Chapter 4 – The Third Rejection of the King (Part 2 of 6)

John 11:47-53 became the tipping point of Israel’s tolerance of Jesus.

It states that Caiaphas, “who was the high priest that year,”¹ listened to the other members of the Sanhedrin argue back and forth in an impromptu meeting that should not have occurred in the manner in which it did. The Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was the “Supreme Court” of Israel. They consisted of seventy members, plus the high priest, giving the body an odd number for voting purposes. They heard cases from other areas of Israel that could not be settled by the local Sanhedrins in those towns which had twenty-three members (if the town was big enough to convene a Sanhedrin).² 

Since the latest incident preceding this passage of scripture occurred in Bethany (John 11:1-46), which was the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the Sanhedrin in Bethany should have been convened and held hearings. However, in verse 46, these people ran to the Pharisees—the ones in Jerusalem, who in turn, went to Caiaphas. As a result, the Jerusalem Sanhedrin undertook the proceedings.

The Jewish system detailed in the Torah in Deuteronomy 16:18-20, Deuteronomy 17:7, and 

 Deuteronomy 19:16-19 had built-in safeguards against exactly the kind of judicial proceedings the Jerusalem Sanhedrin conducted in John 11 and would conduct later. In this regard, they were acting more like their Roman and pagan counterparts than being faithful to the Torah and the God of their fathers Abraham and David. 

In these illegal proceedings, these members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin argued about “this man” who was “doing many signs.” No doubt, the conversation went on for several minutes, with members weighing the pros and cons of allowing Jesus to continue with His ministry. They were concerned about Roman retaliation, if all of Israel believed in Jesus. They would first lose their “place” (John 11:48). They were more concerned about their status and positions of power. If the Temple were made physically inoperative or religiously illegal by the Romans, then how would they exert their influence over the rabble who were walking away from traditional Judaism to follow this Jesus character? Second, they would lose their “nation.” They were concerned Israel would be wiped off the map and absorbed by the Roman Empire, no longer allowed to exist in any way, shape, or form, which was a very real possibility. 

This is where Caiaphas steps in and tells the other seventy members of the Sanhedrin that they “know nothing at all.” This speaks to the ignorance and audacity of Caiaphas. As we pointed out last week, his conclusion actually produced the very effect he was trying to avoid. Had they all “believed in Jesus,” Jesus would have “taken on the Romans” by using the nation Israel as His messengers of the gospel. He would have brought the nation back to Himself (Matthew 23:37). The rest of the gospel record would have looked much different, I do believe, as would have the remainder of the New Testament. 

However, Caiaphas thought he was smarter than the crowd, which in this particular case was the seventy members of the Sanhedrin. What was his conclusion? It would be better for one man, Jesus, to die for the nation Israel, than to hold Him up as the Messiah and deal with the aftermath of a bloody beat down at the hands of the Roman army, which they had already concluded would result in the loss of their “place” (the Temple), not to mention their precious “nation” (Promised Land). 

In this scene, we get a glimpse of just how corrupt the religious leaders had become and why Jesus called them out every chance He got. What was their issue? They believed that what made them Jewish was their tradition. They used certain parts of the Torah to justify their existence and often gave it a lofty status, even when they were an occupied nation. 

An example of this is found in Matthew 15. The Pharisees and teachers of the law question Jesus about his disciples, claiming they were breaking tradition by not washing their hands before they ate. What was Jesus’s response? “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (v. 3; LSB). He proceeds to give them an example of what he is talking about: 

For God said, “Honor your father and mother” and “He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.” But you say. “Whoever says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you might benefit from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 

 ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching as doctrines the commands of men.’” (vv. 3-9; LSB). 

Jesus quotes God’s Word. The first commandment He references comes from Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16. The second commandment comes from Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9. Jesus is pitting God’s instructions and teachings (God’s torah) against the traditions of the religious leaders of Israel, known as the Oral Law, which in their minds, were simply explanations of the Torah, to help clarify and better understand its meaning so that it could be implemented in daily life. In other words, like we have commentaries on the Bible today, the Oral Law, which consisted of the Mishnah and the Talmud, was (and still is) the “Jewish Commentary” of the nation Israel.

The Pharisees and teachers of the law were upset because Jesus’s disciples broke one of their rules explained in the Oral Law, i.e., traditions. Tradition was what saved the Jews, according to their teachings. The Oral Law is referenced in passages like Matthew 23:23, where Jesus again pits God’s Torah against their misinterpretation and adherence to the Torah via their Oral Law traditions: 

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others (LSB). 

For someone to break a rule of the Oral Law was equal to—in the minds and theology of the teachers of the law and Pharisees—sinning against God. These traditions became so lofty, in fact, they have been viewed from the decades and centuries prior to Jesus’s time until now as necessary explanations of how to interpret the Torah “because the Torah alone,” as one modern Jewish website states, “even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life” (emphasis added).³ 

God’s Word? An insufficient guide for life? Was that how the Pharisees and teachers of the law in Jesus’s day felt about God’s instructions and teachings (torah)? They didn’t come right out and say it, but their actions point in that direction, judging by Jesus’s condemning remarks in Matthew 5-7 and Matthew 23. 

May I take this a step farther? Is this how we, as Christians today, view God’s Word? The words on the page are not sufficient enough? Not clear enough? Therefore, we need to write volumes and volumes, arguing over every jot and tittle, to explain what God really meant? What Jesus really meant? What the New Testament writers really meant? To the point where our denominational traditions and interpretations of God’s Word, both Old Testament and New Testament, hold more sway over us than His actual commandments (and let us not even mention our political leanings, psychological beliefs, or personal feelings at this time)? It’s one thing to create quick references, like a Strong’s Concordance, for example, or a Greek or Hebrew dictionary. These kinds of works do not interpret the Bible or change what it says or means. You can even write a commentary, but you had better make sure it jives with the mind of God and doesn’t contradict anything. That’s why James said not many of us should wish to be teachers because of the stricter judgment that teachers must endure (James 3:1). 

