New Thoughts (08/22/10-08/29/10)
As we consider this meeting of the high court of Jerusalem, there is one matter that is something of an aside to the events at hand which I would yet like to take note of. In reading about this Sanhedrin, this supreme court, there is an interesting exception that comes to light. From the Scriptures we are familiar with the limitation placed on this council under Roman rule: They could not impose the death penalty except with the confirmation of the Roman authorities. This, of course, is why we find Jesus taken before Pontius Pilate. The Sanhedrin had made their judgment, but required the governor to ratify their decision.
What struck me as interesting, however, is that there was a single exception provided for in this rule. In one case, and one case alone, the Sanhedrin could move to apply the death penalty without appeal to the Romans. That case consisted of a Gentile coming into the inner court of the temple. In this one case, even Roman citizenship could not protect you. They could move immediately and finally without fear of repercussions.
Why does this interest me? Quite simply, it sheds some light on that final visit Paul made to Jerusalem. Look at the cry that was raised against him. “Men of Israel come! Not only does this guy preach against Law and Temple wherever he goes, but look! He has brought Greeks into the inner court” (Ac 21:28)! Of course, we understand that there was no truth to these charges, certainly not that last one. Yet, given the seriousness of that charge, the likelihood of fair trial was pretty slim, and the threat to Paul’s life very real. Even the arrival of the Roman soldiers who escorted him out of immediate danger would not have kept anybody from harassing him over such a breach of temple sanctity.
Prior to noticing this exception, I would have supposed Paul more under the threat of the mob than under threat from the council. Of course, given the corruption shown by that council in trying Jesus, there was certainly no assurance of fair trial from that corner for Paul, either. Yet, they seem to have grown a little more sensible to the implausible nature of their attempts to deny what everybody knew was happening.
However, a charge of violating the temple sanctity, if they could even come up with a reasonable pretense of validity, would allow them to dispose of Paul with much greater speed than they had been able to apply with Jesus. And, two or three witnesses to confirm the Greek presence? That should prove easy enough, even if there were no Greek presence.
Yes, the threat to Paul was very great indeed, and had those soldiers not chosen to pull him out of that situation, we would doubtless be lacking a good portion of our New Testament. As I say, though, this is of no particular bearing on the text at hand, it is just something interesting to become aware of.
In preparing for this particular study it seems I took rather a long look at the parties involved in this council. After all, pretty much the whole of the Jewish religious order was present for this discussion. The only groups that seem to be missing are the Herodians and the Essenes. Of course, that latter group is never mentioned in Scripture, and the former are well enough represented by the Sadducees who composed the ranks of the chief priests. Of those mentioned, though, I find it is the scribes who, as a group, most catch my attention because it is they who most closely represent my own tendencies.
Let me start with the simple definition of what a scribe was in this culture at this time. The scribe was not just the professional reader and writer that he would have been to the Roman culture. However, neither was he the prestigious companion to kings and high priests that he had been at the outset of Israel’s history. No, nor was he the court historian, as there was no royal court at present of which to maintain a history. The scholarly office, as it existed at this point, was one of legal expertise, but in the law of Moses, which we may as well construe as the law of God. Not only was he full of understanding on this topic and able to see how it applied to various disputes of the day, but he was also able to explain it. Now, this moves the man from being simply a scholar, a student to being a teacher. In other words, these were the rabbis.
One piece of their history at that point is worth noting in that it explains some of what we see of this group in the Gospels. There were two major schools of thought within the scribal/rabbinical community, each pursuing the tenets of a different rabbi, both of them of some renown. Those who pursued the system set forth by Hillel were not so very far off from the Truth, although they still suffered an externalizing of sin. While Jesus may have taken greater pains to expose the significant differences between His own teaching and that of this group, yet they were well positioned to receive the Truth He taught. If there were those who came out from the rabbinical crowd to follow after Him, it would likely be from this group. There is some supposition that Rabbi Stephen, who had prophesied over Jesus at His birth, was not only of this school, but grandson of its founder.
Over against this school was that of Shammai, whose teachings as to the observance of the law were much more restrictive. This was particularly true when it came to rules for observing the Sabbath. So, we might recognize that when Jesus comes into conflict with those aspects of rabbinical tradition that have become so rigid as to overrule the principles of mercy and mutual love that God most clearly promotes, we are likely seeing Him dealing with those of this school. Those who took exception to His healing on the Sabbath, for instance, were likely from this group. Those, also, who confronted Him as to His disciples eating from the fields would be from this group.
The general point I would make is that they are not some monolithic bloc. Like any such societal category, there are variations and shadings to be taken into consideration. Not every Pharisee stood so violently opposed to the very Messiah they sought. Not every rabbi was so threatened by the very idea of Jesus as to seek His demise. Not every Sadducee, for that matter, was necessarily a power-seeking political creature. Even there, God would have preserved for Himself a remnant.
That said, (and this next would be particularly true for the Pharisaic subset of the rabbinic community), the scribes, for all their inclusion in the council, and for all that they were sought out for advice by those in power, had no true authority. Such had not been given them. Yet, they exercised a degree of authority in that time for one very good reason: They had knowledge, and that knowledge accorded them a certain respect.
That really resonates with me. It does so the more at this time because Jan and I have been listening to a series on spousal comprehension. It has been quite a revealing listen, I’ll confess, not so much by way of explaining my wife’s thinking to me as by way of explaining my own reactions to things. Respect. As I have listened to the common thread of male thinking explained in this series, it has really been quite enlightening. For one thing, I discover I am not so very different from everybody else as I might usually suppose. For another, I begin to see where much of my reaction to others comes from.
