(Raw journal entry of 6/30/13) It must have been frustrating to the Jewish leaders to have created a very emotion-packed event as bringing an adulteress before Jesus and suggesting a stoning (hanging) was about the take place. Reminds me of the old west with the rope over the tree limb and the noose around the thief's neck. The scene is highly charged and ready to blow and Jesus says nothing, stoops down and writes on the ground while the leaders continue to question Him. Foolishness met Wisdom. Frenzy met Calm. Hypocrisy met Truth. Trickery met Transparency. Sin met Righteousness. Condemnation met Forgiveness. In that moment we get a significant look at how God deals with us-the world-the dysfunction we exhibit. God is slow to anger and reasonable. He takes His time and acts from character and truth and love. He is not pressed or hurried or put on the spot as if He were required to meet some human requirement. He responds; He does not react. He is not fooled by the plots and schemes of others. He sizes up the situation and answers in ways that serve everyone's best interest-crowds, accusers, the woman, and His disciples-even us, In that precise moment with less than two dozen words Jesus disarmed His enemies and them into retreat. He defused the bomb that could have exploded. Much was at stake. Jesus knew the dilemma that they had tried to put Him in.
Consider the two horns. If Jesus sides with mercy, then He treats the Law as unimportant and He is discredited as one who does not uphold God's Law. He could be rightfully condemned as a Law-breaker and a sinner and disqualified from being Messiah. But, if He participated in this woman's death, He would have a hard time trying to convince us that He loved sinners and wanted to save them. He said He came to save and not destroy and condemn. His ministry of grace toward convicted sinners would have been destroyed. He was in a "fix" as we say in the South. But was He? Jesus always sees another way, the way of escape from the horns of the dilemma. The Law says every matter must be established by 2-3 witnesses. No witnesses, no conviction, and no sentence. So these witnesses when confronted with self-incrimination recanted their testimony and walked away. They were not willing to come under the same scrutiny as the woman. They knew they were on the verge of being caught themselves. By pressing the case against this woman they would have been declaring their own sinlessness and lack of mercy. Jesus was stripping away their self-righteousness and exposing them for what they were. By walking away there were no witnesses to condemn the woman and the case had to be dropped and she was free, no accusers, no charges, and no stoning.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Another Trap
John 8 comes on the heels of John 7. The Jewish leaders in context of the talk of the multitudes during the Feast of Booths were becoming more desperate to have cause to seize and kill Jesus. The crowds went home, Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, but the Jewish leaders hatched a plot to trap Jesus. I wonder who thought up this one. Imagine that they are sitting in a meeting discussing their next move and someone says, "I know what we can do? Let's catch some poor woman in the act of adultery, pull her in front of Jesus, quote the Law, and ask Jesus what we should do?" Why would anyone think this would be a good idea? Why did they think this would be a trap? If the woman was guilty, then why wouldn't Jesus tell them to follow the Law? If Jesus had done that would the plot have backfired on them? Actually most of us have a picture in our heads on how this scene unfolded. I know I have. But, do we really know how this happened? There are a lot of questions. How did they know this woman was committing adultery that evening/morning, and where to find her? Was the woman a prostitute or a wayward wife? Did someone follow her the night before and lay in wait for her the next morning? But, how did these leaders know that Jesus would be back in the temple courts early the next morning? This may lead us to think identifying this woman was more impulsive and happenstance than plotted. But, if not plotted then why were so many leaders together so early in the morning? Could the woman have been paid to be there? A part of some conspiracy to entrap Jesus? We know these leaders would pay people to help them, e.g. Judas.
And, what did the actual scene look like? Was the woman being dragged kicking and screaming to Jesus? Or did she come under her own power? Did the men actually have rocks in their hands ready to carry out the stoning? The text does not say they had rocks in their hands. So if they did not then they could not have dropped them and walked away. When Jesus told the women to go and sin no more was the sin he had in mind adultery or participation in a plot to trap Him? Of course we speculate on what he wrote on the ground. He was in the temple courts which would have been paved with stone, it seems. It says he "wrote on the ground." (Literally "in the earth.") Could He like the God of Sinai been writing into the stones showing them He was like His Father who wrote the commandments with His own finger? This would have freaked them out it seems. But it is all speculation.
