New Thoughts (08/09/12-08/11/12)
This particularly brief passage is here in isolation simply because it is a part of the unfolding events that only John reports. It is a transitional statement, moving the action from the scene of Judas’ betrayal to the scene of Peter’s denials. However, there are a few points worth noting, first about these two powerful men John speaks of, and also in regard to what these few verses might have to say about the person of Jesus.
Concerning Annas, to whom Jesus is being brought, there is a bit of background to the man that we ought to understand, perhaps. I’m not certain how well known he would have been to John’s intended readers, but he would certainly have been a known quantity to John, the other Apostles, and those who populated the first church in Jerusalem.
Annas had been high priest for a time, although his term in office had finished before Jesus or John began to minister in earnest. As has been noted many times through the course of these studies, the office of the high priest had become a political office far more than religious. The appointee to said office was no longer God’s man, but rather Rome’s man, and he served not for life, as God had instituted that important role, but rather until the whims of Roman politics saw fit to put somebody else in position. In short, to maintain office required a great deal of political savvy, and to obtain office in the first place had become something of a blood sport. Reading through the history of the Maccabees and on forward from that time shows some particularly brutal rivalries, and it only got worse hereafter.
As concerns Annas himself, though, while he may not have held the office for any great period of time, he did manage to establish a dynasty of sorts. It is noted that through his children, and in this case, the spouse of his child, he maintained a hold on the power of the high priest’s office even if he did not himself sit upon the seat. If we need further evidence that Annas was not particularly concerned with fulfilling the proper concerns of serving God, we might consider this: As it turns out, it was the family of Annas that was primarily (if not exclusively) involved in setting up the marketplace for money changing and for the selling of animals acceptable for sacrifice. We are most familiar with this practice because of the two occasions when Jesus rather thoroughly disrupted trade in that marketplace. But, it turns out that the market in the court of the Gentiles was actually a branch office of the main operation. And, where was the main operation to be found? Why, out there on Mount Olivet, where there were apparently four separate booths being run in the name of Annas, and to his financial benefit! Ah, Mount of Corruption indeed!
Another rather interesting bit of information is that Jesus was hardly alone in His anger at their extortive practices. The ISBE mentions a passage from the Talmud in which the entire family of Annas is roundly cursed, and on what other basis? They were preying on the people of God in pursuit of God’s ways, and in so doing, they were leading Israel very much astray.
What becomes evident in reading the record of Annas and Caiaphas in the New Testament is that Annas remains the power behind the office-holder. Interesting that prior to Caiaphas, fully three of his sons had been in office, and between them had barely managed to retain their hold on office for three years total. That hardly fits the lifetime nature of the office as God established it. Caiaphas, apparently, was a more savvy beast, and managed to hold on for some fourteen to eighteen years, easily doubling the time Annas had held the position in earnest. Under the circumstances, I have to say this does not speak well of Caiaphas. For, it seems clear that the only way to hold that office was to summarily dismiss one’s obligations to God, and submit instead to the primacy of Caesar. This was, indeed, a distinguishing characteristic of the Sadducees. Oh, they were very careful of their observance of ritual, yes. They would assuredly be there and ready when Passover came. We see that concern not so much farther along in the narrative, as they refuse to accompany Jesus into the presence of Pilate for fear of being contaminated and thereby required to miss the feast (Jn 18:28). But, it was only appearance that mattered. As a matter of practice, their concern was for pride, power and profit. It is little wonder that we discover a strong distaste for their order amongst those to whom they ought have been ministering and serving as role models.
It is also little wonder that God saw fit to terminate the office, for all intents and purposes on this very day. He would set His Man in place, and His Man would indeed serve for life – life eternal!
However, before I pursue that thought farther, one last point deserves to be made. There was a fifth son of Annas who made his way to office as high priest sometime after Annas’ passing. That fifth son also bore the name of Annas, although some texts will spell it differently, perhaps to emphasize that he is not the same man. But, in other cases, he is referred to by the name of Annas, which might give us cause to be confused and think the accounts cover that same man who held sway at this point. It is, for example, Annas son of Annas who had James brother of Jesus stoned. That would come up some 30 years after the events we are considering now. I suppose, given typical lifespan for that era, it would have been highly unlikely that a man old enough to hold that office when John the Baptist was yet in the wilderness was still around and in power in the 60s. But, these are not the sorts of considerations that come naturally as we read Scripture. It is just as well to have them pointed out a bit more explicitly.