What an amazing thing! So simple, and yet it lies hidden until somebody points it out. Why did I have such an adverse reaction to that one contract awhile back? Respect: None was shown. Indeed, far worse was the utter disrespect I perceived in the one I had to work with most closely on that job. It was simply unbearable to be exposed to that day after day. It took all my moral fiber and then some to retain an air of civility on the job, and even that cracked in the end.
Of course, in fairness, I have to wonder if I did not often come across in like fashion. Was I respectful of what I found there, of what those who worked there had set in place? Not particularly. Honestly, I found much of it stupid, wasteful, complex for the sake of complexity. I found many of those around me to be hidebound, clever but immature, if you will. Doubtless, that summation came through in dealing with some of the people there.
But, then I contrast that with the current assignment, where I am known, clearly respected, and trusted by those I work with and for. Is it any wonder that I step into that environment as if entering a pure atmosphere for the first time in months? No, of course it isn’t. There is respect, and my psyche just naturally responds to it. I am ready to do whatever the task requires (well, not really, but certainly, I am far more inclined to give it greater effort) because I know I am valued.
What has this to do with the whole thing? Well, isn’t it interesting that the authority of the scribe is founded on respect and that respect is founded on knowledge not only of the material of Scripture, but also of how to impart that knowledge. This is so much where I see myself in the context of the Church. I am not a man in authority, nor do I really meet the requirements set forth for that. Yet, I discover I have a certain authority in expounding on things doctrinal because I have spent time considering such matters, and I can, at least in some degree, explain what I have unearthed. This isn’t always the case. There are some things that, while I know with every fiber of my being that they are True, I cannot sufficiently impart as to expose the falsity of other positions. And, you know what? By and large, that’s OK.
There are points of disagreement that men of God, men equal in devotion to knowing and loving Him, can yet arrive at divergent understandings of some of the thornier aspects of theology. Now, we are not talking foundational principles with salvific import. Oh, we may see them as being that foundationally important, but the truth is that they are not. One can be absolutely incorrect in their understanding of these matters and yet be true to God. It is pride, more than any other thing, that leads me into those places where I wish to make a stand and proclaim all other views anathema. It is pride because to make such a stand would require that I suppose myself to be perfectly correct in my own doctrine.
Honestly, I do tend to think so. I don’t suppose it would really be possible to hold as my own doctrine something I wasn’t convinced was correct, would it? But, to suppose that my doctrine is so well founded as to be proof against every need of correction? Foolishness! After all, some of what I hold as rock-solid, foundational Truth today, I hold only because I allowed a clear reading of Scripture to undermine what I thought to be true before. To put it plainly, some of what I know now stands exactly opposite what I knew a decade ago. The question must be asked: Am I right now, or was I right then? Obviously, I believe I know the answer to that. Yet, it behooves me, in spite of my certainty, to allow God and Scripture to raise the question again if need be.
I would say that on many of these points, I am not particularly open to hearing the arguments of my fellow believers to the contrary. I am, by and large, willing to allow them their error (again, by the measure of my lights), but I am not willing to join them in it, nor am I likely to be swayed by their arguments. After all, I have made many of them myself in times past. But, it has been the testimony of Scripture as God has caused me to pursue these studies that has force me to change my own thinking. Against this, the word of man is of little consequence. If God so choose as to reveal to me at some future date that I had missed His point previously, so be it. But, in fairness, that is what it would take.
Back to the scribe. Not only did the scribe know his stuff, but he was able to explain it to others. Now, in the typical order of things, the rabbi would only explain to his own students. Those students were selected. In other words, he was explaining to those who, if not at his level in understanding, were at least equipped to obtain to it. This is where the particular genius of Jesus was so remarkable. First, He did not restrict Himself to teaching only those particular followers that He had selected as His disciples. He taught everybody and He taught them free of charge. Second, when He taught everybody, He was able to frame His messages in a fashion suited to their understanding. If He was talking to country folk, He taught them in terms of country life. If He was talking to city folk, He taught them in terms of city life. He drew on the experiences of those to whom He spoke in order to frame the higher Truth in terms of homely familiarity to them. This was part of that authority in His teaching that so amazed the crowds. They got it! That was amazing in itself. He wasn’t teaching over their heads, He was teaching them!
This is our model, we who would teach Scripture. It’s well and good to have a college-level vocabulary. It’s better still to have the collect-level training to go with it. Can you parse the underlying Greek and Hebrew? God bless you, sir! But, can you break it down for your congregation? If you cannot, then you are a fine scholar, but not yet a teacher after God’s own heart. As I consider this, I am brought back to that marvelous definition of grace that I came across in the Hebrew so many years ago: The superior stooping down to the inferior. Oh, God never lowers Himself to our level, but He explains Himself on our level.
It is the marvelous genius of Scripture that it is sufficiently simple to be understood by a child and yet, simultaneously so deep and rich as to confound the finest philosopher. God has so fashioned this self-revelation that we call the Bible that it is fit to satisfy every level of understanding that it comes to. We, then, who fancy ourselves teachers of His Word; do we not come under obligation to do as God has done for us? Are we not required by our own Teacher to do our utmost to bring the high and glorious Truth of God to those we teach in a way that they can lay hold of? What use the finest orations if the audience cannot understand? None!
We are called to be able to impart to the student’s advantage. If we cannot do so, we have no real claim to respect for all we may have learned. We are only of use to ourselves in that case. Now, I frame this as a matter of ‘we’ because this is not something reserved to those who fill the pulpits. For those who are heads of households, it is our task to serve this function in the home. For those who are part of a fellowship, this is part of fellowship: ready and able to exhort and admonish one another for the common goal of glorifying God. In short, no member of God’s household is wholly exempt. We may have the calling in differing degree, but like prayer, it is not optional.
