Main menu
ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA
The story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 4:32‑5:11 provides an example of the use of Peter’s apostolic authority to bind and loose with respect to church discipline.[1] The apostles had the authority to exercise discipline upon the Church, but that authority has not passed beyond regular church discipline. In John 20:23, the apostles were given the authority to free one from punishment (=loose) or retain (=bind) sin, and here Peter “retained” the sin of Ananias and Sapphira for punishment. Today, we have to follow the four‑stage procedure of Matthew 18:15‑20, but the apostles did not. Even the early Church was not perfect. This account underscores for us, among other things, that God will judge sin, and that judgment must begin at the house of God ( I Peter 4:17).
THE COMMUNITY
In Acts 4:32a-33 we learn about the community of believers in Jerusalem. The saints were: (1) unified in faith, (2) characterized by their sharing attitudes, (3) witnesses to the Apostle’s ability to perform miracles, signs, and wonders, and (4) enjoyed God’s grace (i.e. his unmerited favor). God provided for their needs (4:34-35), for the saints distributed their well to the apostles and thus distribution was made to each, according as any one had need. However, this action was largely based upon a misconception concerning the Second Coming. There were strong feelings that Jesus would definitely return in their lifetime, although He had clearly indicated that this would not happen. In fact, Yeshuaprophesied that Peter would die before His Second Coming in John 21. Although this practice was limited to the congregation of Jerusalem (not beyond), it proved to be a mistake, because it caused the Church of Jerusalem to become poverty‑stricken; after everything had been sold and distributed, there was nothing left in the common pot. Their poverty caused them to fall in need of help from Gentile churches that did not follow the procedure of having all things common (Acts 11:27‑30; 24:17; Rom. 15:25‑27; Gal. 2:10).
BARNABAS
After giving us a general account of what the believers were doing in verses 32‑35, Luke now focused his attention upon one special example: Barnabas (vv. 36‑37). Barnabas(Aramaic for Son of exhortation) was a Levite from the island of Cyprus, now living in Jerusalem. He was the cousin of John Mark, who was the author of the Gospel of Mark (Col. 4:10). He was the man who persuaded the Church of Jerusalem to receive Paul in Acts 9:27, when Paul returned to Jerusalem from Damascus, claiming to be a believer. Later, Barnabas was sent by the Church of Jerusalem to investigate Gentile salvation in Antioch in Acts 11:19‑24. According to Acts 14:12, he was of commanding appearance, because he was taken by the people of Lystra to be the god Jupiter or Zeus. He also had the gift of apostleship according to Acts 14:14, and was of that second category of apostles, like Paul and James, the half‑brother of Yeshua. The only prerequisite for this category of apostleship was that they had seen the resurrected Messiah. Apparently, Barnabas was among the five hundred who saw the resurrected Messiah.
Barnabas owned a field (v. 37) and sold it. He then brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. This is a good example of one who possessed the love of the brethren. Although under the Mosaic Law, ownership of land was forbidden to a Levite (Num. 18:20‑23; Deut. 10:9), that stipulation only held true within the Land of Israel Barnabas disobedient? Levites like Barnabas living outside the Land were not under that stipulation.
ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA
In contrast with the good example of Barnabas who sold land, we have the bad example of Ananias and Sapphira, who also sold land (Acts 5:1-11). Unlike Barnabas, however, Ananias and Sapphira (v. 2). The conspiracy was to keep back part of the price. In the Greek text, Luke used the same word that is used in the Septuagint version of Joshua 7:1, where Achan held on to something he was not supposed to have. What Achan was to Joshua, Ananias and Sapphira were going to be to the early Church. Just as Achan interrupted Israel’s process and progress in the conquest of the Promised Land, Ananias and Sapphira’s act of deceit interrupted the process and the progress of the Program of God.
While Ananias was the leader in it, his wife was party to the conspiracy. Ananias alonebrought a certain part of their money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter accused Ananias (5:3-4) and in his accusation, Peter held two persons responsible for this act of deceit, Satan (v. 3) and Ananias. Again, unlike Barnabas who was filled with the Spirit, Ananias was willed with Satan. Peter points out that the selling of the land was not obligatory; Ananias did not have to sell it. Even after selling it, he still did not have to give any part of it away. He had the right to keep all of it. He had a choice, either to give all of it to the apostles, or none of it, or only part of it. Giving only part of it was not the sin. The sin was that he gave only a part while claiming to have given it all. Ananias’ sin led to his death.
While listening to what Peter was saying, he fell down and gave up the ghost. The result was that great fear came upon all that heard it. This is the only example of someone being “slain by the Spirit.” But Ananias did not get up again, he was dead. In verse 7, Sapphiracame in. As to the time: it was about the space of three hours after her husband had died that she came in and Peter asks her “Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much.” With that question, Peter gave her an opportunity “to come clean.” But Sapphira answered in verse 8b: Yea, for so much. She did not take the opportunity offered to her, but chose to continue the conspiracy. Peter then gave his accusation and judgment. This was sin against the Holy Spirit; it was lying to the Holy Spirit, and when they did that, they “tried” the Holy Spirit. The judgment was: behold, the feet of them that have buried your husband are at the door. These young men had just returned at that moment, and now they shall carry[Sapphira] out for burial as well. She fell down immediately at his feet, and gave up the ghost (v. 10). As a result great fear came upon the whole church. This is the first mention of church in the Book of Acts, out of a total of twenty‑three times. The second result was that fear fell on those outside the congregation inJerusalem as well.
[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.
The Adulterous Woman
John 8:1‑11 records the incident of the adulterous woman, which occurred during the Feast of Tabernacles.[1] The background to this particular story is the major area of conflict between Yeshua (Jesus) and the Pharisees over the authority of the “traditions of the elders,” which had been developed for about four centuries. By this time, the Pharisees felt that the traditions of the elders were as sacrosanct as the Law of Moses itself; they felt one had to keep the Law of Moses, but one also had to keep these traditions of the elders.
But Yeshua repudiated the traditions of the elders and would not go along with that teaching. He clearly affirmed that He intended to fulfill the Law of Moses perfectly and all that the Prophets wrote. Indeed, He was the only Jew who ever lived that kept the Mosaic Law perfectly. Up to this point, the Pharisees never had a single opportunity to accuse Jesus of breaking the Mosaic Law. Insofar as the Law of Moses was concerned, He kept it perfectly, down to every jot and tittle. The only basis they had of accusing Him was violating mishnaic law, but that never made much of an impression, because Jesus readily admitted breaking mishnaic law. In fact, sometimes He went out of His way to break it.
The incident of the woman taken in adultery was the first attempt – the one and only real attempt – to get Yeshua to say something that would contradict the Mosaic Law. If they could get Him to do that, it would render His own claim to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly null and void.
