New Thoughts (08/21/12-08/24/12)
Once again I find myself a bit bemused as to why I combined these verses as I did. The first few verses from Mark seem pretty clearly to align with the previous section, and the whole section from John would be more properly handled in isolation, being as he is the only one who notes the interview with Annas. Be that as it may, these are the verses I have here, and I shall consider them as I find them. I will, however, have little to say about those first few sentences from Mark, since that part of events was already looked at.
So, let me begin with John’s coverage of that interview with Annas. It is an interesting phrase that John uses to describe the line of his questioning. He asked about His disciples, and about His teaching. There is the suggestion that what Annas was really fishing for was some idea as to the size of Jesus’ true following. Perhaps this is the case. It is interesting, though, that the disciples are noted before the doctrine. It could be that Annas was looking for names, so he could have them arrested as well. It could be as was suggested, that he was assessing the size of this new sect. But, the order of questioning reveals the concerns of the man, and I don’t find it unreasonable to suppose that John intends us to recognize this in the way he describes it. Here was a high priest of Israel, forcibly retired, yes, but still a power in the religious leadership of God’s people, and he has less concern for what those people are being taught than with how many of them might be viewing his leadership as suspect, might be willing to ignore him.
This is hardly a matter unique to the times. There are plenty of places today where numbers are of more interest than Truth. Look at some of the decisions being made in churches of late, where it seems that every central doctrine is negotiable if it’ll bring in more paying parishioners. It’s not a universal failing yet, but it’s wide spread. The church has, sadly, become more a business than a public boon. Granted, the physical plant requires finances to maintain, and pastors are certainly deserving of their pay, such as it is. They are deserving of far more, honestly, if they are sound teachers and trainers of God’s ways. But, when this becomes the focus, when our eyes are more impressed by the numbers in attendance than with the clear fruit of discipleship shown by those in attendance, problems arise. It strikes me that the Sanhedrin-led temple was a prime example set for our edification.
I have written elsewhere about that side-business that Annas and Caiaphas had running, the sale of sacrifice-quality livestock (for a nominal profit of course), which Jesus had now twice disrupted. That, combined with the line of questioning here, makes it clear where the priorities of the leaders lay. It adds, perhaps, some extra freight to the words Jesus spoke, “You cannot serve both God and mammon” (Mt 6:24). You will necessarily come to hate one and love the other. Now, I would note that He never said you could not possess mammon and still belong to God. But, you can only serve one. The other must serve you or be disposed of entire. And serving you is not something God is in the business of doing. As to Annas and Caiaphas, they had made their choice as to whom they served. That’s why doctrinal questions get reduced to curiosities, matters for amusing debate, perhaps, but of little consequence. I am sure that somehow these guys supposed that God served them as they served their monetary idol, but as I said, God is not in the business of serving men. Saving, yes; serving, no.
The response Jesus makes could almost come as a response to the accusations that follow when He is brought before Caiaphas. Were it not for the clear declaration from both Matthew and Mark that Jesus did not even see fit to dignify those claims with a response, I should think maybe that’s why I originally set these three passages together. But, it is not a response. It is a preemption. It is the certain understanding of an innocent man that if He has been brought before this (ahem) august body for trial, it is most certainly on grounds of false testimony. It could not be otherwise.
I notice, too, that Jesus replies to the question which Annas apparently saw as secondary. He responds on the matter of doctrine. In doing so, He pointedly reveals the ignorance of this man who would pass judgment. You have dragged Me in and you don’t even know my doctrine? You have no clue what I’ve been teaching, yet you have had Me arrested? Well, clearly, you’ve dug up some ‘witnesses’ willing to say something against Me, but just as clearly, they have never actually listened to My teaching. Find some who have, and get their testimony!