As Fausset’s pointed out, the minister of the Gospel is called to be a scribe, but not a scribe after the fashion of Israel’s stock, rather a scribe instructed in heaven’s ways. In support of this perspective, they bring forth Matthew 13:52, which reads to the effect that the scribe who would be heaven’s disciple is like the head of a household who brings out treasures both new and old. Now, recognize the linkage Jesus is making here. Every scribe was somebody’s disciple. For the most part, they would point back to either Hillel or Shammai, but they would point back to somebody, and they would consider that point of reference a point of authentication for their interpretation. Jesus is, in gentle fashion, pointing out the weakness in that system. Your authority is but a man. Would you not be better served to be a disciple of heaven’s own order, and would you not better serve your fellow man by teaching the precepts of that heavenly order, rather than the precepts of a man, however learned?
At the same time, Jesus sets a new standard for the minister of His Gospel. First, let us recognize that we are all of us called to be ministers of His Gospel in some degree, whether it be only to ourselves, to our families, or to a larger audience. Secondly, let me note that He specifically indicates that such a minister is called to be a scribe, to be one both well versed in the teaching of his Master and able to explain it to others in ways they can lay hold of. Then, He points us to the one Master that is worthy of our discipleship, that Master who brings the teaching of the kingdom of heaven itself. Indeed, we could argue that the kingdom of heaven is itself the only master worthy of our discipleship. Jesus, as the ever present Ambassador and Teacher from that school, is worthy as well, to be sure. And, it is worth noting that He never appeals to any lesser authority for His teaching.
From this we would do well to draw our own example. Let me explain as best I may. At the pinnacle of our order stands the kingdom of heaven itself. This is not only the final authority for our understanding and teaching of Truth, it is the only authority. That kingdom, headed by the Wisdom of the Trinity, has seen fit to embark a Teacher for our benefit: the Man, Christ Jesus. He, when He had finished His term in that capacity saw to it that another was sent to meet our need for further instruction, and this we have in the person of the Holy Spirit, our constant companion throughout life. Now, the Triune God of heaven’s kingdom further saw fit to leave written record of Himself and of the Truth He upholds. This we have in the written word of God, the inspired text of the Holy Bible. Beyond this, there is no further authority.
We may find, as I often do, that particular men of God have cast a light on some aspect of God’s Truth in a fashion that makes it clearer to us. They are not, however, of a status worthy of our discipleship. I say this even of those whom I would consider the greats of Christian history, those such as St. Augustine or Calvin or Luther. These are indeed great men, and worth studying. But, they are not sufficient to uphold any particular point of doctrine. If this is our appeal, then our appeal is empty. That doesn’t preclude me from quoting them when they have made a point particularly well, but I must move beyond their quote and return to the source. I must recognize and ascertain for myself that what I deem to be True is laid firmly upon the foundation God provided: Scripture, Spirit and Christ. If I teach a truth with any lesser foundation, I am at risk of teaching lies instead of Truth.
With that admonition, let’s turn to the Pharisees, that particularly popular subset of the rabbinical body. Were there Pharisees who were not scribes? I’m sure there were, just as there were Jews who were not rabbis nor disciples of particular rabbis. However, there was just as certainly a subset of the rabbinical community who subscribed to the Pharisaic mode of living. Now, it is noted quite often that the Pharisees were particularly popular with the ‘common people’. This is actually quite something, for the Pharisees by and large despised the common people. They would have nothing to do with them, for fear of being contaminated by the great unwashed. But, the great unwashed looked at the outward form of the Pharisee and supposed himself to be looking upon a righteousness beyond what he could himself attain to. This was, of course, a wholly false supposition, but it is the way of man to suppose that seeing is believing.
The corollary effect of this false impression in the eyes of their fellows was that the Pharisees became that much more prideful. They were popular, and their popularity was their power. The Pharisees were not heavily represented in the ranks of the priesthood. There, the Sadducees held sway. But, the Pharisees had the greater respect among the people, and this rendered their support crucial to a council concerned that Israel not riot.
We see that in the current text. Even as they seek to protect their interests, they are concerned lest a riot occur. Why? Because nothing was more terrible to the Roman governor than to disturb the pax Romana. This was their fundamental charge under Caesar, to keep the peace in these conquered lands. Many an official had been called out of office because of failure to do so. This is again evident from the record of Scripture, and underlies much of Pilate’s behavior. He had already been called on the carpet for previous failures, but still clung to power in this province. But, he also knew that one more such disruption could easily end his career. Worse yet, the Jewish power structure knew it, too. They knew just how precarious Pilate’s position was, and played him like skilled musicians. But, while they were ready to threaten the governor with the outbreak of a riot on his doorstep, they were not about to allow such a thing on their own. The mob must be managed, a weapon held visible, but not released.
So, for the Pharisees, apart from the concerns of the council, there was this other factor at play: In so far as Jesus was gaining in popularity, they must suppose that they were losing popularity. Simple mathematics would suggest as much. There is a finite supply of this popularity and if some has gone to Jesus, it must have come from some other pool, and theirs was certainly the primary such pool to draw from. Never mind the loss of pride that would flee from them along with their popularity (after all, much of their righteousness was to be found in the admiring eyes of those who looked upon them), there was the loss of power to be concerned about, and this was, truth be told, of greater importance to them even than their prestige.