In verse 2, they chose to bring up the situation while He was teaching publicly, because they wanted to discredit Him publicly, especially over an issue for which the punishment was not debatable, the issue of adultery. The Talmud (Sotah 47:1) describes this period as a time when murder and adultery had increased in the population: “From the time the murderers have multiplied among us the beheading of the heifer has ceased. Since the increase of adulteries, the bitter waters have been put out of use.” The “bitter waters” was the test of a woman accused of adultery by her husband when there were no eyewitnesses. By this time, they had discontinued the test of the bitter waters for those accused of adultery, but the Law still had to be carried out for eyewitness accounts. This is presumed to be the case in verses 3-4. To let Him know that there was no doubt about her guilt, they said she was caught in the very act of adultery, implying that eyewitnesses were involved.
The issue was not the tradition of the elders, as it had been heretofore; the issue was the Law of Moses. In v. 5 they ask emphatically, “Now Moses said to stone such, but you, what do you say we should do?” It is an obvious attempt to make Him say something that would contradict the Law of Moses. John points out that this was an obvious attempt to entrap Him, because they claimed that she was caught in the very act. However, it is impossible to be accused of adultery singularly; to be caught in the very act of adultery requires two people. So where was the male counterpart to this relationship?
Initially, Yeshua simply refused to answer, but performed a specific act in verse 6b:
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
It is amazing how many commentaries on the Gospel of John try to determine what Jesus wrote on the ground, as if after two thousand years there would still be something left in the dust to decipher. However, in the Greek text, the emphasis is not on the writing, but on the finger, “With the finger on the ground he wrote.” In the Greek language, the same thing can be said in different ways, but the point the author wants to emphasize is usually placed in the front of the sentence. In Greek grammar, this is called the “emphatic position,” or the “emphatic state.” So the emphatic position is not the writing, but the finger. Why would the emphasis be on the finger? Of the 613 commandments God gave to Moses, 603 of them were written on parchment with the pen of a man. The other ten were inscribed on tablets of stone, and one of the ten was the law against adultery. Furthermore, the ten inscribed on stone were not chiseled out with the chisel of a man, but four times it is stated that they were inscribed with the very finger of God (Ex. 31:18; 32:15‑16; Deut. 4:13; 9:10). Again, the emphasis is on the finger, pointing out that He happened to be the author of this commandment. He knew exactly what the commandment said, and He knew everything the Law of Moses had to say about this sin and its punishment. When they pressed Him for an answer, He finally gave them one in verse 7:
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
This is often pulled out of context to make it mean that one should not judge others. However, the Bible requires believers to pass judgment at times. Confronting a brother who has sinned is a matter of judgment. Church discipline leading to excommunication is a matter of judgment. Furthermore, if He were saying, “Only if you are sinlessly perfect yourself should you cast the first stone,” then He would be contradicting the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law did not require the sinless perfection of the witness before the accused could be executed as a criminal. Under those conditions no one could be executed under the Law, and yet the Law required execution for certain sins, one of which was the sin of adultery. Therefore, if He said they should cast the first stone only if they were sinlessly perfect, He would have been breaking the Mosaic Law, and they would have a basis for accusing Him of contradicting the Law of Moses. Jesus’ response must be interpreted in the context of the Mosaic Law, because that is the issue involved in this context.
The point He was making is that, if they judged this woman on the basis of the Mosaic Law, they would have to judge her on all that Moses said about this sin and its punishment. Of course, Moses said anyone guilty of adultery must be stoned to death, but that was not all. He also said that no one could be stoned to death for any reason except at the testimony of two or three witnesses. This much they had, since they claimed she was caught in the very act. However, Moses also said that the two or three witnesses whose testimony condemned her to death must be the ones to cast the first stone. Moses had even more to say in two key passages in the Mosaic Law where he dealt with the faithful and true witnesses (Deut. 13:9; 17:2‑7). One more important point is that the two or three witnesses whose testimony condemned her to death and who were responsible for casting the first stone must not be guilty of the same sin of which they accused her. Therefore, in the context of the Mosaic Law, if the two or three witnesses were not guilty of that same sin, they should proceed to cast the first stone, just as Moses had commanded. However, one by one they walked away, implying that, at least among the accusers, not one person was innocent of this sin.
The response was that one by one the accusers walked off, starting with the older ones and then the younger ones. The clear implication is that none of these accusers was innocent of that same sin. Furthermore, it might very well have been that standing among the accusers was the one with whom she was caught in the very act.
When the woman was finally left alone, Yeshua spoke to her. The issue here was a legal condemnation based on the Law of Moses. Because two or three witnesses were not willing to cast the first stone in verse 10, there was no legal ground to condemn her on the basis of the Mosaic Law. When Jesus said: Neither do I condemn you, He was not excusing her sin, for He added in verse 11b: go your way; from henceforth sin no more.
Again, this was the Pharisees’ first attempt to get Yeshua to contradict a point of the Mosaic Law, and it failed miserably. They never tried this ploy again but went back to continually accusing Jesus of violating the mishnaic-pharisaic law.
In conclusion, it should be pointed out that when Jesus was obeying the Mosaic Law, He was obeying it because He was a Jew. The Law was not given to Gentiles. But having perfectly obeyed the Law, He obeyed the Law also as our substitute, especially for those who are Jewish believers. When Yeshua died, He died bearing upon Himself the penalty of the Law. Obviously, He was not guilty of violating the Law, so the penalty of the Law under which He died was not for His own sin, but as a substitution for others. Jesus died a penal, substitutionary death. He was able to be our final blood sacrifice, our substitute, because He¾and He alone¾kept the Mosaic Law perfectly.
[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.
The Call of Isaiah: Isaiah 6:1-13
Leading up to Isaiah’s “call” to the prophetic office (6:1‑13), the first five chapters of the Book of Isaiah appear to be sermons that he had previously preached.[1] Isaiah 6:1-13 may be outlined as follows:
- The Call of the Prophet (6:1-4)
- The vision of the throne (v. 1)
- The attendants around the throne (v. 2)
- The ministry around the throne (v. 3)
- The declaration from the throne (v. 4)
- The Cleansing of the Prophet (6:5-7)
- The prophet’s sinfulness (v. 5)
- The prophet’s atonement (vv. 6-7)
- The Commissioning of the Prophet (6:8-10)
- The Judgment of the People (6:11-13)
The Call of the Prophet
Isaiah saw the heavens open up, and he saw the Temple of God—not the Temple on earth, but the Temple in Heaven (cp. 1 Kng 22:19; Ps 11:4; 18:6; 29:9; Jonah 2:7; Mic 1:2; and Hab 2:20). The year in which Isaiah received this vision was the year that King Uzziah died (739 B.C.), which will prove significant in relationship to Isaiah’s call. King Uzziah is an example of someone who started out well, but ended up badly (see 2 Chron 26:1-23). Although he began as a king who did right in the eyes of the Lord, toward the latter part of his life he became filled with pride and decided that he could be both king and priest. This was forbidden under the Mosaic Law since a priest had to be of the Tribe of Levi and the king from the Tribe of Judah. Indeed, God struck Uzziah with leprosy when he tried to perform the function of a priest in the Temple, and so he was declared unclean under the Mosaic Law and had to live apart from society.
