New Thoughts (08/31/12-09/01/12)
As we consider the response Jesus makes to the question or questions of the preceding verses, there are several points of interest we might observe. To begin with, I would note the way the two-part question relayed by Matthew and Mark is separated in Luke’s accounting. Those two make the question to be one: Are you the Christ, the Son of God? Luke makes these two separate questions, and in doing so, demonstrates why the second question followed upon the first. It is, after all, two points. Is He the Messiah? Well and good. But, who is the Messiah? Is He but another man, or is He God incarnate? That is a more difficult question.
On these grounds, then, I have opted to follow Luke’s order. There is first the question, “Are You the Christ?” I expect that the adjuration that Matthew had noted accompanied this first question, although it would presumably continue to hold thereafter. The immediate response Jesus gives could almost sound resentful, but in reality it is nothing more than the presentation of the case. Consider: “If I tell you, you will not believe.” First off, He has told them both by word and by deed, and they have not – at least the majority – believed. On that level, it is a pure statement of established fact. It is also a commentary on the nature of these court proceedings, though. We could hear it as something like Jesus saying it doesn’t matter what He says at this point because the court has already made its determination. This is just a showcase event. That, too, would be a pure statement of the facts, although one that the court ought rightfully to have denied, for its own sake.
Then we move to, “If I ask a question, you will not answer.” Here, I have followed the NASB. Other translations do not vary overly much. But, the whole clause “I ask a question” translates but one word: erooteesoo, and that word has a few potential meanings and a few potential implications beyond the basic meaning. There is, to be sure, a forensic sense to the word that certainly suits the circumstance. If I were to interrogate you (and surely, there was good cause for Him to do so), you would not answer. That’s one possible understanding of what Jesus means, here.
Zhodiates brings up the distinction between this term and aiteo, which term Jesus typically uses in speaking of His requests to the Father. It is noted that aiteo has the sense of asking something from one’s equal, where this erotao is more typically the request made from inferior to an acknowledged superior. Thus, we might take it so far as to consider it begging. Or, we might only see it as implying a respectfully posited question. This might be where some of our translations arrive at the idea that He means, “If I ask you for clarification, you will not oblige.”
What, though, if we took it to the point of begging? “If I beg you to release Me, you will not answer.” Honestly, any one of these understandings would leave Jesus stating a truth. If He were to interrogate them, say, as to their role in paying Judas off and seeking out these false witnesses (were they also paid?), He would hear no answer from them, except, perhaps, to accuse Him of disrespecting the court. If He seeks clarification from them, such as asking what they mean by their understanding of Messiah, they will not offer it up, but insist that He answer. And certainly, no matter what He says or does, there is not the slightest chance that this court was going to arrive at anything other than a guilty verdict. They know it. He knows it. He has as good as put them on notice that He knows it.
Hold that thought for just a moment and allow me a very small diversion. One other possible understanding of that “If I ask” clause comes to mind. Consider the question. “Are You the Messiah.” He has already said, “If I tell you, you won’t believe anyway.” Now, then, could it be that His point here is, “If I ask you whether I am the Messiah, you will not answer”? His encounter in the courts of the temple a few days ago would certainly bear that out. They will not admit that He is, but neither, for fear of the people’s reaction, will they deny it.
One thing is certain: these first two statements point to the ways in which this meeting of the Sanhedrin is in full violation of every concept of justice. And then comes that point which all three accounts cover. Let me attempt to combine the three variations into a single statement. “But from now on, from this point forward, you yourselves will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Whoa! There is so much stated there that deserves our attention.
Let me start with the first word: But. If I accept that those first few points establish the invalidity of the court before which Jesus stands, then what is introduced here is intended to contrast with that court. You have made a travesty of justice so as to condemn Me before your court, but from this very moment it’s all different.
And yes, the “from now on” or “hereafter” is reasonably understood as emphasizing that this is to be the case immediately. I actually rather like the idiom expressed in that phrase, from now on. “Departing the present,” or, “fleeing the now.” It does serve to emphasize the immediacy of Jesus’ ascendancy. You will have your moment, Caiaphas, but it will be brief! And, immediately following, understand that the roles will be reversed.
And note this phrase very carefully. “You will see.” Yes, you. You, who seek to destroy the very One Whom you pretend to serve. You, who think you have your victory today. You will see Me enthroned. You petty judges will see Me as Judge! You who have sought My destruction come what may, will see what comes, and what comes is Me. Isn’t it something that this message is delivered before they render verdict. Even now, there is just that least chance that they could repent and be saved, rather than continue and be condemned. But, they will not.
