You Were There (09/04/12)
Once again I find my mind is on those at this trial who were at least nominal believers. Where are Peter and John during all this? Are they in the room, or stuck in the outer courtyard? I believe they are outside, not immediate witness to this humiliation of their Lord and ours. But, there were others. There is Nicodemus, for example. What scant evidence we have of him suggests that he, though a part of the Sanhedrin, was at least somewhat convinced of this Messiah, this Jesus. Yes, he is something of a silent partner, for reasons we can easily surmise. But, he is there. He, at least, understands that what is happening here is wrong.
Listen. It really doesn’t matter at this point whether one has accepted His claim or not. The simple concern for justice, for God’s representatives representing God would cause one to stand witness against what is happening in this room. They have observed the tampering with evidence. They know full well that what few so-called witnesses have been found have been coerced, been paid off, been perjuring themselves with wild abandon. They know, too, that what just passed was not blasphemy. Wherein is it written that one with honest claim to the title, Son of God, would be blaspheming to speak of it? Surely, at most He has earned Himself a hearing, an interrogation, to determine if this claim of His is true? Besides, was it not the high priest himself who demanded answer, who first (and more literally) spoke the forbidden phrase?
Even if we accept the charge of blasphemy, what is this treatment by the guards? Is this in any way the legitimate carrying out of justice? I think not. Granted, if the blasphemy charge holds up, He is subject to stoning by the whole nation, were they politically in position to proceed. And, if we take Stephen’s case from later days, they were certainly capable of finding a way to pursue that course if the mood took them. But, where in the Levitical code do we find justification, or even permission, for this mistreatment by the guards? Where is it written, “thou shalt mock the defendant and abuse him upon judgment of his guilt”? It is not.
And yet, not one amongst the leading lights of Israel seems to have seen fit to speak out.
New Thoughts (09/06/12-09/07/12)
I find I have surprisingly little I wish to comment upon concerning this passage. It may be that I am distracted by certain technical difficulties that have arisen. It may be that I have become too dependent upon my chosen tools, my software and my settings, and that I need to be broken free of those things for a season. It’s certainly worth my while to contemplate what it is God may be trying to accomplish in me with these discomforts. I expect that is a thought I may return to later.
One point that struck me this morning, which had escaped me during preparations is the reason for including Esther 7:8 amongst the parallel verses for the text at hand. That passage depicts the fall of Haman. He has dared to assault the queen, or at least has the appearance of having assaulted her, when the king comes in. The king’s comment is, I think, particularly to the point for what we are observing with Jesus. “Will he even assault the queen with me in the house?” An end-note in that verse says that they covered Haman’s face even as the king was speaking. Not sure what to make of that. But, it’s beside the point for now.
“Will he even assault the queen with me in the house?” Well, you may ask, what has that to do with this court scene? I will start with this: Whose court is it? I mean, whose is it supposed to be? It is the Sanhedrin, the court established for God’s people. It is composed of the chief religious lights of the day, presided over by no less than the high priest himself. Who, then, ought truly to preside over this court, if not God Himself? Of course He is to be understood as present in such a convocation. He is in the house. And, who is it has been put on trial, but His Son, His Right Hand. It is not difficult to move from queen to prince. And assault them they have! They have beat Him, slapped Him, spoken such evil of Him that, if His claim be true, they are surely as guilty of blasphemy as they are making Him out to be! “Will they even assault the Messiah with Me in the house?”
Sadly for them, the answer was, “yes.” Of course, God knew that. This was, after all, His plan unfolding, a plan already millennia old at the time. He is not surprised, no. Merely saddened that His own people will not repent and return to Him. But, then, this same event is great good news for us. It is in the Gospels, after all! It is part and parcel of the Gospels. The Good News would be no good news at all except that Jesus persevered even through these circumstances, that He held to the plan of God even when it became so difficult, personally.
It is interesting, isn’t it, to consider the true irony of the situation? It struck me as I was coming near the end of writing the second paragraph preceding. “They are surely as guilty of blasphemy as they are making Him out to be!” That is the truth of the matter. I had wondered at the translation of Luke 22:65 at first, whether it was fitting to report that they blasphemed Him. Of course, if they truly believed Him to be a liar and a blasphemer Himself, they would not perceive their actions in that light. We are not told just what it was they were saying, but the other accounts give us some idea of it. You say You speak by God’s own revelation? Well, then! Let Him reveal to You who just hit You! C’mon, God boy! Show us what You’ve got.
Well, then, with that alone are they not at least a tad guilty of blaspheming? To revile the prophet and claim he lies, is that not blasphemous in itself? If that prophet is speaking God’s words, and God is True, then what does it imply to call His spokesman a liar except that you are, as John wrote it, making God out to be a liar. If, as we understand it, that prophetic message is delivered by the Holy Spirit, then you are directly rejecting said Holy Spirit, and seems to me Jesus made special provision for that case. “That will never be forgiven.” It was not, after all, the Spirit’s role to suffer and be shamed. No, not at all. That role went to Jesus and to Jesus alone.
