The hostility of the religious leaders against Jesus finally comes to a head. It had to happen; Jesus has precipitated it because that is what will lead to the cross. But that doesn’t excuse it. That hostility is recorded in the gospel so that we can learn to recognize it in our own lives

On more than one occasion, Jesus defined the problem of the religious leaders as blindness… but a blindness of a very particular kind.

John 9:39-41 And Jesus said, For judgment am I come into this world, that they which see not may see, and they which see may become blind.

And [some] of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and they said to him, Are we blind also?

Jesus said to them, If ye were blind ye would not have sin; but now ye say, We see, your sin remains.

Of course, we are talking about spiritual blindness but that only makes the paradox even more grating. For the religious leaders prided themselves on their righteousness, their knowledge of the Word of God. That meant, in their eyes, that they were more than able to discern right from wrong. That was their job! And yet, they cannot see the sin within their own hearts. They “see” and “not see” at the same time…

How can we be simultaneously blind and not blind? Really, it is not that difficult because we are all experts at compartmentalizing: We hold ourselves to a different standard than we hold others. It has been said we judge ourselves by our intentions but others by their actions. Therefore, we always give ourselves the benefit of the doubt. We are more than willing to see the sins and defects of others, but when it comes to us, we don’t want to see a thing.

Thrust and parry

Mark 11:27-33 And they come again to Jerusalem. And as he (Jesus) walked about in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders come to him, and they say to him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority, that thou shouldest do these things?

They think their question is justified. Jesus is openly challenging their authority. And since the religious leaders claim that their authority comes from the Word of God, how can Jesus think He can trump that?

And Jesus answering said to them, *I* also will ask you one thing, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things: The baptism of John, was it of heaven, or of men? answer me.

And so, Jesus, as usual, has turned the question on its side. This is a familiar passage. Question and answer happen so quickly that I think we sometimes miss the subtleties involved in the argument.

In their hearts, the religious leaders really mean by “authority”, the prestige of their position. (Jesus is going to berate them for this, soon, in chapter 12.) They prize the power that that authority brings: they get to tell others what is right and what is wrong… They claim to be the guardians of the knowledge of how to be right with God. And with so much at stake, it is no wonder that the people dared not question them. That gave the religious leaders power: a way to control people, manipulate them, and induce them to try to curry their favor.

But Jesus already explained to His disciples that authority has nothing to do with “lording it over” other people. It has to do with serving other people because that is the mission that the “authority giver”, God the Almighty Father, gives His servants.

So, Jesus’ question clarifies what is really at stake. (Even if the Pharisees did not know it when they brought up their challenge.)

was it of heaven, or of men?

Stating it this way, Jesus forces the religious leaders to acknowledge that the kind of authority they claim to be talking about (which they claim to have) is something only God can give. It must come from Heaven.

This immediately moves the argument from a conflict of opinions, or rabbinical teachings, to a much more serious, even dangerous, battleground… It is the battleground where true and false prophets are put to the test. (Jesus foresaw this, all the way back in The Sermon – Matthew 7:15.)

You see, in this battleground, the only way to confirm that authority or deny it categorically is for God to speak. After all, that is the way prophets were anointed in the Old Testament, they were called by the Word of the Lord.

Jesus’ retort carries with it, then, an implied a question to the religious leaders: Can they prove that Heaven is the origin of their own authority? Without God speaking audibly there is no proof, pro or con. They can prove nothing about themselves… How can they expect Jesus to prove anything about Himself? That’s hypocrisy. But, yet, they fully understand this; and it is part of their trap: This is why they thought they sprang on Him an unanswerable question: If Jesus says God is His authority, they can follow up with their demand for a sign from Heaven. (Which He has already refused to give.) And if He refuses to answer, they can claim He has no authority.

What they don’t realize is that Jesus’ twist on their question has added a new test on the validity of any claimed divine authority…

The baptism of John, was it of heaven…?

This is a case where like must know like. If the religious leaders’ authority comes from Heaven, then, surely, they can recognize that same Heavenly authority on someone else. Why else would they have asked Jesus the question in the first place (if they could not rightly judge)?