Don’t miss the stark contrast: It was in year of Uzziah’s death that Isaiah sees the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up. Judah’s king may have died, but the Eternal King would never die. When Isaiah saw God sitting upon His Throne, he saw God as the King ready to practice the kingly prerogative of a judge and pronounce judgment. According to John 12, Isaiah saw a visible manifestation of Yeshua the Messiah, the King of the Jews.
Isaiah introduces the seraphim (“burning ones”). Unlike angels (who have no wings) and cherubs (who have 2 or 4 wings), seraphim have six wings (cp. Rev 4:6-8), each set useful for different purposes. In our passage the seraphim emphasize two attributes of God – his holiness (Holy! Holy! Holy!) and his glory. In v. 4 we see the result of this threefold declaration of God’s holiness: The foundations of the thresholds of the heavenly Temple shook, and it was filled with smoke. Smoke is a common symbol of God’sShechinah Glory, God’s presence (Ex. 20:18; 1 Kg. 8:10‑11; Ezek. 10:4).
The Cleansing of the Prophet (6:5-7)
After seeing this tremendous vision of God, and after hearing the cry of the seraphim concerning God’s holiness, Isaiah suddenly became aware of his own sinfulness. Indeed, one can never really appreciate how sinful one is until one measures himself against the absolute righteous standard, which is the holiness of God. One can always come out looking pretty good by comparing himself to other people. When comparison is made to other believers or other people, one can always find someone worse than himself. But when compared to the absolute standard of holiness, the holiness of God, the only conclusion one can make is the same as Isaiah’s in verse 5a: Woe is me! for I am undone. This is interesting because, in the first five chapters of the Book of Isaiah, he berated the sinfulness of Israel. Now he clearly sees how sinful he is himself.
Don’t miss the stark contrast: The lips of the seraphim were saying: Holy, holy, holy, but the lips of Isaiah were unclean. Uzziah, who was stricken with leprosy and for the rest of his life had to cry to anyone approaching him “Unclean! Unclean!,” anticipates Isaiah’s own self-realization. Again, only when one sees God’s holiness can he fully see his own sinfulness. Like “righteous” Job (Job 1:8; 2:3) who compared himself with God’s absolute righteousness and became deeply aware of his sinfulness (Job 42:5‑6), Isaiah comes to the same conclusion. Not only was Isaiah corrupt, but he also dwelt in the midst of a people of unclean lips. The people were just as bad, something Isaiah spoke of in the first five chapters.
However, God’s intention was to make atonement for Isaiah’s sinfulness. Isaiah’s sin was cleansed with a live coal from the altar. The altar was a place of sacrifice and, as always, the blood was still the means. The coal was taken from the heavenly altar, and the lips of Isaiah were touched because that is where he was most conscious of his sin. The result was that the iniquity was taken away. The Hebrew word actually means that the sin was “covered” or “atoned” because, during the Old Testament period, sin could not be removed; the blood of animals could never take away sin, according to Hebrews 10:1‑4. Only with the death of the Messiah could sin be removed. So for now, Isaiah’s sins were covered.
The Commissioning of the Prophet (6:8-10)
The call could only come after Isaiah’s sin had been cleansed. The call came with a question: Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? In this two‑part question that God asked from His Throne, both the unity of God and the plurality of God are emphasized. Unity is found in the first sentence: Whom shall I send? Notice that the singular pronoun Iis used. Plurality is found in the second part of this sentence: who will go for us? The plural pronoun us is used. Isaiah’s response was: Here am I; send me. The three English words, Here am I, are a translation of only one Hebrew word, hineni. Hineni is a one‑word response of submission and service to God (e.g. Abraham in Gen 22:1, 11; Jacob in Gen 31:11, 46:2; Moses in Ex 3:4).
Isaiah’s commission is a declaration of two things. First, Isaiah was going to be sent to be a prophet to a people who would never understand what he was trying to say. Because of this, he would not get much of a response. In other words Isaiah was told, “Do not expect a successful ministry.” From the viewpoint of man, his ministry would be a failure. From the viewpoint of God, Isaiah’s ministry was a great success. The second declaration was a declaration of hardening. The hearts of the people would become “fat” (i.e. be without feeling for the work of divine grace), their ears would become “heavy” (i.e. they would not listen to the Word of God), and their eyes “shut” (they would not have spiritual sight/discernment).
The reason for this divine hardening is lest they should turn again, and be healed. That is to say, because of their own continuous hardening that Isaiah clearly emphasized in the first five chapters, they would now be hardened for good. Punishment and judgment were inevitable.
The Judgment of the People (6:11-13)
After Isaiah answered the call to become a prophet, God then told him some discouraging news: he was to be sent to a people that would remain spiritually numb, deaf, and blind. His natural response is in verse 11a: Lord, how long? “How long do I have to keep on speaking to a people that will be unresponsive?” In answer to Isaiah’s question, God described two waves of judgment.
Judgment 1… until cities be waste without habitant (v. 11b‑12). Specifically, this prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Roman Empire and the Jewish people dispersed all over the world. It is because of this that the vision came when it did. Remember that Isaiah’s vision came in the year that king Uzziah died. It was during the reign of King Uzziah that the City of Rome was founded on the Tiber River. And it was during the reign of Uzziah that God called Isaiah to be a prophet (Is. 1:1). Rome would be the nation to fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy.
Judgment 2 … the Great Tribulation (v. 13). A Remnant of Jews will return; this is the present return from the Dispersion to the present Jewish State of Israel that has been in the Land since 1948. But the present Remnant of Jews to return from the Dispersion will be eaten up by a second wave of judgment. This time the judgment is that of the Great Tribulation. The Remnant will be like a felled terebinth or oak, which still has life and can sprout again. According to Zechariah 13:8‑9, Israel will be decimated to two‑thirds of the number, but it will sprout to life and grow again. That is the picture of Israel in the Messianic Kingdom. Their judgment will be devastating, but not total. The seed will remain, and this holy seed will grow into a tree.
[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.
Peter’s Confession
It should be kept in mind that Peter’s confession – You are the Christ, the Son of the living God – in Matt 16:13-19 took place after Yeshua (Jesus) was rejected as the Messiah by the leadership and the nation of Israel in Matthew 12.[1] After He performed one of His key messianic miracles, the leaders rejected His messianic claims on the grounds of demon possession. As a result, Jesus warned His disciples against three types of leaven (i.e. sin) between chapters 12 and 16 of Matthew: the leaven of the Pharisees, the leaven of the Sadducees, and the leaven of the Herodians (Mat. 16:5‑12; Mk. 8:13‑21). These three major religious groups also served as political groups. Even though they did not all say the same thing about Jesus, they all had something against Him and taught things that simply were not true.
First, the leaven of the Pharisees was that Yeshua was demon‑possessed. Secondly, because Yeshua began His public ministry by overturning the tables of the money changers in the Temple Compound and by chasing out the sellers of the sacrifices (Jn. 2:16), the leaven of the Sadducees was that He was against the Temple worship service. Thirdly, the leaven of the Herodians was that Yeshua was against Roman rule through the House of Herod. After training the disciples for a period of time and warning them against these three types of leaven, Yeshua brought them to a point where He administered an examination.