It is somewhat reminiscent of certain results of Old Testament correction. There were those heathen nations God sent to discipline Israel. But, those nations went further than authorized, carried things too far. And so, though used of God, they became objects of His wrath. In fairness, I suppose they had ever been so. But, their excesses sealed His case against them, and marked a point beyond which redemption was no longer an option for them.
I suspect that is exactly what we see in this courtroom. Those who staged this farce, and those who participated in it, though they serve the plan of God all unwittingly, are yet sealing their own cases. They have moved themselves beyond the point where redemption is on offer. Now, understand. There is none so evil that God cannot save. In case we have doubts on that account, we are given the evidence of Paul, who even imprisoned and sought by every possible means to squash this new sect of the Christians. Yet, God saw fit to redeem him, and to make him one of the greatest authorities for that very sect. But, here’s a distinction: Paul truly believed that this sect was in error and dangerous to the health of Israel’s religious condition. Those who set this court in motion have shown repeatedly that their concern is not for Israel’s religious health, but for their own political health. And, as the authorities they set themselves to be, they ought more certainly to have recognized that Jesus was only speaking the truth when He said, “I am.”
Indeed, I am largely convinced that they knew full well that He was speaking truly, but that their own sense of God was so attenuated that it didn’t matter. They no longer really served God at all, only their appetites. God and the ancient faith He instituted were not the means of life to them, but only the means of making a living. And, in that regard, faith had become subservient to the very present power of Rome.
Nor was that the only thing to which faith had been subjected. Faith was subjected to tradition, as is well covered in the record of what Jesus taught, and why He confronted these men. Another way of viewing that problem is that they failed of understanding the Law as it was revealed in Torah. What they counted as binding was in reality nothing but perception, and misperception at that. Their sense of how one honored the name of God had been reduced to something that would be almost comical, were it not so tragic. There is something out of balance. They will carefully avoid so much as writing His name, writing the word God, for fear that it might count as taking said name in vain. They would happily prescribe stoning for any who fell short of this mark, were they still able. Indeed, you could almost credit them their concern for blasphemy. Except that this concern was not so much concern as reaction. It was such an instantaneous response to stimulus that no thought went into it. Here was God Himself truly stating that He was indeed God, and they are more upset with His use of the term than with the possibility that He’s serious and they are hardly in suitable condition to receive Him!
Notice how the law is explained when the bring Jesus before Pilate. “We have a law!” Yes, so far so good, and the Romans, legislators that they are, will appreciate the significance, the power of that statement. “That law says He must die because He claimed to be the Son of God” (Jn 19:7). Well, no. An honest fact-checker (were there such a thing) would have a field day with that. If it could be shown that He spoke incorrectly, then yes, I suppose one could apply the Law to His case. But, the Law says things must be proven by witness, by evidence. The mere answering of a question from the high priest hardly counts as testimony. Where is the request for backing testimony for His answer? Where is the consideration of His public record, what He is well known to have verifiably said and done? What alternative explanations shall they produce for those deeds? If He is not Who He claims to be, then how? None of that is explored. Instead, we have the Law misrepresented.
“He must die because He claimed to be the Son of God.” Where is it written? Show me the statute! Perhaps they thought that the laws concerning prophets applied? But, no prophet claims to be the Son of God, only to speak under His revelation. And, even then, there are further circumstances required before a penalty is drawn. Were it a crime to act as a prophet of God and admit to it, then the bulk of the Old Testament would be missing. Moses himself would have been due for stoning, and what would remain? No, truth is, if that was so tightly interpreted, there would be no Torah, no Wisdom, no Prophets, nothing. For the very value of those texts lies in the fact that they were written under the revelatory power of God Himself. If they were not, then they are but the musings of madmen.
If they are somehow seeking to punish Him for falsely claiming to be God, or a god, ought they not to proffer proof to that charge, or to seek from Him proof that His claim is valid? But, that would take too long, nor would it satisfy the true aim of this council, which was to protect its own power. So, instead, they settle for twisting the rules a bit, enough to suit their purposes. But, as I said, they have, in doing so, moved themselves beyond the point of redemption. Can I say that with absolute certainty? No, but I can say it with utmost conviction.