But you see, these religious leaders had taken the Torah and made it say things it was never intended to say with their explanations and commentary on it. They argued about what constituted work in relationship to the Sabbath to the point where if something weighed more than a fig, you couldn’t lift it. Parents couldn’t pick up a frightened child. You couldn’t help a fellow Israelite get his child or ox out of a well. They argued about what could be done for someone who was injured or ill on the Sabbath. Jesus confronted them about this lunacy as well (Luke 14:1-6). 

These religious leaders had become so intense about keeping the Oral Law, they were driving people away from the Lord instead of drawing them near (Matthew 23:13). For example, they had water jars or jugs ready for use before every meal. They established the minimum amount of water to be used for hand cleansing at the amount needed to fill one-and-a-half eggshells. The water was first poured on the hands with the fingers pointing upward, kind of like a doctor, so the water ran down the hand and off at the wrist, but it could not run down the arm. Of course, once this step was conducted, the water was now unclean and could not touch anything else, since it had been made that way by washing the unclean hands. Therefore, one had to be careful not to allow the water to backtrack and cover areas of the hand already “washed clean,” otherwise, it would make that area unclean again. 

The process was administered again, but this second time, the hands were held down, with the fingers pointing toward the ground. Once the second application was completed, the Jew would then rub the fist of one hand into the palm of the other to complete the cleansing process. Strict Judaism did this not only before each meal, but between courses as well. This was looked upon as so honorable, that Rabbi Ta’anith said doing this would cause a Jew to obtain eternal life.⁴ 

But again, before we pick up stones for casting, I’m afraid we, the Church, are doing the same thing today and have done the same thing over the centuries. What God calls sin, we call mistakes. What God says is forbidden, we claim was an Old Testament standard and commandment that no longer applies in our grace-filled New Testament era. Yet, I would argue Jesus claimed the Old Testament was just as in force in His day as it ever was (Matthew 5:17-20), and since the writer of Hebrews says God never changes (Hebrews 13:8), it would behoove us not to commit the same sins the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, and the chief priests committed. 

We are seeing the fruit of our Pharisaical ways today, bad fruit, mind you. As so many things are happening “in the name of God” or with God’s supposed blessing that is based on some person’s or group’s personal, political, or religious commentary on God’s Word. 

A simple law, like “honor your father and mother,” is wrapped up in the verb, as are most of God’s commands, because it is in the verb where the action occurs. The Hebrew word “honor” in Exodus 20:12 is the word “kabad” (pronounced kaw-bad), and it means “to be heavy, weighty, burdensome, honored.”⁵ This seems an odd word to use on the surface, when speaking of how to properly deal with one’s father and mother so that “your days may be prolonged in the land Yahweh your God gives you. (LSB)” How can one be “heavy,” “weighty,” “burdensome,” and “honored,” all at the same time? At first glance, this definition seem incongruous. However, when you look at them the way Jesus was—through the eyes of the Almighty—you see the spirit of the Torah plainly.⁶ 

As followers of God, trying to live according to His instructions and teachings, we know that we are owed nothing, deserve nothing, and are only worthy of death, because of sin, according to scripture (Romans 3:9-20; 6:23). With that as our attitude, then “honoring” our father and mother doesn’t become a burden to us, in the sense of drudgery, caring for their needs, taking care of them in their old age, etc. Instead, it should become a weighty burden, a heavy honor, like that of a servant towards a king, when he feels the utter importance of his position. “Weighty” can be seen in this regard not only as something to do with how heavy an object is, but more importantly, as in “to be important because of its enormous gravity on a subject.” We used to hear this concept bantered about a lot back in the 1970s and 1980s when someone would refer to an important event as “heavy.” I always think of Marty McFly in the Back to the Future film series, having his discussions with Doc Brown, and how Marty meant “weighty, as in very important and even awesome,” while Doc Brown interpreted it as something being wrong with the gravitational pull of the earth. 

With this right understanding of “honor your father and mother” in mind, immediately, you can see what’s wrong with so much of society today. Children do not honor their fathers and mothers with a servant’s heart that is rightly understanding the concept of sin. Instead, they blame their parents for all their ills, when in fact, it is their choices and their sin that causes their ills. But you see, to admit we are the problem in our own life would mean the blame would have to be shifted from dear old Mom and Dad to us. Therein lies the rub. 

Getting back to the discussion between Jesus, the Pharisees, and the teachers of the law, to lighten the “burden” of this law in Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16, the Pharisees and teachers of the Law came up with a great way to do just that. In essence, their tradition allowed them to say something like this in Matthew 15:5-6: 

“Hey, Mom, Dad, I was going to give this gift to you so that you could use it to live (usually referring to an amount of money), maybe even enjoy life a little. Or maybe you could have at least used it to pay the bills or put some food on the table. However, all my gifts are now devoted to God, so I can’t give them to you. That would be a sin. I would be stealing from God. Therefore, I have to give them to the Temple, to the priests, as a gift to God.” 

On the surface, it sounds extremely pious. It sounds religiously righteous. It sounds like that mother and father raised a godly son, of whom they should be proud. However, Jesus calls it something else. He called it a tradition of men. He called it out as the attempt of the religious leaders to manipulate God’s Law into their own favor. Jesus called them hypocrites. Jesus said Isaiah was right about them when he prophesied: 

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the traditions of men (vv. 8-9; LSB).

You see, gifts to God went into the Temple treasury, and guess who benefitted from a plump Temple treasury? The Pharisees and the teachers of the law. The chief priests too. 

How convenient.⁷ 

This explains Caiaphas’s words in John 11:48: “If we let him go on like this, all will believe on Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation (LSB).” Do you understand the glaring treachery of his words? He treats “everyone believing on Jesus” as a plague to avoid at all costs. Why? Because if they do, the Romans would swoop in and take away the livelihood of Caiaphas and his cronies. The Romans would take their money and their homes, and they lived in some nice digs. “According to tradition the palace of Annas was located in the Upper City near the palace of Caiaphas and Herod's Palace. The high priests of the Second Temple period had their luxurious residences on the southwest hill.”⁸ They were consummate politicians who padded their status with wealth, taken from the people, like the widow with her two little pieces of money that added up to mere cents (Luke 21:1-4). And heaven forbid if the Romans would take away their power. The Pharisees, chief priests, and teachers of the law would be turned into mere paupers. They would be forced to live like the rabble they serve. 

