74. Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

Read: Acts 1:6-11

Setting:

Luke 24:50-51 and Acts 1:12  – up the Mount of Olives to the Bethany town line  rather than the village itself

Jesus plus “the apostles whom he had chosen” (Acts 1:2) so Jesus and the Eleven

Person(s) asking the question:

one or more of the Eleven, perhaps one asked and the rest agreed; could have followed private discussion among the Eleven

Question behind the question:

are you going to reveal your true identity to everyone now?

is now the time for you to establish an earthly kingdom, occupy the “throne of David”

should we be getting ready to take our places in your royal court?

Expected response:

wanted and probably expected yes or no answer at least

would have liked some detail of time frame

any further detail Jesus was willing to give certainly appreciated

Jesus’ point:

apostles still dealing with incorrect understanding of prophecy and view of Jesus – time plus study plus Holy Spirit would help that

were making progress – called Jesus “Lord” (v.6) rather than “Rabbi” or “Teacher” or “Master”

still not fully up to speed about what “Lord” really meant about Jesus’ deity and office – Jesus’ statement Luke 24:49 should have helped demonstrate his authority

once they understood true nature of Christ’s kingdom, would more fully realize why timing of Jesus’ return much less important than carrying out commission Jesus gave them (v.8)

their #1 task: be witnesses to Jesus, declare the Gospel far and wide, iow obedience as empowered by the Holy Spirit… confirmed by the angels

Modern Application:

the Father not only decides times and seasons, is up to the Father who he reveals those facts to

we should know better than to “pry” or attempt to do so, is absolutely not profitable

every generation since the apostles’ can look at their circumstances/world and be convinced Jesus’ return would be in their times

Christ has already given his followers enough to be responsible for – both knowledge and duties

we with the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit and help of sound teachers should understand all we are able from God’s Word and that does include eschatology

 

73. But Lord, what about this man?

John 21:21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”

Read: John 21:15-23

 Setting:

fruitless night of fishing by Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James and John plus 2 others (21:2-3); Jesus filled their net, had cooked breakfast on the shore

tradition is fish were Galilean tilapia, valuable commercial fish, average 2-3 lbs – 4oz serving: 100 calories, 21g protein

Jesus invited them to breakfast and then served them, none dared to ask if was really him

after breakfast, Jesus restored Peter to fellowship and usefulness, then gave heads-up about how Peter would end life, renewed call to Peter to “follow me”.

Person(s) asking the question:

Peter, observed John (author of the Gospel) following them, asked Jesus about what John’s future would be

Question behind the question:

can we change the subject now please?

how about rest of the gang, inquiring minds want to know?

am I being singled out for “special” treatment?

Expected response:

as freely as Jesus spoke of Peter’s destiny, probably thought would do the same for others

Jesus’ point:

embedded audio would be priceless – with this kind of response, words Jesus used significantly dependent on tone of voice and body language for nuance

must consider scenario that led up to this Q&A, what is apparent in Jesus’ demeanor and purpose in this 3rd appearance

starts with completely unanticipated overwhelming provision of fish to address their financial need; followed by freshly prepared meal graciously served; next gentle encouraging restoration to both present fellowship and future usefulness; then repeated call to follow and caution that following would not be easy

sharp firm tone of rebuke “that’s my business, not yours; this is your business…” seems completely out of place

at same time Jesus’ point well-made and important for Peter – Jesus had already given Peter enough to be responsible for, more than enough to tax all his resources for rest of life

plus, a lesson in trusting God’s sovereignty – John’s destiny same as Peter’s integral part of Christ’s plan for his church …and… Peter needed to trust him… for himself and all the rest

Modern Application:

commitment to following Jesus not vaccination against hardship and suffering and situations that grow our faith

God in his wisdom does not reveal more of his plan/purpose to us than is good for us… and we shouldn’t pry

our past/present/future secure in God’s keeping – can confidently do all he has tasked us with while trusting him for all things

72. Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?

Luke 24:18 Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, “Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?”

