Luk 22:67 "If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe,
Luk 22:68 and if I ask you, you will not answer.
Luk 22:69 But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."
Luk 22:70 So they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am."
Luk 22:71 Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? Luk 23:1 Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
Luk 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king." We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."
Based on the reactions from the council members, they seemed to have understood Jesus' description of 'the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power of God', as their own understanding of who the Son of God would be or be like. And in the following verse (v.71), this was the statement that the council members decided as blasphemous and worthy of Jesus' crucification (John 19:7). To them, the phrase being seated at the right hand of the power of God was equivalent to being the divine Son of God or God. They could not accept that the Christ or the Son of Man could be God Himself as embodied in Jesus of Nazareth.
Interestingly, if Jesus would have admitted plainly that He was the Christ or the enigmatic title of the Son of Man, the Jews might not have considered it blasphemous because to them, the Christ was merely the king (Luke 23:2), or the king of the Jews, a mortal man nevertheless. Even more interesting would be the fact that the instigators initially did not deceide to use the actual blasphemous statement of Jesus being the Son of God, which in their law was worthy of death, as an accusation for Pilate to condemn the Lord. They knew that Pilate would have no grounds to condemn a person based on a blasphemous religious statement. Therefore, a political reason was conjured for Pilate, that Jesus was the Christ, king of the Jews, and he was taking the taxes away from Caesar, which Pilate indeed could use as grounds for the judgement. It was when Pilate refused to pronounce the judgement that the instigators revealed their actual reason which made Pilate shuddered (John 19:7).
The same reaction Jesus received when he said he was one with the Father. The Jews understood him as saying he was God, or equal with God (John 10:30-31). Importantly from the passage, we could see that Lord considered being one with God as His own understanding of what the Son of God meant (John 10:36).
I think reading these verses properly according to the context, e.g. actions and events of the participants, would help us to see how the Jews understood the title 'Son of God' during Jesus' lifetime.
P.S. There are some scholars who think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God is a later development being read back into the gospels, which lead them to think that verses containing such belief would be unreliable as evidence of who Jesus was and is. I think from my own study of these passages, I conclude that if the belief that Jesus is the Son of God did not exist during his lifetime, then there would be no grounds for the chief priests and Pharisees to condemn Jesus as the Son of God.
Luk 22:68 and if I ask you, you will not answer.
Luk 22:69 But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."
Luk 22:70 So they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am."
Luk 22:71 Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? Luk 23:1 Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
Luk 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king." We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."
Based on the reactions from the council members, they seemed to have understood Jesus' description of 'the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power of God', as their own understanding of who the Son of God would be or be like. And in the following verse (v.71), this was the statement that the council members decided as blasphemous and worthy of Jesus' crucification (John 19:7). To them, the phrase being seated at the right hand of the power of God was equivalent to being the divine Son of God or God. They could not accept that the Christ or the Son of Man could be God Himself as embodied in Jesus of Nazareth.
Interestingly, if Jesus would have admitted plainly that He was the Christ or the enigmatic title of the Son of Man, the Jews might not have considered it blasphemous because to them, the Christ was merely the king (Luke 23:2), or the king of the Jews, a mortal man nevertheless. Even more interesting would be the fact that the instigators initially did not deceide to use the actual blasphemous statement of Jesus being the Son of God, which in their law was worthy of death, as an accusation for Pilate to condemn the Lord. They knew that Pilate would have no grounds to condemn a person based on a blasphemous religious statement. Therefore, a political reason was conjured for Pilate, that Jesus was the Christ, king of the Jews, and he was taking the taxes away from Caesar, which Pilate indeed could use as grounds for the judgement. It was when Pilate refused to pronounce the judgement that the instigators revealed their actual reason which made Pilate shuddered (John 19:7).
The same reaction Jesus received when he said he was one with the Father. The Jews understood him as saying he was God, or equal with God (John 10:30-31). Importantly from the passage, we could see that Lord considered being one with God as His own understanding of what the Son of God meant (John 10:36).
I think reading these verses properly according to the context, e.g. actions and events of the participants, would help us to see how the Jews understood the title 'Son of God' during Jesus' lifetime.
P.S. There are some scholars who think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God is a later development being read back into the gospels, which lead them to think that verses containing such belief would be unreliable as evidence of who Jesus was and is. I think from my own study of these passages, I conclude that if the belief that Jesus is the Son of God did not exist during his lifetime, then there would be no grounds for the chief priests and Pharisees to condemn Jesus as the Son of God.
Comments