41<\/strong> – 47.<\/strong> The Scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees reduced to a Confession of Ignorance.<\/p>\n 41<\/strong>. How say they that Christ is Davids son?<\/em> ] Rather, the Christ. See Joh 7:42<\/span>; Psa 132:11<\/span>; Jer 23:5<\/span>; Mic 5:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n Luk 20:41-44<\/span><\/p>\n How say they that Christ is Davids son?<\/em><\/p>\n —<\/em><\/p>\n David, Christs ancestor<\/strong><\/p>\n How say they that Christ is Davids son? Reading Davids history, we might exclaim, How, indeed! Son of David, Son of God: is not this like son of sin, son of grace? But if in the ancestor sin abounded, in the descendant grace much more abounded; and wisdom will inquire whether there is any relation between the superabounding grace and the abounding sin. We may think of Christ as a spiritual David, and we may think of David as a natural Christ, in this way: we may suppose a nature like Christs, but without what we know He possessed–a governing, harmonizing spirit of holiness. Imagine that. Imagine one whose natural endowments resembled Christs, but without the presiding spirit of holiness; then, we say, you would have another variety of Davids life–one more distinguished by nobleness, but one marked and saddened with many an act of dishonour. On the other hand, if you suppose David to become perfectly spiritual, to have that presiding holiness which Christ had; amongst all the ancient saints, there would have been none so like the Lord Jesus Christ, though still less than He. And thus it is that we have in David the nature of Christ, but without the Divine harmonic regulation; and we have in Christ the nature of David, but not now with the fleshly irregularities, not sullied by blots, not made the shame as well as in part the glory of Israel, but utterly free from evil. Christ is, then, considered as Davids descendant, the inheritor of his sensibilities, which shine in our Lord with completest lustre. He is also the inheritor of his contests; and our Lord overcomes with unvaried and complete victory those temptations which assaulted His ancestor. And by being at once the possessor of his sensibilities and the inheritor of his contests, He becomes the expiation of his sins. You will often find in the history of families that troubles accumulate, and as it were ripen, until they are laid upon some one individual; that on this individual rests the burden of evil which has been slowly accumulating. Now, you may have a case in which it seems that the burden of evil so rests that the man is borne down, crushed, and destroyed; and here you say, through the wickedness of his House, this, the last descendant, is utterly shaken and ruined. But you may also have a successful fight; the burden is on the back, but the strength is in the man. This is at once the most burdened and most powerful individual sprung from the race. It is he who, grappling with the evil in its fullest strength, shall retrieve the fortunes of the family. There are historic cases which illustrate that principle. In every family history evil goes on worsening, or good goes on strengthening; and we may have instances of men borne down by the evil, and other instances of men oppressed very greatly and yet triumphing, and so retrieving honour and fortune. Now our Lord Jesus Christ was a spiritual David; He shares–possesses, indeed, to the full–Davids sensibilities; He engages in the moral contests in which David so often failed; and He becomes the expiation of Davids sins–that is to say, He utterly annuls that power of sin so manifest and hateful in David, and brings in a strength of holiness which, as gradually diffused in the breasts of men, shall cause the instrument that else would be discordant to be a harp of joy–shall refine from earthly alloys that sacred metal which, as Gods gold, he will work up into the ornaments and harps of heaven. (T. T. Lynch.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 41<\/span>. How say they<\/B><\/I>] See the note on Mt 22:42-46<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n The answer had been easy if the scribes and Pharisees, who (Matthew saith) were there also, had owned Christ to be the Son of God. But this they did not own, and so, as Mat 22:46<\/span> tells us, <\/P> No man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.