So, let me return to this matter of Jesus our eternal high priest. This is a matter which is state more certainly in Hebrews, but it begins here in this scene. This is part of the inaugural process, a proof of Jesus’ obedience to God’s ways no matter how difficult obedience becomes, no matter how offensive events are to a man of righteous understanding. He will walk even as the Scriptures said, as a sheep led to the slaughter, silent in the face of His opposition.
We are not yet quite arrived at the presentation before Caiaphas, but if certain of the references are correct, we may well be in his house, a house shared with Annas. But, it is Caiaphas who is more properly in sight as the official high priest in that year. It has already been pointed out that the advice he had given regarding Jesus was actually the voice of prophecy, though he was unlikely to recognize it as such. And John explains to us that this is a function of his being high priest. I would read that as God respecting the office even though the officer was unworthy.
There are a few lessons we ought to draw from that, I should think. The first is something I have noted often in these studies: That signs alone are no proof of a godly man. Let alone the capacity for signs to be counterfeited, which is something else that Scripture points out to us. But, the signs are not the man’s doing, nor are they, in the end, the seal of approval upon the man. They are more properly the seal of honor upon the office held by the man. God will not be mocked. That might seem an odd passage to bring in at this point, but it is entirely applicable. Caiaphas spoke true prophecy because God would not suffer the office of high priest to be a complete mockery. The officer would do his duty even if the officer was wholly unfit for that duty. Alternately understood, the prophet, the true prophet, does not speak from his own store of knowledge, but rather he speaks those words God has given him to speak – words God insists he speak. More to the point, the voice of prophecy does not necessarily indicate a true prophet, does it? Balaam may have been a prophet, and even one by trade, but he was not a true prophet. The true prophet matches motive to message. Yet, he prophesied truly, and that, quite in spite of himself. Caiaphas prophesied truly on that occasion, and he no doubt believed prophecy a thing of the past. He did not speak with some sense of a high heavenly purpose behind his words. He spoke with no more than a sense of self-preservation.
Here’s a second point, though; one I don’t think comes up so often as regards church governance, although I’ve heard similar points made about civil governance. Indeed, Paul teaches this very point in his letter to the Romans. I had not considered, before, that God actually models this point for us. The point is this: Even if the office holder be entirely unworthy, yet the office is to be respected. This is what God has demonstrated in having Caiaphas prophesy. It is the thing Paul teaches regarding those who hold authority over us. We are not permitted to revile president or governor or senator or sheriff, for they wield an authority given them by God. We are granted to disregard them under only one very strict condition, and that is that they require us to act against the clearly revealed law of God. I would tread carefully here. There is a difficult patch to consider when one thinks about a permissive authority. It is one thing that the governing authorities enact laws permitting actions contrary to God’s law. It is another thing when the civil law insists on actions contrary to God’s law.
In the latter case, I believe the instruction is clearly heard in the testimony of John and Peter before the authorities of their day: Whether we ought to obey man or God, you make the call. But, for them, it was a rhetorical comment. They had already made the call on their own part, and there was no contest. If following God requires us to ignore the dictates of man, then so be it. Again, be careful! Be careful that the action you take is upon a clear matter of revealed religion, not some whispered word in the head that has been to you alone.
Now, the premise for this civil disobedience is that the authorities we reject have rejected their own authority by acting outside the dictates of that which was delegated to them. So, how does this apply to the permissive case? Do they not already reject the authority delegated them when they allow as legal that which God has disallowed? Is it sufficient cause when the government permits and endorses activities such as abortion and gay marriage and other such ungodliness? After all, they are not requiring you to have an abortion or to marry outside the bounds of Scriptural dictate. They are simply allowing it, should some ungodly person choose to do so. After all, how can our Scriptures be binding upon an unbeliever? Or, so they would reason. But, what is God’s perspective on this?