In this eye-opening episode, Caiaphas spoke and acted like a true human ruler. The fulfillment of the elders’ wish in 1 Samuel 8 came true again and again. However, this time, it became viler as God’s Word became perverted to aid and abet these leaders in their craftiness.

  

Thought for the Week:

Imagine if “everyone in Israel believed on Jesus,” during His first three years of ministry. All of Israel would have been saved because God would have “become their God and they would have been His people” once again. 

However, in a turn of irony—echoing the words of the elders in 1 Samuel 8—Caiaphas, the high priest, believed serving Rome was a better alternative.

The religious leaders in Jesus’s day had indeed become religious hypocrites. They were just like the earthly kings described for us by God in 1 Samuel 8. In fact, they were religious kings, in a way. They had the power to arrest Jesus and submit him to a religious judgment (John 18:31). They were even allowed to submit Him to punishment, so long as they did not enact the death penalty. Only Rome could execute prisoners. 

In a kind of reverse Robin Hood-ism, these religious rulers took from the people and gave it to themselves. They were just like politicians today, who write laws that favor themselves and their donors. Do not ever believe a politician when he or she says, “I can make your lives better.” How do some politicians, who never worked a real job a day in their lives but have always been a politician, become multi-millionaires on a salary of less than $200,000 a year? Because they give themselves gifts intended for the poor, intended for the honor of fathers and mothers, intended for the widows and the orphans, all in the name of serving their country, which is their solemn duty. 

You see, it doesn’t matter what nationality you are. It doesn’t matter what century you live in. It doesn’t matter what religion is being touted. People are all the same. And God told the Israelites exactly how those kings and rulers would act and react if they gave themselves over to them instead of being qadosh and following God’s instructions and teachings (torah). 

It is the same for us today. We can’t cancel our sin with our own sacrifices offered how we choose to offer them and then expect to stroll through the pearly gates like we own the place. It doesn’t work that way. God was very explicit in His Word. 

One enters the Kingdom of Heaven with a poor spirit, not a haughty one.   

And although we have touched upon this aspect several times already, we’ll get more into that later in this series.

 

NEXT WEEK:

We will see the stark contrast between the Kingdom of men and the Kingdom of God displayed in the Triumphal entry.

 

Endnotes

 

1. It should be noted here that a high priest was to be one for life, once elected or placed in that position, much like our Supreme Court justices today. However, because the position had become highly politicized, it was “bought and sold,” if you will, when the political winds of the times demanded it. Because of this, you could have as many as five to ten “high priests” alive at any given time, for they kept the title for life, even if they didn’t hold the position for life. An example of this was Annas, who you meet later in the Gospel record. He was pressured to resign his position as high priest in 15 A.D., because he was amassing too much power. As a result, three years later, the Romans came in and replaced him with someone they felt they could control. His name was Caiaphas, and he happened to be Annas’s son-in-law (nepotism has always been a bedfellow of politics, by the way). I would not be surprised if Annas had a hand in Caiaphas’s election to the position.

 

Yet, despite his fall from Roman grace, Annas was a cunning and intelligent man. He remained in Jerusalem and controlled much of what occurred in the Temple, including the operation of the Temple courts, which were known as “The Bizarre of Annas.” Annas held so much sway, despite no longer being a high priest, that Jesus was brought to his house during the series of “trials” after His arrest and before His flogging and crucifixion.

 

Therefore, you can understand the Sanhedrin’s concerns about all the disruption Jesus is causing at this moment in John 11. Unfortunately, they were concerned about the wrong things.

  

2. We here in the United States patterned our judicial system much after the Romans. However, the Romans used a variation of the judicial system of Israel, established in the time of Moses by God (See Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 17:7; 19:16-19).

  

3. Jewish Virtual Library. “Judaism: The Oral Law – Talmud & Mishna.” Jewish Virtual Library. No Date. Web. 1 August 2020. <https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-oral-law-talmud-and-mishna>  This website states the article was taken from Telushkin, Joseph. Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People, and Its History. (New York, NY; William Morrow and Co., 1991).

  

4. Throughts taken from sermon titled, “Confusing Man’s Traditions with God’s Commandments, Part 1,” by John MacArthur. www.gty.org. 11 July 1982. Web. 30 June 2022. < https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/2311/confusing-mans-traditions-with-gods-commandments-part-1>

  

5. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. “3513.” Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon. (Hendrickson Publishers; Peabody, Mass., 1979), p. 457.

 

6. There are other words Moses could have chosen for this word “honor,” like “hadar,” which means “to honor, adorn, perhaps to swell.” It is used in Leviticus 19:32 to show respect or honor toward the elderly (See Brown, Driver, Briggs, Ibid, p. 1089; #1922). It is also used Exodus 23:3 in a different way, as the Israelite is not to “show honor” as a means of partiality toward a poor man in a lawsuit. Instead, justice is to prevail, regardless of how one feels about the defendant or the plaintiff. The point is, Moses chose this word (kabad) for a reason, despite the fact that overall, there are at least seven other words Moses could have used:

·       “kanah” - which means “to honor with a title” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Ibid, p. 487; #3655)

·       “chaphets” – which means “to delight in” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Ibid, p. 342; #2654)

·       “paar” – which means “to beautify, glorify” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Ibid, p. 802; #6286)

·       “tamak” – which means “to grasp, support, attain” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Ibid, p. 1069; #8551)

·       “shebach” – which means “to laud, praise” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Ibid, p. 1114; #7624)

·       “salal” – which means “to lift up, cast up” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Ibid, p. 699; #5549)

  

