself was incredibly thick, woven on a special loom and I believe it was as thick as the width of a man’s hand, been a while since I studied that out. Obviously impossible for a person to tear it or even a team of oxen. This would have to be an act of God but when we look at this as a cosmic act, it is as though the fabric of reality has been torn and I wish I could remember who said that because it’s really epic. I don’t take great notes.

Yeshua shouts in a shocking show of strength and the curtain in the Temple tears in two, not from bottom to top but from top to bottom. Something I never noticed until studying the commentaries was that, like the Covenant of the Pieces and like the parting of the Red Sea and the division of light and darkness, we have another separation text. There are things in this world that should and should not be divided. Things that were meant to be divided and things that were meant to be together. God’s creational intent, how things were in the beginning, shows a separation between light and darkness, land and sea, and the heavens above and the earth below. These are functional and needful separations. Then we have things that should never have been separated—God from humanity in the Garden, men and women from each other when their mutuality became fractured in the aftermath of sin, and God’s people from each other. But our rebellion separated us from God, and also fractured the equality men and women shared in the Garden, and our stupid pride separates us from each other over so many ridiculous reasons now. Case in point, did you know that the early church was the western church, the eastern church, and the African church? Africa had an amazingly vibrant church full of great thinkers like Augustine, Athanasius, and many others but because of differing cultural outlooks, they saw certain things differently and divided. As a result of that, when Islam rose up, the African church was left abandoned and was destroyed. And that’s a crime. What a different world it would have been if they were all just content to be united in Christ and Him crucified!

39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

Could Yeshua or the Centurion see the curtain? Could anyone in the Temple see Him? Nope. The Temple faced toward the east and was surrounded by very high walls and although one could look down into it from the Mount of Olives, that wouldn’t have been a logical site for a crucifixion. Ernest Martin says otherwise but he is a widely known fraud by the archeological community and those who actually study the Temple. He claims conversations he supposedly had with people who are dead and can’t verify it, and whose families say is impossible. Just, no. And his City of David Temple would only work if the cubit was like 6” and the Temple was teeny weenie. His books are popular with people who have not studied the Temple and the archaeology in depth—and with those who have never studied Josephus who in Wars really makes it clear that Martin’s theories are impossible.

Matthew says he saw the earthquake and made his proclamation based on that. Mark says that he based his proclamation on how Yeshua breathed his last. Luke talked about Yeshua’s loud proclamation before dying. None of the texts claim that the Centurion saw the veil torn in two. Yeshua was on the other side of the city, in a place where people could pass by on roads without needing to come into the area where they could develop corpse impurity. If you haven’t read Joan Taylor’s excellent scholarship on this, it’s in the last two transcripts. If Yeshua was facing the Temple, on the Mount of Olives, and the Centurion was facing Yeshua, then the Centurion would not witness the tearing of the veil anyway. In fact, even if the Centurion was facing the Temple Mount and was looking down (and not doing his job) he would not see the veil at all if it was the inner veil and wouldn’t probably be able to get a good look at it if it was the outer veil either. Once you got high enough up to see the Temple, you would absolutely marvel in its beauty but what you would be able to really focus on would be limited.

But, before we move on, let’s remember the Markan sandwich here. The centurions were mocking him and calling Him King of the Jews, remember? And then there was the actual crucifixion and now that Yeshua is dead, this Centurion is calling Him the Son of God, which is a very meaningful phrase to the Romans. So, what happened in between that made Yeshua Son of God in the eyes of the Centurion and no longer an object of scorn? What happened in between, and that’s why it is called a Markan sandwich because you have two bookends that need to be interpreted by what goes on between them. In this case, everything that Yeshua endured, for our sake, is what truly makes Him King, the Son of David, the Son of God, the Messiah. But for the Centurion to use this specific language is huge. Ever since the deification of Julius Caesar, post mortem—meaning after he died—the reigning Caesar was dubbed divi filius on the coins of the Empire, and divi filius means “son of god.” Which is kind of ironic because the Caesars never made their own sons their heirs, they would adopt a nephew or something like that and it was perfectly legal to do so. And really probably a better idea than just doing the first born son thing which can go really wrong. But for a Centurion to say this would have been sedition, giving an Imperial title to a crucified Jew. If anyone overheard him, he’d be up on the next cross if he wasn’t a citizen yet. And since it took 25 years for a soldier to earn citizenship, it wasn’t likely. This marks a change of allegiance of sorts and is meant to foreshadow the salvation of the Gentiles, as the first to acknowledge Him wasn’t just any Gentile but one of His executioners. And given the gods of the pagan world and especially those of the Romans, this would have been a terrifying prospect. He would have believed in regional gods and they just killed the son of one. So, that’s the first unexpected plot twist.

40 There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

Here is the second unexpected plot twist. Remember how the author framed the scene as though the forces of the evil one, the powers and principalities, have marshalled their forces against Yeshua, both Jew and Gentile, and that Yeshua is just this background character and the world has taken center stage in destroying Him. And it has appeared that He is entirely on His own. His followers have abandoned Him. His biological family is nowhere to be found. His childhood friends are absent even though all these groups are in town for the Passover. Everyone is there, they just aren’t standing by Him. Except. Except a group of women, among whom (in other words, not limited to) Mary from Magdala, Mary the mother of James (Jacob) and Joses (Joseph), and Salome. How come these women who have never been mentioned all this time are suddenly brought to the forefront only once Yeshua is dead? I mean, this is odd because Mark hasn’t mentioned women very often, unlike Luke in his account.

Why were they at a distance? Was it fear of the soldiers, that they would be molested? Was it perhaps because Yeshua was stripped naked and they stayed far enough away for modesty’s sake? If you remember in chapter 14 that Peter followed Yeshua from a distance as he was taken to the home of the High Priest, after having run away during the moment of crisis, and would later deny Him. All this despite proclaiming that he would die before abandoning Yeshua. Here we have the women who have been so quiet and unobtrusive this entire time, not calling attention to themselves or their works or demanding a seat at the table or high places in the Kingdom, and they haven’t abandoned Him. They can’t do anything except be there in solidarity as He suffers, and it would have been horrific to watch, but when we contrast the brash, arrogant, bragging and posturing of the Twelve and especially Peter with these women who were certainly less able to protect themselves than strapping, muscular young fishermen, it is just really very touching and profound.

I also want you to notice that there are three of them named, who remained faithful, who were with Him when He came into His Kingdom, contrasted with the “big three” James, John and Peter who assumed that those faithful to the end and rewarded for it would be themselves. This is calculated, not coincidental. The fabric of reality has torn and the least have become the greatest. The last have become first. And this was not something that would have added credibility to the account. This was a man’s world, entirely, women generally weren’t even allowed to be educated, which caused big problems in places like Ephesus.