The fact is they referenced the Law pertaining to adultery. Two likely verses are Lev.20:10 and Deut.22:22. These clearly indicate that death is the penalty for verified adultery. But, there was always a presumption under the Law that the ones who were carrying out the sentence were in some way qualified to do so. It would be wrong for those guilty of capital offences to carry out the death sentence of those guilty of capital offences. So when this woman was brought, the Law was quoted, and the men stood to condemn her, there was one more major factor going on. They were really not seeking to condemn her as much as they were seeking to condemn Jesus, the innocent. They disqualified themselves from being judges. If they could unjustly judge Jesus who had no sin, and seek His death, then how could they stand in judgment of this woman? The difference was Jesus had an option to following the Law. He could because of His sinlessness and in view of His atoning sacrifice six months in the future offer this woman and these men an option not afforded by the Law, i.e. pardon and forgiveness. By His response Jesus showed the woman and these men that He did not come to condemn (John 3) but to save. Had the stones started to fly that morning the only one left standing would have been Jesus.
And, what did the actual scene look like? Was the woman being dragged kicking and screaming to Jesus? Or did she come under her own power? Did the men actually have rocks in their hands ready to carry out the stoning? The text does not say they had rocks in their hands. So if they did not then they could not have dropped them and walked away. When Jesus told the women to go and sin no more was the sin he had in mind adultery or participation in a plot to trap Him? Of course we speculate on what he wrote on the ground. He was in the temple courts which would have been paved with stone, it seems. It says he "wrote on the ground." (Literally "in the earth.") Could He like the God of Sinai been writing into the stones showing them He was like His Father who wrote the commandments with His own finger? This would have freaked them out it seems. But it is all speculation.
The fact is they referenced the Law pertaining to adultery. Two likely verses are Lev.20:10 and Deut.22:22. These clearly indicate that death is the penalty for verified adultery. But, there was always a presumption under the Law that the ones who were carrying out the sentence were in some way qualified to do so. It would be wrong for those guilty of capital offences to carry out the death sentence of those guilty of capital offences. So when this woman was brought, the Law was quoted, and the men stood to condemn her, there was one more major factor going on. They were really not seeking to condemn her as much as they were seeking to condemn Jesus, the innocent. They disqualified themselves from being judges. If they could unjustly judge Jesus who had no sin, and seek His death, then how could they stand in judgment of this woman? The difference was Jesus had an option to following the Law. He could because of His sinlessness and in view of His atoning sacrifice six months in the future offer this woman and these men an option not afforded by the Law, i.e. pardon and forgiveness. By His response Jesus showed the woman and these men that He did not come to condemn (John 3) but to save. Had the stones started to fly that morning the only one left standing would have been Jesus.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Birthers
We have all heard the barrage of discussion regarding the place of President Obama's birth. The constitution demands the president to be a natural born citizen of the US. Was Obama born in Kenya or Hawaii? It matters if he would be our legitimate commander-in-chief. I doubt that by this time those who have considered this matter will have their minds changed. People will believe what they want to believe to support their like or dislike of Mr. Obama. Jesus had a similar "birther" problem. Where was He born, Galilee or Bethlehem? It mattered because most Jews knew that Old Testament prophecy said that the Messiah, the descendant of David, would come from the city of David, Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). So when Jesus was considered as a likely candidate for Messiah His birthplace was important. He grew up and lived most of His life in Galilee in Nazareth. When introduced to Nathaniel (John 1) his first response was "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" This city was not known for producing Messiahs or prophets. In fact later this town would reject Jesus as Messiah.
As the crowds became increasingly restless regarding Jesus, and began to take sides regarding His identity, the Jewish leaders also became more desperate to discredit Him, and kill Him. One way to do this was to spread lies about His birthplace. Now, I don't know that they knew they were lies, but they should have. They had the ability to research this matter. There were plenty of ways to find out where Jesus was born. Bethlehem was not far away. They could have questioned people there. Jesus' brothers were at the Feast, and perhaps even His mother. They could have looked at the census records that corresponded to the date of Jesus' birth. And, they could have even asked Jesus where He was born. But, instead they just made something up, jumping to the conclusion that since He grew up in Nazareth that He must have been born there.