Let me return for just a moment to that other disciple who was known to the high priest. I understand that we cannot know with certainty whether his status as disciple was also known, but it doesn’t seem all that improbable to me. Had they been interested in the Truth, it would have been pretty easy to come up with the information. But, they were not. They were interested in the preservation of power and nothing else. They had a good little business going here, and it would be a shame were anything to happen to it. So, the presence of disciples in the building would be ignored. Jesus, being the Good Shepherd, was hardly going to point out His sheep to these wolves. If they would choose to stand forth as witnesses, so be it, but it was not for Him to force them into the open.
But, the rebuke He delivers is somewhat prophetic, given what follows. You have brought in folks who clearly never actually heard what I said, or if they did, only in half-heard phrases and without understanding. Question, rather, those who have actually been taught by Me! There are plenty, and you have had ample opportunity to identify them. Ask them what I teach. They know. These ones you’re about to bring to the stand? They known nothing of Me, and you know that perfectly well.
With that, we can turn to the coverage from Matthew and Mark. Mark is actually a bit kinder to the Sanhedrin, only saying that they were trying to find some testimony against Jesus. Matthew is blunt. They were seeking to obtain false testimony. It was a conscious effort on their part, and one in which they already knew before they ever started that they would find no true testimony to their purpose. Yet, they could not be seen to be coercing the witnesses, so they were finding it necessary to go through an awful lot of witnesses before they could find two whose testimony matched near enough to satisfy casual inspection. And, they were certainly not going to press with anything more than that casual inspection. Notice that comment from Mark. “And not even in this respect was their testimony consistent.” Remember the supposition that Mark is writing from Peter’s telling of events; Peter who was there at the scene, could hear the proceedings, Peter who had heard the words Jesus really spoke, as well as what these two so-called witnesses claimed.
I don’t want to spend too much time looking at Peter here, for he is really doing little more than looking on, anyway. But, that statement forces me to consider one aspect of the man. He knew. He would seem to have been in position to hear these other men testify, to find their testimony not only inconsistent with the facts, but inconsistent with their own telling. Yet, he said nothing. This, to me, is the greater denial. This seems to me worse than the verbal denials. No, no, I was not with Him. Don’t know the man, sorry. One might, surely, ask why he’s here at the high priest’s house in the middle of the night if he isn’t with Jesus, but that doesn’t come up. We can argue that his denials were meant to serve the purpose of getting him inside where he could maybe do some good. Except there’s this silence. Here, when he might have been able to do some good, when he could have testified to the truth of what Jesus said and set it in proper context, he said nothing. What if he had? Would that other disciple have spoken up as well? Now, there are two or three witnesses on both sides of the testimony, and perhaps the Sanhedrin might have been forced into a bit of honesty. But, it was not to be. Nor, was it intended to be.
God knew. God had this whole thing mapped out start to finish, and had done so from before the dawn of creation. Things had to play out in their entirety, for mankind must be saved. This does not make the participants any less guilty in their actions, but it does demonstrate the magnitude of God’s lovingkindness towards us.
Come back, then, to the testimony upon which the Sanhedrin finally decided to make its case against Jesus. Now, let us listen carefully to their claim. “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God’” (Mt 26:61), “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple’” (Mk 14:58). But, if we go back to the conversation these two men apparently overheard, what does Jesus actually say? “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19). So small a change in His words! So trivial, isn’t it? Yet, as if taking this statement out of context were not problematic enough, by then shifting the first clause ever so slightly, it moves from sounding almost like a declaration of protective support to a threat. We heard Him say He will destroy this temple. That’s a threat. That’s like saying, “I will blow up this plane.” It’s going to be interpreted as dangerous, heard as dangerous, and frankly, anybody overhearing you say such a thing is not going to take time to consider context. Let the courts sort that out if you live long enough to reach one.