Power has an effect on its holder. It is an unchangeable fact of human life. When one has held the reins, it is difficult to let go. When one has been in charge, it becomes nearly impossible to become submitted to another. The greater the degree of power held, the more this holds. I would suppose that this is at least in part why our nation’s founders saw fit to remind those who served as leaders that this nation remains under God, and so, too, those who lead it. There is no office of ultimate authority to be had in this land. However high in the ranks of government, the government itself remains under God.
Of course, from a Scriptural stance, this is but to proclaim the Truth. God is Authority, and apart from Him no authority exists. Those who have power in any particular era may or may not acknowledge His hand upon them, and His Authority as their only valid source, but the Truth remains. It was so in Rome, as Jesus explained to Pilate. It is so in America today, whether our president can grasp that Truth or not, whether those who hold sway in Congress and Senate believe it or not. In so far as those human authorities seek to coerce those in their charge into outright disobedience to the God Who IS Authority, they nullify what lesser authority they hold. Now, in any lesser degree; if they, for instance, permit a disobedience but do not require it; we are to honor the authority they hold, for it is by God’s hand. This does not preclude us from praying for more godly leadership, but it does preclude ungodly disobedience in the name of God.
But, to my point: Authority is from God, whether in the political arena or in the realm of the Church or even in the home. We either hold that authority which is vested in us by God with right and proper awe and respect for Him from Whom our authority comes, or we become petty tyrants. We become so enamored of power that our every action seeks to preserve that power at all cost.
This aspect of things is a part of what makes me leery of teachings in the house of God that push the power aspect. You have power in God! You have authority! These things are true, but you know what? The more they are made the focus of our faith, the less healthy it becomes for us. It’s no better than the whole health and wealth message of the prosperity teachers. It’s no better than the name it & claim it message. It’s a horrid distortion of our place in God’s kingdom. Yes, we have power, but not as something to boast of. Rather we ought to be humbled by a God who would entrust us with such a thing. Yes, we have authority, but note how we are instructed to exercise it: Be submitted to one another (after all, you all have authority). Serve one another. Consider everybody else as more worthy, more important than yourself. All of these things run absolutely counter to our fleshly reaction to finding we have power and authority. It is necessary that they should be, for if we are to be entrusted with such things, we must have no taste for them whatsoever.
Whether it was my own thinking or, more likely, something picked up from some science fiction author or another, I tend to view the presidency as an office that should never be granted any man who would seek it. We see it too often, that those who are put in the office are not there to serve the country but to satisfy their own egos. We see in seemingly every case just how swiftly power corrupts. We complain of the career politicians who are so in tune with the culture of power that they have no clue and less interest in what the constituents want or think. It’s not about the constituents. Sure, they must be given their sop every few years so that the office can be kept, but constituents can be bought, and that with their own money!
What we see, then, in the Pharisees who are attendant at this council, as well as with all the others involved, is a visceral urge to preserve their power. Notice the particulars of their concerns, as we see them expressed: “If we let Him go on, the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (Jn 11:48). Isn’t it interesting that our place comes first? Now, many of translations, if they go beyond literal translation, look at this as speaking of the Temple. But, no. Or, only indirectly so. The Temple had import, certainly, but at this stage of the game, the import to them was that here was where their power was. No temple, no authority. No authority, no power. No power, no prestige. No prestige, no privilege. Oh, and by the way, the nation itself might be done away with, as well. But, honestly, that’s a secondary concern. What about us?
Forgive me for bringing politics back in again, but that really is what we have in view as we look in on this council. What is striking is how much this parallels what seems to be going on in our own government at present. The nation, its well being and even its continuance, seems to be at best a secondary concern. Far more interesting for this government is its self preservation; in wealth, in privilege and in power. There is an insanity of sorts that seems to have laid hold of those who hold the reins. So long as they can spend lavishly, bask in the limelight, and come back next year, nothing else matters.
We see crisis after crisis unfold and, rather than seeking to solve them, these folks seem far more intent on calculating how they might best profit from them. Only when the situation has been milked for all its worth will they perhaps have a look at what to do about it. Honestly, if they can simply ignore the situation after that, so much the better. Much more effective to simply distract the public with some other point of interest. Sigh. I really need to get off of this topic, and back on that of the kingdom that matters.
[08/26/10] Perhaps this is related to the malfunctions my computer has experienced the last few days? Perhaps I needed to step away and refocus. Or, it may be something completely different. Time will doubtless reveal God’s reason for the interruption in His time. Now, then: having focused in from scribes in general to the Pharisees in particular, I will again refine and refocus, shifting to that other group, the Sadducees, and zeroing in on Caiaphas. It is he who hosts and presides over this council. It has gathered in the court of his office. The phrase used is insufficient to determine whether they have simply gathered out in the courtyard or whether they are inside. I’m not sure there’s a great deal that would be different based on the answer, either. However, the nature of their conversation suggests something at least a little more private. When discussing one’s machinations and schemes, it would hardly be expected that one is shouting them out on the street corner. For that reason alone, I tend to suspect that they were in the office of the high priest, or whatever the equivalent space would have been.
They are not at his home, they are at his official location and he is officiating over an official gathering of the ruling elite of Jewish life. And these fine advisers on matters spiritual are conniving! They are conniving to put an end to this upstart once and for all. Why? As noted, He is a threat to their own power, and power is really what moves them in all things. So, it is Caiaphas who chairs this meeting and it is he who delivers the final verdict for the meeting. It is more than likely that he is also the one who called the meeting. Quite the powerful man, no? Lots of influence he wields, or so he would have us believe.