Was Mary the mother of James and Joses also Jesus’s mother? Perhaps. Those were the names of two of His brothers, along with Jude (Judas) and Simon. At the very least James and Joses were known to the Roman church or else there would be no point in naming them like this. It’s the same thing as when Simon of Cyrene was pointed out to be the father of Alexander and Rufus. Mary from Magdala we don’t know from this particular Gospel, and in Luke we just get the very brief mention that she had seven demons cast out of her. What we know of her in the other Gospels is limited to her being the famous first witness in all accounts. Salome is not given any identifiers and so she must have been well known. No one would be named without being connected to someone else or somewhere else. No husband, sons or place of origin mentioned so it is likely that she was a woman who had her own household. But who are these women?

41 When he was in Galilee, they followed him and ministered to him, and there were also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

Oh dear, they are disciples! Not among the Twelve but they followed Him and they also ministered to Him. No, this does not mean they were servants. Yeshua allowed women to learn from Him and we see too many women mentioned as early leaders of the church to just assume that they were cooking and cleaning. We know from elsewhere that these were women of means who supported them financially, with no husbands mentioned. They had been with Him since Galilee and followed and ministered to Him there and had come with the group of disciples to Jerusalem for the Passover. No way could an itinerant preacher and a former carpenter and a bunch of fishermen and other young men afford to do what they were doing without financial support. Perhaps they were even the wealthy women who offered Him myrrh-infused wine as a narcotic. But again, this was somewhat scandalous, to have women, unattached to husbands or sons, galivanting around Galilee with a bunch of men! The word here translated as ministered is the same word used to describe the activity of the angels on behalf of Yeshua as He was being tempted in the wilderness.

The Son of David. I want to bring up for a moment the difference in how women are talked about in the Gospels and treated by Yeshua than they are in the accounts of David. The women in the Gospel are followers, ministers, helpers, supporters, and witnesses. They are never spoken poorly of and they are never up to all the hierarchal nonsense of the Twelve. They never abandon Him. They show up to care for the body. They are the first evangelists. Perhaps they will even assist Joseph of Arimathea when he claims the body. But David? For David, women are there for his pleasure, for alliances, to leave behind to guard the palace when he is on the run, to be peeped at and sexually assaulted and deprived of husband. The fabric of reality has indeed been torn and the Kingdom of Heaven is here—Yeshua brings a whole new paradigm to the Davidic line.

Next week we will talk about whether or not Good Friday was actually on a Friday. It’s a sadly manufactured controversy that sounds good at first glance but not when we are aware of the historical and literary background.




Episode 137: Mark 67 The Kangaroo Court?

Now that the controversy over the status of the hearing itself has been covered, let’s look at another big scholarly debate—what exactly triggered the blasphemy charge? It isn’t as obvious as it may appear once we take extra-biblical accounts from that same time period into account.

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here.

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together. 54 And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” 61 But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.

This is our ninth week in chapter 14 of the Gospel of Mark and the second half of my teaching on the Kangaroo Court that tried Yeshua/Jesus—or was it? I hope you caught last week because I spent almost the entire time explaining the difference between the Biblical Beth Din described in Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin and the accompanying Gemara and Tosefta commentaries on that, and the more informal Sanhedrin councils described by Josephus in his Antiquities. I am going to teach this from the vantage point of Jewish historical scholar Ellis Rivkin being correct, that this was a stacked hearing put together by Caiaphus and Annas for the purpose of coming up with some sort of charge that they could bring before Pilate for the purpose of executing Yeshua—something they had no authority to do themselves. As High Priest for over a decade at this point, Caiaphus most certainly had the authority to independently call such a hearing without preauthorization but didn’t have the authority to convict. For that, he required Roman involvement. The biggest controversy here, besides what the exact nature of this trial was—personal council or Beth Din—is what exactly triggered the blasphemy charge because it is not cut and dried. Anyone who says it is obvious or easy hasn’t really delved deeply into the issue because all sorts of scholars and experts, Christian and Jewish alike, come up with different answers and most of them are based upon some well-founded theories.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have six years’ worth of blogs at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids—and I have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for both adults and kids. You can find the link for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com and transcripts can be had for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.

All Scripture this week comes courtesy of the ESV, the English Standard Version but you can follow along with whatever Bible you want. A list of my resources can be found attached to the transcript for Part two of this series at theancientbridge.com. This week we are in Mark 14 again, it is by far the longest chapter of Mark.

Just like last week, in addition to the normal commentary list, I am going to be drawing heavily from three sources, the Kehati Commentary on Tractate Sanhedrin, which details legal procedures of the Supreme Court of Israel (the Beth Din), albeit from the vantage point of over a hundred and fifty years later, the incredibly excellent Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65 by Darrell L Bock and that is very scholarly, not light reading, not for a beginner. And an article entitled Beth Din, Boule, Sanhedrin: A Tragedy of Errors by the late great scholar Ellis Rivkin of Hebrew University and I will link to that article in the transcript as well as his scholar site where you can read more of his scholarly articles for free. Bock is going to be my main go-to source this week.

Going back to two weeks ago, Yeshua was arrested by a contingency sent by the chief priests, elders, and scribes including an armed crowd carrying clubs and swords. We know from John that some of these were Roman soldiers and given that those were the weapons of choice for quelling riots, it is very likely that this was a joint effort instigated by the High Priest Caiaphas and his father-in-law Annas under the auspices of putting down a rebellion. Some of the Temple guards were certainly there and probably constituted the bulk of the crowd. The soldiers of the Antonia were always on alert during the festivals for rebel activity and troublesome messianic claimants so I imagine this was not too hard to put together but it might also have required the pre-approval in this matter from Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, as he had regional authority over the Roman troops stationed there. Judas had betrayed Him with a kiss and then disappears from this Gospel, never to be mentioned again. In fact, aside from the mention of Peter and his failure to be faithful, none of the Twelve will be mentioned by name again for the rest of the Gospel. The only followers who are mentioned by name and who will play any active role will the three Marys, Salome, and Joseph of Arimathea. Simon of Cyrene, who carried His crossbeam, wasn’t even a follower. The High Priest will never be personally named in this Gospel, but we will see the names of Pilate and Barabbas. So, the Gospel that has up to this point focused on Yeshua and the Twelve and those to whom He has ministered has taken a sharp turn. Let’s get to the hearing and see what happened and why:

53 And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together. 

Leading Yeshua to the High Priest is very telling because although he might conceivably serve on a Beth Din (which is the subject of Tractate Sanhedrin), he wouldn’t be the one in charge of it. In Acts 5:12, he specifically appears to be separate from it but able to convene it. The one in charge would more likely be Gamaliel the Elder or his predecessor as the Talmud calls him the Nasi (Prince or President) of the Beth Din which met in the Chamber of Hewn Stone within the Temple complex. Gamaliel does appear to either be the Nasi when they tried Peter and the other apostles, or very high up in the esteem of the others, as Acts testifies to. The grouping of chief priests, scribes and elders, in the middle of the night, are almost certainly a private Sanhedrin drawn together, a stacked deck, in order to determine if they could justify bringing Him before Pilate, who was the only one who could condemn Yeshua to death according to the Jerusalem Talmud y. Sanh 1.1, 18a, “Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the right to judge capital cases was withdrawn.” If you remember from other teachings, the scribes were paid legal retainers of whoever needed legal documents drawn up but these wouldn’t be small town scribes whipping up contracts, these were high-level retainers of the Temple establishment. Legal experts in service of the Sadducees, very likely. Elders might be Sadducees or Pharisees or neither—most people were actually “none of the above” as there were only perhaps six thousand Pharisees in all of Judea and Galilee and far, far fewer Sadducees. Most Pharisees would be quite unlikely to participate in such a sketchy sort of legal endeavor as this—and especially those who usually sat on the formal Beth Din, which had strict standards. And the Pharisees were nothing if not strict about their standards and traditions.

54 And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire. 

Well, I know Peter gets a bad rap because he was a brash young man and thought much too highly of himself but, hey, he showed up. And as per his usual bold nature, he walks right into the courtyard of the High Priest. After using a slaughtering knife to cut off the ear of one of the servants (the kiss and the falling away) of that same High Priest. I mean, dang, Peter. And he sat, with the guards, at the fire. And sure, it had been dark with only a full moon or nearly full to light up the scene at Gethsemane, and maybe these were entirely different guards than the ones who arrested Yeshua but still. You have to admire his pluck—no matter how cold it was outside. And this time of year it would have been damp and cold. I mean, he was even sitting—which would make a getaway much more challenging. And this is the beginning of the last Markan sandwich, where we have the statement of a situation and then a seeming change of subject, before coming back to the first account. In this case, we have Peter showing up, then the narrative breaking away for the hearing, before coming back to Peter and the two different stories complement and interpret one another. We’re going to see a huge difference between Yeshua and Peter here.

55 Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. 

Notice it says “chief priests and the whole council.” Had this been a Beit Din, the chief priests wouldn’t have even been present and because they are mentioned separately, they do not appear to be council members—and if you would like some of their names, I can give you that—Annas, Ishmael ben Phiabi, Eleazer and Simon ben Kamithos (all former high priests) plus the commanders of the Temple guard and the three Temple treasurers. The Temple operated like a small city and had quite the bureaucracy attached to it. The Temple administration should not be considered the type of legal experts who would automatically be serving on the Beit Din. So, we have them plus the whole Sanhedrin convened by Caiaphas. But here we actually have reason to give them some credit—they were seeking testimony against Him but couldn’t find any—which means there was no organized attempt made to fix the case other than perhaps stacking the council with supporters.

And here we have to revisit last week where I told you that the Beth Din went to great lengths in order to acquit accused. I mean, to great lengths. It was hard to convict anyone of a death penalty offense and they didn’t even like close votes. You had to convict by more than two out of twenty-three or seventy-one, depending on the nature of the accusation. I am also going to remind you that it would be illegal to have a capital trial in an upper room of the High Priest’s home (verse 66). This council is seeking some degree of credibility in calling for witnesses but what does their testimony look like and why is this a problem?

56 For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. 

We talked last week about how specific the evidence had to be and the grilling that witnesses were subjected to in a Beth Din. A very serious command is written in Deuteronomy 17: “If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” And in Deut 19: 15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

Back to the trial–

57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” 

Now, here is the interesting thing because this accusation isn’t entirely wrong. However, what it required was to not only conflate different accounts (meaning to mix different sayings together as though they were all given at the same time) but some of this required them to have insider knowledge that they didn’t personally have (from Judas perhaps?) and thus the testimony is considered false but not only that—who gave them insider information, anyway? In this Gospel, three days was only ever spoken in the presence of the disciples. Something somewhat similar appears at the beginning of the Gospel of John, but really there is no record of this ever being said, and some of it was never claimed in any way at all. It smacks of secondhand gossip—the kind that no doubt was spreading about this dazzling preacher and miracle worker. And when we look at the next verse, the gossip theory seems very justified.

But why so much gossip on this point? Well, in the Targum to Isaiah 53:5, contemporary to the first-century Jews, and in Zechariah 6:12-13 it was said that when Messiah came He would build a new Temple and Yeshua had caused a lot of speculation as to whether or not He was the Messiah. In b. Rosh Hashanah 17a, we see this “…But the heretics; and the informers; and the apostates…Gehenna itself will be worn away before their punishment has come to an end. And why are they punished so severely? Because they stretched out their hands against God’s dwelling, the Temple, and everything else that is sanctified.”

59 Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. 

Firsthand accounts tend to be pretty reliable and especially in an oral culture, but that breaks down when it comes to gossip and we have all played the old “telephone” game. If the testimony had been prearranged or first-hand, it would have had a lot more agreement between accounts. So, I have to believe at this point that a Pharisee-run Beit Din would have tossed out the charges and unanimously agreed to lash the witnesses. Certainly, Gamaliel would never have tolerated such a thing. According to m.San. 4.1 Yeshua would have been acquitted at this point.

60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” 

As I mentioned last week, the High Priest had no standing to do this within the context of a Beit Din. And the question was irrelevant because the witnesses were false. But as this most certainly is not a formal court of law but a contrived hearing, the real agenda comes out. The High Priest is determined to make a case, any case, against Him and now that the evidence has proved unreliable, he must get Yeshua to incriminate Himself or it is all over. And I have to say that this is a good tactic because it is incredibly rare for someone to not take an opportunity to defend themselves or to set the record straight—or is that just me? But it is a trap—“Hey these guys said all this stuff about you, what are they talking about here?” At this point, Yeshua could have called His own witnesses but at this point no one really wants Peter, James, or John to testify because (1) they are forever saying the wrong thing, and (2) when Yeshua talked to them about these things in Mark 9 and 10, and about the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13, they got the entirely wrong idea because they did not understand what He was saying and were still very much devoted to the paradigm of the conquering Davidic Kingly Messiah. But more than that—in honor/shame cultural dynamics, a wise man must know when to answer a question and when to shame your opponent by deeming them unworthy of an answer. This was definitely one of those times. Yeshua was, for all intents and purposes, in the belly of the beast right now, in the courtyard of the home of the high priest surrounded by a Sanhedrin filled with his cronies instead of the members of the formal Beit Din who would have been horrified and would have objected to this on so many levels. This is Yeshua’s cup. He has to drink it to the dregs. It is the most important thing He ever did in terms of ministry.