<\/B> Thus Christ nonplussed all his adversaries. <\/P> <\/p>\n 41. said,<\/B> c.”What thinkye of Christ [the promised and expected Messiah]? Whose son is He [tobe]? They say unto Him, The son of David. He saith unto them, Howthen doth David in spirit [by the Holy Ghost, Mr12:36<\/span>] call Him Lord?” (Mat 22:42<\/span>Mat 22:43<\/span>). The difficulty canonly be solved by the higher<\/I> and lower<\/I>the divine<\/I>and human<\/I> natures of our Lord (Mt1:23<\/span>). Mark the testimony here given to the inspiration<\/I> ofthe Old Testament (compare Lu24:44<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And he said unto them<\/strong>,…. The Ethiopic version reads, “to the Pharisees”; and so it appears, that it was to them he spoke, from Mt 22:41<\/span><\/p>\n how say they<\/strong>? The Syriac version reads, “how say the Scribes?” as in Mr 12:35<\/span> and the Persic version, how say the wise men, the doctors in Israel,<\/p>\n that Christ is David’s son<\/strong>? that which nothing was more common among the Jews.<\/p>\n How say they? <\/B> ( ;<\/SPAN><\/span>). The Pharisees had rallied in glee and one of their number, a lawyer, had made a feeble contribution to the controversy which resulted in his agreement with Jesus and in praise from Jesus (Mark 12:28-34<\/span>; Matt 27:34-40<\/span>). Luke does not give this incident which makes it plain that by “they say” (<\/SPAN><\/span>) Jesus refers to the Pharisees (rabbis, lawyers), carrying on the discussion and turning the tables on them while the Pharisees are still gathered together (Mt 22:41<\/span>). The construction with <\/SPAN><\/span> is the usual infinitive and the accusative in indirect discourse. By “the Christ” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) “the Messiah” is meant. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And he said unto them,” <\/strong>(eipen de pros autous) “Then he said directly, personally to them,” to the scribes of the Pharisees who had commended Him for His reply to the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection, Mat 22:34<\/span>; Mat 22:41<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “How say they that Christ is David’s son?” <\/strong>(pos legousin ton Christon einai David hulon) “Just how do they of the Pharisees explain the Christ to be David’s heir-son?” Mat 22:42<\/span>; Mat 22:45<\/span>; Mar 12:34<\/span>, or David’s son only, Rom 1:3-4<\/span>; Joh 7:42<\/span>.<\/p>\n Jesus then proceeded to assert His Divine Messiahship by reasoning that if Christ was David’s Lord, He must also be theirs, if only they would receive Him, Joh 1:11-12<\/span>; Mat 23:37<\/span>. Jesus was David’s son by human nature, and Lord <\/strong>by Divine nature of begettal of the Holy Spirit, Mat 1:18-25<\/span>; Gal 4:4-5<\/span>; Joh 1:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n CRITICAL NOTES<\/em><\/p>\n Luk. 20:41<\/span>. To them<\/strong>.I.e.<\/em>, to the scribes. Christ<\/strong>.Rather, the Christ (R.V.). Davids son<\/strong>.Cf. Joh. 7:42<\/span>.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:42<\/span>. David himself<\/strong>.Psa. 110:1<\/span>. David was popularly supposed to be the author of the psalm. Even if he were not, the point on which Christ lays stressviz., that in it Divine honours are paid to the Messiah, who was to come of Davids line, would be unaffected. Christ is not discussing the authorship of the psalm and affirming that it was written by David, but drawing the attention of the scribes to a statement in Scripture which was inconsistent with their belief that the Messiah would be a mere man. The Lord<\/strong>, etc.I.e.<\/em> Jehovah said unto my Lord.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:43<\/span>. Thy footstool<\/strong>.R.V. the footstool of thy feet. The same tautology is in the original; but it is doubtful whether it was worth while to coin an awkward English phrase by such a literal translation.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:44<\/span>. How is He, then, his son?<\/strong>The solution is given in Rom. 1:3-4<\/span>; Christ was the Son of David according to the flesh, and yet the eternal, pre-existent Son of God.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:45<\/span>. Then in the audience<\/strong>.Rather, and in the hearing (R.V.).<\/p>\n Luk. 20:46<\/span>. Long robes<\/strong>.Either an official dress or an exaggerated obedience to the law concerning dress (Num. 15:38-40<\/span>). Chief rooms<\/strong>.Rather, chief seats (R.V.).<\/p>\n Luk. 20:47<\/span>. Devour widows houses<\/strong>.Cf. 2Ti. 3:6<\/span>. For a show<\/strong>.Rather for a pretence (R.V.). Damnation<\/strong>.Rather, condemnation (R.V.).<\/p>\n MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.<\/em>Luk. 20:41-47<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n A Warning against False Guides<\/em>.The attempts to check our Lords activity, to betray Him into the expression of an opinion which might have been used against Him, and to cast ridicule upon His teaching, having failed, His adversaries withdrew from the contest. But He was not satisfied with having maintained His ground against them: He now carried the war into His enemies quarters.