Yet, isn’t it interesting that when the whole thing plays out, those who arrested Jesus out there in the Garden did not bring Him before Caiaphas. No. They took Him to Annas. Annas was not the present high priest, although he had held that office prior to Caiaphas. But, Annas was the power. Caiaphas may have held the office, but Annas held the reins. He was, after all, not only a retired high priest himself, he was also father-in-law to this Caiaphas. You don’t think he had strings to pull on? Oh, be assured he did. Be assured, as well, that people knew that to be the truth. Caiaphas may not have been a puppet in his office, but he was by no means wholly on his own. So, the guards, though acting on a command that had come down from Caiaphas, took their prisoner before the one that really mattered.
Can you really blame them? This was, after all, a highly irregular matter, and they would not have been wholly ignorant of that fact. Neither would they be unaware of how his attenuated status might effect the stability of this man who clearly felt threatened both from within his own household and without. Not that there was mortal danger to his person, but there was a very real threat to his prestige and power. After all, the office which was his power was in many ways hostage to outside forces. If father-in-law decided Caiaphas wasn’t pursuing the course he would prefer to see pursued, he had the influence and the money to see Caiaphas removed and his own man put in. Indeed, that may well have been part of the story when Caiaphas was replaced, and replaced it should be noted by Annas own son.
Again, the guards, having their own self-interest to concern them, would not be unaware of the politics of the city. They knew where the real power was, and before they were going to take the fall for some foolish plan concocted by Caiaphas, they would check in with Annas and make sure he was behind it, too. As it turns out, he was, and Jesus is forwarded on to Caiaphas with his blessing on the travesty that was playing out.
Now, there are reasons apart from the character of Caiaphas, as we see it displayed in the passages we are focused on which would sufficiently discredit the office of the high priest in that time. It had become far more a political office than a religious. Oh, it had the trappings and the rituals. But, really, who cared about all that? It was the power that mattered. After all, what was really required of the high priest except to deal with that one ritual on one day out of the year. Sigh. It’s just the price of power, a minor annoyance in an otherwise rewarding career.
That there were retired high priests around was already evidence of a complete departure from the rule of worship that God had established. And behold in this situation the evident wisdom of His own order. It is a well worn adage that an army can have but one commander in chief. Why is that? Because any other attempt at organizing that army will lead to confusion and factional allegiances rendering them all but worthless. Look at the guards here. They know whose mouth delivered the orders, but they also know who really has the power, and so, their allegiance is to both. It becomes questionable just how they will react to the orders they receive. What if Annas had told them to quit this foolishness and let Jesus go? Who should they obey? A dilemma would be upon them which would likely paralyze them at least temporarily. Now, they must calculate and assess the conflicting orders. They must weigh the price of disobedience in each direction, and then choose what to obey.
Now, this doesn’t hold true only at the top of the organization but at every step. If there is not a clear chain of command, then there is conflict. It is inevitable. Man cannot serve two masters, as Jesus Himself explained. Of course, His eye was toward a higher principal at the time, but the point stands even in mundane matters. If the chain of command pulls in two disparate directions, then the link so commanded must give.
Take this into the house of God. In this example, we are seeing it at the top. The top of the hierarchy has multiple heads. Do you know, it wasn’t just Caiaphas and Annas, necessarily, although these two seem to have held the bulk of the influence. Any other high priest (and they were almost an annual occurrence at this point) then alive would also share in that influence, to the degree his family’s wealth could buy such influence. Those who served below no longer had a clear sense of who was really in charge. Within the ranks of the lower priesthood, the same sorts of problems ensued. The correct ordering of things was wholly disrupted by the power plays of the chief families. A priest must have connections if he was to expect any of the better assignments. This was not how things were supposed to be.
Now, may I suffer us to come forward into our own day? Let me, for the moment, dispose of those houses of God who are so in name only, having no interest in the God whose name they use. But, consider what is left. Does the church organization recognize this fundamental Truth that God has espoused, and the military has long understood? The chain of command must be clear and singular else there will be factions and divisions.
We can see that Paul had to deal with this even in his own time. As the Church spread out into Gentile lands, it picked up Gentile habits, not that these were terribly different from Jewish at the time. But, factions arose. It wasn’t God who mattered, but which apostle you had learned from. It was all about who had baptized you, because there was pride and politicking to consider. And Paul says, “No!” Not in God’s house there isn’t. There is only Christ Jesus, and they who serve Him either serve Him as equals or serve Him not at all.
Yet, we are in an age of name-brand Christianity. We all have our favorites. I am, I must confess, not as different as I should like to be in this regard. I just have a different set of names than most in my circle of brothers. They are more inclined towards the Benny Hinns, the Chuck Pierces, the Andrew Womacks. Me, I have little use for any of these, no more than I have for the big-buck, book-deal guys who have their churches with national influence, their one theme that is really raking it in. I’m sorry. I’m sure that some of this stuff started out with good intentions. But, then, so did the Pharisees.
For myself, I tend towards the dead authors (with thanks to an old friend of mine), and pay heed to very few among the living and current. Very few. I think I could reduce it to two. And even there, one discovers that dual allegiances lead to directional conflict, paralysis, a growing questioning as to which way one ought to go, because the differences between these two leaders grows more apparent with time, and one cannot go both ways and remain sane.
But, it’s a worthy question: If I look at the organization, the chain of command, in my own church, do I see it following the model God has set forth? Or, do I see the fruits of confusion at play? What are those fruits? Well, the factionalism and conflicting allegiances are chief among them. Do we suffer from the, “I am a follower of Apollos” syndrome? Then, I have to suspect that things are not in proper order. Are we confused as to direction, unsure who’s in charge of what? Then, I have to suspect that things are not in proper order. Does it sometimes seem as though we are making it up as we go along? Then, I think I can be assured that things are not in proper order. And, where that chain of command is not clear and singular, the troops are at risk.