But why were the charges of tearing down the Temple so controversial? What’s the big deal? It isn’t like He could actually do it, right? Any right-thinking person would just roll their eyes and say, “whatever!” right? Why should Yeshua even need to answer to whether He even said this or not since it was physically impossible for any person to do and if you don’t believe me, study the Second Temple architecture. It took being gutted by fire and an army to destroy it. But the Temple wasn’t just a Temple, and the High Priest wasn’t just the High Priest and the Leadership wasn’t just the leadership. Something had happened during Hellenistic times or perhaps before that had really changed the definition of blasphemy against Yahweh and that is going to weigh heavily into why Yeshua was condemned.

61 But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 

He remained silent also because they could not understand and must not understand and we are all familiar with the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.” As Paul said in I Cor 2:8 “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” This wasn’t a moment to try and get them to repent and see what the big plan was. But then Caiaphas asked a question that Yeshua needed to answer, the question I believe He had been waiting for—the question that would condemn Him but maybe not for the reasons you would think.

“Are you the Christ (Christos meaning “anointed one” and used in the authorized Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible hundreds of years before—not pagan, despite rumors), the Son of the Blessed.” Caiaphas asked the question everyone had been asking, “Are you the Messiah or not? Do you actually think you are the Son of God?” And in Matthew, the question is actually presented in oath form, “I adjure you by the living God…” which would mean that Yeshua absolutely had to answer. And there are people who would promote the idea that the Divine Name was actually used but that is doubtful in the extreme—you didn’t have to use it in order to compel someone to answer by divine oath. And there were so many workarounds that existed in those times and still today and euphemisms. Blessed one, if course, is still in common use. But why would they ask in the first place? What has prompted the absolute necessity of the question? Well, if you remember in Mark chapter 12 we have the Parable of the Tenants, where the leadership is flat out accused (albeit in parable form) of killing the prophets and the Son of God—leading to the controversy later in the chapter as to the identity of the Messiah, whether or not he is actually David’s son or something greater. Both of these claims were a shot across the bow of the established authority and although the crowds loved it, the authorities wanted to arrest Him then and there because of the particular standards for blasphemy in those times. Yeshua’s answer is going to really give them exactly what they were looking for. And they need to get it before Pilate leaves Jerusalem at the end of the festival because He wouldn’t be back for months.

But we can also ask—why is a Sadducee even asking about the Messiah? Well, there is actually a really good reason. Remember that this hearing is for the purpose of trying to gather evidence to make a charge stick before Pilate—who was the only one able to condemn Him to death. A Messiah isn’t simply a religious figure, it is an inherently political one. To say that the Roman Empire was paranoid about uprisings is not too far from the truth. And the Judeans and Galileans were a pain in their collective butt because it had become an inherently Messiah-seeking faith—and rightly so as it turns out. They were always on the lookout for the next Maccabeans or the long-awaited Davidic Messiah who would overthrow Rome. So, the identity of any messianic claimant was a political matter that was of extreme interest to Rome. If they could make the case that Yeshua was a political threat, then they could secure His execution. But then Yeshua upped the stakes big time and really infuriated them but it’s easy to miss.

62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 

No more avoiding the question—“Ego Eimi—I am” which is sometimes used as a divine designation but not always so we have to be careful not to get carried away and always assume it is. But that isn’t what I think made them angry actually because these particular guys (Sadducean collaborators) were about power and not about defending God’s honor. And it was entirely possible to use those two words without meaning anything overtly divine by them. He makes reference to the Son of Man from Daniel 7, the famous and enigmatic second figure in the throne room of Yahweh of whom it was said, “And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” Yeshua says that the Son of Man figure will actually be seated in that second throne (Rabbi Akiva famously commented that this was the throne of Messiah), and here’s where it gets offensive—I mean more offensive—to these guys.

It’s really the two phrases “you will see” and “coming in the clouds of heaven” that were infuriating. If you listened to my programs on Mark 13, you know that the phrase “coming on the clouds of heaven” is synonymous with divine judgment throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. They will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, a euphemism for Yahweh, and they will see Him coming with the clouds of Heaven. Yeshua is claiming here more than initially meets the eye because He is claiming that He does and will wield power on an entirely different level than any mere man. He will have divine authority (seated at the right hand of Power) and He will be their judge (coming with the clouds of Heaven). As the Angel of the Lord and as the Divine Presence often travelled/communicated from within a cloud during the Exodus, at Sinai, and in the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple, etc. so Yeshua is saying that He will be coming on the clouds of Heaven and for the purpose of judgment—judgment authorized and justified by Yahweh Himself in His role as the Messiah. Yeshua is claiming that He will be vindicated, by Yahweh, in this and in every matter. As such, He had no reason to answer their questions about the charges against Him as they have no jurisdiction over Him—as will later be proven through the signs and wonders at the crucifixion, the resurrection, the destruction of the Temple, and through the miracles worked through His immediate followers as a sign against that generation. They will have no choice but to see it. What we see should bring repentance. Really, in essence, Yeshua is claiming to be the judge of a higher court. “You are judging me for the moment, but I will be your judge.” For them, to make the claim to sit beside Yahweh is bad enough because Yahweh is unique, and to sit with Him could be considered blasphemous (although apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic Second Temple literature are chock full of examples of biblical figures from Adam to Moses being exalted and enthroned) but when it is combined with the idea of judging the leadership, that is sedition (inciting rebellion) and claiming equality with God, who is the only one who can judge His earthly representatives in the way claimed by Yeshua.

Let’s look at Biblical and extra-biblical references to seeing and judgment that would have certainly been on their minds“And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken” (Is 40:5). The Wisdom of Solomon was written by an Alexandrian Jew during the first century BCE and was very popular, it shows us a lot about the thought processes during those times, “the righteous will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have oppressed them and those who make light of their labors. When the unrighteous see them, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at the unexpected salvation of the righteous. They will speak to one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say, “These are persons whom we once held in derision and made a byword of reproach—fools that we were! We thought that their lives were madness and that their end was without honor” (Wis 5:1-4).

63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 

Everyone is immediately up in arms, of course, because the High Priest is always forbidden to tear his clothing based on Lev 21:10 but really, let’s be honest—this guy was just a pretender anyway. This just tells us that he is a man not in control of his anger or justice or anything and who really has no standing in any way shape or form to be a High Priest. Neither he nor his father-in-law’s family. It isn’t like he invalidated his high priesthood because it was never legitimate in the first place. It was only God’s mercy toward His people up to this point that caused Him to honor the Yom Kippur sacrifice and the others—but we cannot forget that the Talmud tells us that for the 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, it was never accepted again. The ribbon never turned white as it had before (Yoma 39b). I always find it amazing how patient and merciful Yahweh is, and until the death of Yeshua, He accepted that corrupt High Priesthood for the sake of His faithful.