7. We see this concept used today in the Health & Wealth Gospel. God’s instructions and teachings about giving, about devoting oneself to God, and about being a righteous Christian are twisted to benefit the “Temple treasury” of multiple so-called pastors (Matthew 7:15-23). For just a couple of references on this, see:

 

·       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGOEt1PCWio

·       https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/joel-osteen-house

 

8. “Palace of Annas.” No Author. Bible-History.com. No date. <https://bible-history.com/jerusalem/palace-of-annas>

 

 Pictures courtesy of  Pixabay and Unsplash and the following photographers/artists:

Scroll - Pixabay by falco

Money bag - Pixabay by Jose Augusto Camargo

Humble in prayer - Unsplash by Ben White

 

Chapter 4 – The Third Rejection of the King (Part 1 of 6)

Thus far in our study of the nation Israel, we have witnessed God’s chosen people marching, running actually, toward a spiritual wasteland, looking for peace and freedom apart from God’s laws and  instructions (torah). They didn’t seem to know it most of the time, or even care, so long as they could be like the nations around them. And even though Samuel communicated the message of God about how ruthless human kings can be in 1 Samuel 8, the elders of Israel in that day were convinced an earthly king was the better choice of a king than God Himself.

As Israel’s timeline progresses, there were pockets of hope, scattered here and there, when they would cry out to God because of the mess the human king had made. They would be called upon to repent, and they often did so. Sometimes, a king would arise who would do right in the eyes of the Lord, and through his efforts, the nation would turn to God through repentance. In a glimmer of hope, historians chronicling the stories would have the fortunate opportunity of writing about a happier occurrence in the timeline of Israel. 

 Unfortunately, however, those revivals were short-lived, and eventually, the nation found itself in captivity, first to sin, and secondly at the hands of the Babylonians and eventually the Assyrians. Their misfortunes would continue at the whims and wishes of the Medes and the Persians. Then, Alexander the Great and the Greek Empire. Then, finally, the domination of Rome. 

Like water being drained from a bathtub, Israel spiraled out of control while losing itself at the same time. The leaders continued to hold fast to their belief that an earthly king would somehow be a better option than having God Almighty as their King. Even when God infiltrated human history in the form of an infant, miraculously born of the Holy Spirit, the leaders, entrenched in their self-righteousness, could only see this one born “King of the Jews” as a threat. A threat to their way of life and a threat to their human king, who wasn’t even Jewish. Therefore, in an attempt at keeping their power and prestige, they made an attempt at killing Emmanuel [which literally means, “The With Us (emmanu) God (El)]. 

So, as we have covered so far, the nation Israel rejected God in Ramah as their King (1 Samuel 8), and in Matthew 2, they tried to kill their King—the One born King of the Jews. And we need to note here that rejection is inherent in the act of attempted murder. 

This brings us to the third rejection of the King. And as we will see, like from 1 Samuel 8 to Matthew 2, the stakes will rise. 

During the years leading up to and including the earthly ministry of Jesus, the religious leaders of Israel continued to hold up the specific instructions and teachings of God’s Law (torah) that suited them, picking and choosing carefully those commandments that helped them survive politically and prosper financially, thus causing them to morally and societally capitulate to the powers that be. 

By the time we get to the three-year-mark of Jesus’s earthly ministry, most of the water is gone. Israel is now circling the drain. 

A good time for a Savior, wouldn’t you say? 

However, as we will see, the people of Israel had become so spiritually blind and deaf, they wouldn’t have known the Messiah—God in the flesh—if He stood before them, face-to-face, and preached the truth. 

How do I know that, you ask? 

Because that is exactly what happened. 

Self-Righteousness vs. The Righteousness of God 

By this time in Jewish history, Jesus has been ministering in and around Jerusalem for three years. Enough time for anyone to get a strong sampling of His teachings and compare them with the Old Testament writings, and that’s exactly what the chief priests and teachers of the law did. In confrontation after confrontation, like a prosecuting attorney, they were building their case. They tried to punch holes in Jesus’s theology (e.g., Matthew 12:2, 24; 15:1-2; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:30, 33; 6:2; 7:39; 11:38, 53-54; 13:14; 17:20; John 8:13). They questioned witnesses who had dealings with Jesus (e.g., John 5:1-15; 9:13-34). They tried to catch Him off guard and get Him to misspeak so they could use it against Him (e.g., Matthew 12:38; 16:1; Mark 3:1-2; 8:11; 10:2; Luke 14:1; John 10:24).

After three years, the evidence was pointing in the wrong direction, and they were getting desperate. They realized the magnitude of the life of Jesus and His claims of being the Messiah.  

In Luke 4, starting in verse 16, He entered the synagogue in Nazareth and read Isaiah 61 in the presence of all who were there. When he gave the scroll back to the attendant, He sat down—the formal posture of a teacher (think “department chair” in a college). Then, He stated to all who were in attendance that Isaiah 61, a Messianic prophecy, had just been fulfilled in their presence. 

In John 4, Jesus confronts the Samaritan woman at the well. After a discussion, she states that when the Messiah comes, He will explain everything. To which Jesus replied, “I who speak to you am He” (v. 26, LSB). 

In Matthew 16, beginning in verse 13, Peter declares Jesus as the Christ, and Jesus not only affirms it (He does not deny it), He tells Peter that those words were not his own. Peter received that revelation from God, thus confirming it as truth. 

The teachers of the Law, the scribes, and Pharisees—all the religious leaders—understood who Jesus claimed to be. They just could not accept Him as such. He didn’t fit the “Conquering King” motif. He didn’t protect the religious elite and promise destruction to the Romans. Instead, He ate with tax collectors, who extorted money from the Jews and gave it to their oppressors. He healed someone, a person special to, of all people, a Roman Centurion, who represented everything about the Roman Empire that was evil. In addition to these “un-Messianic” acts, Jesus attacked the religious leaders of Israel every chance He got. In their minds, Jesus had it all backwards. He couldn’t be the Messiah. Could He? 