A voice of reason spoke up. Nicodemus was getting bolder in the face of Jesus' enemies. The chief priests and Pharisees pronounce a curse on the crowds for not knowing the Law. So one who does know the Law, Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Ruling Council, speaks up to defend the Law. "Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" You might think they would respect this reference to the Law. Exodus 23:1; Deut.17:6; 19:15; Proverbs 18:13 all make clear Nicodemus' point. He was standing on good legal grounds, But how can you argue with those whose minds are made up. Don't confuse us with facts. We know the truth and do not need to do research. This human weakness of "jumping to a conclusion" or merely "shooting first and asking questions later" has a numbing effect on truth seekers. Paul tried Nicodemus' approach in Acts 23:23 when he was on trial. But, it had no better effect than it did in Nicodemus' case. I wonder if this was the real turning point for Nicodemus. Did he say to himself, "I cannot stand with these biased, truth-denying hypocrites any longer. I must decide if I am going to come out of the closet and declare my love and admiration for Jesus?"
We too have choices to make. We must stand up like Nicodemus and defend Jesus as being worthy to be heard. Don't condemn him until you hear him.
As the crowds became increasingly restless regarding Jesus, and began to take sides regarding His identity, the Jewish leaders also became more desperate to discredit Him, and kill Him. One way to do this was to spread lies about His birthplace. Now, I don't know that they knew they were lies, but they should have. They had the ability to research this matter. There were plenty of ways to find out where Jesus was born. Bethlehem was not far away. They could have questioned people there. Jesus' brothers were at the Feast, and perhaps even His mother. They could have looked at the census records that corresponded to the date of Jesus' birth. And, they could have even asked Jesus where He was born. But, instead they just made something up, jumping to the conclusion that since He grew up in Nazareth that He must have been born there.
A voice of reason spoke up. Nicodemus was getting bolder in the face of Jesus' enemies. The chief priests and Pharisees pronounce a curse on the crowds for not knowing the Law. So one who does know the Law, Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Ruling Council, speaks up to defend the Law. "Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" You might think they would respect this reference to the Law. Exodus 23:1; Deut.17:6; 19:15; Proverbs 18:13 all make clear Nicodemus' point. He was standing on good legal grounds, But how can you argue with those whose minds are made up. Don't confuse us with facts. We know the truth and do not need to do research. This human weakness of "jumping to a conclusion" or merely "shooting first and asking questions later" has a numbing effect on truth seekers. Paul tried Nicodemus' approach in Acts 23:23 when he was on trial. But, it had no better effect than it did in Nicodemus' case. I wonder if this was the real turning point for Nicodemus. Did he say to himself, "I cannot stand with these biased, truth-denying hypocrites any longer. I must decide if I am going to come out of the closet and declare my love and admiration for Jesus?"
We too have choices to make. We must stand up like Nicodemus and defend Jesus as being worthy to be heard. Don't condemn him until you hear him.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Internal Discussions
I've been in on some of those internal discussions. You know the ones. Spiritual leaders meet to discuss matters of faith or practices since the congregation is not sufficiently capable of processing such matters. A very public Jesus who says nothing in a corner and is crying out on the last day of the Feast has prompted a closed meeting of Jewish leaders. The participants in this meeting are the chief priests, the Pharisees, some temple officers who were sent to arrest Jesus, and Nicodemus, a secret disciple of Jesus who serves on the Jewish ruling council. Usually in these meetings someone is on the hot seat because they are questioning something. How dare anyone question a matter that the leaders have already judged. Case closed. The officers came back empty handed because it was not Jesus' time to be arrested and die. They were in trouble for something they could not possibly do. But, more importantly they were in trouble for being impressed with Jesus, and for actually listening to what He was saying. Was it the message about the water that got their attention? Were they thirsty? Did they want to hear more about this water, and the Holy Spirit? God forbid that they actually consider what Jesus is saying is true! The officers could not get passed the way Jesus spoke. "No man ever spoke like this man." Finally some truth in the midst of all this confusion!