64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. 

You can only imagine, being that I am certain that none of you, and certainly not I, can imagine this level of personal, ecclesiastical, and authoritative affront. These are people who have been somewhat above the law, for all intents and purposes. No one could move against them because they were backed by Rome and could not be removed. They claimed divine authority and undoubtedly saw their leadership as endorsed by God because He accepted their sacrifices—as proven by the miracle of Yom Kippur. The only thing these guys really seemed to fear was what happened to Alexander Jannaeus when he purposefully messed up the water pouring ceremony. They knew their limits and not to mess with the Temple cult but in every other way, despite being disliked, the Sadducean High Priestly family of Annas and the elders and scribes affiliated with their corrupt regime were still the most honored people in all of first-century Judaism—not due to personal excellence but due to position and power. If you’ve read my book about Honor and Shame, you know that Honor was about prestige and power, not about character. You could be a skunk and still be the most honored person on the planet. This family was not used to being challenged and Caiaphas was particularly politically savvy and therefore not prone to overreacting but he had probably not been challenged like this in his entire life and certainly not in a room where he seemingly held all the cards and was surrounded by his peer group. Yeshua had shamed Him by claiming that He was higher than Caiaphas and would be his judge. It couldn’t hardly be any worse. And he wasn’t used to being shamed.

So, he called for a decision that he would have no right to demand in a Beth Din and all of his cronies agreed, all of the people who had everything to lose by a challenge to the way things were, that He was deserving of death. They condemned Him as deserving it, although we know they had no legal right to actually condemn Him themselves and execute Him. Only Pilate could do it and now they had the charges that could be used in order to secure a conviction. If Yeshua could judge the Roman appointed High Priesthood, then it could be argued that Yeshua was claiming Roman prerogatives and could be considered a threat to Rome. This is how Rome could be persuaded to look at it but we will get to that when we cover chapter 15. As per the Passion predictions, Yeshua has not been condemned by a select group of the Jewish leadership but has instead been rejected and He will be handed over to the Romans come daybreak.

65 And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.

It’s amazing how petty and brutal we get when we think we have been shamed and challenged, isn’t it? And we know from the different Gospel accounts that just about every measure was used to shame Yeshua personally and publicly—not because they disagreed with Him but because He had shamed the leadership and that couldn’t be allowed to stand in an honor/shame society which is why I have always said I would hate to live in one. It would be like being in High School forever.

But I want you to notice something more—they are demanding that He “prophesy” but He just did. He has been all along. In the three (+) Passion Predictions, in His parables, in His testimony before them. He’s been telling them all along but the truth is threatening for them and really does announce the end of the world as they knew it. Post 70 CE, the Sadducees will have no power whatsoever and would fade into historical obscurity—spoken of by all of their contemporaries (people like Josephus) and all later historians shamefully. They are treating Him as their predecessors treated all of the prophets and they will kill Him by proxy, just as He announced in the Parable of the Tenants. And He didn’t call down fire from Heaven or curse or insult them. He waited for Yahweh to vindicate Him through the Resurrection.

We could and should learn a lot about being that humble and trusting in God that much.




Episode 123: Mark Part 58—The Abomination that Causes Desolation

This is such a controversial subject and we are going to look at some of the leading theories as to when this was as well as some more “off the beaten path” proposals. And just what is it that the reader is directed to understand?

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here.

14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, 16 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 17 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 18 Pray that it may not happen in winter. 19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. 21 And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.

Today we are going to have to talk about responsible hermeneutics, proper exegesis and irresponsible eisegesis. Because we need to pay close attention to what the context is and is not here or else we will go the route of so many who blatantly ignore what Yeshua/Jesus has been talking about since verse 2 and to try to fit this into some sort of futuristic occurrence when the topic is still defined by the question asked by Peter, James, John and Andrew in verse 3. This is still the Olivet Discourse. Yeshua has condemned the Temple and the Temple establishment and has declared the verdict of Yahweh’s covenant lawsuit against it. It will fall. The disciples ask when it will happen and what signs they can look for. So far, Yeshua has refused to answer the first question and only gives them a list of things that will look like signs but He warns them, in fact, are not signs but normal events. Instead of what they want—clear indications of the when of His prediction, He sternly warns them to focus on what lies ahead for them personally—namely, persecution, rejection, trials, beatings, betrayal and death. Pretty heavy stuff for a group of mostly teenagers to deal with. Really, pretty heavy stuff for anyone to deal with when what they had hoped for was to be the inner circle of the conquering Davidic Messiah.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have five years’ worth of blog at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids—and I have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for both adults and kids. You can find the link for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com and transcripts can be had for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.

All Scripture this week comes courtesy of the ESV, the English Standard Version but you can follow along with whatever Bible you want. A list of my resources can be found attached to the transcript for Part two of this series at theancientbridge.com.

So, let’s define a few terms here because they are very important when we want to talk about what the Bible does and does not say. The first one is hermeneutics—which is the science of interpreting the Bible. It’s that simple and that complex because we can’t just make Scripture mean whatever we want to mean. We can’t make Abraham into a 21st century metrosexual, carrying a man purse and getting manicures and drinking lattes. We can’t explain him or judge his intentions according to our modernist, western, individualist culture. He’d probably rather die than live the way we do now. And yet I have heard many a sermon where the preacher has done just that—foisting our norms onto him as though he would think of things the same way we do now. I have actually heard Abraham referred to as henpecked when, truly, He was very much a patriarchal figure.

Our second word is exegesis—that’s when you look at a text and figure out what is actually there and what isn’t. For example, if we were to look at Gen 6:9 where it says that Noah was righteous and blameless in his generation. Good exegesis notices the words tzaddik and tammim and finds out what they meant to the original audience by either searching the Scriptures or by looking at other documents written around the same time in the same language (which works for the first century Scriptures but not for the Hebrew). It also recognizes the caveat that Noah was only called these things with reference to his generation and that they are called wicked all the time from cradle to grave, every thought in their minds. Eisegesis, on the other hand, is reading an agenda or an opinion into the text that is not supported. With eisegesis, I can say that Noah was one of the most righteous and blameless men who ever walked the earth and that he was a peach of a guy. But not only doesn’t the text support that, it actually suggests otherwise—that Noah was only a good guy compared to the people around him. And we all start out performing eisegesis on the text—no one knows how to avoid it until they are taught.