<\/p>\n I. He exposed the incompetency of the scribes and Pharisees as teachers<\/strong> (Luk. 20:41-44<\/span>).They prided themselves on their skill in expounding and interpreting the Word of God, and He drew their attention to one of the most famous of the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, and asked them to solve the difficulty which, according to their principles of interpretation, it contained. Their dead monotheism had blinded them to the intimations given in Scripture of the Divine dignity of the Messiah, and consequently they could return no answer to the question, How could David apply the term Lord to one who was to be descended from him? Yet the question was not asked merely in order to show that the Word of God contained passages which they could not explain. It was also calculated to stir them up to profounder reflection upon a truth which they had not fairly faced, and to remove one of their principal grounds of objection to the claims He made. For frequently in the course of His ministry they had protested against His assumption of Divine attributes and prerogatives. Their obstinate silence, however, when confronted with the fact that Divine dignity was ascribed in Scripture to the Messiah, clearly proved that deeply rooted prejudices filled their minds, and that, therefore, they were incapacitated for acting as teachers of spiritual truths.<\/p>\n II. He upbraids them with the moral corruption of their lives<\/strong> (Luk. 20:45-47<\/span>).He judged it necessary to set the people on their guard against those whose religion was only a cloak for the worst vices, and who took advantage of the reverence which the simple-minded naturally have for all who wear the garb of piety, to deceive and defraud them. Hypocrisy, pride, and covetousness, are the three charges He makes against them. They affect a piety of the most exaggerated type, in order to conceal the real depravity of their characters. They are consumed with a desire to secure the applause of their fellows, instead of being any help or blessing to them. And, worst of all, they plunder the property of those whom they delude with their religious professions. The picture thus drawn reminds us of the ecclesiastical abuses in the worst time of the Middle Ages; but traces, at any rate, of the same vices will still be found. People are still so easily deluded by a profession of piety that it is a wonder that hypocrites are not even more numerous than they are. Popularity and notoriety are still too often sought after by ministers of religion; and silly women are still so inclined to run after those who profess an exaggerated piety that one cannot be surprised at seeing hypocrites and impostors occasionally flourishing at their expense.<\/p>\n SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON <\/em>Luk. 20:41-47<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Luk. 20:41-44<\/span>. Christs First and His last Visit to The Temple<\/em>.Immeasurable is the contrast between the first and the last visit of our Lord to the Temple. The less may we leave unnoticed that the boy Jesus, who, once, by his questions, threw the teachers in Israel into astonishment, and by His answers often made them suddenly dumb, and the Messiah, who often, on the final day, both with questions and with answers, nobly maintains the field, exhibit really one and the same character. The Divine Sonship then presaged is now distinctly known.Van Oosterzee<\/em>.<\/p>\n Deeper Truths Unveiled<\/em>.Our Lords question does not, by the passage referred to, solve any difficulty, but rather throws out a difficulty which might arrest the attention of a scribe desirous to know the truth, such as would lead him to see there was something far higher and more mysterious about the Messiah than he supposed. Our Lords words were a clue by which faith might apprehend the secret nature of the kingdom. To reason they proved nothing; but to faith they opened lofty views of the Divine economy in the gospel, as far surpassing anything which reason could have inferred, or imagination could conceive, as heaven is above earth.Williams<\/em>.<\/p>\n The Present and The Future<\/em>.<\/p>\n I. Surrounded by enemies, victorious over enemiesthose whom He has now confuted to be suppressed, if still impenitent, by His almighty power. The Divine Nature of Christ<\/em>.<\/p>\n I. Revealed to David. Cf. Rev. 22:16<\/span>Christ the offspring of David and yet the root from which David sprang; and Joh. 8:58<\/span>the Son of Abraham, and yet before Abraham; also Rom. 1:3<\/span>born of the race of David, according to the flesh<\/em>.