The chief priests and Pharisees have three replies, and each reveal more about their hearts than it does the hearts of the officers. 1) "You have not also been led astray, have you?" The way to stifle discussion is to label it. In this case Jesus is labeled as one who leads others astray, and the officers are labeled as those who are being led astray. "You aren't falling for this guy's spiel are you?" "You are dumb enough to actually believe Him, are you?" Is this a yes/no question? "Are you still beating your wife?" This was a trap. Be careful of the traps of the Pharisees, Jesus has warned. They are clever. 2) "No one of the rulers of the Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?" Surely if Jesus was legit someone as smart as a Pharisee would be following Him. But since no one is, then that should tell you something. Surely Nicodemus; face must be turning red right about now (more to come on old Nic). This statement is another way to intimidate the guards. They are obviously not qualified to determine whether Jesus should be arrested or not. 3) "But the multitude which does not know the Law is accursed." In this statement they declare themselves the guardians of the faith, the bastions of truth, the keeper of the Law, and the crowds as stupid idiots who know nothing about such matters, and are not to be listened to. (Sound like some political discussions?)
But, look at Jesus' approach. He speaks freely in public. Later He can say, "Ask the crowds. They heard what I said." Jesus trusted the judgment of the crowds just as much as He did the judgment of their rulers. Though in reality He knew they were all biased, and needed to do what the temple guards did, i.e. stop and listen and be amazed at His teaching. These endless discussions might be reduced significantly if we would come together as beggars, humbly open the book, say a very long prayer before we begin to study it, and expect the guidance of the Spirit. In Florida we have the Sunshine Law. Public business must be held in the sunlight so that all can see what is being said and decided. Internal discussions are often meant to "put a lid" on something. Jesus was opening things up that last day of the Feast. Truth was meant for public consumption, not for closed door meetings.
The chief priests and Pharisees have three replies, and each reveal more about their hearts than it does the hearts of the officers. 1) "You have not also been led astray, have you?" The way to stifle discussion is to label it. In this case Jesus is labeled as one who leads others astray, and the officers are labeled as those who are being led astray. "You aren't falling for this guy's spiel are you?" "You are dumb enough to actually believe Him, are you?" Is this a yes/no question? "Are you still beating your wife?" This was a trap. Be careful of the traps of the Pharisees, Jesus has warned. They are clever. 2) "No one of the rulers of the Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?" Surely if Jesus was legit someone as smart as a Pharisee would be following Him. But since no one is, then that should tell you something. Surely Nicodemus; face must be turning red right about now (more to come on old Nic). This statement is another way to intimidate the guards. They are obviously not qualified to determine whether Jesus should be arrested or not. 3) "But the multitude which does not know the Law is accursed." In this statement they declare themselves the guardians of the faith, the bastions of truth, the keeper of the Law, and the crowds as stupid idiots who know nothing about such matters, and are not to be listened to. (Sound like some political discussions?)
But, look at Jesus' approach. He speaks freely in public. Later He can say, "Ask the crowds. They heard what I said." Jesus trusted the judgment of the crowds just as much as He did the judgment of their rulers. Though in reality He knew they were all biased, and needed to do what the temple guards did, i.e. stop and listen and be amazed at His teaching. These endless discussions might be reduced significantly if we would come together as beggars, humbly open the book, say a very long prayer before we begin to study it, and expect the guidance of the Spirit. In Florida we have the Sunshine Law. Public business must be held in the sunlight so that all can see what is being said and decided. Internal discussions are often meant to "put a lid" on something. Jesus was opening things up that last day of the Feast. Truth was meant for public consumption, not for closed door meetings.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Fight or Flight
Often when confronted with a threat, the natural survival instinct is to fight or to run (flight). My friend Ross has a few more "f" words to describe our responses to threats to our well-being. Things we do not understand or appreciate or perceive as dangerous will usually meet with some opposition. I was taken back by Nick Wallenda's walk across the grand canyon this week. What a feat! His philosophy of life fueled by His faith is to embrace fear and to use it as a means to accomplish wonder-filled things. He neither fights it or runs from it. When Jesus stepped on the scene He should have been embraced for the Savior He is. No one should have feared Him. Everyone should have run into His loving arms, and felt the safety they provide. If people of His day had been taught more accurately about the nature of God, His plan to bless man, and the mission and person of the Messiah in His kingdom, they would have responded to Jesus differently. The leaders of the Jews set the tone for the people just as parents set the tone for the child. If you want your child to stay calm in a thunderstorm, then you need to stay calm. If you want your child to maintain a sense of peace in the presence of danger then you too must have that peace. But, the Jewish rulers were afraid of Jesus and it manifested itself in angry aggression.