Well, we might take instruction from the governance God required in Israel of old. I note, for example, that the instructions for observing the Passover were to apply not only to the native sons of Israel, but also to the ‘foreigner living amongst you’. I would not that Sabbath observances, as concerned the cessation of commerce, were to be applied not only to the citizen, but also to the traveling salesman, the caravan operator. In other words, it would seem to me that a people governed by God see His governance as applying not only to themselves but to all who are in their realm. Is this at all unlike the governance of any nation or state? State law applies whether you are a resident of that state or a visitor from another. Federal law, at least in theory, applies equally to citizen and alien. Why would we think it different in the kingdom of God?
This makes it rather difficult, doesn’t it? If that civil authority has enacted laws that are so contrary to godliness, have they therefore forfeited their claim to authority? Is it sufficient that we, for our part, refuse to partake of the sinful freedoms thus enabled, and teach others to likewise reject them? Is it sufficient, even, to seek to replace those in office with others who will hold their authority with more of an eye to the Source of authority? I could easily read this as suggesting that none of this is enough. But, then I return to the example of the Apostles, the example of the early church in general.
These men did not seek to depose the sitting high priest, did not seek to overthrow the government of the temple. They certainly did not seek to throw aside the rule of Roman law. As concerns the temple authorities, there was certainly sufficient immorality in their behavior to theoretically justify such an overthrow. Whether they permitted ungodly behavior amongst the common Jews, they certainly permitted it sufficiently for themselves. And matters such as that sacrifice marketplace, if not illegal in God’s eyes, certainly weakened the spiritual value that was intended in that process. But, the Apostles did not seek the ouster of Annas. They did not form political movements in support of one of their own number as contender for office.
The Church, even under the worst persecutions of Rome, did not teach rebellion against Rome. They did not, so far as I read it, offer armed resistance. At worst, they ran away. Far more, it seems, did nothing but stand tall as Christians and accept whatever indignities Rome felt necessary to inflict. If it meant death, even death by fire or by crucifixion or by lion, so be it. But, Roman authority, up to the point of demanding a renouncing of faith, had not required the Christian to act against God’s dictates, and was therefore to be accepted as God’s agent of civil authority, even though so much of their governance, both by example and by edict, was so thoroughly ungodly.
God honors the office. Apply this, now, to the religious authority. Certainly, if the civil authority is granted to be upheld in spite of such egregious offenses, we ought to apply this principal the more to religion. The pope, for example, even though we reject his authority over us, ought be respected as representing God. By the same token, and perhaps even to the same or greater degree, we ought to respect the office of the minister, the office of the elder. Whatever we may know of the man, and even should we know that man to be fallen into sins most terrible. Even so, they are officers of God’s church, and the office is to be respected. This is not to say we ought to tolerate ungodly behavior in our officers, that we should just open our arms to whatever sort of man or woman happens to be in the pulpit or in charge, even though they are living in flagrant sin. By no means! It is more a matter of how we treat such a one. There is an honorable course to be taken in church discipline, just as there is an honorable course to take in our disagreements over civil authorities.
In our civil governance, we have the power of the vote. We may think little of it, but it is a great power, and a great responsibility. If we are so displeased by the moral fiber of our leaders, then we take to the voting booth. But, more, we seek to inform the understanding of our fellow citizens that they might join their vote to ours and thereby bring about change. This is as it should be. Change, political change, must come up from the bottom. Change that is pushed down from the top is tyranny, and we have no place for such change in our republic.
The church is not so dissimilar in structure. It is not completely directed in top-down fashion, but also reflects a bottom-up influence of the church membership. Now, I say this advisedly, with recognition that at its pinnacle, the church is absolutely a top-down organization, with Jesus as head and all else dependent from His determining. But, how that works out in human organization is another thing altogether. How that works out in our society at present tends to be bottom-up no matter what the official ecclesiastic organizing principals may be. A Presbyterian church, for example, is officially governed in a more top-down fashion. But, the bottom votes with its feet if the top does not govern to their liking. It remains bottom-up in effect.