<\/p>\n Mysteries Revealed to Faith and Love<\/em>.Scripture contains mysteries which can never be solved by the wise and understanding, but which are revealed to those who love and obey Christ, and to them alone.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:45-47<\/span>. <\/p>\n I. Imposition practised upon society in general<\/strong>.<\/p>\n II. Usurpation of places of honour in synagogues<\/strong>.<\/p>\n III. Self-seeking ambition in social life<\/strong>.<\/p>\n IV. Making religion and philanthropy a cloak for the grossest frauds<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:45<\/span>. In the audience of all the people<\/em>.The minds of scribes and Pharisees were hardened against Christ: the hearts of the people were receptive of His word. To them, therefore, He addresses a word of warning against blind devotion to unworthy leaders.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:46<\/span>. Beware of the scribes<\/em>.Christ dwells upon the external guise of these self-appointed guides and rulers, as an indication of their inward character: by their fruits ye shall know them.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:47<\/span>. Devour widows houses<\/em>.I.e.<\/em>, either extort large sums of money from them, under some religious pretext, or take advantage of their position as directors of consciences to enjoy sumptuous feasts in the houses of their victims.<\/p>\n Cf. 2Ti. 3:6<\/span>. Pretenders to holiness practise most upon women, who are less apt than men to see through their hypocrisy, and are easily inclined to love them on the ground of religion (Chrysostom<\/em>).<\/p>\n Butlers Comments<\/strong><\/p>\n SECTION 5<\/strong><\/p>\n Rationale of Christs Glory (<\/strong>Luk. 20:41-47<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n 41 But he said to them, How can they say that the Christ is Davids son? 42For David himself says in the Book of Psalms,<\/p>\n The Lord said to my Lord, 45 And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples, 46Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, 47who devour widows houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:41-44<\/span><\/strong> Lord: <\/strong>Immediately after hearing Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, a lawyer (also a Pharisee) came to Jesus with a sincere desire to know the greatest commandment in the law. Matthew and Mark record Jesus answer (Mat. 22:34-40<\/span>; Mar. 12:28-34<\/span>), but Luke omits it and goes on to record the question Jesus put to the Pharisees concerning the identity of the Messiah.<\/p>\n This quotation and question of Jesus from Psa. 110:1-7<\/span> is probably His clearest claim to deity recorded by the synoptic gospels. Johns gospel, of course, records quite a number of Jesus clear claims to deity, but the Synoptists are more interested in documenting His claims to be the Messiah.<\/p>\n Jesus knew that He would soon be arrested and charged with blasphemy because at the beginning of His second year of public ministry the Jews became aware He was making Himself equal with God (cf. Joh. 5:18<\/span>). Now, with the end of His life on earth very near, it was imperative that He prove to the Jews from their own Scriptures that if He was the Messiahand the multitudes here at the Passover-time were unquestionably shouting that He wasHe was also Lord God. His claims to be Messiah, however opaque or transparent at different times, was not what enraged the Jewish rulers. They did not, of course, concede to His messiahship since He did not fit their materialistic preconceptions about the Christ. But they never threatened Him about thatfor to have done so would have agitated the multitudes against them. What the Pharisees and scribes continually threatened Him for was His claims to deity. Jewish theologians, for the most part, were never able to understand that the Messiah was to be God Incarnate, and they still do not believe it (see comments on previous text). All Jews are able to answer the first question (as Mat. 22:41-42<\/span>) Jesus asked, What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he? They would all answer, The son of David! But they cannot, or will not, answer the second question Jesus asked, How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit (Mat. 22:43<\/span>), calls him Lord. . . . or as Luke recorded it, For David himself says, in the book of Psalms, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet. David thus calls him Lord; so now is he his son? In other words, How can the Messiah be both the son of David and Lord of David?