There is a time in the course of each man and nation beyond which the deal is off. It happened for the generation that departed Egypt, as it had happened for that generation of Egyptians. It happened for the Canaanites and the other tribes of the region. It happened for the nation of Israel, both the northern kingdom and Judea. Having spent the spring and summer teaching through Amos, that crossing of the line is painfully evident, and terrifyingly applicable to our own day and age. We have a law! But, is it God’s or is it just our own preferences that mark our course? Does our law still have some mooring in absolutes? It seems to me that beyond lip-service paid, the actual answer is no. If not, it is rapidly becoming so. And, a lawless nation cannot be long for this world. That line with God, once crossed, admits of no returning. It’s done. His patience is great, and certainly extends far and away beyond our own. But, it is not infinite. “I will not contend with you forever.” But, oh! When He stops, there are only two outcomes possible for us, and only one for Him. For Him, the only possible outcome is that He wins. For us, there is the possibility that He wins in having brought us to our senses, or that He wins in having brought us to justice.
Truth is we do have a law. It is God’s law. Whether we acknowledge it or not, whether we twist it to our own preferences or seek to model our own preferences upon it, it remains valid, unadulterated and fully in force. It is to that law that we shall answer, one and all. In the final balance, it is His judgment that shall hold, and His judgment is set firmly upon the eternal and unchanging definition of righteousness which He caused to be encapsulated in His revealed faith, and which He has preserved amazingly intact down through the ages, whatever powers of man or devil has sought to shake off His instruction from mankind.
Here we have the truth of how God holds us. Whether believer or not, whether glad of it or resentful, He has charge of us, and He has final disposition of us. Now, here’s a question that we who count ourselves as true believers need to ask of ourselves. How do we hold Jesus? In honor, or in custody?
This is, to me, the point we must take away from the scene before us. To fail at that is to leave the account a mere historical curiosity. If we suppose ourselves too enlightened to have fallen into the same roles as these priests and scribes did, then we think far too highly of ourselves. We are men, even as they. We are still beset by sins, still pushed off course by our foibles. We are, I fear, just as quick to insist that Jesus play by our rules, rather than giving due diligence to ensuring our ways conform to His.
Do we hold Jesus in honor? Then surely we ought be devoting far more of our time to His service. Indeed, wouldn’t such honor demand all our time? Oh, I understand that our employments, our vocations, can be counted as serving Him as easily as the more overt ministries of the Church. But, do we pursue them with that in mind? Or have we settled for just earning a living; maybe even hoping to be a bit more prosperous than absolutely necessary? And, to what purposes do we turn any such excess in our income? Is it plowed back into the church or plowed back into our comfort and our sense of self-wrought security?
Oh, dear. I confess that I cannot answer that as I would prefer to. Not if I am to be honest. I think back on that song handed to me years ago, “What would you do if I said to give it all away?” I’m not sure I could. Well, to be fair, I am quite sure that if it was His purpose that I do so, He would then empower me to comply with what strikes me as quite impossible from this perspective. But, left to myself? No, I don’t think I could do it. I’m too comfortable. I like knowing where my meals are coming from. I like being able to support my family and see to their wants. I like to be able to procure my little entertainments once in awhile. Is it a crime? Only if I insist on those pursuits even when my confessed Lord is commanding me otherwise.
I had a visit with our pastor weeks back, discussing this matter of teaching, of studying. One suggestion he had was pursuing a seminary degree. Now, I know, some of us have rather a reaction to the idea of seminary in our day and age. But, there are still those seminaries that seek to produce men of faith rather than godless imposters. But, never mind the fact that such a course of action bears certain expenses. How shall that be pursued apart from a cessation of employment, at least of such employment as I have been used to these last decades? Where would the finances come from? How reduced must my standard of living become to chase such a thing? And, what sort of job would there be at the end of it? Certainly nothing that pays like engineering. I just can’t see my way clear to do it. Too many responsibilities. Too many depending on me.
Sigh. Will I ever learn? I mean, I know philosophically that nothing depends on me. It all depends on Him and on Him alone. Yet, the man in me still feels the need of being dependable, of being a good provider for my family. No, there is no wrong in doing so. But, there is great wrong in thinking that, in pursuing such dependability, it really does depend on me.
Holy Lord, my Jesus, my King: I have, as I have said, no doubts that there are places in my life that I am not truly and fully surrendering to You. I don’t have to search too far at all to find those sins that so easily beset and entangle. I fear, in many ways, to even claim to be sorry, to seek forgiveness, for I know my weakness. It is ever before me. I know too well that the greater likelihood is that I shall fall into them again, even having professed my desire to repent, even having been forgiven. I shall again stretch Your patience. But, I would it were not so, my God! Would that You would purge these things from my weak flesh, that You would instill in me the spiritual backbone to stand as You call me to stand. So, then, I throw myself at Your feet, Lord Jesus. Come, grant me Your forgiveness for what is past, and Your power to truly repent as to what lies ahead. Grant me, Lord, to accept Your training and Your command, to pursue You as relentlessly as You have pursued me. I want to be found, my King, suited to Your kingdom in that day, found to be, by Your grace alone, to be suited for blessing, dressed for the wedding, spotless and without blame because You have washed me clean.