Some people fell in line with the leaders and desired to seize Jesus and silence Him. Others, kept their distance, not wanting to raise the ire of the leaders and not wanting to risk too much by following this radical Jesus. Some moved closer to Jesus to harm him (fight) and some moved away to protect themselves (flight). Perhaps if they had just stood still and listened and learned they would have had a response to Him instead of a reaction to Him. Facing fears through observation and information is what Jesus called people to do. "Be still. Before you react, hear Me. Before you start plotting to kill Me, do your research and at least find out where I was born (Galilee or Bethlehem). Before you reject Me try to understand Me, spend time with Me, and consider Me." This is our message to a world who is too quick at fight or flight in regard to Jesus. Why is Jesus so threatening to some? Perhaps we should be saying to the fearful "Give me one hour to tell you about Jesus, and reserve judgment until you hear me out." I wonder how many would give us that hour. Perhaps more than we think. But, what would we say during that hour? What information would we convey that would calm a person's fears and actually make Jesus attractive to others? Isn't all we want people to do is to put down their spiritual weapons or put down their defenses long enough to see Jesus as He really is?
Could the third alternative be "friend?" Don't fight Jesus. Don't flight Jesus. Friend Jesus.
Some people fell in line with the leaders and desired to seize Jesus and silence Him. Others, kept their distance, not wanting to raise the ire of the leaders and not wanting to risk too much by following this radical Jesus. Some moved closer to Jesus to harm him (fight) and some moved away to protect themselves (flight). Perhaps if they had just stood still and listened and learned they would have had a response to Him instead of a reaction to Him. Facing fears through observation and information is what Jesus called people to do. "Be still. Before you react, hear Me. Before you start plotting to kill Me, do your research and at least find out where I was born (Galilee or Bethlehem). Before you reject Me try to understand Me, spend time with Me, and consider Me." This is our message to a world who is too quick at fight or flight in regard to Jesus. Why is Jesus so threatening to some? Perhaps we should be saying to the fearful "Give me one hour to tell you about Jesus, and reserve judgment until you hear me out." I wonder how many would give us that hour. Perhaps more than we think. But, what would we say during that hour? What information would we convey that would calm a person's fears and actually make Jesus attractive to others? Isn't all we want people to do is to put down their spiritual weapons or put down their defenses long enough to see Jesus as He really is?
Could the third alternative be "friend?" Don't fight Jesus. Don't flight Jesus. Friend Jesus.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Belly or Womb
The discussion of John 7 turns to Jesus going away to a place where they cannot follow. They questioned whether or not Jesus might be expanding His ministry to the Dispersion, to the Jews that lived in Roman provinces and were more susceptible to Greek influence. Then idea of Jesus, if He were the Messiah, traveling the world, gathering up displaced Jews and bringing them home to re-establish a new Jewish state is an aspiration that still lives in the hearts of Jewish people. Gathering His people from the four winds was a welcomed thought. But they were having trouble with his cryptic message. Their minds were set in earthly constraints. They had very worldly visions. They needed to expand the understanding of what Jesus was really going to do when He went where they could not come. Jesus is anticipating a glorious journey that would result in the most intimate and personal outcome for His followers. His reference to leaving was not just a statement of His completing His work, it was a statement of His continuing His work through the Holy Spirit whom He would send. He will say much more about this in the days ahead, especially to His apostles, but for now He alludes to a great truth. For those with ears to hear a great benefit is coming. They will be changed in ways they could only barely imagine.
It was on the last day of the Feast of Booths that Jesus stood up and proclaimed a challenging and wonderful truth. "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.'" (7:37-38) John makes sure we understand that He is speaking of the Spirit who would be given after Jesus was glorified, i.e. returns to the Father. This pronouncement was more amazing that they could realize. So often man hears words from above that cannot be fully appreciated. So who is not "thirsty?" We all are. We have a gut thirst. We have a thirst that reaches to our very core. This phrase translated "innermost being" in the NASB is most often translated "belly'(stomach) and "womb." Both are cavities inside us, though one is gender neutral and the other is specifically female. Both seek to be filled. Our bellies need and crave food and water (See John 4 and John 6). But, the Scriptures are replete with the idea of the womb that seeks to be filled and to give birth. Proverbs 30:15-16 says there are four things that are never satisfied and say enough: Sheol (the grave), the earth wanting water, fire that always seeks more fuel, and the barren womb. It reminds me of Hannah who begged God for a child, or Sarah who was disgraced for not being able to bear a child.