Read: Luke 24:13-32

 Setting:

Resurrection Sunday mid to latter afternoon on road from Jerusalem to Emmaus – exact location uncertain but a 7-mile walk

“two of them” – numbered among women and disciples who knew of the empty tomb and Jesus’ resurrection – Cleopas and another… husband/wife, father/son, master/servant

possible equiv. to Clopas and Mary, see John 19:25 

laboring (conversed and reasoned) to fit puzzle pieces together in a way that made sense… and without much success 

Person(s) asking the question:

Cleopas – really uncertain if this the same as Clopas w/different spelling or another individual

knew details relating to “things concerning Jesus of Nazareth”, also up to speed on Jerusalem “culture” and effect Jesus’ death had

Question behind the question:

Who are you? Where did you come from? Do you know Jesus? – all jumbled up together

one more piece they can’t fit into their puzzle – and… these two typical of all the others who were together in Jerusalem

Expected response:

might have expected Jesus’ question but definitely not what they heard after that 

Jesus’ point:

Jesus never unjustly critical – they (and the rest of close followers) had more than enough “data” to serve as basis for right analysis

access to entire OT, repeated statements by Jesus about death/burial/resurrection, great bulk of his teaching not recorded

should not need to struggle with figuring out what had happened in previous 72 hours – he had told them plainly

another problem: messed up thinking! foolish = ἀνόητος = not thinking properly/well and resistant to change of thinking

iow, stuck in wrong worldview and resisting or not absorbing even Jesus’ work to straighten out their thinking

Modern Application:

is more than enough in Old Testament alone to make identity, ministry and purpose of Jesus clear – NT adds further and future

Jesus again confirmed his death 100% according to God’s plan… in its entirety

so… God’s purpose in giving written book? reveal/explain various elements/details of his plan of redemption through Jesus

is much else – history, instruction, etc – but is subsidiary to big picture; need to get spiritual purpose wherever we are in Bible

71. Do You answer nothing?

Mark 15:4 Then Pilate asked Him again, saying, “Do You answer nothing? See how many things they testify against You!”

Read: Mark 15:2-5; John 18:28-38; Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:2-7

Setting:

outside the Praetorium, probably the place called “the Pavement” referenced John 19:13 

Pilate facing the crowd, sizable group of accusers incl. chief priests and elders, Jesus in between

Person(s) asking the question:

Pontius Pilate, acting as magistrate

Question behind the question:

don’t you have witnesses/friends to help you out and testify on your behalf?

aren’t you going to say anything in your own defense?

won’t you give me something to work with here?

Expected response:

typical defendant would say something, either to benefit themselves or discredit accusers

Pilate expected one or both from Jesus, totally amazed Jesus said nothing

Jesus’ point:

fulfilling prophecy – Isa 53:7 – fit with what he told the two on the road, Luke 24:26-27, certain things were necessary because was what God intended

Jesus would do nothing to interfere in the process or change the outcome of his treatment

Jesus did nothing to add to guilt/condemnation his accusers brought on themselves – anything Jesus said in self-defense would further fuel their determination to destroy him

Pilate really didn’t need words from Jesus to be able to decide the case – he knew chief priests had an agenda (Mark 15:10), was convinced of Jesus’ innocence without further evidence

Modern Application:

Jesus didn’t deprive Pilate of anything essential to the case nor did he encourage further wrongdoing by any of those involved

there are situations where no matter what the Christian says or does, good will not result and evil will only increase – silence is the right response

in a situation like that, when individual(s) incapable of thinking/acting rationally, is really showing mercy to evildoer(s) to be silent

70. Where are You from?

John 19:9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer.

Read: John 18:39-19:16; Matthew 27:15-31; Mark 15:6-20; Luke 23:13-25

Setting:

Pilate has heard further accusation from the Jewish leaders against Jesus: “He made Himself the Son of God”

returns inside the Praetorium to question Jesus again

Person(s) asking the question:

Pontius Pilate

probably not the Jewish law or its penalty that rattled Pilate, rather report of Jesus’ claim to be “Son of God” unnerved him

Question behind the question:

probably not asking for or expecting some kind of street address – more concerned with origin rather than residence/citizenship

“And when, in the year 40 BC, Augustus (Octavian) visited the colonies in Gaul which Caesar had established or extended, there appeared in Gaul a rare bronze coin with a Janus head, composed of the heads of Caesar and his adopted son, and the double inscription, “The divine Caesar—and the Son of God.” On the reverse appeared the chariot of Saturn, the primeval king of paradise. So an official memorial celebrated the arrival of the twenty-three-year-old Augustus as the return of the king of paradise and the coming of a new era.” Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars

had he misinterpreted Jesus’ non-violent answers?

was Jesus the next Caesar to succeed Tiberius, sent directly by the gods?

