Interplanner
Well-known member
This proposition shows in all the places it comes up. Let's take Mt 22. There is no 2nd sense here or trick question. He has told them what the Christ is and it is the Gospel. That person, completing the Gospel, is David's son.
There is no delayed or other theocracy in Judea sense. The kingdom (reign) of God never meant that when mentioned or declared to be in force. They knew all this and it shows in the horrified reaction of Caiahphas in 26:64 (or, to it). It is not too much to say that the 'blasphemy' (per Judaism) is the claim of universe-wide Lordship instead of the theocracy they hoped would happen. Because while they never wanted to lose any ground in their niche in Roman admin, they would love to have had theocratic independence. Jesus never offered any help on that! Instead, he parks the question with 'render to Caesar...render to God...'
There is no delayed or other theocracy in Judea sense. The kingdom (reign) of God never meant that when mentioned or declared to be in force. They knew all this and it shows in the horrified reaction of Caiahphas in 26:64 (or, to it). It is not too much to say that the 'blasphemy' (per Judaism) is the claim of universe-wide Lordship instead of the theocracy they hoped would happen. Because while they never wanted to lose any ground in their niche in Roman admin, they would love to have had theocratic independence. Jesus never offered any help on that! Instead, he parks the question with 'render to Caesar...render to God...'