My point is simply this: If we would have godly governance, whether civil or religious, it must begin with our own self-governance. If we wish to live in a godly society we must begin by living as godly people. There can be no other way. Part of being godly people, it seems to me, is to maintain a perspective upon those in positions of authority which is in keeping with God’s instruction.
It may be tempting to join in with the rather vicious partisanship that decorates our democracy. But, is it right? We almost assuredly have strong differences with the directions of this administration. There is much that is happening, much that is being handed down as from on high, that ought to cause deep concern. But, there is the office and then there is the officer. Likewise in many a church, we see the official line driving the membership farther from Christ rather than nearer. Yet, there are pastors, and as pastors, they continue to be God’s representatives, however poorly they may represent. We must learn to act as God acts, respecting the office even as we reject the particulars of the present officer.
And yes, there is a point where rejection must, and I stress must, lead to active opposition. I don’t believe you could ever find justification for violent opposition, but certainly active. The Church at large, facing the mandates of recent rulings as regards contraception, faces such a point, I believe. It is one thing that our governing bodies have seen fit to permit any number of ungodly behaviors, and we are assuredly reaping the consequences of such permissiveness. But, to require that godly people promote and accommodate such behavior amidst their own organizations? I think not! Some may view this as more of a gray area than as a matter cut and dried. But, if there are matters of conscience in the Church, this would certainly seem to be one, and the instruction that seems best to apply is this: If one considers the action sinful, then for him it is a sin. And, if one is in such a position, certainly to pay for another’s ability to do the same would likewise be a sin.
Yet even this is not just cause to revile our President. He remains our President. There is really no room in Christian thought to say, “He is not my President.” Oh, you hear that a lot these days. And maybe, it even makes you nod a bit. Watch out! That is the world speaking, not God. Pay heed to the right voice, and be led in the right direction.
Even God did not revile Caiaphas, but rather, in the person of Jesus, acted honorable before him. Even God allowed Caiaphas to speak Truth, albeit unbeknownst to himself. Even God observed the proprieties even as He was replacing Caiaphas with His own Man. Jesus, having ascended, took up that office once for all, and became the eternal high priest of God’s people. Now, Caiaphas was still around and fulfilling that role on earth, but no longer was his office official in God’s sight. Nor did God smile upon any of those who followed, including Annas son of Annas. They were pretenders from that day forward. Perhaps we ought measure the papacy in similar light. They are permitted to continue, but what is their authority in God’s eyes? I am inclined to think that in both cases, to the degree that they act in godly fashion and guide in godliness, they are honored by God. To the degree that they promote any other path, they are dismissed by God. The office, so far as it applies to earthly man, terminated on the day Jesus ascended. But, every man is yet measured as regards his own worth, and to the degree that the earthly office continues, it ought to be honored as serving to represent God, even as we recognize the Truth.
As regards this line of thought, the one other thing I should like to look at briefly is the scene of Paul before the high priest. Late in the book of Acts we read of Paul’s encounter with Ananias, as the son of Annas is called there. It is this Ananias who presides over the Sanhedrin as Paul defends himself, and it is this Ananias who commands that he be struck in the mouth for his words. Paul being Paul, he reacts with a bit of a curse upon Ananias. “God is going to strike you” (Ac 23:3). Mind you, he also makes it clear that he knows the law which Ananias ostensibly represents. At any rate, the crowds are shocked that he would speak thus to the high priest. What is of interest to me is Paul’s reply. “I was not aware that he was high priest. For the law says not to speak evil of a ruler of the people.”
Now, the closing half of that response makes plain that Paul both knows this aspect of Law and abides by it to the best of his ability. But, is he making an apology here for his outburst? I’m not so certain. It seems to me somewhat of a stretch to suppose Paul is not aware who the high priest is. If nothing else, the fact that this man is presiding over the Council would seem to settle the matter, wouldn’t it? Rather, it seems to me that Paul is confirming that doctrinal point made earlier, that the earthly office ceased to have heavenly validity when Christ ascended to heaven. This is not so far from the stand that Christians made against proclaiming Caesar as lord. We have no Lord but Christ Jesus! Paul, it seems to me, is very nearly making the same point. We have no High Priest but Christ Jesus. Were you a valid high priest, I would offer you valid respect. That he does not say so more bluntly might be construed as demonstrating his regard for the office in spite of the man. Or, perhaps I am reading my theories into the scene. But, it does strike me as unlikely that Paul did not recognize the office held by the one before him.