There is something that cries out for fruitfulness. There is an insatiable desire to produce life. We seek to have a source of life within us. Just as God is the ultimate source of life, and Eve is the mother of all living, so each of us want to be a part of the process that began with some of the first words of God to man, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth." Our earthly immortality demands that we leave descendants who can carry on our names, and to make our time spent on earth even more valuable. We live through out children. So should we look at the innermost being as a belly or a uterus? John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb. Jesus relates salvation to new birth in John 3, and the image of coming forth from a womb that was made fruitful by the Holy Spirit. Paul prays for the strength that comes from out inner being so that Christ Himself may be able to dwell in our hearts through faith. To have Jesus and the Holy Spirit within us is to have the source of life in us. His seed remains in us(1John 3:9). He has impregnated His bride Rom.7:1-4) so that we can produce life, offspring, the fruit of the Spirit. These traits, good works, and converts are meant to flow out of us as surely as water flows from an artesian spring.
Ponder this. Is it belly or uterus? Which makes more sense? Which is more fitting? The flesh is compared to a stomach (Rom.16:15; Phil.3:19). But could it be that our appetite is more like a woman's womb that cries out for life within, and fruit produced? Ponder it.
It was on the last day of the Feast of Booths that Jesus stood up and proclaimed a challenging and wonderful truth. "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.'" (7:37-38) John makes sure we understand that He is speaking of the Spirit who would be given after Jesus was glorified, i.e. returns to the Father. This pronouncement was more amazing that they could realize. So often man hears words from above that cannot be fully appreciated. So who is not "thirsty?" We all are. We have a gut thirst. We have a thirst that reaches to our very core. This phrase translated "innermost being" in the NASB is most often translated "belly'(stomach) and "womb." Both are cavities inside us, though one is gender neutral and the other is specifically female. Both seek to be filled. Our bellies need and crave food and water (See John 4 and John 6). But, the Scriptures are replete with the idea of the womb that seeks to be filled and to give birth. Proverbs 30:15-16 says there are four things that are never satisfied and say enough: Sheol (the grave), the earth wanting water, fire that always seeks more fuel, and the barren womb. It reminds me of Hannah who begged God for a child, or Sarah who was disgraced for not being able to bear a child.
There is something that cries out for fruitfulness. There is an insatiable desire to produce life. We seek to have a source of life within us. Just as God is the ultimate source of life, and Eve is the mother of all living, so each of us want to be a part of the process that began with some of the first words of God to man, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth." Our earthly immortality demands that we leave descendants who can carry on our names, and to make our time spent on earth even more valuable. We live through out children. So should we look at the innermost being as a belly or a uterus? John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb. Jesus relates salvation to new birth in John 3, and the image of coming forth from a womb that was made fruitful by the Holy Spirit. Paul prays for the strength that comes from out inner being so that Christ Himself may be able to dwell in our hearts through faith. To have Jesus and the Holy Spirit within us is to have the source of life in us. His seed remains in us(1John 3:9). He has impregnated His bride Rom.7:1-4) so that we can produce life, offspring, the fruit of the Spirit. These traits, good works, and converts are meant to flow out of us as surely as water flows from an artesian spring.