Expected response:

frustrated b/c Jesus gave no answer – was Pilate’s “threat” something he really believed? or didn’t know what else to say?

would not be first “hopeful” Caesar to be killed, even Julius Caesar assassinated while in office

did Pilate believe Jesus’ eventual answer? seems he gave it some credibility given attempts to spare Jesus’ life

Jesus’ point:

not only for Pilate’s benefit, also for those who would hear/read the account: has two basic applications, one of near proximity, the other a universal principle

is backup for Peter’s declaration Acts 2:23 – absolutely every detail of Jesus’ betrayal and following under superintendence of the Father

Jesus was not a martyr, ill-fated to be caught up in political maneuvering; not unfortunate event that God somehow had to make the best of

Pilate had no inherent power, same could be said for all the levels of authority above him – ultimately was derived from God himself

“[The orb] is presented to the Sovereign after they put on the Imperial Robe. The orb is brought from the altar by the Dean of Westminster, and given to the Archbishop of Canterbury to place into the Monarch’s right hand. There he says: “Receive this orb set under the cross, and remember that the whole world is subject to the Power and Empire of Christ our Redeemer.”

Modern Application:

 if all this, what appeared to be greatest possible injustice carried out on innocent man carried out according to God’s plan, same holds true for every “lesser” unjust evil action

God has a purpose in these events and he will bring about ultimate justice in his time and way

69. Are You a king then?

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

Read: John 18:28-38; Matthew 27:11-14; Mark 15:2-5; Luke 23:2-7

Setting:

still at the Praetorium, being questioned by Pilate perhaps before being sent to Herod

John the only writer who gives two questions: v.33, “Are You the King of the Jews?” and v.37, “Are You a king then?”

Person(s) asking the question:

Pontius Pilate

Question behind the question:

what kind of a king are you? do you seek anything of mine?

what kind of kingdom are you talking about? Do you seek anything belonging to Rome?

are you and I using the same dictionary, definitions for king and kingdom?

Expected response:

probably something similar to what Jesus gave… even though Pilate didn’t really understand it

Pilate very familiar with Roman leadership style, nothing like what he saw in Jesus

Jesus’ point:

the kingdom – start with what Jesus said, taking it at face value:

1. Jesus is a king with a kingdom

2. His kingdom is not a Roman or Jewish or world’s kind of kingdom

3. Jesus gives example/proof of difference: military-like force not found in his kind of kingdom – significant but not only difference

4. need to be certain we don’t try to make Jesus’ kingdom look like something it isn’t according to his description

Jesus’ kingdom primarily centered in spiritual realm although it does intersect/overlap physical realm

Modern Application:

kingdom now – about citizenship, not territory – Rom. 14:17 

kingdom future – will include both people and territory – 1 Cor. 15:24-28 

 

67. Are You the King of the Jews?

Matthew 27:11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.”

Read: Matthew 27:11-14; Mark 15:2-5; Luke 23:2-7; John 18:28-38

Setting:

“Act 3” of Jesus’ trial – taken from Caiaphas’ house to the Praetorium (John 18:28) – description of the place, not its location

Praetorium means headquarters of an official or commander-in-chief – Pilate’s chief Praetorium located in Caesarea, one in Jerusalem used only on special occasions, its actual location uncertain

Person(s) asking the question:

Pontius Pilate, identified as governor of Judea (Luke 3:1), probably answering directly to Caesar and had supreme judicial authority

Question behind the question:

What kind of a king are you?

What is your position toward Rome?

Do you intend to make trouble for me? What is your agenda?

Expected response:

probably didn’t know what to expect

only in Jerusalem for relatively brief periods, not up to speed on local gossip

Jesus’ point:

responds with a question of his own calculated to expose Pilate’s agenda

what kind of “court” setting is this? ecclesiastical / religious? political / civil?

doing some discovery of his own to determine if / how he should respond to further questioning

also alerted Pilate to fact that Jesus’ accusers really did have an agenda, were trying to manipulate Pilate / work the system to get what they wanted

Modern Application:

Jesus made no accusations of wrongdoing yet his question of Pilate made clear something was going wrong

asking a question  like Jesus did helped keep the conversation focused – Jesus will be able to answer further questions on point and in way that Pilate can comprehend/relate to

to adequately answer Pilate’s question first would have probably sounded evasive and confusing, needlessly prejudicing Pilate against him

the better you understand a questioner – worldview, motive, perspective – more effectively you can answer questions

66. Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

Mark 14:61 But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

Read: Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54-71 

Setting:

Matthew and Mark make this the last question from the high priest (Caiaphas) in front of the Sanhedrin, Q. 65 comes after his sentencing to death

Luke keeps the order of Q. 65 and 66, Luke 22:66-71, as with Matthew and Mark this question is still the final one before sentencing

Matthew and Luke record the high priest asking if Jesus is “the Son of God”, Mark uses phrase “Son of the Blessed”, a euphemism / way of avoiding use of God’s name

Person(s) asking the question:

Caiaphas, the high priest

Question behind the question:

tone of voice, order of words indicate strongly sarcastic “you of all people are not really the true Messiah?”

will you incriminate yourself so we can keep this moving?