But, it’s not what Jesus said is it? It’s close, but it’s not wholly the truth. Given context, we understand that Jesus was discussing the distinctions between physical representations and spiritual realities. We understand also that He was speaking of His own resurrection. But, given that even His disciples, who were listening closely to Him did not understand that at the time, it would hardly be surprising that somebody they were passing as they talked failed to take such a meaning from His words. It’s sheerest braggadocio! You’re going to build this temple in three days? Never mind the question of its destruction. Three days? Do you have any idea how long it took to build this marvel? How many men were involved? You couldn’t even gather the materials together in three months, let alone three days! To hear such a claim made must cause one to laugh. Unless, of course, He is Who He says He Is. Hmm.
But, such men as would come with this sort of testimony were not likely to concern themselves too much with His claims. Had they any thought for Who He might be, is it really plausible that they would be doing as they do? Well, Judas did. So, I guess it’s possible. Besides, with the devil prompting all these actions, it would almost not matter what the personal perspectives were. The action was going to unfold. But, their testimony, as we have noted, would have fallen apart with any degree of inspection. Given a witness or two who actually remembered what Jesus had spoken correctly, and were willing to provide some of the context, the whole thing would have fallen apart in short order. But, of course, nobody cared to examine this too closely. And the witnesses for the defense were too fearful to make themselves known.
As concerns this testimony, though, consider how slight the change. Consider how easily truth is made lie. Why, all they did is add two words to the start. “I can.” “I will.” And, the ludicrous bragging is made a powerful threat. Of course, to find it much of a threat, one would still have to credit Him with being Who He says He Is. But, it wasn’t the threat that bothered them. It was the mere words. Gah! He spoke against the temple! The temple! The temple! It would be hard to overestimate how much stock was put in the temple, how much the people’s sense of security was founded on the presence of the temple. Never mind God. We have the temple! So long as it stands, He cannot possibly act against us. It’s His house! And, as so often seems to happen, complacency set in. We are His people and there is His house. Given that, we may as well do as we please. He cannot possibly consider punishing us. He could not possibly contemplate destroying His own chosen abode. But, to think thusly is to thoroughly misconstrue the God Who Is. Several verses amongst the cross-references make the point but I’ll settle for just this one. “The Most High does not dwell in manmade houses, as the prophet said” (Ac 7:48). You are sorely mistaken to think the building matters.
As with so much of the religion Jesus encountered, the visible stuff had distracted its practitioners from spiritual truths. God didn’t matter so much as appearances. Holiness didn’t matter anywhere near so much as prestige. It wasn’t about serving the Most High. It was about power and influence. It was about pride and position. It was about looking good even as the insides rotted away.
I think of the story our neighbor was telling us, of his sister-in-law driving her vehicle into a huge oak tree in an effort to avoid hitting a turkey. Never mind the decision making involved in that accident. What was interesting to me is that she survived a head-on collision with an old oak tree. How can that be? Those things are solid! Well, until they’ve been hollowed out by termites, they are. And that turned out to be the case here. Of course, looking at the tree, you have no idea. It looks solid, substantial. It has all the appearances of being a mighty oak. Yet, this collision with a far less substantial vehicle toppled the tree. Fortunately for the driver, it fell away from the vehicle and not atop it. But, the tree makes a reasonable analog for the religion of these people. It was all surface and no substance. It was utterly dead even though there was the veneer of life upon it.
This is, of course, nothing unique to that time, nor to the ancients. It arises in every age, and unless we are exceedingly careful of our faith, it arises in every man. And it begins with just the sorts of modifications to Truth as are seen coming from these false witnesses. A little change here, a word added or removed there, and pretty soon, we’ve got the text saying what we’d rather it said. It’s easier to cohabit with the words, then, easier to reach the bar. But, the bar is of no value. It is not the standard of God any longer, it’s the ever-changing, always lowering standard of man. Just think of the myriad and oft-conflicting things that society insists Jesus would support in our own day. We even had a song about it back in the 90s, “Your own personal Jesus.” Yes, and for many around us, that’s what they’ve got. He’s no more real than their other imaginative creations. But, there is a real Jesus, and He spoke the real Truth. He set the real standards for a real participation in real Life. And, knowing our weak constitutions, He provided a real Way for us to attain to that real Life, in spite of our weakness!