[08/27/10] OK, another change of direction, here. It occurred to me this morning, as I reread the passages, to wonder just how John could know the details of what had happened at this council. It’s not as if he had been there, after all. If he had, then surely we would have heard Jesus warned of its decision in no uncertain terms. But, this is not how things played out. Jesus was clear enough on what was coming, but the disciples, by and large, seem to have remained oblivious, or at least convinced that such a thing couldn’t really happen.
Where, then, does John gain his information? For, I shall continue to uphold that Scripture is not the fabrication of man’s imaginations. That being the case, I must suppose that somebody present at the council, or at least with a close connection to one who was present, relayed the information to John at some later date. This one might even have been in support of the council’s decision at the time. We hear that in the aftermath of the death of Jesus, and in the turmoil stirred up by His resurrection, that many, even of the chief priests, were becoming Christians. This would certainly provide the Apostles in general and John in particular with a witness to what had led up to those momentous events.
Alternatively, it may well have been one of those who are known to us because they showed some signs of faith even in what is recorded. Nicodemus comes to mind as an obvious candidate. Joseph of Arimathea might be another possibility, although it’s not clear that he was present in Jerusalem at the time. But, either of these men would have had the connections, certainly, to know what had been said in council, whether present or not. Both of these men show a certain affinity for faith, although we are never told clearly that either man became of committed Christian. For Joseph’s part, I could suppose that his actions speak loudly enough that words were unnecessary. As for Nicodemus, it may well be that like Lazarus, it was risky to speak of his situation in the years after Jesus ascended to heaven. Until that current religious power structure had been wholly dismantled, there was danger of retaliation. That would surely be true for Christian sympathizers found in its very ranks. It’s interesting to consider, at any rate.
Meanwhile, let me return to the text that we have from John. Here, we learn that Caiaphas himself brought forth the council’s determination. It is he, we learn, who explicitly spoke of the need to kill Jesus, and it is he, who attempted to provide some moral cover for such an action. Why, it is good for a man to die in service to his country! It would be rather like military service, would it not? And besides, we can all think of circumstances outlined in the Law that require that Israel purge the evil within her borders by killing the offender. Surely we can concoct some such case against this man when once we have him. To borrow from that popular phrase: kill first, make explanations later. So much easier that way.
Yet, for all Caiaphas’ malevolent intent, John notices something: He prophesied. Now, I don’t think this particular piece of John’s narrative is something handed him by whoever gave him word of the council’s deliberations. This is John speaking in John’s voice. This is very much in the nature of the Gospel that he has decided to record for us, for he knows there are plenty of accounts covering the events of Jesus’ life and ministry. He has taken the mission of explaining the meaning of that history. He fills in certain gaps in the record, for he has read the record as well as having lived it. So, there is that sense to his Gospel, that he tends to focus on those events that others had passed over. But, now, we are at the critical point, the crux of the whole record, and of course, he is looking at the same events the others did. Without these scenes, it would not be a gospel at all.
But, John is also intent on getting beyond the simple recitation of the history and arriving at the meaning, the purpose of it all. So, as he considers the things Caiaphas has said, he does not lose himself in angry memories. He does not wallow into accusatory attacks on this man. After all, by the time he is writing, Jerusalem has fallen, the temple is no more, and the whole structure of the Sadducees is pretty much done and gone. What use, then, heaping further dishonor upon them. They’ve done well enough on their own, and vengeance belongs to God, anyway. But, John, rather than any such retribution, rather than seeing the evils of the devil in this scene, sees the marvelous wonder of God.
Why, look at this, he says. In spite of this guy’s moral decrepitude, God still spoke through him! In spite of what man had made of the office God instituted as precursor to His Son, He still honored the office. Notice the curious way John couches his illumination on this subject. Caiaphas didn’t say this on his own initiative. What? Where’s personal responsibility, then? Surely, the things he said were the product of his evil mind. But, no. John, writing at God’s behest and with God’s guidance, says that’s not how it went down. I’m sure they reflected the nature of Caiaphas, but it was God Himself who prompted this particular message. Caiaphas was prophesying.
Do we still understand what that means? In my circles, we see a lot of things that are declared prophetic. We have many who lay claim to speaking prophetically. I don’t know that anybody bothers keeping track of all these prophesies to see what percentage actually come about. This in itself suggest to me that we don’t recognize the true nature of prophecy any longer. God takes it seriously, seriously enough to call down the death sentence on those who would abuse it, who would claim to prophesy when in truth they only spoke their own opinions and imaginings. Did you think that part of God stopped when the OT ended? No. God does not change.
Here, in what John is saying of Caiaphas, we are forcibly reminded of another aspect of true prophecy. It does nothing to recommend the prophet to us. Oh, it is indeed a good thing when a true prophet of God speaks true prophecy at God’s command. But, it is, I suspect, far more rare an occurrence then we would care to think. Yet, there are those cases in Scripture that clearly show a true word of God, a true prophetic message, being delivered by the most unlikely of sources. Balaam, for example, was hardly a good man, hardly a God-chaser, or even a God-pleaser. Yet, when the time came to speak over Israel, although paid to pronounce against them, Balaam instead spoke Truth. As a mouthpiece for God in that moment, he could do no other thing. Likewise his ass. Now, there’s a fine instrument for God to make use of. And yet, it is just such an instrument God used for that particular message. Was the message any less true for coming out of a donkey’s mouth? No. Was the donkey a better animal for having spoken it? No.