It was this one little pesky question that kept them coming back to Jesus again and again. Even though His actions were completely the opposite of what they envisioned for the Messiah, His words made them often retreat and regroup. Jesus’s words were so different, and spoken with such authority, even the “uneducated peasants” noticed a difference (Matthew 7:28-29). Jesus so often used the Old Testament against the religious elite, often asking them, “Have you not read?” Thus, the implication was, “If you’re supposedly the religious teachers and leaders of Israel, how can you be so ignorant of what God said and meant?”  

This back and forth between Jesus and the religious elite came to a head in Matthew 21. That’s when everything changed. After being denounced publicly again, this time in the Temple in verses 23-44—about Jesus being the Messiah, mind you—the chief priests and Pharisees decided it was time to issue the warrant for Jesus’s arrest. Verses 45-46 tell us: “And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize Him, they feared the crowds, because they were regarding Him to be a prophet” (emphasis added; LSB). 

Hidden Agendas 

John 11:47-53 gives us the actual transcript of a subsequent emergency meeting of the Sanhedrin that occurred shortly after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Some of the Jews who witnessed the event believed in Jesus, but others raced back to Jerusalem and reported what had happened to the religious leaders, thus prompting the subsequent meeting:

Therefore, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Sanhedrin together and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is doing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and out nation.”

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”

Now, he did not say this from himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

So, from that day on they planned together to kill Him (emphasis added; LSB). 

Did you hear what they said? Many of the religious leaders were concerned. About what? That Jesus may be the Messiah. And heaven forbid, if everyone believed in Him, it would bring destruction upon them.

Was that true? No. Exactly the opposite was true. 

Had the religious leaders accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and had they urged all of Israel to believe in Him and follow Him, God would have blessed the nation and used her to reach the world with the gospel message. This is evidenced in Jesus words in Matthew 23:37, where He laments to Jerusalem about how He would have taken Israel under His care and protection, like a hen does with her chicks. He wanted to protect Israel so many times, throughout the Old Testament times and now into the beginning of the New Testament era. However, they rejected God as King. They rejected Him and His message. They killed His messengers (i.e., the prophets). They killed the Messiah’s herald, John the Baptist. And now, they were about to kill God’s most powerful messenger, His Messiah, the One and Only Son of God (John 3:16). 

Ironically, what Caiaphas said Jesus’s death would prevent (the destruction of the Temple and Israel) actually caused it, for when God removed His hand of protection from Israel in Matthew 23:37, in less than one generation later, in 70 A.D., Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. 

Only one tower and one wall (The Wailing Wall) remain. Even to this day. 

Israel has never recovered from that day in history. And the history of Israel is one sad episode after another of how neighboring nations have mistreated the Jews, first because of religious hatred, and then because of racial hatred.

Thought for the Week:

Before we cast stones at the Sanhedrin, particularly Caiaphas, we must first examine our own hearts. How many times do we choose not to believe God’s Word and obey it, because we are afraid of the plight such obedience may bring upon our lives?

That was really the litmus test for Caiaphas and the religious leaders of Israel. They knew, deep down, Jesus was the Messiah. Or better said, they feared He might be. They knew no one could do what He could do if He were not sent from God. They even said so much (Mark 12:28-33; John 3:2; 9:31-33). However, to admit that Jesus is who He said He is, and acknowledging that truth meant the religious leaders must submit to Him, as King. And as you can see, we are right back to the central issue. 

God is the King of Heaven, and we live in that realm now, as that Kingdom is at hand (Matthew 3:2; 4:17). Jesus taught us time and time again what “The Kingdom of Heaven is like.” It is there, in black

and white, and often in red letters, too, if we have eyes to see and ears to hear. 

Yet, do we not succumb to the “fear of the crowds,” like the Sanhedrin did? We’re afraid of what someone might say and do to us, if we stand up for Jesus and proclaim Him as King? Or we’re afraid the oppressive government might step in and take everything we have? Maybe even imprison us? Even have us executed for our faith (maybe not in the United States—although it’s heading in that direction)? 

Do you see? The sins of the Sanhedrin are the sins of any person who is not committed to Jesus wholeheartedly. That’s why Jesus said the road to glory was narrow (Matthew 7:13-14).  

It’s not an easy road to travel. And it flows in the opposite direction of the broad road, which is wide  and promises to keep us safe, but leads to destruction. Caiaphas was on that broad road. He believed if Jesus could be killed, it would make the rest of them safe. However, the opposite was true, because he was operating in the kingdom of men. Jesus is the King of the Kingdom of Heaven. 

And when these two kingdoms clash, the Kingdom of Heaven wins out every time because it is the Kingdom of Truth. 

The kingdom of men is full of lies and deceit, as the nation Israel found out. 

 

NEXT WEEK:

We continue this section by looking at how self-righteousness can be so spiritually minded but be no earthly good.

Pictures courtesy of  Pixabay and Unsplash and the following photographers/artists:

Wasteland - Unsplash by Valentin Salja

Scroll - Pixabay by falco

Wailing Wall - Unsplash by Sergio Rodriguez Portugese del Olmo

Bible - Unsplash by Timothy Eberly

Broad Road - Pixabay by Islandworks

Narrow Road - Pixabay by Tama66

Chapter 3 – The Second Rejection of the King (Part 8 of 8)

 

The historical backdrop referenced in Part 7 last week became the setting in which Matthew introduces us to the Magi (i.e., Wise Men; see Matthew 2:1). As we noted last time, they were looking for a successor for their Persian king, Phraates IV.

During the years 10-7 B.C., Phraates IV not only had some physical issues, but he had become corrupt and a political pawn of Rome. He was viewed and being weak and feeble by a growing number of Persians both inside and outside the royal circle. The Magi, a political and religious group of advisors who existed in historical records dating back to the seventh century B.C, were part of the king’s or emperor’s advisory council in all of the four major empires to affect Israel: the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Persians, and the Romans. Even the Old Testament prophet, Daniel, crossed paths with these “magicians” and was made chief of the Magi by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:48; 4:9) during his reign. Daniel’s position of prominence carried on into the Medo-Persian Empire under the reigns of King Darius and King Cyrus (Daniel 6:28).