(If you would like to take a class in Hermeneutics and all that good stuff without going to Bible college, I would like to recommend a book called Grasping God’s Word by Duvall and Hayes (affiliate link) and I will link it in my transcript. It’s what I used after coming at this hodge-podge for a lot of years and just picking up things as I went along. It’s very easy to follow and easy to use and very practical—but the work itself is very challenging if you aren’t already used to doing it. I totally recommend at least trying it.)

This text, about the Abomination of Desolation, is one of those texts where people just really run it through the shredder in an attempt to rip it out of the context of the original question, “What are the signs that all these things—namely, the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem–are about to happen?” And in it, Yeshua will also answer the question that they did not ask—“How will this happen?” There are reasons why people do this—because from 1951 years in the future, the destruction and devastation they faced doesn’t seem like such a big deal to us. Well, read Josephus’s Wars of the Jews some time and see if you still feel that way afterwards. This was a horrific four years. The Jordan and the Dead Sea were filled with dead bodies and they were piled up all around the Temple, in the city, and outside the walls. If you missed episode 120 about the apocalyptic language here, you will want to go back and review it because I do explain why everything is presented in such a dramatic fashion and how it lines up with the genre of apocalypticism in general—which, no, is not about any sort of Great Tribulation but about times of suffering in general and the words of warning and encouragement that accompany it. Those who have sold the idea that apocalypses are entirely dealing with some short period at the end of time are really misleading people. That is not what they were for and that is not why Jews composed them or read them. That is, sadly, how laymen have been taught to interpret them because it appeals to our modern desire for violent entertainment and our desire to have knowledge of the future beyond, “God wins and you will too if you endure.”

Okay, let’s get started here because this first line is bizarre but you can only tell when you read it in Greek. Oh, and I want you to notice the first word here, which is “But…” which means that everything He has been telling them so far in the Olivet discourse is about to change course. All of the “Don’t get distracted, don’t get worried, focus on your jobs…BUT now…” But what? Let’s look and see, because we have a “but…then” statement which is sort of like an “if…then…” statement and proper hermeneutics, scriptural interpretation, demand that we notice things like that. The “but” is linking this to everything that went before and contrasting it and then giving directions:

14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 

First of all, Yeshua is the one talking here, to the four. But He isn’t the speaker for all of this—it isn’t like He would say, “let the reader understand”—the author of Mark likes to do narrative asides and although we haven’t seen one for a long time, this is almost certainly not something Yeshua said. This is instead direction for the reader of this Gospel in the congregation (because all of these documents were meant to be read aloud and not hoarded by the few literate members of the congregation), but we aren’t entirely sure what they were meant to understand. There are a few theories from scholars. The first theory is that the reader was meant to understand that Yeshua was referring back to Daniel 9:27, “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator,” 11:31 “Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.” And 12:11 ”And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days.” Daniel was an apocalypse written during the time of the Maccabean revolt in order to accomplish what apocalypses were written for—to inspire loyalty and endurance by providing hope for an assured victory of God and His people over oppressors. As it describes not only the revolt but the historical situations of the time down to small details, Yeshua might be using this commonly known account to shadow what will happen again and so Mark might be signaling to the reader to expound upon this for the non-Jews in the congregation since He wrote for a Roman audience, as we can see from all the latin loan-words he uses. That’s possible. And yes, you might disagree with me that Daniel was written at such a late date but I promise that disagreeing with me never damned anyone to hellfire. But if you don’t like pineapple on pizza, I actually can’t make any promises.

Second option, and this is the one I think is likely true. I think the note was to keep the reader from correcting the confusing Greek in the text. And by the way, I didn’t come up with these theories or anything—I just read what a lot of scholars write, not being one myself. Although the word abomination is neuter, the Greek word used as a pronoun clearly is masculine. That is not the case in Daniel. It translates, “when you see the abomination (neuter) which causes desolation standing where he ought not to be…” and any Greek speaker would want to instead say “it” because that is proper. We don’t have this in English but I think most other languages have really strict rules about feminine and masculine nouns and pronouns and adjectives and the verb forms that go with them.

But what is this abomination which causes desolation? No one is entirely certain but again, there are a lot of theories gleaned from the actual events that transpired. If the first option is true, then the author is telling the audience that whatever Yeshua has referred to has already happened and is already common knowledge. If Mark was written during the late 60’s, then the Revolt was already underway but Caesar’s armies had not yet arrived in Jerusalem—however, the Zealots and the followers of John of Giscala and Simon bar Giora and the Idumeans/Edomites might already be in the city. If so, then the horrors that they are perpetrating against the citizens of Jerusalem and against the city and the Temple would already be a commonly known scandal. The author of Mark would be saying of the abomination which causes desolation, “Let the reader understand” and there would be nodding over something that is common knowledge. But, like I said before, no one knows which of these things is the case. Let’s go through some of the options for the identity of the abomination which causes the Temple and the city to be desolated. Because, I cannot give you a for sure answer—no one can.

Certainly, the disciples were aware of what almost happened in 40 CE when Caligula declared himself Jupiter incarnate and decided to place an idol of himself in the Holy of Holies. His plans became well known and the Jews departed from their fields during planting season in order to protest to the governor of Syria who thankfully was able to put off the event long enough for Caligula to be assassinated. So, it never ended up happening. As we see in Tacitus, Under Tiberius all was quiet. But when the Jews were ordered by Caligula to set up his statue in the temple, they preferred the alternative of war. The death of the Emperor put an end to the disturbance.” (Histories V.9)

But there were things that actually happened during the siege—most from the Jews and some from the Romans, that could qualify and were pretty horrific. But before we get to that, I am going to briefly mention the research of one scholar in particular—Peter G Bolt—I read his NSBT volume on The Cross from a Distance and he had an interesting take on this that I haven’t seen from anyone else and although his arguments are compelling, I am not really sold on them but I will share them with you anyway just to be more thorough and so that you can check it out yourself if you want. He believes that the Abomination which causes Desolation was the crucifixion itself, heralding the end to Jerusalem and the Temple. So, in his thinking, verse 14 could be reworded as “So when you see the abomination which causes desolation (the crucifixion of the Son of God) happening in a place where he (the Messiah) ought not to be, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” I think it is a stretch—certainly, at this point, it is not important for everyone to flee Jerusalem and Judea. And, in fact, later Yeshua tells then to remain until the giving of the Spirit—but He doesn’t say it in Mark. In Mark the statement is twice made that Yeshua will go ahead of them into Galilee. (The book was still well worth reading for the unpacking of atonement in Mark’s Gospel, which is what the book was about)