Matthew 16:13b-16
Jesus asked two questions:
(1) “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
The disciples answered that there were different opinions among the masses. In general, the people recognized His supernatural authority; they connected Him with one of these significant characters of the Old Testament or with John the Baptist of the New Testament. However, they failed to clearly discern who He really was. He was none of these; He was Yeshua the Messiah. They all guessed wrong in that they did not discern Him to be the Messianic Person.
(2) “But who say you that I am?”
The Greek text is more emphatic, “But you, who do you say that I am?” Would the disciples merely make the same wrong conclusion concerning His supernatural character that Yeshua was Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah or some other prophet? Or would they believe what the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians had said? Peter answers in v. 16:
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The disciples passed the examination; they had learned their lessons. They knew Yeshuawas not merely a supernatural character, but the Messiah Himself.
Matthew 16:16-19
Yeshua now turned to Peter and made a series of statements about Peter. These five statements are provided only by Matthew’s gospel. They entail:
- The source of Peter’s understanding was by divine illumination (v. 17)
- The meaning of the “Rock” (Petros/Petra) and the Church (v. 18a)
You are Peter (petros)
and upon this rock (petra)
I will build my church
Jesus uses a play on words here. When he said: you are Peter, He used the Greek wordPetros, which is a masculine noun, meaning “a small stone” or “a small pebble.” When He said: upon this rock I will build my church, He used a different word, Petra, a feminine noun, meaning “a massive rock cliff,” just like the one overshadowing Caesarea Philippi, where they were. Grammatically, it could not possibly mean that the Church would be built upon Peter. On the contrary, Jesus was contrasting Peter, a small stone, with the massive rock cliff. Yeshua was also presupposing a very important Old Testament symbol. Whenever the word rock is used symbolically in Scripture, it is always a symbol of the Messiah throughout the Old Testament. So the Church would be built, not upon Peter, but upon the Messiah; more specifically, upon what Peter had just said about the Messiah, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the God, the Living One.” It was upon this confession of Peter that Jesus would build His Church.
- The meaning of the “Gates of Hades” (v. 18b)
In this statement “and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” Jesus pointed back to a very common Old Testament idiom for physical death (Job 38:17; Ps. 9:13; 107:18; Is. 38:10; Jon. 2:6). Upon this rock He would build His Church, and physical death would not be able to destroy it—not His death, nor the death of the apostles, nor the long history of martyrdom. According to Ephesians 2:20, the Church was built upon the foundation of New Testament Apostles and Prophets, with the Messiah being the Chief Cornerstone. Thus, the Church has prevailed and God’s intended program will be fulfilled.
- The meaning of the Keys of the Kingdom (v. 19a)
All jokes and misconceptions about Peter granting access to heaven at the Pearly Gates aside, Peter does not have such authority. That decision is made solely on the basis of the acceptance or rejection of Jesus. Once again Yeshua referred to an Old Testament concept. When the word key was used symbolically in the Old Testament, it symbolized authority (Is. 22:20‑24), including the authority to open and close doors. In this context, Peter was given the authority to open the door of the Church. In the gospel period, humanity was divided into three groups: Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. Once Peter opened the door for one group, it stayed open. The Church is the Body of the Messiah (Col. 1:18), and the means of entering the Body is by Spirit baptism (I Cor. 12:13). There is an inseparable connection between Spirit baptism and the existence of the Body—one cannot exist without the other. Peter, the keys, and Spirit baptism would all come together for each of the three groups in the Book of Acts.
- The meaning of “binding and loosing” (v. 19b)
At this point, only Peter was given the special authority to bind and to loose. After Yeshua’sresurrection, it was given to the other apostles as well, but it did not go beyond apostolic authority. In modern days, this verse has been pulled out of context and made to mean something other than what it meant in its Jewish frame of reference. It has often been applied to the binding and loosing of Satan or demons in spiritual warfare. However, the context here is the establishment of the Church, not Satan or demons.
The terms “binding” and “loosing” were commonly used in rabbinic writings of that day in a judicial sense and a legislative sense. In a legislative sense, to bind meant “to forbid something,” and to loose meant “to permit something.” The Pharisees claimed to have the authority to permit that which the Law may have forbidden and to forbid that which the Law may have permitted. When it was used in a judicial sense, to bind meant “to punish,” and to loose meant, “to release from punishment.”
What Yeshua gave to Peter and later to the other apostles was something unique to apostolic authority. The apostles had the authority to bind and to loose both in the area of legislation and judicial punishment. Legislatively, the apostles were given the authority to permit and to forbid. This is the authority they exercised throughout their epistles. In the New Testament Epistles, the apostles used apostolic authority to forbid things that formally were permitted, and to permit things that were formally forbidden. Because Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit, they were bound for punishment by Peter as an example of legislative usage in Acts 5. They died because Peter bound them for punishment, using apostolic authority.
This authority to bind and to loose in the area of legislation and judicial punishment was something that came with apostolic authority and was never passed down through apostolic succession. Later generations of the Church had no right to this kind of authority, even though the Roman Catholic Church has often claimed this type of authority for itself. That was not the intent of apostolic authority.
Thus, the confession of Peter and the response of Jesus set the stage for the establishment of the Church and the recording of New Testament Scriptures through apostolic authority.
[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.
JESUS’ RIGHT TO DAVID’S THRONE
One question that is often raised is, “Because Yeshua (Jesus) was only the son of Mary and not the real son of Joseph, does He have the right to sit on David’s Throne?”[1] Related to this is the issue of the genealogies found in Matthew 1:1‑17 and Luke 3:23‑38:
a) If Jesus had been the son of only Mary, why was it necessary to give Joseph’s genealogy?
b) How would someone know that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary if she is not named in it, but Joseph is?
These are questions that need to be answered satisfactorily in order to provide a basis for understanding why Yeshua could claim the Throne of David.
THE PURPOSE OF THE GENEALOGIES
Of the four Gospels, only two record the events of the birth and early life of Yeshua: Matthew and Luke. For this reason, it is only natural that these two would bother recording a genealogy. While both Matthew and Luke give the story of the birth of Jesus, they tell the story from two different perspectives: Matthew tells the story from Joseph’s perspective and Luke tells the story from Mary’s perspective. Moreover, the purpose of Joseph’s genealogy in the Book of Matthew is set forth to show that if Jesus truly had been the son of Joseph, He could not be king. In the Book of Luke, the purpose of the genealogy of Mary is to show why He could claim the Throne of David.
THE NEED FOR THE GENEALOGIES
The question still arises, “Why is there a need for these two genealogies, especially whenYeshua was not the real son of Joseph?” Whereas one popular explanation suggests that Matthew’s Gospel gives the “royal” line and Luke’s Gospel the “real” line, this post will show that the opposite is true.