The thing is that the truth and the lie are often very near to identical. The big lie can be spotted and dismissed for what it is. But, the subtle nudging of the truth? Well, it sounds near enough to what we thought He said. Perhaps He did say that. It’s been awhile since I read that particular chapter, and maybe he’s reading a different translation, but it sounds pretty close. And, what has happened? A small change slips in unnoticed, and before long it’s accepted as the legitimate understanding. There is a reason why we are called to careful study. There’s a reason why we are called to search the Scriptures for ourselves and confirm what the teacher or the preacher or the website says.
Now, I freely confess that I almost always work from my own paraphrases in these studies I may need to rethink that practice, in light of what I am being shown here. What had these two false witnesses done, after all, but to paraphrase? Granted, He had only said, “Destroy this temple.” Perhaps they understood Him to be implying that “I can” or “I will” so they simply supplied their supposition as part of their testimony. One could almost arrive at the thought that these guys were not acting maliciously by their testimony, but only raising concerns over what they really thought they had heard. Consider when it was that Jesus spoke those particular words. It’s been a few years. And, who can be expected to recall precise wordings over such a span of time? But, then, the Council was actively (if surreptitiously) seeking false witness. Accurate recollections would hardly serve their purpose.
So, we have this need to be careful in how we view the word of God. Consider even the words Jesus speaks when the guard has assaulted Him. “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” [NASB]. Wrongly or rightly? Do you know that there is but one letter’s difference between those two terms? Kakoos or kaloos. One letter changed, and right is made wrong. And, that is exactly the point made about Scripture, isn’t it? Certainly John felt that way about the text of the Revelation. Whether that was intended to apply more broadly or not might be subject to some debate, but I think the principle itself stands. Adding or deleting from the original message delivered in Scripture is an issue. It is a moving the Truth toward lie.
The problem with lies is that they persist, it seems, far more readily than the Truth. Mark Twain was not far wrong in saying, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” And, it will be accepted. It comes from good authority after all. Perhaps it was heard on the news. Perhaps it was later retracted at some quiet hour, but the lie went out, and it bore the stamp of officialdom, and no amount of correction will be able to dislodge it at that point. That’s half the game in our present-day politics. Say anything. Be utterly outrageous in your disregard for obvious facts. It won’t matter. People will accept it on your authority, even when they stand as witness, themselves, to the error of your words. They hear what they expect, what they want to hear. They accept what suits, even if it’s obviously false.
In this case, we find that the people, hearing the results of this trial, accepted it as writ. “You said You would destroy this temple and rebuild it in three days” (Mt 27:40, Mk15:29). This was part of the taunting people threw up in Jesus’ face as He hung on the cross. See where that kind of talk got You? Destroy the temple? You can’t even save Yourself, can You? Son of God indeed! Never mind that the whole chain of their logic was hung upon a false peg.
May we, then, be more careful both in what we claim and what we accept. May we be granted ears to hear only what is true. May we take upon ourselves the holy responsibility of confirming all that we receive as teaching. Oh! It is our duty! It is our duty to confirm that what we are told the Scriptures say and mean is indeed what they say and mean. It is our duty to test, and if the message be found true, to apply. If the message be found false? Let us be willing to defend the Truth, but not in anger. A brother who teaches falsely may yet be brought safely back to a sound understanding. But, if he will not accede to the Truth, then we must pursue the disciplines that Scripture provides. “Do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds” 2Jn 11-12 – NASB.
Holy God, I must pray forgiveness if, by my habitual paraphrasing, I have offended against You. If that be the case, Lord, I pray also that You would keep me mindful of that mistake going forward, and if not, then may I find assurance from You that it is acceptable under the circumstance. In either case, Lord, I pray Thee that I might take Your words all the more seriously, consider them all the more carefully, and treasure them all the more highly. And, God, let me not relax into being a lazy listener who hears without thought for applying.