<\/p>\n The thrust of Jesus second question was to demonstrate (from Davids writings) that the Messiah was to be more than Davids sonindeed the Messiah was to be Davids Lord God. The statement of David in Psa. 110:1<\/span> can be understood in no other way. There David represents Jehovah speaking to Davids Lord (Heb. Adonai), who is also Davids Son, enthroning Him at Jehovahs right hand (co-equal). Jesus is pleading with the Pharisees and scribes to open their hearts to their own Scriptures and believe what God had centuries before promised. Any one of them could have grasped the revelation of God about the Incarnation from their own prophets, had they really wanted to, for some prophecies, at least, were plain enough, (Isa. 7:14<\/span>; Isa. 9:6-7<\/span>; Mic. 5:2<\/span>; Mal. 3:1-3<\/span>).<\/p>\n This was the most pertinent question, then, or ever. It went to the very heart of the animosity those Jewish rulers had for Jesus. Had they acknowledged the Messiah to be God they would not have been bothered by politics, immortality or keeping Gods commandments. It is still the most pertinent question. Men must make up their minds today as to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. Essentially, the question Jesus asked here is the same question He knew He had to have settled in the minds of the apostles when He asked at Caesarea Philippi, Who do you say that I am? (cf. Luk. 9:20<\/span>). The book of Hebrews in the New Testament, written by the apostle Paul, a former Pharisee, gives a thrilling exposition of Psa. 110:1-7<\/span> (cf. Heb. 5:6<\/span>; Heb. 7:17<\/span>; Heb. 7:20-22<\/span>) teaching from it both the humanity and deity of Jesus and His eternal priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. One would expect Jewish priests and scribes to have seen this from their own scriptures, but it was not their desire to do so (see special study, this volume, The Messianic Hope, pages 461466, and notes from Isaiah, Vol. III, by Paul T. Butler, College Press, pgs. 277280 and pgs. 415418).<\/p>\n It is significant that in Jesus question about the identity of the Messiah, He added an answer to each of the previous questions asked of Him. To the Sadducees, who did not accept any of the Old Testament except the Pentateuch, Jesus said (as Matthew records, Mat. 22:43<\/span>) that David wrote Psa. 110:1-7<\/span> by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To the Pharisees who rejected the concept that the Messiah could be God Incarnate Jesus said Psa. 110:1-7<\/span> predicts the Messiah will be Davids Lord (God in the flesh). For the multitudes it is not only a revelation of His deity, but also a warning to those who are plotting to crucify Him of the terribleness of the deed.<\/p>\n Luk. 20:45-47<\/span><\/strong> Legislator: <\/strong>Luke now summarizes Jesus great denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees which Matthew records in much detail (cf. Mat. 23:1-39<\/span>). The details concerning Jewish scribes and Pharisees would not be of much interest to Lukes Gentile readers, and since Matthew had treated the subject thoroughly and Luke himself had documented an earlier denunciation of the scribes by Jesus (Luk. 11:37-54<\/span>), he simply summarizes here.<\/p>\n Jesus condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees means He claims the right to judge mens motives and actions. His rationale for deity comes from scripture (Psa. 110:1<\/span> ff.) and from His very evident power to actually discern the thoughts and intents of mens hearts as He does here.<\/p>\n Beware, He commands, to the crowds, His disciples, and even to the Pharisees themselves, of the scribes. . . . Before the nation could be won to Jesus spiritual kingdom, the false teachers and their worldliness and hypocrisy had to be exposed for what it was. He challenged His disciples and the multitudes to disown the whole false system the Pharisees had imposed on the nation. These religious leaders loved the wrong thing. The motive for everything they did was self-centered. Pride and power were the motives for their actions, They loved to go about in long robes, to be saluted in the market places as Rabbi, Master, and the chief seats of honor in the synagogues and at feasts. Pride and lust for power always produces unmercifulness and greed. They devoured widows houses, all the while making a pretense to be very religious by reciting long prayers. Josephus records that the Pharisees had especial influence over wealthy women accepting hospitality and rich presents from them, devouring their riches for their own political purposes. The wife of Pheroras, brother of Herod the Great, paid the fines of thousands of Pharisees who had been fined for refusing to swear loyalty to Caesar. The Talmud gives evidence of the plundering of widows. The Pharisees and scribes claimed a very exact knowledge of the law and a perfect observance of