In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition in two ways: he skips names, and he mentions the names of four different women: Tamar, the wife of Judah, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Why does he mention these four when there are so many other prominent Jewish women he could have mentioned in the genealogy of Yeshua? One thing that the four women had in common was that they were all Gentiles. By naming these four women and no others, Matthew was pointing out that one of the purposes of the coming of Yeshuawas not only to save the lost sheep of the House of Israel, but also that Gentiles would benefit from His coming. Three of these women were guilty of specific sexual sins: one was guilty of adultery, another of prostitution, and another of incest. With this, Matthew begins pointing toward the purpose of the coming of the Messiah – to save sinners.
While Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition in these two ways, Luke, however, follows strict Jewish law, procedure, and custom: he does not skip names, and he does not mention the names of any women.
THE OLD TESTAMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR KINGSHIP
But again, “Why is there a need for Matthew’s genealogy of Joseph at all?” Everyone agrees that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus. Let’s look at the Old Testament for further detail.
After the division of the kingdom at the death of Solomon, there were two basic requirements for kingship, one pertinent to the Throne of Judah in Jerusalem and the to he Throne of Israel in Samaria.
Judah
No one was allowed to sit on David’s Throne unless he was a member of the House of David.
Israel
No one was able to sit on Samaria’s throne unless he had divine appointment through prophetic sanction. Anyone who attempted to rule without prophetic sanction was assassinated (I Kg. 11:26‑39; 15:28‑30; 16:1‑4, 11‑15; 21:21‑29; II Kg. 9:6‑10; 10:29‑31; 15:8‑12).
The Question Resolved
With this background, the question of the Messiah’s right to the Throne of David can be resolved vis-à-vis the two genealogies.
Matthew 1:1‑17: Davidic Descent & The Line of Joseph in Matthew’s Genealogy
Matthew’s genealogy traces the line of Joseph, the stepfather of the Messiah. In verses 2‑6, the line is traced from Abraham and continues down to David and Solomon. In verses 7‑11 the line is traced to Jechoniah, who was one of the last kings before the Babylonian Captivity. It is the person of Jechoniah that is significant in dealing with the genealogy of Matthew because of the special curse pronounced on him in Jeremiah 22:24‑30. In verse 30, the content of this curse was that no descendant of Jechoniah would have any right to the Throne of David. In the genealogy of Matthew, it should be noted that Joseph was a direct descendant of Jechoniah (Mat. 1:16). So, ifYeshua had been the son of Joseph, this would have disqualified Him from sitting upon David’s Throne.
The point of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Jesus could not be king if He had been Joseph’s son. For this reason, Matthew starts out with the genealogy, and then proceeds with the account of the Virgin Birth, which is the way out of the Jechoniah problem from Matthew’s viewpoint.
Luke 3:23‑38: The Line of Mary in Luke’s Genealogy
Luke’s genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. Luke begins his genealogy in the reverse order of Matthew’s, going from the present back into the past. The line is traced until it returns to the family of David in verses 31‑32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David totally apart from Jechoniah. Since Jesus was truly Mary’s son He, too, was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah. In the days of Jeremiah, there was the added requirement for kingship that one had to be a member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah (Jer. 22:24‑30). Zedekiah, who reigned after Jechoniah, was not the son of Jechoniah. In the case of Yeshua, He was a member of the House of David through Mary, totally apart from Jechoniah. In this manner, He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kingship.
Divine Appointment
Furthermore, although there were a number of other descendants of David who could claim equality with Yeshua to the Throne of David, only Jesus was divinely appointed as such (Luke 1:30‑33).
Thus, unlike the purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, Luke’s genealogy shows why Jesus could be king.
There are three further lines of reasoning to suggest that Luke’s account records Mary’s genealogy.
1) The Talmud refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli. Mary was recognized to be the daughter of Heli as mentioned in Luke 3:23.
2) The absence of Mary’s name is quite in keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not unusual for a son‑in‑law to be listed in his wife’s genealogy.
3) Matthew is clearly writing from the viewpoint of Joseph – with Mary in a passive role – and in Luke’s Gospel, Joseph is the one who plays the passive role.
[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.
Yom HaShoah: April 19, 2012
By Dr. Jeffrey Gutterman
Yom HaShoah (the day of destruction), is a day of remembering the victims of the Holocaust. The pages of the history of the Jewish people are filled with times of trials, tribulations, and persecutions. As a nation the Jews can trace their national and ethnic persecution back to the Egyptian period of slavery. Other significant Jewish persecutions include the Assyrian conquest and dispersion of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and subsequently the Babylonian conquest and dispersion of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Persecution by the Hellenists provoked the Maccabean Revolt. The Roman occupation of Israel incited two revolts in 70 AD and 135 AD. From that point forward the history of the Jews in the Dispersion has been one of hope, acceptance and ultimately, persecution. The Holocaust stands out because it was the most dangerous attempt to eradicate the Jewish people from the face of the earth. If Hitler and his allies had won the war, there is no doubt that he would have brought the Final Solution to every corner of the world.
Yom HaShoah is observed on the 27th day in the month of Nisan— a week after the seventh day of Passover, and seven days before Yom Hazikaron which is Memorial Day for all Israeli military who were killed in battle. Additionally, it marks the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. This uprising began on April 19, 1943 which corresponded to the 14th of Nisan which is the day before Passover. The 14th was rejected by those planning this solemn day because of its proximity to Passover. The 27th day of Nisan was more acceptable since it occurs after Passover but is still within the time frame of the Warsaw Uprising. On April 12, 1951, the Israeli Parliament, the Kinesset, chose the 27th day ofNisan to commemorate the Jewish people killed in the Holocaust. This became Israeli law on August 19, 1953. In 1959 the Kinesset voted to make Yom HaShoah an Israeli national day of remembrance and in 1961 a law was instituted that prohibited any public entertainment on that day. Although this is an Israeli law, it is observed by Jews all over the world. There are no set rituals for this day. Many remember this day by lighting six candles to represent the six million who were systematically murdered under the Nazi Third Reich.
It is only by the Grace of God that the Jewish people still exist. It is God’s plan for the Chosen People to endure and ultimately call back their Messiah, Yeshua as we read in Matthew 23:37-39
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. “Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! “For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”
On Yom HaShoah, we remember the Chosen People who perished in the Holocaust, and we pray, “Come Lord Yeshua.”
You may read the extended version of Dr. Gutterman’s article about Yom HaShoah in our Spring issue of Ariel Magazine.
Please visit our home page to view the commemorative images in memory of those who perished in the Holocaust.
The Restrainer: 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
In any study dealing with eschatology, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 must be brought into the discussion.[1] There has been much debate as to the exact point or points Paul wished to make, the identity of “the restrainer,” and exactly what is the relationship between the Antichrist and the restrainer. In dealing with this passage, perhaps it would be best to first summarize the main points Paul made and then proceed to an analysis of the text.
1) Paul intended to comfort the believers of Thessalonica by letting them know that they are not in the Tribulation, nor has the Tribulation arrived.