Of all the roles the Magi played, kingmakers was one of the more prominent. They helped choose kings. They anointed kings. They gave their “blessing” and became trusted advisors to kings due to their abilities. As a result, they amassed great power and influence. 

Of course, like any group with power and influence, they always wanted to protect their status by making sure the kings they served could protect the current kingdom or empire. Such aspirations were always a vested interest. In this case, they wanted a new king who could defeat the Romans and make the Persian Empire dominant once again in that region of the world. 

How History Affects God’s People

It must be understood at this point that Rome had always been fearful of the Persians. Trying to guard the northeast corner of their own empire had always been problematic due to the distance from Rome and the ferocity of the Persian forces. The two empires fought in 63 B.C., then again in 55 B.C., and again in 40 B.C., and Rome didn’t always win, as we discussed last week. 

However, guess where the battlefield between these two behemoths always ended up? 

In the region of Israel and the Middle East. 

It was this historical backdrop, with a powerful oppressor (Rome) already occupying the land of Israel and an equally powerful adversary just to the east (Medo-Persians), adding tension to Matthew’s account in Chapter 2. 

Enter the Magi 

At this point in our study, I’m sorry to burst your Christmastime, manger-scene bubble, but when the

Magi came into Jerusalem in Matthew 2:1, it was not on camels. And there would have been more than three. And they would have been heavily guarded. 

Verse 3 of Matthew’s account in Chapter 2 tells us that when King Herod heard these Persian kingmakers were asking where the newly born King of the Jews resided, he and all of Jerusalem were troubled. The word “troubled” (some versions use the word “disturbed”) means “to stir up; to agitate, like water in a pool, and includes the emotions.” Matthew says King Herod was caught off guard. He was shaken, and so was everyone in the city. Why? 

First, these Persian kingmakers (and everyone knew who the Magi were) had ridden into town, asking, “Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews?” Herod knew they weren’t looking for him. He hadn’t been born “King of the Jews.” Octavian bestowed that title on him over three decades earlier. Herod wasn’t even Jewish. He was Idumean, and he also knew the Magi knew who he was. He’d been reigning as “King of the Jews” for well over thirty years, and he was the “king” who defeated their armies, with the Romans help, no less. 

Let’s face it, three old men on camels, by themselves, would not have made King Herod nor the entire town of Jerusalem “troubled” or “disturbed” as Matthew describes it. Not to mention that because they were carrying gold, frankincense, and myrrh, highway bandits surely would have picked them off on their thousand-mile trip.

We also must note that Herod understood the situation well enough, including the Old Testament scriptures, to summon the chief priests and teachers of the Law and ask them where the Messiah was to be born (v. 4). He knew who the Messiah was supposed to be. He’d probably heard the people of Jerusalem talk about the Messiah off and on many times over his thirty-plus years as king. He also knew when the chief priests and teachers of the Law quoted Micah 5:2, they were talking about a “ruler” who had the pedigree to be king. The Messiah would not be a Roman-appointed hack. He would be a Son of David, a Son of Abraham, because Micah said the Messiah would come out of Judah. 

In the Israeli’s eyes, no Roman-sanctioned king could compare, and because Herod was a lunatic who had anybody and everybody killed when he believed they were after his throne, including his own son, the people of Jerusalem would have been happy to see him go. 

These Magi storming into town unannounced were royal statesmen with great political power. They would have been adorned in their royal, priestly garb and conical hats. They used Royal Persian steed (Arabian horses), which was their preferred mode of transportation, and because of their position, they never would have embarked on a journey of a thousand miles up and over the desert, following what is known as the fertile crescent, and descend south into Israel, into Roman-occupied territory, mind you, on camels, by themselves. 

These kingmakers would have been accompanied by soldiers. Some historians believe they may have had their own army, kind of like the Knights Templar in Medieval times. Either way, historians believe the size of the army would have been formidable, possibly as large as a thousand soldiers, all on horses, all armed, all skilled with the bow and arrow, all excellent swordsmen, and all ready to protect these royal subjects. 

Now do you understand why King Herod and all of the Jerusalem were frightened? 

To top everything off, Herod had sent the majority of his own army to fight a battle many miles away, so he and his country were extremely vulnerable at this moment in time. This explains why Herod desires to meet with them secretly. He knows his army is too far away to help. Rome is even farther away. So, he accommodates them. Phraates IV is still king of Persia, so he’s hedging his bets that the relationship between Rome and Phraates IV will hold until he can find out exactly what these Magi want. 

More than likely, the Magi told him about their journey. How they saw the star rise in the east, how it led them there, how it was unlike any other star they have ever witnessed as priests entrenched in the religion of Zoroastrianism. They believed in astrology as much as astronomy, often seeing them as interchangeable, with a sizeable dose of alchemy thrown in for good measure. Yet, even being wrapped up in this religion, they were in awe of this star. And give them credit. They noticed it when nobody else did.

Herod, using the Magi to his advantage, asks them to go find this newborn king and then report back to him on his location “so that I too may come and worship him” (v. 8). The Magi believed Herod. They would have no reason not to, I suppose. They probably believed the Jewish people were just as excited to see their newborn king as they were. 

The Magi left and went on their way, finding the star hovering over a house (vv. 9-10).¹ They presented their gifts, fell to the ground and worshipped Jesus. Then, they were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, thus leading us to believe that if they did not understand Herod’s intentions before this moment, they understood after the dream. 

Once the Magi left, Joseph is visited by an angel of the Lord and instructed to take his family to Egypt because Herod is plotting to murder the child. Joseph obeyed, and he and his family stayed in Egypt until Herod died (v. 14). 

The Second Rejection is Made Manifest 

This is where the story gets horrific and important all at the same time. 