Returning to the events more directly in view in the few verses before me, I would make one last point. It is found in my preparatory work under the “Thematic Relevance” heading. Jesus, being the Light, reveals the darkness of those around Him. That is something of a theme that runs through John’s account of this closing chapter in the life of Jesus. This is fitting, given that John is the one primarily responsible for revealing Jesus to us as the Light. But, it is certainly found to be the case here. The very fact that He is brought before Annas rather than Caiaphas is a mark of the corruption that defines those who have taken Him captive.
Consider the things that we have already accounted against them. First, there has been no actual crime, nor even any suggestion of a crime. Two or three witnesses? They have found none! Second, there is the secrecy of the whole thing, Jesus being dragged before a council called in the middle of the night, lest the commoners be stirred up by the action. They wish to present a fait accompli. This, as I have been given to understand, was wholly against protocol for the Council. Third, we have Roman soldiers out here. Why? What offense has been given against Roman law? None that has been mentioned. Perhaps Jesus has been pointed out to them as an insurrectionist. But, if this is the case, ought not Roman justice deliver Him to Roman authority to be tried? If this is a religious dispute, then Rome has no place in it. If it is a civil dispute then Annas and Caiaphas have no place in it. Yet it plays out in the way it does. Why? Because Light must reveal darkness. Darkness cannot remain hidden when Light has come. They will be shown in the full extent of their corruption, and the extent of that corruption is near total.
Were this only a concern for enemies of the heavenly state, then we should simply cheer and move on. But, that same Truth holds for all who are the sons of God. Even, perhaps especially, within His own family, the Light will reveal the full extent of any remaining dark corruption. It must do so. It cannot help but do so. The very presence of absolute Purity makes plain the flaws in anything less. We, too, will stand within that Light. We stand in it now, though not in the full brightness of our Light. This is, one might say, what conscience is – the reflection of that Light, or the refraction, with the colors revealed by its bending demonstrating where flaws remain.
We may seek to conceal our sins. This is surely an understandable action, for we know our sins for what they are, and we know our weakness for what it is. But, we also tend to suppose that those others who are our church family are doing ever so much better than we. Awareness of sin has this effect on us, that we tend to suppose we are clearly far more evil than our compatriots, or if not evil, at least weaker. And, we don’t like that feeling, so sin must remain a private affair. This is, of course, utter foolishness, yet we fool ourselves into it all the time. Privatizing sin has the effect of cutting us off from the very aid that might have given us strength to resist. We are called to confess one to another for this reason, that another might pray for one, many others might pray for one. It is a bringing of the hidden darkness into the purifying Light.
Now, let me be a bit blunt here, if I can. From experience, I have to conclude that this process may not result in an end to the particular bit of darkness under consideration. Or, it may prove but a temporary salve, which when worn away leaves that sin, that habitual practice, to rise up again. Does this, then, mean that the prayers of one’s brethren are powerless? Well, Scripture tells us that the prayers of a righteous man availeth much. But, then, Scripture also reminds us that there is no man found righteous, not even one. So, where does that leave us? The fact is that prayer is powerful, and the prayers of one’s brethren combine to be powerful indeed. At one and the same time, they are utterly powerless. I do not present a paradox, but a recognition. The prayers of man, even the ‘best of men’ are but words if that is all they are. Prayer, we must recognize, does not change God’s mind. If it is true prayer, truly prompted by the Holy Spirit of God, then prayer reflects God’s mind, expresses His plan and purpose. One might go so far as to say that effective prayer is prophecy, for it speaks not the prayer’s thoughts, but God’s purposes.
At the same time, the prayers of a righteous man, a man filled at God’s determination with God’s Holy Spirit, are indeed powerful, and do avail. They do so precisely because they are in perfect alignment with God’s purpose. He prompts such prayers. He powers such prayers. And, it is not so much that He honors such prayers as that He all but commands them. They are the markers of His intended actions, and the actions He intends, we can rest assured are going to happen!
