Returning now to the stage of interrogation, delegates from the Sanhedrin were required to observe the life and ministry of the claimant, and if they thought any action or teaching was questionable they could voice their concerns. When dealing with Jesus of Nazareth, the objections of the Sanhedrists were almost exclusively in the area of the oral law, with questions concerning the Sabbath the most frequent, since they had given ‘Sabbath keeping’ such a high profile. The fourth command of the decalogue had been expanded by hundreds of additional rules and regulations regarding Sabbath observance to cover most eventualities. For example, the Shabbat section in the Mishnah begins with the detail of those acts of transporting objects from one domain to another, some of which violate the Sabbath. It reads:
1:1 A. [Acts of] transporting objects from one domain to another [which violate] the Sabbath
(1) are two, which [indeed] are four [for one who is] inside,
(2) and two which are four [for one who is] outside.
B.How so?
I C. [If on the Sabbath] the beggar stands outside and the householder inside,
D.[and] the beggar stuck his hand inside and put [a beggar’s bowl] into the hand of the householder,
E. or if he took [something] from inside it and brought it out,
F. the beggar is liable, the householder is exempt.
II G.[If] the householder stuck his hand outside and put [something] into the hand of the beggar,
H. or if he took [something] from it and brought it inside,
I.the householder is liable, and the beggar is exempt.
III J. [If] the beggar stuck his hand inside, and the householder took [something] from it,
K. or if [the householder] put something in it and he [the beggar] removed it,
L. both of them are exempt.
IV M. [If] the householder put his hand outside and the beggar took [something] from it,
N. or if [the beggar] put something into it and [the householder] brought it back inside,
O. both of them are exempt.
Jesus condemned this legalism with the words, “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matt.23:24) At the time of Jesus, questions as to what is proper on the Sabbath constantly occupied the minds of the legalists. If a Pharisee was asked, “Why did God make Israel?” it was likely he would have replied, ‘To honour the Sabbath’. In Pharisaism, the Sabbath was personified as the Queen of Israel and the Bride of YHWH.
Each of the synoptics records the incident when Jesus’ hungry disciples plucked the ears of corn to provide sustenance. Since it was on the Sabbath, the investigating Sanhedrists raised it as an issue: “And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” (Matt.12:2: cf. Mk.2:24; Lk.6:2) The Pharisees themselves would not normally walk through a field in case they accidentally uprooted a wayward stalk of grain, thereby becoming guilty of reaping on the Sabbath.
Jesus responded to the question by giving pertinent examples from the T’nach. The first was of David who, when in need, ate of the bread that by law was reserved for the priests. The second was of the priests themselves whose work substantially increased on the Sabbath because of the higher number of offerings. Neither the actions of David, nor the activities of the priests, received the disapproval of the interpreters of the law. Jesus took the first example from the period of David’s rejection, when the officers of a dying dynasty were hounding him. The selection of this event seems to suggest that Jesus knew already that the Sanhedrin would officially reject Him. The second example related to the killing of sacrificial lambs in the Temple as sin offerings, a parallel of some significance. However, the coup-de-gras was the claim of the Messiah that, “the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matt.12:8; cf. Mk.2:28; Lk.6:5); again driving home the point that He was more than Messiah. By this time, it was clear that Jesus was not going to support the Pharisees and endorse the oral law.
While the delegation involved in assessing His Messianic credentials were mostly Pharisees, there were others on the Sanhedrin that had an interest in the investigation and decision. They were the Chief Priests - Sadducees who rejected the immortality of the soul, and attributed all human activity to free will and none to providence. Because they did not believe in the resurrection, they expected neither reward nor punishment after death. Therefore, with no restraint placed on their actions by their religious beliefs, they exercised power, not for the good of the nation, but for their own individual gain. Influenced by Greek culture, they cultivated good relations with Rome. They were not interested in any Messiah, other than one who would improve their power base in the nation. Jesus rejected their Epicurean lifestyle, their corrupt ‘business’ practices and their defective doctrines. At the beginning of His public ministry, He upset more than just the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple. He had made it clear that if He were confirmed as Messiah He would ‘clean up’ the Temple, and Annas, Caiaphas and the chief priests could expect to lose their lucrative business. This meant that Jesus would not get their support!
Next Time: The Stage of Decision
No comments:
Post a Comment