2) He wanted to convey that there will be two separate revelations of the Antichrist at different points in time.
3) He communicates that two things are being restrained:
- the mystery of lawlessness in general now,
- and the Antichrist specifically, in the future.
Let’s look at his first point above in verses 1-4. Apparently, some false teachers taught that the believers were already in the Tribulation after Paul left Thessalonica. In verses 1-2, the Thessalonians were troubled that the day of the Lord¾the most common title for the Great Tribulation¾had already arrived. This was especially true since, in the first Epistle, he taught them a Pretribulation Rapture. In verse 3, Paul stated that the Tribulation could not have come yet because two events, both of which must precede the Tribulation, had not yet occurred. The first event is the apostasy of the church, and the second, the revelation of the man of sin or the son of perdition.[2]
In verse 4, it is clear that this “Antichrist” will be opposed to God and to all objects of veneration and will take over the Jewish Temple and declare himself to be god. This event will occur in the middle of the Tribulation in conjunction with the Abomination of Desolation.
Let’s now consider Paul’s second main point above in verses 5‑7. These verses are somewhat parenthetical. In verse 5, Paul reminds his readers of things he had taught them while he was still with them. The key thing he had taught them in verse 6 was the fact that the takeover of the Jewish Temple and the self-declaration of deity will be restrained; therefore, until the restrainer is removed, the events of verse 4 cannot occur. What will restrain the Antichrist from gaining full political and religious control will be three of the ten kings of the first half of the Tribulation and the governments they represent. It is only when the last of these three kings has been killed, leading to complete submission by the remaining seven kings, that the Antichrist will be free to take over full global dictatorship and to carry out the events of verse 4. Consequently, the last restrainer of the Antichrist will be the last of the three kings and the government he represents. In verse 7, Paul reminds his readers that the mystery of lawlessness is already working and is even then being restrained. The Holy Spirit is never described as restraining. The task of restraining evil was given to human government under the Noahic Covenant in Genesis 9:1‑17 and this basic doctrinal truth was reiterated by Paul in Romans 13:1‑7. On one hand, human government is even now restraining lawlessness. On the other hand, the government of the last of the three kings will restrain the Antichrist, the lawless one, until the middle of the Tribulation.
Paul’s third point (above) is found in verses 8‑12. According to verse 8a, the Abomination of Desolation (see v. 4) will serve as the second revelation of the Antichrist. While the first revelation will be to believers before the Tribulation, the second revelation will be to Israel in the middle of the Tribulation. By the very act of the Abomination of Desolation, the Antichrist will be revealed as truly being the lawless one, and then Israel can realize with whom they have made their seven‑year covenant (see footnote 2). The act of the Abomination of Desolation is clearly stated by Yeshua (Jesus) to be a sign to Israel in Matt 24:15‑22. Paul then proceeds to give further facts regarding the Antichrist. He will ultimately be destroyed by the Second Coming of the Messiah in verse 8b. In verse 9, the Antichrist is the one who will be totally energized by Satan and will be able to do miracles for the purpose of world‑wide deception. In verse 10, he will call all men to worship him. In verses 11‑12, the ones who will be deceived by him and his counterfeit signs are those who have already rejected the gospel of Yeshua the Messiah.
These verses have often been taken to mean that those who heard the gospel before the Rapture but who did not believe will not have the opportunity to be saved after the Rapture and during the Tribulation. However, the passage places the rejection of the gospel during the Tribulation itself, rather than before it. It should be remembered that during the first half of the Tribulation there will be a world‑wide preaching of the gospel by the 144,000 Jews (Matt. 24:14; Rev. 7). While myriads will accept the gospel, many more will not. Because these “many” will refuse to respond to the preaching of the 144,000 during the first half of the Tribulation, they will be deceived by the Antichrist and will begin to worship him during the second half of the Tribulation. The initial act of worshipping the Antichrist will involve accepting the mark of 666. Once this mark is taken, the individual will have reached the point of no return and will not have the opportunity to be saved from then on (Rev. 14:9‑12).
[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.
[2] The revelation of the identity of the Antichrist that precedes the Tribulation. The Rapture of the Church may or may not have occurred by then, since the Scriptures do not state exactly how long before the Tribulation the Rapture will occur. From other Scriptures we may deduce that the Tribulation will begin with the signing of a seven-year covenant between Israel and the Antichrist (Dan 9:27) – thus believers may become aware of the identity of the Antichrist – and that believers will deduce who the Antichrist is by the numerical value of his name: 666.
Counting Down Passover: The Messiah is Delivered Up
Pontius Pilate then made several specific attempts to have Yeshua released.[1] As discussed in an earlier post, the first attempt is recorded in Luke 23:13‑15. Even though both Pilate (initially) and Herod Antipas found him innocent, the masses were not satisfied. Once, again, Pilate attempted to release Him by offering the people a choice betweenYeshua and Barabbas (Mark 15:6‑10).
By this time, a custom had developed during the Passover that the Roman authorities would release one Jewish prisoner as a goodwill gesture (Jn. 18:39). Besides Jesus, another prisoner named Barabbas was present, whom John referred to as a robber(Jn. 18:40). Probably a better translation would be “malefactor” or “rebel,” since robbery was not punishable by crucifixion or death. In fact, Mark clearly states in verse 7 that Barabbas had made insurrection, and in the insurrection had committed murder. The irony of the situation must not be missed! Barabbas was guilty of the very crime of which Jesus was accused: sedition or rebelling against Rome. Furthermore, it is known from other contemporary sources that the entire name of the guilty one was Jesus Barabbas. The name Barabbas (in Aramaic) means “son of the father.” So the prisoner who was going to be released was “Jesus, son of the father.” But the Lord Jesus, the Son of the Father, was being accused of sedition and would die on the other’s behalf.
The two men were brought forward. The reason Pilate was trying so hard to release Jesus in verse 10 was because he perceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up. As it was with John, so it would be with Jesus: the actual reasons were personal, but the charge was political. Pilate obviously made the false assumption that they would ask for Jesus, not Barabbas.
The procedure was temporarily interrupted when Pilate received a message from his wife, warning him not to get involved with the situation because of a dream she had just had (Mat. 27:19). By Church tradition, her name was Claudia, and she later became a believer. The interruption was long enough so that the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus (Mat. 27:20), and this is what they did in Luke 23:18. This second attempt to have Jesus released failed. Pilate made a third attempt to release Jesus by making a compromise of scourging, according to John 19:1‑6a. Pilate’s apparent hope was that, when the people saw Jesus after His scourging, they would be sympathetic toward Him and call for His release.
Now, the Roman custom of scourging was one of the cruelest forms of torture. Forty lashes were swung against the victim. The whip itself contained numerous leather straps, which had pieces of glass and sharp metal fixed at the end that would lacerate the flesh. The scourging was not limited to the back but was applied over the whole body. The flesh would be torn away and bone would be exposed. Quite often the prisoners died just from the scourging alone. Isaiah 52:14 prophesied the Messiah’s scourging. The prophet stated that Messiah’s person was so marred, so disfigured, that He no longer resembled a man!