Ponder this. Is it belly or uterus? Which makes more sense? Which is more fitting? The flesh is compared to a stomach (Rom.16:15; Phil.3:19). But could it be that our appetite is more like a woman's womb that cries out for life within, and fruit produced? Ponder it.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Truth Speaks to Agitation
It is helpful to understand that at this point in the chronology of the Lord's sojourn on the earth we are looking at the final few weeks, and there is still much material to cover. The three year ministry as recorded by the evangelists is not evenly distributed as to the reports given. The information is heavily weighted toward the end of His ministry. With this background, Jesus is at the Feast of Booths which comes around September/October, and He will be murdered at the time of the Passover which comes around March/April. So we are about 1/2 year from the end. The crowds are becoming more opinionated. It is getting more and more difficult for the Jewish leaders, notably the Pharisees and chief priests, to control and shape public opinion. The "exit polls" as people were listening to Jesus teach were more mixed and people are becoming more entrenched in their views. This is not good for he opposing party. They need for the potential voters to remain in a state of flux and indecision. They do not want the concrete setting too quickly. But they fear it is. So they think their hand is being forced, and they have to play it NOW. So they send officers, Jewish temple guards, to arrest Jesus.
There are two contrasting realities here. The reality of the Jewish leaders is that they perceive Jesus as an impostor Messiah who is simply making trouble for them, and He must be stopped. So if you can't stop Him with reason, you act like the Mob, and try to stop Him by force. The alternate Reality, which is the Real Reality, is that they are seeking to arrest the Son of God. How does one arrest God in the flesh? What type of cuffs are needed? What maximum security prison will hold God? Who wants to volunteer to carry out this assignment? The leaders are clearly agitated. Their hold on things is slipping away. They are getting worried that new "leadership" is coming to Jerusalem. This, they believed, would upset the delicate balance of power with the Romans, who were a constant Big Brother meddling in Jewish affairs. Thoughts of Roman crackdown, loss of power, control, and income, and fear of the unknown pervaded their minds. They were getting more and more turbulent in their minds. "Do something!" "Anything." So they seek to contain the situation.
But, Jesus does what should be done in the face of agitation. Speak truth to it. Whether one is agitated about personal matters or national matters, truth is always the response needed. Tell upset people the truth. Tell volatile people the truth. So what truth did Jesus tell? We don't know all of it. But in 7:33-34 Jesus gives four truths that when pondered reveal profound realities that help put everything in proper perspective. 1) Jesus' time is getting short. He is on a divine pace which is not being controlled by the Jewish leaders. This puts the perspective back on the Father's timeline. 2) Jesus is returning to His Father, the one who sent Him. The mission is a God-ordered mission, and carries God's authority. 3) Time for seeking Jesus is now while He can be found. Soon He will be gone, and a new kind of seeking and finding will be necessary. 4) Jesus' destination is not open to them at this time. They cannot follow Him as they are doing now. He will not be accessible in the same way. A new access must be granted. Each one of these four truths are powerful and profound. He who has ears let him hear.
There are two contrasting realities here. The reality of the Jewish leaders is that they perceive Jesus as an impostor Messiah who is simply making trouble for them, and He must be stopped. So if you can't stop Him with reason, you act like the Mob, and try to stop Him by force. The alternate Reality, which is the Real Reality, is that they are seeking to arrest the Son of God. How does one arrest God in the flesh? What type of cuffs are needed? What maximum security prison will hold God? Who wants to volunteer to carry out this assignment? The leaders are clearly agitated. Their hold on things is slipping away. They are getting worried that new "leadership" is coming to Jerusalem. This, they believed, would upset the delicate balance of power with the Romans, who were a constant Big Brother meddling in Jewish affairs. Thoughts of Roman crackdown, loss of power, control, and income, and fear of the unknown pervaded their minds. They were getting more and more turbulent in their minds. "Do something!" "Anything." So they seek to contain the situation.
But, Jesus does what should be done in the face of agitation. Speak truth to it. Whether one is agitated about personal matters or national matters, truth is always the response needed. Tell upset people the truth. Tell volatile people the truth. So what truth did Jesus tell? We don't know all of it. But in 7:33-34 Jesus gives four truths that when pondered reveal profound realities that help put everything in proper perspective. 1) Jesus' time is getting short. He is on a divine pace which is not being controlled by the Jewish leaders. This puts the perspective back on the Father's timeline. 2) Jesus is returning to His Father, the one who sent Him. The mission is a God-ordered mission, and carries God's authority. 3) Time for seeking Jesus is now while He can be found. Soon He will be gone, and a new kind of seeking and finding will be necessary. 4) Jesus' destination is not open to them at this time. They cannot follow Him as they are doing now. He will not be accessible in the same way. A new access must be granted. Each one of these four truths are powerful and profound. He who has ears let him hear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)