it. They pretended to stand for justice toward the poor, friendship for the distressed and were willing to aid those who were in financial straits. They could therefore induce widows and poor people to commit the management of their property to them as guardians and executors, and then took advantage of them and defrauded them. The Talmud records the warning given by Alexander Jannaeus (Maccabean ruler) to his wife on his death-bed against trusting any advice of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n These are the last recorded words Jesus ever spoke to the Pharisees and scribes (except at His trial), and they were words of judgment and condemnation. And even these words are spoken with a broken heart, hoping at the last moment to drive them to repentance. He can do no more. If they now refuse both their own scriptures and His demonstrations of deity, judgment must come and they will receive the greater condemnation for they have been granted the greater privilege and have spurned it! Truly, they filled up the measure of their fathers (Mat. 23:32<\/span>) and Jesus was forced by their obstinacy to forsake them and leave them with their house desolate (Mat. 23:37-39<\/span>).<\/p>\n So ended the public prosecution of Jesus. The Pharisees and Sadducees never attempted to publicly discredit Jesus again. He answered all their questions with divine wisdom and, what they thought would ruin His reputation, began to work toward their own ruin. It was a tragi-comedy of trifles. The Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians pretended to raise the fundamental issues of life. Jesus revealed that the fundamental issue of human life is to identify and surrender to the God who became Incarnate in the Son of David. Everything else in mans life is peripheral. To put anything before this is trafficking in trifles.<\/p>\n STUDY STIMULATORS:<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n Would referral to Johns baptism still be, a good answer to anyone (especially religious leaders) today who would challenge Jesus identity and authority?<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n Is the parable of wicked husbandmen who refused to give the Owner his due only applicable to the Jewish nationor could it be applied to anyone now? Who?<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n If Jesus expected the Jews of His day to have read and understood the Old Testament prophecies referring to the Messiah and to have seen their fulfillment in Him, what does He expect of Jews today? What about Gentiles?<\/p>\n 4.<\/p>\n Why is the key-stone of mans relationship to God a Person, Jesus, instead of a religious system, or plan of salvation?<\/p>\n 5.<\/p>\n How did Jesus react to the flattery of the Pharisees and Herodians? What should the Christian do about flattery?<\/p>\n 6.<\/p>\n How should a Christian look upon paying taxes to his government?<\/p>\n 7.<\/p>\n Would it be wrong for a Christian to serve in the armed forces of his country? Just what should be rendered to Caesar by the believer?<\/p>\n 8.<\/p>\n Where should the Christian stand on civil disobedience?<\/p>\n 9.<\/p>\n What is the basis upon which most unbelievers reject the idea of life after death?<\/p>\n 10.<\/p>\n What is the only viable evidence that there is life after death? Why?<\/p>\n 11.<\/p>\n If there is no marriage in heaven, how can there be any enjoyment?<\/p>\n 12.<\/p>\n Why should the Jews of Jesus day have understood that the Messiah was to be God in the flesh? Why didnt they? Is that a problem for people today? How is it to be answered?<\/p>\n Special Study by Paul T. Butler<\/p>\n The Old Testament made many glorious promises in connection with the Messianic hope. Isaiah, chapters 4066; Dan. 9:24-27<\/span>; Mic. 4:1-13<\/span>; Mic. 5:1-15<\/span>; Mic. 6:1-16<\/span>; Mic. 7:1-20<\/span>; Zec. 9:1-17<\/span>; Zec. 10:1-12<\/span>; Zec. 11:1-17<\/span>; Zec. 12:1-14<\/span>; Zec. 13:1-9<\/span>; Zec. 14:1-21<\/span>.<\/p>\n When the Jews returned from their captivities (cir. 536444 B.C.) it was with this hope in their hearts. They believed Jehovah would rule the land directly through a son of David, he would enforce the Law and promote the ritual religion. Some looked for Zerubbabel to fulfill this. As the physical, earthly accomplishment of this hope became less evident (i.e., accomplishment through natural events), the anticipation increased that Jehovah would intervene in a great crisis of the cosmos (see Joh. 12:31<\/span> where Jesus uses that very phrase in Greek in connection with His death on the cross) and effect a deliverance of all the righteous Jews (not Hellenistic Jews) and God would suddenly, secretly almost, institute the messianic age.