As if that were not enough, Yeshua was forced to go through a third abuse as the soldiers of Rome mocked Him and His claims to be King. The soldiers made a crown of thorns, and when they pressed the crown against His head, the sharp thorns tore into His flesh. Soon, His entire face became bloody. The crown of thorns had spiritual significance. In Genesis 3:18 we see that thorns resulted from God’s curse upon man and creation because of man’s sin. When the Messiah wore the crown of thorns, He bore the curse upon Himself. Ultimately, because of the Messiah’s death, the curse will be removed from this earth, but here Yeshua is seen bearing the curse on the believer’s behalf. Furthermore, after the Messiah was scourged, in verse 3 the soldiers beat Him with their hands. This was the third mistreatment the Messiah underwent.
After the scourging, Pilate again brought Jesus out before the masses in verses 4‑5, and for the third time he declared Jesus innocent. Counting Herod’s declaration, this is the fourth declaration of the innocence of Jesus. But in verse 6a, the multitude still demanded that He be crucified and Pilate’s third attempt to have Jesus released failed. The fourth attempt to have Yeshua set free is recorded in John 19:6b‑7.
Pilate refused to give the Roman sentence to have Yeshua crucified. Pilate told the masses that if they wished to have the Messiah crucified for one of their own crimes, they should do the crucifying. But Pilate knew very well that the leaders of Israel had no authority to put anyone to death. Therefore, he felt that if he refused to pass a Roman sentence, they would not dare to have Jesus crucified. The Jewish leaders now dropped their charge of sedition and came up with the real charge they had against Yeshua: His claim of Messiahship. They reverted back to the charge for which He had been tried at the religious trial. The charge of sedition was dropped because it could not be substantiated. But according to Jewish law, anyone who claimed to be the Messiah and who was not, was to be put to death. For the first time, Pilate discovered the real issue. As he thought over the strange events that had occurred that night, including his wife’s need to interfere, he decided to have a second interview with Yeshua (see John 19:8‑11).
Pilate questioned Jesus with no response until he demanded an answer on the grounds that he alone could either release Him or crucify Him. Jesus responded by letting him know Who was really in control. Whatever power Pilate had was given to him from God. As much as he may have thought that he was in control, he certainly was not. The tables had turned; the judge became the defendant and the defendant became the judge! After this interview, Pilate made a fifth attempt to release Yeshua (John 19:12).
This attempt to release Yeshua was spoiled when the people began crying out, If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. But why would Pilate be intimidated by this seemingly empty threat? After all, he was the Roman procurator. Why wouldRome listen to the Jewish leaders and not to Pilate.
These questions are answered when it is understood what was happening in Rome at this time. Pilate had originally received his procuratorship through a friend named Sejanus, who, at one time, held quite a bit of authority in the senate ofRome. But Sejanus had been accused of treason and had been executed. Now, all of Sejanus’ friends were under investigation as to their loyalty toRome. Inasmuch as Pilate had been both a friend of Sejanus and had received his procuratorship through Sejanus, he, too, was under investigation at this time. The emperor ofRomehad already received several complaints against Pilate. Should word reach the emperor that Pilate had released a man who claimed to be a king and a competitor to Caesar, Pilate would quickly lose his position and perhaps be killed as well.
When Pilate heard that the people wanted to accuse him of not being Caesar’s friend, he sat down on the judgment seat. From the judgment seat, Pilate made his sixth and final attempt to have Jesus. When Pilate called out Behold, your King! the masses continued to cry Away with him, . . . crucify him. When Pilate asked them whether they really wanted him to crucify their King, the leaders of Israel shouted We have no king but Caesar. The leadership ofIsrael claimed Caesar as their king and rejected the true King, Jesus the Messiah. Pilate’s final attempt to have Him released ended in failure.
From the judgment seat, Pilate issued his fifth and most significant declaration of innocence (Matt 27:24). Pilate washed his hands of the case. This is the most significant declaration because it came from the very judgment‑seat itself. Pilate not only declared the Messiah to be innocent, he also declared Him righteous. However, there was no way that Pilate could wash the blood of Yeshua from his hands. By human authority, he alone had the power to condemn or to release Yeshua. Under no circumstances could Pilate absolve himself of his guilt.
The Christian church has never forgotten the part Pilate played in the Messiah’s trial. One of its earliest creeds is the Apostles’ Creed. One of the phrases of this creed is “suffered under Pontius Pilate.” For all eternity, Pilate will bear the responsibility for his actions. He began to feel it only six years after the trial of the Messiah. In A.D. 36, Emperor Caligula exiled Pilate toGaul, and shortly after his banishment, Pilate committed suicide.
The leaders of Israel accepted the responsibility for the blood of the Messiah, not only upon their generation, but also on the generation that followed. This responsibility must not be applied to all Jews of all time, but only to that generation and the succeeding one. They placed themselves under a curse, and that curse was fulfilled in the year A.D. 70. At that time Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple was burned down, and the Jews were dispersed throughout the world. Finally, Pilate gave his sentence in Luke 23:24‑25.
24And Pilate gave sentence that what they asked for should be done.25And he released him that for insurrection and murder had been cast into prison, whom they asked for; but Jesus he delivered up to their will.
Pilate gave the Roman sentence and condemned the Messiah to death for the charge of sedition. Barabbas was released. The substitution must not be overlooked. The Messiah died in the place of one who deserved death. The innocent died so that the guilty could go free. The Messiah was accused of the very crime of which Barabbas was guilty. After Pilate passed sentence, Yeshua was taken to be crucified.
So ended the Most Famous Trial in All History.
[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.
Counting Down Passover: The Trial Before Herod Antipas
The second phase of the civil trial is recorded in Luke 23:6‑12.[1] Pilate sent Jesus to Antipas. Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great who had murdered the babies of Bethlehem in his attempt to kill Jesus. About a year earlier, Antipas had beheaded John the Baptist. Only after beheading John the Baptist did he begin to hear about the miracles of Jesus, and because of those miracles, for a while he came to believe that Jesus was merely John raised from the dead. He had wanted to see Jesus for some time and even sent for Him once.
Herod was very glad for this opportunity, for he hoped that Jesus would perform some miracles for him. Jesus refused (v. 9). Meanwhile the Pharisees continued to throw all kinds of accusations against, but Jesus neither answered the accusations nor performed any miracles to satisfy Herod’s fleshly lusts. Herod responded by having his own soldiers dress Yeshua up as a king in order to mock Him. The result of this second phase of the civil trial was a further declaration of innocence, for Herod refused to pass the death sentence on the Messiah. At this point Herod and Pilate became friends (v. 12).