So, too, we have Caiaphas. The man was not good. The word he spoke, however, was Truth. Whatever his intention in speaking, as John shows us, the message he delivered was actually incredibly good news. He was thinking of his own position, but the thing he spoke, although spoken in self-interest, was really going to serve to the preservation not only of Israel, but of all God’s children! Was Caiaphas redeemed by speaking this out? Hardly. He was determined to be the instrument of death, wielded against the Instrument of Life. And yet, because God is God, his treachery would yet become a necessary component of salvation for mankind.
Now, notice also that John makes this point: Caiaphas prophesied because he was high priest that year. The mention of this fact, that he was high priest, serves no other purpose in this line of thought than to be seen as explaining just how it is that God could see fit to speak His truth through such a vile mouthpiece. You know, apart from God, I’m sure Caiaphas might have delivered the same result, a call for the death of Jesus, but he might not have managed to express such a truth in the course of doing so. Or, we might actually go a step farther and suppose that had God not prompted this man, he was too weak of will to have suggested such an extreme solution to their dilemma. But, I am not comfortable in that supposition. It is one thing to recognize that God does sovereignly harden the hearts of certain of His creatures. It is quite another to suppose that He actively nudges them onto an evil course. No, His hardening actions are matters of passivity on His part. In other words, what we see called the hardening of an individual’s heart is a matter of God deciding not to intervene. Let the evil of that one take its natural course.
But, as He works all things for good, and as His purpose is more certain than death and taxes, He so moves upon Caiaphas in this moment as to cause him to speak a truth he himself does not even grasp. He doesn’t realize what he has said, really, nor do any of those with him. It strikes me that even as the story of this council was related to John, the one telling him of what happened didn’t realize the significance. John did. Rather, the Holy Spirit brought understanding to John, to see the power of those words, and John saw to it that we were given the opportunity to see it, too.
John also saw to it that we didn’t mistake the power in the words as a commendation of the man who spoke them. No, it wasn’t the man God was honoring, it was the office. That is the significance of this mention of Caiaphas being high priest. God could, one supposes, have spoken this marvelous truth through any one of the seventy one men present at the council. But, He spoke it through the high priest. Why? Because the office remains worthy of honor however despicable the man who fills it. We, if we are taught civility at all, understand this to be true of our own governing powers. Whatever we may think of a particular president, the office is to be respected. Can we not see that this applies doubly to the governing structures that God has in place in His own kingdom?
Of course, as we now have but one eternal High Priest, honoring that office in spite of the Man is not an issue, for the Man Who holds the office forever is forever worthy of all honor. But, how does this play out with those to whom God has delegated authority over His children? How does this play out in the priesthood or ministry? Doesn’t the same hold true, that whatever we may find it necessary to hold as to the man or woman who fills the office of pastor over the church, we are yet required to respect the office they hold? Likewise the call to honor your parents. Nowhere does Scripture require you to insist that your mama was a saint, or your daddy could do no wrong. But, you are commanded to honor them. Honor them in spite of their failures, if necessary, but honor them either way. The office of parent, being the office of pastor writ small, is worthy of honor, every bit as much as the presidential or the pastoral office is worthy of honor.
If God could see fit to honor the office of the high priest, even when one such as Caiaphas filled the office, how much more ought we to honor those offices He has instituted, even when the worst of men happen to fill them? To do so is, after all, to honor God, Who Himself determines who shall fill the office and for how long. No, we needn’t pretend that all who fill the office are necessarily good people. We needn’t even to gloss over their failures because they happen to be in office. But, the office must be respected however dishonorable the officer. Indeed, the glory of the office remains in spite of such dishonorable officers, because the glory of God Who ordained the office remains.
Another aspect of the events that are unfolded from this point forward is that of confirming the truth of Proverbs 16:9. Man plans his way, thinks he is setting his own course and controlling his own destiny. But, the Lord directs his steps. God is in charge! How fundamental this should be to our understanding! How integral it is to our sense of certainty, particularly as pertains to our salvation.
But, here we are seeing the reverse of the image. Caiaphas is no doubt convinced that he has come up with this brilliant solution all by himself. He may even think that he is doing a good and godly thing by seeking the death of Jesus, although I am not convinced of that. But, he is not thinking that maybe he’s just moving along in accord with God’s perfect plan. He is, though. God is in charge.
Somewhat of an aside here, but I am to speak on the subject of being anointed and appointed by God in our upcoming men’s conference. My, but how the ears of pride perk up at such a thought! But, there is no room for pride in it. Caiaphas was also anointed and appointed by God. He was anointed and appointed as high priest, whatever the machinations of man that may have been the outworking of God’s choice. He was anointed and appointed to be a particularly unsatisfactory and even evil high priest, but not in such fashion as would coerce his personal preferences. He was anointed and appointed to be an integral part of the death of God’s own Son and, though this was itself an evil act, it was simultaneously part of God’s good and perfect plan.
We have great difficulty with this idea, truth be told. It’s uncomfortable for us to contemplate that God is involved in any way in such ungodly activities. Well, be comforted. He’s not involved beyond not getting involved. He may have given Caiaphas a particularly powerful phrasing of his own heart’s evil scheming, but it was his own heart’s evil scheming. Yes, he was playing a part in God’s good plan, and the part he played was almost as awful as that which Judas would play. And, yes, God allowed it to happen thus. Indeed, He required it to happen thus. Yet, the guilt remains wholly upon Caiaphas. He was not forced to do as he did. But, neither was he stopped.