<\/p>\n This hope had never been so much alive, so vivid, nor its fulfillment so urgently awaited, as it was in the first centuries B.C. and A.D.a time of sadness and deep, tormenting, national humiliation. a.<\/p>\n Attain for the people a literalized fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament prophets (physical prosperity; physical conquest of enemies; physical restoration of Judaism).<\/p>\n b.<\/p>\n Defeat Jewish enemies and force them to serve the Jews.<\/p>\n c.<\/p>\n Restore all Jews to their land forever.<\/p>\n d.<\/p>\n Institute an era of Mosaic purity (as interpreted, of course, by the rabbis).<\/p>\n Josephus speaks of a number of men before and after Jesus who pretended to be the Messiah, obtained followers, fought Jewish enemies, and usually ended up slain in battle or executed. Josephus says there was an ambiguous prophecy (probably referring to Dan. 9:24-27<\/span>) in the Holy Scriptures which told the Jews that in those times a man of their nation would become the master of the world Wars, 6:312.<\/p>\n Some believed in Jesus day in a personal Messiah. This belief took four forms:<\/p>\n 1. An Angel:<\/p>\n As earthly powers continued to oppress the Jews with more intensity it was inevitable that the concept of the Messiah should become more and more transcendent. Many despaired of human deliverance and turned to hope in an angelic being coming from heaven with cosmic, supernatural power. See the Similitudes of Enoch (I Enoch, 164 B.C.) where the Son of Man is presented as a heavenly being with no prior human existence . . . his face has the appearance of a man and yet it is full of graciousness like one of the holy angels. (46:1ff.).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Remember the devils attempt to get Jesus to show off some supernatural, angelic power . . . if he was the Son of God. . . . Mat. 4:5-6<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2. A Prophet:<\/p>\n Some interpreted Mal. 3:1<\/span> ff; Mal. 4:5<\/span> as referring to the Messiah himself rather than the forerunnerthus he would be a prophet like Elijah. Many of the disciples of John the Baptist refused to abandon their belief in him as the true Messiah and perpetuated into the 2nd century A.D. a sect which held up John the Baptist messiahship in opposition to Jesus (The Mandaens; see Ency. Britt. Vol. 4 and 10).<\/p>\n The Samaritans were expecting a prophetic messiah, Joh. 4:19-26<\/span>. Many of the Jews thought this also, Joh. 7:40<\/span>; Mat. 16:14<\/span>; Joh. 1:21<\/span>; 1Ma. 4:46; etc. Joh. 6:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3. A Priest: <\/p>\n In later interbiblical history there appears the idea of a messianic priest. When the offices of High Priest and prince of Israel were combined in Simon the Maccabean, impetus was given to the development of such hope. But as the High Priesthood became more and more secularized and corrupted, this view seems to have found less and less acceptance. See the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (110 B.C.).<\/p>\n 4. A King:<\/p>\n By far the most popular view was a Messiah-warrior-king. He would appear as a political champion. Jews from all over the world would rally to his side, sweep the pagans from Palestine, subdue the world, plunder its riches, kill all idolaters and make proselytes and servants of the rest.<\/p>\n See this view in all the earliest Jewish apocryphal writings, and, Mat. 21:9<\/span>; Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
II. Enthroned in the hearts of a few disciples, but to be exalted to Gods right hand, and have all authority in heaven and earth.<\/p>\n
II. Concealed from scribes and Pharisees.
III. Brought to light by Christ Himself.
IV. Accepted by His disciples.<\/p>\nFuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Sit at my right hand, 43till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet. 44David thus calls him Lord; so how is he his son?<\/p>\n
THE MESSIANIC HOPE<\/strong><\/p>\n
Time after time their fulfillment of this hope was frustrated by some foreign (Ptolemies and Seleucids and Romans) or some home-grown (Hasmonean and Herodian) oppression.<\/p>\n
There was a body of literature that arose between the Old Testament and New Testament that expressed the Jewish ideas of the expected messianic age called the Jewish Apocrypha (apocalyptic in nature). The Sybilline Oracles, Book III (150 B.C.); the Book of Enoch (164 B.C.); The Psalms of Solomon (48 B.C.) are the most graphic. The Mishna, Talmud and Targums (rabbinic writings written after Christ but expressing traditions in oral form before Christ) are also valuable for determining the messianic ideas of first century people. They testify generally that the Messiah will:<\/p>\n