Then, and only then, do we arrive at those two points taken from Scripture, the one from Wisdom, the other from the Prophets. It is interesting, in itself that nothing here points us back to the Pentateuch, the Torah proper. But, the point suffices. That first part takes us back to Psalm 110, a passage He had used not so long ago to confound these religious experts, and that, on the very question of who Messiah is. Then, He moves straight into Daniel, who alone, if I recall correctly, mentions Messiah by that title. And, the implications of that particular quotation are plain to one and all. Messiah is at the right hand of God. He is in heaven. He is appointed to an eternal throne of complete authority. Can there be any question as to whether this Son of Man is God? There cannot. And it is clear from the follow up question that they know this full well, however much they have played the game of not being too sure who or what Messiah is.
“Are you the Son of God, then?” Let’s be clear, here. They knew exactly what He was claiming. They had no doubts that this was what He meant. Modern critics who attempt to paint Jesus as a man who never set Himself out as being God are clearly mistaken. He may have allowed a degree of circumlocution, just as these men avoid speaking directly of God, but prefer to refer to Him only as “the Blessed”. It’s no different. It is a cultural and religious marker of respect for His name. They have demonstrated that same tendency, and He is, in His humanity, a man of His culture, so He does likewise. Is that so surprising?
But, they are moved to the point of blunt questioning. “Are You the Son of God?” The answer, I dare say, is a challenge to parse, although the point of it is plain enough. Somewhere in there, we arrive back at ego eimi. I am. But, the particular way it is presented in Luke’s account gives us some difficulty. The NASB has tried to simplify things, and says only, “Yes, I am.” Many other translations produce something more like, “You say that I am.” Then, there are the outliers, such as the WEB which offers, “You say it, because I AM.” Which is it? The difference between, “Yes, I am,” and, “You say that I am” seems to me rather large. Yet, the reaction suggests it is not so large a difference as it appears. The actual sentence, in Greek, reads as Humeis legete hoti egoo eimi. The ego eimi part is familiar enough. The remainder, to be painfully literal, comes across as “you say because”, although hoti can take on some other significations, such as introducing a quoted portion of the sentence. This, I think, gets us to the more common, “you say that I am.”
The response relayed to us by Matthew seems similar at the outset, but in reality, it is distinctly different. There, we have, Su eipas. It’s still addressed to a you, but in this case a singular you. The verb, though, is different, although I am not certain as to how distinct in meaning. You have spoken, you have said. Something along those lines. In that instance, the thing said is not mentioned. Here in Luke’s account, it appears that the “I am” that concludes the sentence is indeed intended as a quotation of their own words.
In my own attempts at paraphrasing this, I had thought the ‘because’ fit into the phrase differently, but that does lead to some very problematic results. “Because you say so, I am”? No, that assigns far too much import to the words. I’m not certain we should follow the WEB with its view of how the because fits. “You say it, because I am.” Perhaps. But, I tend to think the majority have the right of it. “You say that I am.”
Honestly, my ears don’t hear that as a confession, but theirs appear to have done so. To me, it sounds more like, “That’s what you say.” I wonder, really, if there aren’t two sentences there. “You say that. I am.” That might explain the bifurcation of those two points between Matthew and Mark. It may also simply be more idiomatic in nature, not unlike our own phrasing, “you said it!” What do we mean by that? To one unfamiliar, it must seem a statement of the obvious. Yes, I know I said it. But, we understand that it is intended to relay agreement. You’re right! Absolutely! Couldn’t agree more.
I had thought, perhaps, that the other occasion from Matthew’s account, where Judas is trying to deflect suspicions, might offer insight. But, in that passage, the phrase is again, su eipas. The end result for us must be clear, however unclear the stating of the answer seems. “I am.” That is the end result. That is the sum of His answer and His earthly life. Yes. I am the Son of God. Clearly, this is what the court heard from His answer, and most assuredly, we ought to hear it likewise.
Indeed, for ourselves, the answer ought perhaps to be heard more along these lines. I am the Son of God, now what are you going to do in response to that? I have commented often enough of those crisis points that knowledge of the Christ must bring to us. We are inevitably brought to moments of, “choose you this day.” I think, for these men of the Sanhedrin, this statement presents exactly such a crisis point. I am as you say, now how will you respond to that? Having heard the statement, do you take Me for a liar? For one gone mad? Honestly, psychologists today would have a field day with such a confession! Time was, you could find man an asylum populated with claimants not only to being the Son, but God Himself, amongst myriad other delusions. But, if this were delusional talk, there would be no call for the death sentence. No, they adjudged Him sane. What then? Either He speaks truth or He lies. And, upon what evidence shall they decide which it is?