So, why is it that these prayers against our habitual sins may seem to go unanswered? Why do we continue to struggle with the same things year after year? I can think of a number of possible answers to this. For one, we might consider Paul’s own experience with that thorn in the side that, as near we can understand the account, God saw fit to leave in place. “My grace is sufficient for you.” That is all the answer you’re getting on this one, Paul. You will have to stand against it, and I will suffice to help you stand. If we take this as a physical affliction, then we understand that God is saying He will help Paul bear up under that affliction. But, is that necessarily what’s in view? We honestly don’t know. We suppose. Many suppose, for instance, that it was a matter of weak eyes. But, could it not as easily have been some habitual sin that Paul struggled with throughout life? Do we suppose him such a sainted being as to have completely subjugated every last vestige of sin in himself? I suspect that, were you to propose such a thing to him, he would be the first to say, “Far be it from me!” Would that it were the case, but no! I am a man just as you are. Hear the anguish of his heart in Romans. I keep finding myself doing what I know I oughtn’t to do, and what I would that I did, I don’t. So, why are we left in this struggle? To learn dependence on God as our only hope; to undergo the discipline that comes from resistance training.
One other possibility is that the things we see as the big sins in our lives are not the things God is concerned with, at least at present. There are, for example, habits that are assuredly unhealthy, and at least in our corner of the universe have come to be rather frowned upon by society at large. Smoking is a fine example of this. Absolutely, it is not good for our bodies. And, at least up here in the Northeast, it is more and more made a matter to be embarrassed about. Oh, they still leave up smoking areas in many places, but they are rather like cages to which one is sent. It is clear that while accommodations are made, it is not because we condone such activity. (And yet, they will cheerfully accommodate matters that are more clearly sinful! Go figure.) We, for health reasons or merely for reason of pride, find this something we would be done with. It is not a good witness, Lord, that I continue thus! But, sometimes, I might wonder if God even cares about that. After all, there have been a number of godly men before our time who smoked to their dying day. Did it make their insights less spiritual? Did it make them liars or cheats or philanderers? Not that I am aware of. In short, is it sin, or is it a socially unacceptable behavior? Is our focus on this little peccadillo keeping us from perceiving what God is really after? Or maybe, even, what He has been accomplishing in spite of our distraction? It strikes me as possible, at the very least.
Perhaps, in such a case, we would be well advised yes, to continue praying that we might be delivered from this foolish behavior, and particularly as it may lead us to sin in truth as we seek to avoid being known for our foolishness. But, ought we not to simultaneously be seeking to know what it is God is working on in us? Ought we not to be seeking, rather that God would reveal what He wants to change, what He is working on? Perhaps, rather than begging for the change we want, we ought to be asking whether it is a change He wants. I’m afraid I have no absolute answers on this. It is a struggle I know too well, and one which, as often as not, I neglect to struggle with. But, there is an answer in Him. He does hear. He does respond. We are often too caught up in our own expectations to recognize the response, but it is there.
What, for instance, are we to make of it if we have been asking Him to take something from us and after so many years He has not done so? Perhaps there’s a negative answer there. Perhaps. I will tell you point blank what you ought not to make of it. It is not evidence that you are too far gone for God to regenerate. No! There is none so far that He cannot reach! It is not evidence that you are some godless reprobate. If that were the case, you’d have no least thought for your actions, no sense of guilt, and no remorse. The dark get darker. It is only the Light that gives rise to your concerns, and if He is with you, then you are assured that He will complete the work He has begun.
The Light will reveal our darkness, and if we are in Him, it will cleanse us of our darkness. It is not a work that occurs in a moment, lest the cleansing destroy us utterly. But, it is a work that occurs. Each day, we find ourselves a bit lighter. Each day we are able to reflect that Light which is within us just a bit more. It doesn’t always feel like that is the case. I tell you that from experience, as well. There are days when we feel like darkness is closing back in on us, within us. There are days where we feel no sense of His presence. Yet, He is there. He is here. He is faithful to complete that for which He paid so high a price. He has called us as His bride, and He will not be denied the fulfillment of that call. So, if sins have you down, take heart! He has not given up on you. Don’t give up on Him.