Could it be when Titus stood in the Holy Place or when the Romans planted their standards on the Temple ruins and made sacrifices? No, at that point (fall of 70) it was years too late for the residents to flee the city. What about Zealot and bandit atrocities? To me this seems more likely and you have several waves of them coming in to take over the city years before the Romans. By 68 CE, every original leader of the Revolt was dead at the hands of violent rivals who would all prove to be treacherous, paranoid tyrants out for personal glory at all costs. Some were actually criminals. All of the reasonable voices were slaughtered and those who remained were more concerned with power bases and personal glory and revenge than any sort of liberation. They systematically robbed, imprisoned, betrayed, and slaughtered anyone who opposed them, as well as the wealthy and powerful, often holding mock trials and the zealots executing them on trumped up charges. No one was above betrayal—neither priest nor leader nor common citizen. The revolutionaries hoarded all the food to themselves within their various power bases as the people starved to death slowly. John of Giscala took up residence in the Temple, Simon bar Giora controlled the Upper and some of the Lower City and was headquartered in Herod’s Tower of Phasael. And there was also an Idumean faction which had ended up in the city  after they had fled the barbarous pillaging of Simon of their lands earlier. Between the three factions at one another’s throats, all claiming to be there to protect and defend their Temple and City from invaders (remember that the Idumeans had been forcibly converted during the reign of John Hyrcanus a few hundred years previous), the dead were piling up all over the city and with Civil War brewing in Rome during the year of the four emperors, Vespasian and then Titus largely allowed them to destroy one another for a good long stretch before actively engaging. But, by the time Titus’s armies got to Jerusalem, it had been too late to leave for a very long time. In fact, everyone who could leave, should have left when they saw John’s armies on the way. Maybe they looked like saviors at the time but they were villains seeking personal gain and success at any cost. In Luke 21:20, Yeshua only said that Jerusalem would be “surrounded by armies” and He didn’t say they had to be foreign. And there were multiple, non-foreign armies.

They killed the High Priestly family members and set up a High Priest who was described as a clown who didn’t know the first thing about how to perform his duties—a man named Phanni. His appointment was a joke. Was that it? Maybe. They filled the city and the Temple with the blood of their fellow Jews. They robbed the Temple. The factions plotted against one another and committed every sort of treachery in their dealings with one another. According to Josephus, Titus was appalled, and some might mark that up to propaganda, but Titus was a religious man who believed in needing the favor of regional gods. In Roman thinking, they won battles not just because of their military prowess but because the gods of the lands they invaded switched sides from their pathetic followers to Rome. You know, it’s like those people who have a new sports team every year? But that’s how Rome saw themselves, as those to whom even the regional gods would recognize as favored and defect to.

Titus would not destroy what he could conquer and have for his own glory and he didn’t go around destroying Temples. The ancient world wasn’t like that. You respected sacred space—as is proven by the fact that the Jews were allowed to execute, on the spot, any non-Jew who passed beyond the Soreg, Roman citizen or not. The Romans took it that seriously that even Caesar would not pass beyond it. Pompey did, a more than a hundred years before, and then regretted it and left without incident. It wasn’t until Titus felt that the Jews had defiled the Temple too grievously to be salvageable that he called it subject to the rules of war, which meant it could be attacked and even razed—and even then He tried to save it but his troops were out of control with rage on the day that it was gutted with fire. After what they had witnessed for so long, with the crimes against the Jewish citizenry and the offers of parley and surrender only to be met with ambush and treachery and death, the troops were enraged. It was a situation out of control. But it was all done in fulfillment of the Covenant Lawsuit decree against the Temple issued by Yeshua.

But the sense of all this—whatever the identity of the abomination which causes desolation–and all that went before it like the wars and rumors of wars and the earthquakes and famine, regardless of what ended up being the abomination which causes desolation, that they were not to skip town and run at the first sign of trouble because there are always troubles. Yeshua is compelling them to preach and stand their ground for as long as possible. But in the end, they were to only be willing to be killed for the sake of the Gospel and not for the sake of the Temple or the city. If you remember from the last two weeks, there were false prophets who had convinced many Jews to die for the Temple and they gladly did so, but Yeshua says that they need to run at that point instead.

15 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, 

First century houses were generally one or two story affairs, with a lower level for the family and an upper room for guests, or perhaps just a roof with space for people to congregate and/or sleep and dry flax and fish and such. There would often be a ladder from which one could access this area to the outside—giving a way for men to congregate together without invading the traditional gender space of women—such divisions were the norm within patriarchal cultures. Women did have the expectation of protection and privacy from non-familial males. The idea here is that the situation was so desperate at this point that they are in imminent danger and should leave everything behind and this was correct. Zealots were not allowing any escapees and if they saw you carrying anything, you would be accused of defection to the Romans, robbed, and slaughtered.

16 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 

Imagine being told not to take your coat in the dead of winter if you lived in Canada, okay? That’s a harsher warning but that’s how these guys would have heard it, not being able to even imagine that sort of climate. But your cloak was your protection—it was the most valuable life possession of a beggar even. Yeshua is telling them that they cannot even take their life-preserver as they jump ship.

17 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 

And it was a horrifying time. The zealots destroyed the food stores in the Temple in order to encourage the citizens to fight for their lives. A woman who is pregnant or nursing an infant is going to starve much more quickly than a man, obviously. Josephus even tells what is probably just an urban legend about a woman who ate her own infant instead of continuing to nurse him because she saw no future for him and she was starving to death. It was not entirely uncommon to tell such stories in order to highlight the problems of human suffering during a siege situation. Or perhaps it happened. No way to know for sure.

18 Pray that it may not happen in winter. 

Cold isn’t the worst part of winter in Judea—the biggest problem is that of the early rains. And, if you have been told that the early rains are the ones in the spring—so was I—but the early rains happen at the beginning of the agricultural/civil year right after Sukkot. That’s barley planting season. The latter rains happen in the spring. The early rains are just crazy and the wadis all over Israel go from dry canyons to raging rivers within seconds and people die if they aren’t careful. The banks of the Jordan overflow and the river becomes so swollen that you cannot cross. The Romans were able to use this to their advantage to kill fleeing rebels in 68 CE as they were fleeing the destruction of Gadara—trying to get to Jericho. Although Titus and his armies arrived in the winter of 69/70 CE, the siege did not begin until spring. Titus and his armies spent a long time preparing and allowing the zealot factions, the Idumeans, and the followers of Simon to keep on starving and slaughtering one another. By this time, the citizens of Jerusalem had been occupied by zealots since the fall of 66 when the Zealots captured the Temple under the auspices of protecting holiness but as I said before, by 68 every reasonable leader within the zealot movement was dead and the whole thing was being run by villains bent on domination of the others.

19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. 