The animosity between them began when Pontius Pilate first became procurator of Judea. At that time, he brought Roman shields with the image of the emperor into Jerusalemand placed them in the palaceof Herodthe Great, the father of Herod Antipas. This not only desecrated the City of Jerusalem, it centered the abomination in the home of Herod the Great. Herod Antipas complained to Emperor Tiberius, and the emperor ordered Pilate to remove the shields. From that time on hatred existed between the two men, for Herod felt that Pilate did not recognize his authority. By sending Yeshua to him, Pilate showed Herod that he did recognize his authority over Galilee. Furthermore, Pilate knew well that Herod desired to see Yeshua, so he gave him the opportunity. As a result of all this, the two became friends, but they did so at the expense of the Messiah.
At the second phase of the civil trial of the Messiah, Herod Antipas sat before Yeshua in all his regal splendor while Yeshua stood as a poor and lowly carpenter, suffering the cruelties of men. But within a decade, while the Messiah was sitting at the right hand of God the Father in all majesty, glory, and power as the King of Kings, Herod was living in abject poverty and would die the same way. Herod Antipas paid dearly for the murder of John the Baptist and for the mockery of Jesus the Messiah.
[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.
Counting Down Passover: The Civil Trial
In the first and second posts we considered the conspiracy against Jesus that led to the beginning of his illegal trial. In this installment we shall consider the civil trial.[1]
Now, Judas was not needed for the religious trial, but he was needed for the civil trial. In Matt 27:3, when Judas saw that Yeshua was condemned to death by the religious court, he was filled with remorse. Although some translations say that Judas repented, the Greek word used here for repentance is not the one that means salvation repentance. It is a word that simply means “regret” or “emotional remorse.” Judas felt remorse but he did not turn to God in faith. The answer to the question “Was Judas Saved?” is “No, he was not and he went down to perdition.” In response to his remorse, Judas did two things: he returned the bribe money and then hanged himself. It was this act that created problems at the civil trial since Judas was needed to present a charge to Pilate (for Roman law). The conspirators no longer had their accuser. Once this is understood, the reason why things happened the way they did at the Messiah’s civil trial becomes clear.
Like the religious trial, the civil trial also underwent three specific phases. While the issue in the religious trial was blasphemy, which was not punishable by death under Roman law, the issue in the civil trial was sedition or treason against Rome, which was punishable by death. Two Roman laws affected civil trials. First, all proceedings must be public and Jesus’ trial was very public, much to Pilate’s regret. Secondly, a trial must start with the prosecuting witness presenting the charge. Specifically, it had to be a charge punishable under Roman law. What happened next in the civil trial is recorded in John 18:28‑32.
From the Hall of Judgment of the Temple Compound, Yeshua was taken to the Praetoriumwhere Pontius Pilate was waiting for the prosecuting witness to come forward and give the accusation. In spite of the early hour, Pilate was dressed and ready. He was expecting this trial to begin because of the indictment brought earlier by Judas. In verse 28b, the pronounthey refers to the Chief Priests. According to Jewish custom, at nine in the morning of the first day of Passover, a special Passover sacrifice would be made, of which only the priesthood could eat. Therefore, the passover to which John is referring is the special Passover sacrifice that was offered immediately after the regular morning sacrifices; it was roasted to be eaten later that day. However, if they became ceremonially unclean, they would not be able to eat of it. One way they could become ritually defiled was to go into the home of a Gentile. This was the reason they only went so far within the courtyard, and no further.
As Jesus was brought before Pilate in verse 29, the Roman governor asked for the accusation in accordance with Roman law. There had to be a specific charge before the proceedings could begin, but nothing happened. The Jewish leaders did not know what to do. So they tried to “snowball” the trial by simply demanding that Pilate go ahead and pass sentence on Yeshua, assuming that He was guilty of a crime that deserved the death sentence. They tried to force Pilate to sentence Yeshua without an accusation. Pilate intended to do no such thing. He told them that if Jesus was guilty of violating Jewish law, they should try Him. Pilate could try Jesus only on the basis of Roman law. Since there was no accusation, there could be no condemnation; and without a condemnation, there could be no sentence. The Jewish leaders pointed out that they no longer had the authority to carry out the death penalty, for that right had been taken from them by the Roman government. Verse 32 makes it clear that this was God’s providential dealing so that the Messiah would die in the manner prophesied: by crucifixion. But crucifixion was not a Jewish mode of execution; it was a Roman mode. IfRome had not taken away the death penalty fromIsrael, He would have been stoned to death in accordance with Jewish law. But stoning would not have fulfilled what prophecy demanded.
Pilate challenged the religious leaders either to come up with a specific charge or forget the whole thing. Since they were not willing to do the latter, they finally presented a case (Luke 23:2). The religious leaders could not accuse Yeshua of blasphemy because under Roman law that would not carry the death penalty. Therefore, they charged Him with a political crime: first, perverting our nation, in the sense of fomenting revolt through false teaching. Secondly, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, an act of treason. And thirdly, He claimed to be a king, a competitor to Caesar. Of course, all such competitors were put to death by crucifixion. Now that a specific charge had been brought against the Messiah, Pilate could proceed (John 18:33‑38a).
The interchange between Jesus and Pilate in verse 33 has not always been understood. Pilate initiated the interview with the question, Are you the King of the Jews? Pilate was not asking Jesus, “Are you the Messiah?” The question from his perspective as a Roman Gentile really means, “Are you a competitor to Caesar?” Jesus’ reply indicates that He wished to know on what basis Pilate was asking the question, as a Roman or as a Jew. The Messiah would not answer Pilate’s question until that clarification was made (v. 35). Pilate’s response shows that he was asking the question on the basis of what the Jewish leaders had said, but from the viewpoint of a Roman. Pilate was not interested in Jewish theology; he was interested only in knowing whether Yeshua claimed to be a competitor to Caesar. Once this was clear, Jesus answered (36) that His Kingdom was not of this world, for if it were, His followers would rise and revolt. This statement made it obvious that Messiah was not in competition with Caesar. When Messiah’s Kingdom is established, it will be “in the world but not of the world.” It will not be after the manner of human kingdoms. Furthermore, Jesus said that His Kingdom was not from hence. As a result of the rejection of His Messiahship, Messiah would not establish His Kingdom now, but at a later time.
After Pilate had determined that Yeshua was not a competitor to Caesar, he asked Him whether He was a king in any sense of the term in verse 37. Yeshua replied that He was a king of the truth. The interrogation ended in verse 38. As far as Pilate was concerned, Jesus was not guilty of the charge the Jewish leaders had brought against Him; He was not a threat to Rome. As a result, the leaders added further charges with which to accuse Him. But again, Jesus made no response to the charges and made no attempt to defend Himself. Pilate wished to release Jesus, but he was being intimidated by the crowd. As the Jewish leaders presented even more accusations, they finally made a statement in passing that Yeshua was from Galilee. Galilee was under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, who happened to be in Jerusalem at this time for the Passover. Thus, by sending Yeshuato Herod, Pilate saw that he would be able to escape responsibility. And with that the first phase of the civil trial came to an end.
[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.
Post navigation
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Apr | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
 |
 |
 |
Copyright © 2011 Ariel Ministries. All rights reserved.