Expected response:

believes true answer to question would be “no”, hoping desperately Jesus does not give that one

expects Jesus likely to answer more or less as his first sentence

didn’t necessarily expect the rest of Jesus’ response – glad to have it because highly useful to his agenda

Jesus’ point:

knew an affirmative answer like he gave would be guaranteed death sentence, given mood of the “crowd”

another place in sequence of events where Jesus maintaining silence could easily be misunderstood

no good reason to keep his identity as Messiah hidden any longer

this particular question from one in authority needed direct affirmative answer for sake of all who were not present, contemporaries and those who would believe in him by the apostles’ word

Jesus knew prophecy, condition of their hearts, what final outcome would be – not attempting to change anyone’s mind at this point, rather putting his declared identity in official public record

Modern Application:

if Jesus really a good man, example, teacher, it follows he can be trusted to accurately and truthfully identify himself

whether it sounds to us like Jesus was claiming deity, those who heard him speak heard it that way – Jehovah’s Witness or Buddhist or Muslim should understand it that way also

taking story at face value, if Jesus was willing to die for the sake of his identity as Son of God, gives us great confidence he was really telling truth

65. Who is the one who struck You?

Luke 22:64 And having blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face and asked Him, saying, “Prophesy! Who is the one who struck You?”

Read: Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54-71; John 18:13-24

Setting:

still in the presence of Caiaphas and company – the Sanhedrin along with temple guards

Person(s) asking the question:

some in the group of scribes and elders, probably more than one – “saying” in Matt. 26:68 & Luke 22:64 is plural

Question behind the question:

did not believe Jesus really was the Christ, were challenging him to prove his identity somehow

Expected response:

maybe but not likely expected Jesus to guess who did it

doubtful if they expected any response since purpose only to ridicule

Jesus’ point:

Jesus did not respond in any way – what could he add to what he had already done to persuade those unwilling to believe

Matthew 11:2-6 – answer to John the Baptist’s disciples

Luke 16:30-31 – answer to the rich man’s request of Father Abraham

Modern Application:

Jesus’ tormentors could not be persuaded because they would not believe and they did not have the Holy Spirit’s help/influence to desire truth and want to understand

when the “case for Christ” has been fully made, trying to add more evidence in the face of mocking resistance is not profitable

we don’t always have to add more words/proofs to a conversation – may need to give the Holy Spirit time/space to work

64. Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?

Matthew 26:62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?”

Read: Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; (John 18:13-24;) Luke 22:54-71

Setting:

actual location of Annas’ and Caiaphas’ houses uncertain – some speculate different sections of same house/compound, others believe some distance between

Caiaphas’ location seems to be with the Sanhedrin: according to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, were two groups called Sanhedrin consisting of 70 men plus the high priest (one political w/authority to pronounce capital punishment, the other religious)

had managed to acquire testimony from “many false witnesses”, only inconsistent testimony and not compelling – nothing worthy of death

two finally agreed on Jesus’ statement regarding the temple, prompted Caiaphas to challenge Jesus to defend himself

Person(s) asking the question:

the high priest, Caiaphas, sounds pretty frustrated that Jesus didn’t give them anything to go on, no way to entrap him

Question behind the question:

like Annas, seeking evidence that would clearly implicate Jesus in wrongdoing, provide basis for judgment against him

even what two men agreed on represented nothing illegal – an empty boast perhaps, insignificant for what they wanted

hoping to draw Jesus out, get him tangled up in argument, even better if he resisted in some way to justify condemnation

Expected response:

don’t know exactly what they expected, except not silence

Jesus’ point:

witnesses made the case even better than Jesus would have – they couldn’t agree nor could they even fabricate anything of substance

Jesus was content to let witnesses speak to what he had said/done publicly – knew were enough good witnesses to the truth that perjury could not legitimately prevail

trying to fabricate something from false testimony would only discredit Caiaphas and Sanhedrin in eyes of the people

only one alternative: put Jesus under oath, frame the question so it requires yes or no response and he either commits perjury or commits blasphemy

time had come for Jesus to publicly declare his identity – did not defend his teaching or actions, did speak truth as a prophet

Modern Application:

arguing or defending a position is not helpful when the other party has an agenda other than discovering truth (or refuses to be taught)

answers to direct questions should be given in a straightforward way – as was demanded of Martin Luther:

Eck found Luther’s answer evasive. He asked again, “Martin–answer candidly and without horns–do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain?”

Luther replied, “‘Since then your imperial majesty and your lordships demand a simple answer, I will give you one without teeth and without horns.”

each situation requires wisdom and discernment how best to respond: none, simple, simple with further explanation