An honest judgment would have to take into account what is known of the Man, His message, His activities. An honest assessment on those grounds could not but find that here was something more than a mere man. And, if more than a mere man, on what grounds shall we deny His claim? Of course, this was not an honest assessment. It was a court with a pre-determined verdict, seeking only the justification (or the appearance of justification) for that verdict. It was a death sentence just looking for its excuse to happen. So, these fine judges, these most pious heads of religion, are brought to the necessity (in their view) of accusing Truth of lying! They were not the first to be brought to this point, nor were they the last. But, it is alarming nonetheless. And, it is written for our benefit.
I remind you: There were those, even on the council known as the Sanhedrin, who believed. When Jesus said, “I am,” they heard Him as not only lucid, but accurate. Yet, they were silent. They came not to His defense when the charge of blasphemy was leveled against Him. If we allow our thoughts to travel towards those few, it might cause us to wonder how they could remain silent. Of course, we might have a similar reaction to those who hid from their faith under the violence of Roman persecution. Many of their compatriots likewise found it hard to stomach. How shall we accept them back who have thus denied their Christ? How shall we accept the ones who ran away when we stood fast in the face of death itself? Yet, the council of the godly prevailed, and they were forgiven and restored. Just like Peter.
The truth is, for us, that we cannot know how we would respond in such circumstances unless and until we are placed in such circumstances. I dare say we are as likely to underestimate our courage as to overestimate.
But, there are lesser crises every day, and these should probably concern us more than the great threats. What do I mean by that? Every day we encounter unbelievers, and every day we encounter those who pursue false gods. Listen, we can preach religious tolerance in this land all we please, but the fact of the matter is that if we accede to the claims Jesus makes right here in these verses, if we accept the Scriptures as an accurate presentation of God’s claim to being Himself, then we must also accept that there can be no other. Behold, the Lord your God, He is One. All beliefs do not lead to the same end. It is not sufficient to believe in some god. Jesus, as He taught, proclaimed a most discriminatory faith. “No one comes to the Father, but through Me” (Jn 14:6). Again: If we believe this Word is True, we cannot possibly suppose that any other faith, any other understanding of the person of Jesus, is able to save.
The Hindu, the Muslim, even the Jew who is faithful to Judaism cannot arrive at a heavenly welcome by their beliefs. We hear all sorts of claims that these pursue the same god, but know of him by a different name, but it’s patent nonsense. Indeed, the utter inanity of those ‘coexist’ bumper stickers has been exposed sufficiently by others. But, honestly, the vaguest understanding of even the most basic tenets of these several faiths would make plain that they are incompatible in the extreme. And, what sort of god would make such contradictory revelations of himself? To the west, He preaches love even to your enemies, but to the east, He proclaims that all who don’t believe (or, as we must have it, believe, but under a different name and revelation) must be slaughtered? What sort of god is that? One would have difficulty finding even a human leader quite so perverse.
Come back, though, to the personal crisis. We come across these people. We, who proclaim ourselves faithful believers in the Risen Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, the Son of God. And, what do we do? Do we confront them? Do we even bring up the topic of faith? Quite probably not. We have been conditioned, you see. We have been conditioned to be tolerant, to allow them their beliefs as they allow us ours. Isn’t that what freedom of religion is all about? Well, yes and no. Certainly, freedom of religion might be understood as requiring us to allow them their pursuit of faith such as they understand it so long as they continue to understand it thusly. But, it does nothing as concerns our attempting to correct them from their error! Freedom of religion, of course, has been twisted beyond recognition by those outside the community of any faith. But, we have twisted it ourselves. We have made politeness a god in its own right, and in service to the god of politeness, we avoid pointing out the hell that these other faith traditions are propelling their adherents towards. Loving, isn’t it? Brave, isn’t it?
We can do better. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we can stand against the cultural tide, step out of the cultural conditioning, and walk as true believers in the One True God. This ought to be our prayer. This ought to be our practice. I think, before we can dare to criticize those who were in this courtroom as the drama of salvation unfolded in so unexpected a fashion, we had best look to our own accounts. When we can be fearless in confronting the unbeliever, or the believer in error, then maybe we might be fit to measure those who faced much greater risks. When we have utterly conquered the fear of man in ourselves, then perhaps we will be given the power to condemn the fear we see in others. Until then, pray. Pray for a church militant; militant not only in its visibility, but in its adherence to the Truth and the implications of Truth. No, we are not a church to take up arms against the unbeliever, for our weapons are not carnal. Indeed, our weapons are far more powerful, being spiritual. No, we are not called to go out and be offensive, as some have determined to practice their purported faith. But, we are to be on the offensive, always seeking the lost, always seeking to bring them back. We are called to sow the seed of Truth with wild abandon, not selectively, but broadcasting to one and all. May we find it in our God to obey Him! It is, after all, He Who is working in us.