Therefore, if they have divine authority themselves (as they claim) then, either (a) they do not want to confirm Jesus has the same authority, or (b) they know He has none (and have rightly challenged Him).

They want the people to deduce (b) is true; but they are too cowardly to say it out loud themselves… and so they pretend they are examining Him fairly. So, which is it?

Jesus cannot force them to reveal their hand (admit (a) or (b) in front of everybody) because they asked the question first. And going that route, starting a debate, could all devolve into an “I say”, “You say”, argument of opinions.

So, here is where the twist hits: Jesus brings someone else into the picture: John the Baptizer.

Because like must know like.

If the religious leaders can indeed recognize and certify authority, then they certainly can render a verdict on John. This ought to be a cake walk… John is not there to defend himself. They can say whatever they want; and since God hasn’t been speaking audibly recently, who will contradict them?

But now we see the weakness of the religious leaders’ authority. Yes, God is not likely to contradict them audibly, but the people are there listening: the very people the religious leaders depend on for the power of their authority. In their hearts they may have no fear of God, no worry that God may speak and contradict them, but they fear man.

And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we should say, Of heaven, he will say, Why [then] have ye not believed him? but should we say, Of men — they feared the people; for all held of John that he was truly a prophet. And they answering say to Jesus, We do not know. And Jesus [answering] says to them, Neither do *I* tell you by what authority I do these things.

And in so answering, they prove to everybody that they really were not concerned about whether or not God had given Jesus authority, they just did not want to lose their standing in front of the people.

They attacked, and Jesus simply showed their weakness… Now Jesus takes His turn.

Counterstrike

Last time, when we were talking about the cursing of the fig tree, I pointed out that, in the Old Testament, God more than once referred to Israel (the land and its people) using the image (parable) of a vineyard or a fruit tree. (Jesus repeated the use of that simile in the Sermon on the Mount, when He talked about people as trees that bear fruit.) Now Jesus is going to take the parable further…

Mark 12:1-12  And he began to say to them in parables, A man planted a vineyard, and made a fence round [it] and dug a wine-vat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and left the country. And he sent a bondman to the husbandmen at the season, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. But they took him, and beat [him], and sent [him] away empty. And again he sent to them another bondman; and [at] him they [threw stones, and] struck [him] on the head, and sent [him] away with insult. And [again] he sent another, and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some.

Having yet therefore one beloved son, he sent also him to them the last, saying, They will have respect for my son. But those husbandmen said to one another, This is the heir: come, let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours. And they took him and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard.

What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do?

He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.

(The other gospels make it clear that the people hearing this parable are the ones that voiced this conclusion aloud… and Jesus just repeats their words.)

Have ye not even read this scripture, The stone which they that builded rejected, this has become the corner-stone: this is of [the] Lord, and it is wonderful in our eyes?

And they sought to lay hold of him, and they feared the crowd; for they knew that he had spoken the parable of them. And they left him and went away.

In Jesus’ version of the parable, the vineyard itself is not the problem, because the owner (God) has done everything he was supposed to do to protect it, feed it, and get it to prosper. The problem here are the workers of the vineyard. They have forgotten their place: They were put there by the owner to be servants for the benefit of the vineyard. But instead, they want ownership of the vineyard… to the point that they are willing to even kill to keep it. Their violence devolves into madness when they decide that if they kill the son of the owner (his only heir) that then they will get to keep the vineyard for themselves.

Madness… because that makes no sense. Anyone can see, or should be able to see, that such an action would bring swift and unrelenting revenge. But they have come too far. They have hardened themselves once too many times. They have made themselves blind. And they reap what they sow.

God did everything to prepare the Day: In the middle of the Pax Romana, when the world was more connected than ever before; in relative peace, He sent His Son to be born in Bethlehem in fulfilment of the Scriptures. And then sent a herald before Him, in fulfilment of the Scriptures. And then this Son walked all over the land of Israel (God’s vineyard) and freely poured out God’s Word and Grace to the very people (of all the people in the world) that would be able to recognize that Word and embrace it. But the workers of the vineyard did not like it.