This is where people forget the context and decide that this is describing some future tribulation but I challenge those people to read Josephus’s Jewish War and you can start in chapter three if you want to avoid the early years. It was a greater tribulation than people imagine. Not only were there external enemies in Rome, but the enemies scattered throughout the land were so numerous that no one could even begin to hope to chronicle them all. Galilee and Judea and Samaria and Idumea were filled with soldiers and bandits and tyrants who were willing to slaughter and rob whoever it was that was in their path on their way to supremacy. By 68 CE, there were no good guys left in the fight—only those who would slaughter or be slaughtered. The depths of depravity, treachery, power-mongering, defilement was unimaginable. The groups within Jerusalem, even when the siege was ongoing, were barely able to unite even briefly before being at one another’s throats again and it was only staying in separate parts of the city entirely that kept them from being at constant war with one another with the civilian population caught in the crossfire, starving to death and being subject to the paranoid delusions of the rebel factions that saw all attempts to escape as being defection in loyalty to the Romans. No one was permitted to flee in order to save their lives. And after being lied to enough times and ambushed, Titus began ordering his men to slaughter everyone they found escaping the city—and some chose that death over slow starvation and brutalization at the hands of their own people. John of Giscala, in charge of the Zealots, held the high ground of the Temple and the Antonia Fortress that joins on to the NW corner of it by a set of stairs. From that, he could rain down arrows and rocks and other sorts of missiles from above on the followers of Simon, who held most of the upper and lower cities. Simon’s people were attacking John’s from below as best they could while also assaulting the Romans from the walls. Trapped in between were those citizens still alive and unable to escape, subject to frequent robbings and brutality from revolutionaries looking for food and plunder.

Usually, people under siege band together for the sake of survival. This didn’t happen—quite the opposite. It was an unprecedented nightmare. When we look at the language of the Hebrew Scriptures, we often see this idea of universal disaster and judgment applied to local events—this is an example of a semitic idiom applied to oracles of judgment, which this definitely qualifies as. A local event is portrayed as being so devastating that it is as though the entire world is destroyed. When people aren’t aware of this sort of language in prophetic oracles and this very ancient way of expressing such things, they have a tendency to remove the oracle from its immediate context and make it an end of days sort of thing when it is not. You see floods, earthquakes, stars falling and the sun and moon going dark—that’s symbolic language—not literal—of cataclysmic events that would normally kill everyone.

20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. 

Again, people look at this and say, “Oh, talking about an end of the world sort of scenario” but nope, we are still at the siege of Jerusalem, that’s been the topic of conversation since verse 2 and nothing has changed. Remember the function of hyperbole in Jewish writings—this sounds like the end of the world and in a way, it is. The end of the world as they knew it. According to Josephus, 1.1 Million Jews were killed, almost all by the factions within Jerusalem—this is where people fled to from all sides and it was a terrible mistake to do so because what was going on inside was worse than what was going on outside. Horrifically worse. The walls of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount were practically impossible to breach. The siege could have taken much longer. Titus stripped every tree from the earth for over 1.2 miles in every direction for the building of siege works. The revolutionaries were very brave and daring and can be rightly called foolhardy, but they were able to do some terrible damage to Titus and his operations. Titus ended up losing about 10,000 men in all. But, in the end, it was the infighting and foolishness of the revolutionaries that made for the end of the city and Temple. It didn’t have to happen but those who were reasonable were dead at the hands of those who were not and madness reigned. If the siege had continued indefinitely, the death toll would have been complete.

Another problem here is with the “no human being will be saved” and many look at saved in the common Christian jargon of salvation, but in this case the word means “left alive.” Now, for those who take all this to mean that Yahweh has rejected the Jewish people wholesale—we need to look here and say, “Um, even from this hellacious situation, Yahweh is going to preserve a remnant and we also have to remember that most Jews lived outside the Land in the first century—4 million lived throughout the Roman Empire and there were also a great many in the Parthian Empire to the East as the majority never returned from exile and stayed in the east. So, when we look and see how many Jews actually rejected Yeshua in person, we are talking about a fraction of a fraction of 1%. The leadership was fundamentally to blame, as is evident in the Gospels. But still, Yeshua wasn’t the only one prophesying the end of the Temple and Jerusalem, as Josephus recorded. The signs were there for anyone who wanted them. But the problem with signs, as we spoke about when the Pharisees and their scribes requested them, is that they are open to interpretation. Everyone sees in signs exactly what they want to see and interprets them according to their own favor or fears. Just look at what people do with Revelation—look how many books are on the market talking about the one true interpretation of the signs. How many have been right so far? None. Does that humble or stop anyone? Absolutely not because the hunger to know is there and symptomatic of larger problems. Yeshua kept refusing to give signs. We should be content with His refusal and stop seeking them.

21 And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 

“And then…”—we can’t miss that. This is referring to the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Their world is now upside down. Jerusalem and the Temple are razed, gutted with fire, left in ruins and defiled. People have been slaughtered and enslaved, save a few Roman citizens who were allowed to leave and resettle elsewhere. Like Germany after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, they were a ruined people and they were desperate for dignity and saviors. Many would want revenge or relief. All would want restoration of their former lives and especially in an honor/shame culture. They would be ripe for the pickings for wanna be Davidic figures like Simon bar Kochba, promising freedom, glory, self-rule and a rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. And there would be two more Revolts over the next 70 years before the Jews were finally expelled from the Land entirely and really left as a people without a homeland to rally around and for. And the disciples are being told not to be distracted by this either. They still have a job to do or, more realistically, the next generation because by this point they are all gone. But, they were to teach this because people had to know not to be distracted by the promise of an imminent return.

22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.

The word for false christs is pseudochristos—and it doesn’t mean that necessarily someone is pretending to be Yeshua, that wouldn’t have been a big draw. This would refer to anyone claiming that they were anointed by God to restore Jewish fortunes in the Holy Land and to restore the Kingdom as they were imagining it. That’s too small now, or it would be within very short order. The Kingdom is no longer a place but a world. It will break in violently, through an unjust crucifixion, and lead the world to peace—bit by bit, person by person. And it will be easy to forget that because there would come many people claiming to have been anointed to do just that. All of them led innocent people to their deaths in pursuit of a pipe dream of the Jews being a dominant world power again. That isn’t how the Kingdom of Heaven works, quite the opposite. It works through conquering individuals as far as allegiance goes, so that they will suffer and die for a Kingdom of non-violence and not in the violent pursuit of earthly sorts of dominion and glory.

And there is the warning that these guys will also be performing signs and wonders. Likely some or all of them more legendary than real. Others opportunistic interpretations of normal or abnormal sorts of events, but to people who are desperate and enduring shame and oppression, well as Josephus said, people see what they want to see. People want hope. And they will interpret whatever it is however they want in order to seize on to hope. But our hope is in the Kingdom of Heaven and not in the things that the world looks for hope in. Fortunately, Yeshua warned us—as we saw last week, with that harsh warning blepo (translated “be on guard) not to fall into this sort of trap but to always put our hopes in and only in Him.