When King Herod finds out the Magi did not obey him and had left the country without giving him the location of the “one born King of the Jews,” he goes berserk. Herod was a madman, and he had the reputation to prove it. Historians believe, as do I, this explains why Jerusalem was troubled along with Herod. Witnessing a group of Persian Royal Advisors come marching into town, on Persian steed, backed by as many as a thousand of the best Persian soldiers, would have been alarming enough. However, to know Herod would respond in his usual, maniacal way must have terrified the people of Jerusalem even more. 

Herod gives orders to his remaining troops “to slay all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully determined from the Magi” (v. 16). 

Apparently, in the joyous and zealous retelling of their journey, when the Magi were meeting secretly with Herod, they told him how long their journey had lasted. It may have been even longer than a year, and the star may have been visible for even longer than that. Otherwise, Herod would not have known the relative age of the male child when he gave his heinous, murderous command. Or he tacked on additional time, just to be sure. We’ll never know exactly. But to get bogged down in an argument over why Herod chose “two years and younger” misses the point of the entire passage. 

For it is at this point in the story when The Second Rejection of the King comes to a head. 

Herod Rejects the King 

Herod rejects the King, the Messiah, Jesus. Herod understood what the Magi were asking. When they told him of their trip and how they were looking for the “one born king of the Jews,” Herod immediately pulled the chief priests and scribes aside and asked where the Messiah was to be born. He obviously knew enough about Jewish theology to put two and two together and ask such a question. He hated Jesus so much because he understood who the Messiah was. He understood what the Messiah was to come and do. He knew the Messiah was coming to be the King of Israel. And he was never going to allow that to happen. 

Herod was so protective of his throne and his power, he was willing to kill innocent male infants and toddlers. Seriously, how dangerous could one of those be? And to think one of these innocent boys could be an enemy at all, to an adult, to a sitting king and his throne, is another picture of how evil and deranged Herod was. Most people would inquire. Most people would monitor the situation and see if this child could be identified. But not Herod. 

The mothers and fathers of the slaughtered children must have been devastated, for they surely received no forewarning. Otherwise, they would have fled like Joseph and Mary did.² You also must know that the Herodian soldiers didn’t bother asking for birth certificates either. Some older children, no doubt, who looked like they matched the specified age range, were killed because the soldiers couldn’t tell if they were two or not, thus adding to the carnage.

The Chief Priests and Scribes Reject the King 

Even more unbelievable was how the chief priests and scribes behaved during this entire ordeal. They were indifferent. And complicit. They immediately knew where to go in the Old Testament to find the answer to Herod’s question about where the Messiah was to be born. They read the prophecy from Micah 5:2 to Herod in verses 5-6. They, no doubt, sat in that secret meeting, heard the Magi recount their journey, and didn’t do anything. They didn’t even ask to accompany the Magi, in an effort to investigate. They didn’t follow-up at all. They didn’t even take enough initiative to step outside and look for the star. They didn’t say to themselves, “Maybe we should go check this out.” They didn’t even know about the star, and they were the experts in the Law. It had been in the sky for likely days, maybe weeks, if not more, leading up to the moment when the Magi arrive in town, yet they didn’t even notice it, getting closer, getting larger, coming their direction, which is a warning to us today about being prepared for Jesus’s Second Coming, wouldn’t you say?³ 

Instead, the chief priests and scribes just sat there in the palace. Indifferent. Content with being vassals to Rome. And even when Herod gave the order to his soldiers, they remained silent. 

Therefore, we can only conclude that in the midst of this heart-wrenching moment in Jewish history, when we hear the staccato-like pounding of horses’ hooves against the hardened dirt road as they gallop off into the distance, these priests and scribes turned a blind eye as Herod’s soldiers left a grieving Bethlehem in their wake. 

Dust clouds rose and drifted at the will of the slight breeze that brought no comfort.  

Horrified mothers wailed as they clutched their dead children. 

Angry fathers cried out with loud shouts of utter helplessness toward the heavens. 

 “Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she was refusing to be comforted because they were no more” (emphasis added; Matthew 2:18; cf. Jeremiah 31:15; Legacy Bible). 

Do you remember when I asked you to tuck away the name of a place back in Chapter 2 of this Bible study series? The place was called Ramah. It was in Ramah when Israel first rejected God as King. God warned the people of Israel about earthly kings, human kings, and how demanding they could be, how self-centered they could be, how ruthless they could become. However, that admonition to think before you act did not deter the elders of Israel from demanding God give them a king. 

They wanted to be like all the other nations around them, and man-oh-man, did they get their wish. 

Now, in the person of King Herod, Israel was like all the other nations. 

Evil.

Rachel, the mother of Jacob, who later became Israel, is weeping for her children, her descendants. She’s weeping in Ramah because that’s where the decision to reject God began. Not only are the children who were killed by Herod’s soldiers “no more,” but more importantly, the nation Israel was no more. At least, not how God intended. With Him as King. With a thriving theocracy. With Israel being qadosh as God is qadosh. With the nation Israel being the Old Testament “salt and light” God intended, bringing His salvation to a dying world.⁴ 

Even this late in the history of Israel, under the reign of a brutal, heartless, Roman-appointed maniac like Herod, her religious leaders would rather have an appointed, human king “to judge” them, “such as all the other nations have” (1 Samuel 8:5), “a king to lead us and go out before us and fight our battles” (1 Samuel 8:20). They had totally abandoned God as King. They had traveled so far away from God spiritually, when wise men from the east showed up, looking for the Messiah, the religious leaders didn’t care. They were happy to have their appointed, human king, even if he killed innocent children and murdered the Messiah in the process to keep his throne. These religious leaders are ultimately reliving the 1 Samuel 8 incident in “Ramah.” They rejected God as King in Ramah, and now, they are rejecting His Son. As a result, Rachel weeps for her children because they are spiritually dead. 

At this moment in time, the Second Rejection is complete. God comes in the flesh, fulfills Isaiah 9:1-7 as well as many more prophecies, reestablishing His Kingship, and they continue to reject Him. 

But God is merciful, and He is to give them one last chance. 

And that brings us to Final Rejection of the King, which will be our topic in Chapter 4.

  

Thought of the Week:

See Endnote #3 below.