And then Jesus quotes a verse from Psalm 118…

Psalm 118:19-23 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will enter into them; Jah will I praise. This is the gate of Jehovah: the righteous shall enter therein. I will give thee thanks, for thou hast answered me, and art become my salvation. [The] stone which the builders rejected hath become the head of the corner: This is of Jehovah; it is wonderful in our eyes.

Did you see the verses I underlined that come just before the one Jesus quoted? Just a day before, Jesus had entered Jerusalem in a procession, through its gates. And the people were crying “Save now!” (Hosanna.)

The religious leaders, though spiritually blind, fully understand that the parable was against them. And they retreat to regroup.

An attack in disguise

Solomon has several Proverbs that warn us against flattering tongues. Look at how they begin their new attack here:

Mark 12:13 -17 And they send to him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him in speaking. And they come and say to him, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and carest not for any one; for thou regardest not men`s person, but teachest the way of God with truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? Should we give, or should we not give?

But he knowing their hypocrisy said unto them, Why tempt ye me? Bring me a denarius that I may see [it]. And they brought [it]. And he says to them, Whose [is] this image and superscription? And they said to him, Caesar`s. And Jesus answering said to them, Pay what is Caesar`s to Caesar, and what is God`s to God. And they wondered at him.

In their first attack they tried to use God’s authority against Jesus and that did not work. This time they tried to use worldly authority against Him, and again it didn’t work.

Just as they could not understand what authority from God is supposed to look like, the religious leaders are equally misguided about the relationship between worldly authority and God’s authority. The religious leaders think of these as two “powers” in opposition, each vying for control of Israel (and their lives). They don’t realize that by living in that mindset, they are expecting God to prove Himself by defeating Rome… as if God needed to openly (publicly) defeat the powers of the world before carrying out His Will.

But God does not need to defeat Rome or any of the kingdoms of the world to carry out His Will. He already has. Every earthly kingdom is as nothing when compared to the power of heaven. Can any earthly kingdom cause any damage, any hurt, even a dent on the kingdom of God? No.

Proof of that is that the Kingdom of God has already burst onto the scene in the persons of John the baptizer and Jesus of Nazareth, and no earthly (or demonic) power was able to prevent it. God’s Will is being carried out every day that Jesus proclaims the Good News.

But the Pharisees and the Herodians are so obsessed with worldly power that they are blind to God’s power already flowing in their midst, changing hearts and lives.

Jesus’ answer to their question is essentially: “What the world requires or does not require is of little importance when compared to what God requires… but more than that: what the world requires, what it considers important (money, fame, power) is meaningless in God’s eyes. So, let the world have what it wants; but you, focus on what God wants.”

Let’s try sophistry

Failing to get Jesus in trouble with either God or the Romans, his enemies decide that the next best thing is to show that He is not really any smarter (any better) than them. They decide to put Him to the test with logical conundrums that they considered unsolvable and which filled the rabbinical literature with endless arguments and counter arguments).

Mark 12: 18 – 27  And Sadducees come to him, that say there is no resurrection; and they demanded of him saying, Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if any one`s brother die, and leave a wife behind, and leave no children, that his brother shall take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. There were seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and dying did not leave seed; and the second took her and died, and neither did he leave seed; and the third likewise. And the seven [took her and] did not leave seed. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they shall rise again, of which of them shall she be wife, for the seven had her as wife?

And Jesus answering said to them, Do not ye therefore err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they rise from among [the] dead they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels [who are] in the heavens. But concerning the dead that they rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses, in [the section of] the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, *I* [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of [the] dead, but of [the] living. *Ye* therefore greatly err.

The Sadducees’ puzzle is really an example of the “Strawman fallacy.” Notice that they do not believe in the resurrection. (The Sadducees only considered the Torah (the books of Moses) as canonical. The rest of the other books, though good for moral instruction, were not necessarily to be taken literally. Thus, they essentially ignored all the prophets after Moses.) Therefore, since they did not believe in the resurrection (as alluded to in Job, or Daniel, or Isaiah, or Ezekiel), they obviously did not study it deeply. Thence Jesus’ rebuke of not knowing the scriptures.