This shocks us, but it did not shock the Apostles. They grasped this truth from the outset. Consider the defense Peter and John delivered before this same Sanhedrin. As part of their declaration and witness to God, they say this: “Truly, in this very city, they gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus. Him You anointed. Both Herod and Pilate, both Gentile and Jew, they conspired to do what Your hand and purpose had already determined must occur” (Ac 4:27-28). Now, look at that closely. They conspired to do what you had already determined must occur. Let me take it back to the more literal translation here. They were “gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, […] to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.” They conspired. The guilt was upon them and would remain so. But, the result of their conspiracy could only be such as would accomplish what God had already predestined to occur. He had ordained it. It must be so. But, woe to those who make it so!
[08/29/10] Well, I have labored long over the various participants in this scene, and one might wonder why. After all, I am generally a proponent on focusing on the real and leaving off any study of the counterfeit. But, these are real men, and they are real examples in which, sad to say, I can find myself. In short, all of these people are me. I, too, can trend towards devotion to my own self worth. I, too, can be found going to great lengths to preserve my sense of self worth. I, too, do these things even in the very house of God, and give no thought to the fact that in doing so, I am manifestly insincere in my worship of the True God.
How can this be? For, I know my love for Him is true, and I know His salvation of me is very real and utterly irrevocable. So, how can I come into His temple and worship myself? I could try and excuse it by claiming environmental influences. It is, after all, what society trains into us. But, since when do I take societal training as having any real place in the Church? I, who decry the worldliness of modern services? Yes, even I. Even I bring these very same things along in my train.
Inasmuch as I put on my Sunday mask for those I meet, I am the Pharisee. I am doing as I do not because the love of God compels me, but because I want to be considered a good man. I want to be known as a man of God, and I know, somehow, that were my sins more clearly visible nobody could possibly think me such a man. Yet, do I not see the sins of those who share this honor with me? And do I think them any less men of God for all that? No, because when it comes to others, I know better. But, there is something within that wants to find itself not just equal to my brothers, but somehow superior. Pharisee!
Listen! If this is where I am at – and I’m not saying it always is, nor even that it most often is – then such worship as I may offer my God is utterly insincere. Indeed, it is purest paganism. If I come before God seeking to look good in myself, then frankly, I have no interest in God. I just want Him to leave me alone, and whatever I may do in His house is really an attempt to buy Him off. That’s the pagan way. But, God will not be bought off. God will not call me good simply because I am habitually in His house of a Sunday. God will not call me good because of all I have done for Him. If He will call me good at all, it is solely because He has so worked upon this poor character as to make something good to come of me in spite of myself.
Let me put it another way. It is God alone who can keep me from becoming my chief goal. It is God alone who can so move upon my heart, soul and mind as to keep His good pleasure foremost. That is, after all, His own declaration (Php 2:13). I have nothing to be proud of in this. If I have managed to do something right, who is there to thank but the God who so wills and works in me as to bring it about? It’s certainly nothing of my doing!
Yet, like this council of the religious orders, I am ‘still looking for an opportunity’, as the NLT has translated it. I am still looking for a way to be my prime concern while still having the appearance of godliness. Oh, I’m all for godliness so long as it doesn’t threaten my own little power base. But, what of it, when godliness requires setting aside concerns as to what people may think, what they may say? What of it when true godliness demands of me such acts as seem to run counter to the prevailing directions in my own leadership? Will I stand with God or will I plod along after man? These are things that must concern the believer. They must! I am not about to suppose that I am alone in such dilemmas, for it is the nature of man in his fallen condition to be in such a quandary.
Let me, however, avail myself of that feast which these connivers were at pains to avoid in their schemes: the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Let me avail myself of that feast in its deep significance. God has marked out my being. He has caused the bloody brush-stroke of hyssop to mark me, a veritable arch over my life. Like those who sat their houses in Egypt that first night, there is nothing about me that God should hold His wrath, and yet He has done so. He has, of His own sovereign choice, said, “No. Not this one.” And so, I am positioned to look forward to that coming week with rejoicing, even though that week must require endurance of hardships.
What was the unleavened bread all about, after all? Well, of course, there was the sense of being prepared. Yes, and ought we not to maintain that sense of being ready to depart at a moment’s notice? That is the life of the Christian by very definition! But, leaven has also long carried the connotation of sin’s pollution. To be unleavened is to be unpolluted by leaven’s corrupting influence, for corruption is how leaven causes the bread to rise.
Spiritually, then, we understand that this feast is a time to remove every influence of sin in our lives. We also realize the impossibility of such a task, except God be found in it at every step. But, in spite of knowing our frailty, our limitations, yet we are called to strive for that goal, to work out our salvation (Php 2:12). Always, there is that tension: We work even knowing we must ever fall short. We work even knowing that it is either God doing it all or it is empty and meaningless. But, this I know: It is not empty and meaningless precisely because it is God at work. If I strive, it is only in joining with Him. If I strive, it is only as He moves upon me, reminding me whose child I am, and what that ought to mean. If I strive, it is only God purifying the course of worship within my spiritual veins.
So, though my flesh is ‘still looking for an opportunity’ to appease and ignore this God who indwells me, yet the spirit is ‘still looking for an opportunity’ to come into His presence with that true worship, which is in spirit and in truth. It’s not an act. It’s not going through the motions so as not to stand out. It is a true love of God as He truly Is, poured out before Him in honest devotion. I come before Him knowing I cannot appease Him nor have I need to. He has done it all! That is the great good news of the Gospel! He has done it all! His ‘has’ encompasses my past, my present and my future, but it remains His has. I have done nothing, nor ever could. Oh, but I can rejoice in this grace in which I stand, knowing that by His power I shall stand and stand some more, whatever may come.