NEXT WEEK:

We will begin to look at the Third Rejection of the King.

Endnotes

1. Sorry, folks, but Jesus wasn’t in a manger when the Magi arrived in Jerusalem. He was in the manger when the shepherds did, though (Luke 2:16), which was several months, possibly up to two years before the Magi arrived, if Herod’s decision to kill all the baby boys two-years-old and younger can be used as a possible timetable. Herod did inquire as to when the Magi saw the star, so it stands to reason that it took them up to two years to prepare for the trip, travel the long distance, and arrive in Jerusalem.

 

2. Some people ask, “Why didn’t God give them the same message as Joseph and Mary? Why did God allow those children to be killed?” First, if all the families with children had been warned and told to leave town, Herod’s soldiers would have returned and reported that there were no children in Bethlehem. As a result, the countryside would have been ravaged by Herod’s jealousy, and no doubt, every male child in all of Israel would have been murdered. That’s how maniacal Herod was. He arranged to have his own son drowned and told those confidants to make it look like an accident, all because he was afraid his son would try and usurp the throne. So, you can understand, no male child would have been safe, if those in Bethlehem would have been warned. You see, when sin becomes so evil, no act, even by God, will end well for those who stand in the way of those who have evil intentions.

Second, God had to make specific plans to bring about His plan of salvation for all of mankind. Yet, at the same time, He is not obligated to protect everyone from everything that is harmful all the time. Mankind chose sin in the Garden. Mankind has chosen sin every day since. And in this particular instance, Israel, of whom the other children and families represent, chose to reject God over and over again down through the centuries. “But Kevin, these people are different.” Are they? These were the same people who would follow Jesus around thirty years later, see Him perform thousands of miracles and speak with divine authority. They would even hail Him as Messiah as He rode triumphantly into Jerusalem in His last week on Earth. But He did not live up to their expectations. He didn’t vow to overthrow Rome. He attacked the religious leaders instead. And as a result, in less than a week’s time, the very people who were chanting “Hosanna!” and laying palm branches and robes in the roadway as He entered Jerusalem chanted “Crucify Him!” by week’s end. Tens of thousands followed Jesus, but after the dust settled, only 120 were in the upper room on Pentecost. These facts prove the fickleness of the human heart, and God knew all this when He sent the angel to warn Joseph.  

 

3. The signs of the times are all pointing to Jesus’s return being imminent. The world is setting itself up like never before, in a unified front all around the globe, over issues that pit themselves and their beliefs against (“anti”) God, against (“anti”) Bible, and against (“anti”) Christ. This globalization and unification of their message will become more and more pronounced in the coming weeks, months, and even years, if Jesus tarries that long.

Yet, at the same time, the world is setting itself ablaze. “Wars and rumors of wars” are on the front page headlines. Earthquakes in various places happen often. Just this week, one hit the mountains of Georgia, just north of Atlanta. Killings in our streets, killings in our classrooms, killings in our neighborhoods, and killings in our homes are all on the rise, while lawmakers make it easier and easier for criminals to “get away with it.” They believe this because of some notion that culture should dictate what is right and wrong. The only absolute truth in their relativistic worldview is that there is no absolute truth. It’s insanity by another name. 

Therefore, as these anti-God, anti-Bible, and anti-Christ “beliefs” permeate societies around the globe at an alarming rate, they inadvertently promote selfishness and violence while promising “hope.” However, they never deliver hope in any real, true sense. And people know this as their souls tell them otherwise. This is why so many young people are committing suicide and other atrocities today. They hear all the “promises” propagated as truth, such as, “We will bring about social justice,” “We must rewrite the laws of our nations to make them more inclusive,” “Gender is whatever you want it to be,” “Those who have told you what is right and wrong were wrong, and we will fix it,” and the like. Young people are told things will get better while divorce tears their families apart and leaves them as “ropes” in a financial tug of war, aided and abetted by judges and laws that, in actuality, have little interest in their overall well-being, regardless of what they promise. 

You see, the false promises of those who do evil and true reality clash as lies are told as truths, and as truths are called lies. This breeds frustration, because if you believe this life is the only one you’ll have, then your worldview gets very narrow and very self-centered.

As a result, selfishness and violence will continue to rise and will usher in “the AntiChrist,” who will not only embrace the aforementioned “beliefs,” but will promise “to do the job God failed to do”: bring peace and salvation to the world. He will be hailed as the true savior and actually bring “peace”…for three-and-a-half years, the Bible tells us. Then, literally, all hell breaks loose, and in the end, the blood will rise to the horse’s bridle and cover 1,600 stadia (Rev. 14:20), which is almost 158 miles. The point being, with all that bloodshed, the AntiChrist will bring anything but peace and salvation. However, by that time, it will be too late for those who believed God Almighty was the enemy, His Word was false, and His Son was a liar. 

Therefore, if you say you are a believer, make sure (Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Peter 1:10). Time is running short for this Earth as we know it. Prepare yourself. Draw near to God in these Last Days. 

 

4. Once again, we must make the note that this is not an anti-Semitic Bible study. Although things are looking bleak, and it seems God is building a case to utterly destroy Israel and completely abandon them, eradicating them from His redemptive plan for all time, it must be brought to light that this passage, quoted from Jeremiah 31:15, sits right in the middle of some of the most encouraging chapters in Jeremiah’s book (chapters 30-35). Although they were about to be carried off into captivity by Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah’s day, there is hope for a remnant to come out of the ashes of captivity. So, too, in this scene in Matthew, in spite of the horror committed by the one appointed “King of the Jews” by Rome (Herod), there is another anointed “King of the Jews,” who is coming as the Messiah (Jesus). He will bring hope to Israel in the midst of their spiritual captivity. He will bring salvation and call out of bondage those who call upon the Name of the Lord and into the once and for all promised land (Roman 10:9-13).

 Pictures courtesy of  Unsplash and the following photographers/artists:

Israel - by Tetiana Shyshkina

Wisemen ornament - by Robert Thiemann

Star - by Ales Krivec