But instead of admitting their ignorance, they did what a lot of people do today who do not believe the Bible. They invented their own version of what the resurrection means, (Just like a lot of people today who ridicule the Bible are really ridiculing their own interpretation of something they have not really tried to comprehend.) In the Sadducees’ version of the resurrection, everything is the same as in this world. Which of course leads to their (to them) unanswerable puzzle.

But Jesus’ reply is to tell them, they have not given Scripture, or God, or the prophets, the benefit of the doubt. It may be that, even after reading all that the Tanakh (the whole Old Testament) has to say about the resurrection, we may not have a complete picture; we may still have questions unanswered. But that does not give us the license to invent contradictions that aren’t there. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Missing information is just that: missing information.

So, what do we do when we are faced with missing information? We assume the best, based on the character of the witness. Has God ever lied? Has God ever been confused? Has God ever been illogical? (See Job’s example when he says: Job 34:10 (NIV)… Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong.) In other words, in the face of a problem we cannot figure out, we are free to assume that God has already figured it out and will take care of whatever it is; because if anyone can, God can. He is all-powerful. This is why Jesus tells them that their problem is two-fold: not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

And then, for the sake of completeness He reveals an additional glimpse of the resurrection to those listening; and then He proves to the Pharisees why they are wrong in denying the resurrection: God has already witnessed to the resurrection when He calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The point is that the only people that can worship God, that can call the Lord, their God, are living people. (See Isaiah 38:18-19 and Psalm 115:16-18). So, if God calls Himself the God of Abraham, even today, then Abraham must be alive today. The resurrection is a fact already attested to by God.

And the sparring bears fruit…

The fight has gone on, back and forth. And Jesus has foiled every attack. He has done it so well that even one blind man can start to see the light.

Mark 12:28 -34   And one of the scribes who had come up, and had heard them reasoning together, perceiving that he had answered them well, demanded of him, Which is [the] first commandment of all?

And Jesus answered him, [The] first commandment of all [is], Hear, Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding, and with all thy strength. This is [the] first commandment. And a second like it [is] this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is not another commandment greater than these.

And the scribe said to him, Right, teacher; thou hast spoken according to [the] truth. For he is one, and there is none other besides him; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the intelligence, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one`s neighbour as one`s self, is more than all the burnt-offerings and sacrifices.

And Jesus, seeing that he had answered intelligently, said to him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no one dared question him any more.

I can just imagine how this last conversation made Jesus feel… Finally! Someone is listening. And I especially like that comment about Jesus appreciating the intelligence of that man. Only Mark tells us things like this. Like when Jesus looked at the rich young ruler, and Mark says, that Jesus loved him… and that is why He answered him the way He did.

With that last sentence, we stop: And no one dared question him any more. His enemies have realized they can’t beat Him in a fair fight. So, they retreat. But Jesus won’t let it go. From here on, he will go on the offensive.

What about us?

Can we be just as blind as the religious leaders of Jesus’ day?

Of course, we can… and we are. Seeing and not seeing at the same time is the natural result of living compartmented lives: judging ourselves by one standard and others by another. Claiming that we deserve justice and fairness but only as long as we get to define what is just, and what is fair and good. That is also the result of compartmentalizing… Because that is me looking at the world and carving out of it a piece and saying: “this is my life, I get to do with it whatever I want”, but then looking at the rest of the world and complaining how messed up they all are or berating God for not taking care of it.

We cannot have it both ways.

Either there is no God and therefore there is no real human purpose to life. Or there is a God who made us and who gave us that purpose in His wisdom and love. We can argue all we want… but if we listen carefully to those arguments we will eventually realize that every one of our arguments has fallen flat. And then… Well, then there is Hope…

Because we just might respond like that scribe at the end of today’s study and realize that there is one way that makes everything make sense: God’s way.