Clearly, Jesus was rejected by the Jews as a nation (the majority of what was known as God’s people) during the first century AD. Clearly, the Jewish authorities confronted Jesus over and over again to get him to stop preaching his new doctrine and to accept the traditions Jews have always followed (always, being a matter of interpretation). Jesus challenged his unbelieving critics in a way that was quite astonishing. Many of us in our modern day often enjoy a good argument / debate. We even schedule such events, advertising them and display them in very accommodating venues, often in auditoriums with plush seating etc. to attract a huge audience. However, the Lord was often confronted by his critics extemporaneously in his immediate surroundings, often during the annual holy days, where huge crowds stood listening. So, it seems quite amazing how he both replied to and challenged his antagonists.
During the Feast of Dedication, what is known today as Hanukkah, 30 AD, which is celebrated in our December, Jesus was confronted by the Jewish authorities. The group surrounded him, no doubt in an effort to intimidate him, demanding that he speak clearly (John 10:22-24). Jesus told them that they know exactly what he claimed about himself, but they didn’t believe him. Then he told them that the works he does in his Father’s name testify of him (John 10:25). In other words, Jesus was on a mission from the Father. Certain works had to be done. After some discussion, which was beginning to turn violent (John 10:31), Jesus told them, look the matter is very clear: “If I’m not doing the works my Father sent me to do (cp. John 10:25), don’t believe me (John 10:37). However, if I am doing those works, believe the works, even though you can’t believe my words (John 10:38). In other words the **works** of Jesus speak louder than the **words** of Jesus. So, believe the works, and one would soon come to realize his words were true also.
One year earlier at the Feast of Tabernacles, 29 AD, Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees (John 8:13). They claimed Jesus’ words weren’t true, because he testified of himself, and the Law requires two witnesses for the truth to be known. Jesus argued that his testimony was true, because his Father also testified of him (John 8:18-19), and the witness he spoke of was the Father did the works Jesus did. In other words, he did them through Jesus (John 14:10). It was Jesus’ miracles that condemned unbelievers of his day (John 15:24), not his words. The fact that no man could do the works Jesus did was proof, positive that the works were done through him by God, himself. Therefore, to not believe the works of Jesus, leaves one without an excuse.
One has to wonder what it would have taken for the Jewish authorities for the first century AD to believe Jesus. Of course, they preached the Messiah would never die (John 12:34), and Jesus taught that he would die (John 8:28; 12:32). They taught the Messiah was the son of David (Matthew 22:42), but David referred to him as his Lord, so how could he be his son (Matthew 22:43-45). Jesus taught and debated many things with his contemporaries, but the bottom line had always been, don’t believe me for my words’ sake, but rather for my works’ sake. In other words, if Jesus didn’t do the work of God, works the Father had sent him to do, then don’t believe him (John 10:37-38). This is the point of faith. Jesus’ words are valid only in so far as his works are the work of God.
Most believers today look for Jesus to physically return to this earth in the body of a Jewish male, to physical Jerusalem to rule from a physical throne located in a physical, rebuilt Temple. The question is, in what way is this different from the unbelieving Jews of Jesus’ day? Why would Jerusalem and the Temple need to be destroyed, if all that mattered was for the Jews to believe Jesus was the Messiah and make him King (John 12:34)? Nothing would have made the Jews happier in the first century AD than to crown Jesus as their King (John 6:14-15), but Jesus refused to permit it. What’s missing here?
If seeing is believing, then it wouldn’t take much to have faith. How strong is a man’s faith, if he must literally see a matter before he believes? If the Kingdom of God is in a man’s heart, how could Jesus rule a man’s heart from a physical Temple in Jerusalem? Both ideas are opposed to the other. One is physical, while the other is spiritual. You can’t see the spiritual with your physical eyes. You can’t see Jesus rule a man’s heart, except in the fruits. When the Apostles asked Jesus about his coming at the end of the age (Matthew 24:3) they were asking about when he would come into his Kingdom at the end of the Old Covenant age (Genesis 49:1; Deuteronomy 31:29), because he absolutely blew their minds when he told them the Temple would be destroyed (Matthew 23:37-38; 24:2). In other words, when Jesus would come into his Kingdom at the end of the age (the Old Covenant age), the Temple wouldn’t be there! The physical throne of God would be destroyed, but Jesus would be coming into his Kingdom, where his throne would be the human heart (Luke 17:21).
So, the coming of Jesus into his Kingdom would be when the Temple at Jerusalem would be destroyed. When did that occur? It occurred in 70 AD when Titus, the son of the Emperor of Rome, led his armies against Jerusalem and took the city. Jesus came in the glory of the Father (cp. Isaiah 19:1) in the armies that destroyed the Temple, but who believes the works (cp. John 10:37-38)?
Smoodock's Blog 