Passion Week XXVIII

Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him.  And he questioned Him at some length; but He answered him nothing.  And the chief priests and the scribes were standing there, accusing Him vehemently.  And Herod with his soldiers, after treating Him with contempt and mocking Him, dressed Him in a gorgeous robe and sent Him back to Pilate.  Now Herod and Pilate became friends with one another that very day; for before they had been enemies with each other.  (Luke 23:8-12 NASB)

For some reason, Herod Antipas is a character on whom Luke spends time.  The other Gospels barely mention him except in relation to John the Baptist.  Matthew 14 and Mark 6 are the other two Gospel references to this “tetrarch”.  But Luke has chapters 9, 13, and 23 in his Gospel.  The “Herod” later in Acts is most likely Agrippa I.  For Luke, the Herodian line of rulers holds interest.  It’s very possible that they would also hold interest for Luke’s audience or at least for Theophilus.

Luke also seems to know something of the household of Antipas.  Knows enough to know that this ruler wanted to see Jesus, had heard of Him, and sought to see a miracle (sign).  We can only surmise why that might be, but the life in Roman and regional politics offers lots of opportunities to become jaded toward anything truly supernatural.  On the other hand, the opportunity for entertainment through the miraculous is also a possible reason.  Either way, or some other, Jesus decides to not play along.  Herod gets nothing out of Him, no sign, no words, no defense, no entertainment or proof of any sort.

Antipas then joins in the derision of Jesus, possibly lending weight to the “entertainment” reason for wanting to see a sign.  Herod’s soldiers and he treat Jesus with contempt and mock Him.  Herod throws a “gorgeous” robe on Him, and Jesus is sent back to Pilate.  It had to be somewhat depressing, and real “killjoy” for this wealthy center of attention.  There is a game rulers play called “puppet master”, where the king and those around him attempt to get everyone else to be their “puppet” and do what they want.  Trickery, lies, intimidation, and even torture are valid methods to achieve success in this game.  Jesus refuses to play.

Ironically, the chief priests and scribes are playing the game.  They like it too, only they play the “Jewish Leadership” version, which has more rules for religious hypocrisy, subterfuge, and mob control.  It’s often a popular edition widely available in churches today.  This group stands and accuses Jesus of everything they can think of, and somethings suggested by others on the way to Herod’s.  Again Jesus just stands at the center of the swirling maelstrom of vehemence and contempt, totally at peace.

Jesus’ peace came from a teleological perspective.  He had already given up His will to avoid what is coming.  He had only the view point of the end.  For Him, the end passed through being tortured to death, and separation from the substance of God.  But able to see beyond, He had a resurrection and ascension on which to focus.

I think we’ve largely lost that teleological perspective.  We can have it too, but 2,000 years just seems so long to wait.  So much has happened to jade our view of the miraculous.  We too, now focus on entertainment over substance.  We content ourselves with the “games people play” rather than the “…prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”

There is an alternative.  We can consider heaven.  We can dream of it.  We can imagine the Descent of the Lord, the shout of heaven, the voice of the archangel, the trumpet of God, and the rising of the dead in Christ.  But we don’t.  We should, but we don’t.  Instead we fall into the quagmire of “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately” theology that seeks “relevance” marketed as a “good-return-on-investment”.    As if what we receive here is worth going through what we go through here.  It’s not, and it can never be.  Friendship with the world is hatred toward God.  So, it’s time to dream of something else.

Jesus looks at the splendor of Herod, the wealth and power of the religious leaders, and the military might of Pilate and the Romans.  He does see it.  But He also sees the glory of heaven, the brilliance of the armies of God, and the sheer overwhelming power of the Giver of Life.  His perspective is different.  But Jesus shares this perspective with us!  He doesn’t keep it to Himself, He doesn’t bogard the riches of His Kingdom, He does not consider equality with God to be plunder.

The real question is whether or not we will avail ourselves of the perspective of Jesus.  Will we take the long view?  Because the view of where we are from where we are is really depressing.  Isn’t it much more sensible to look at where God is?  Isn’t the face of Jesus a much more pleasant view?  What would happen here if we were more concerned about what’s happening there?  Probably not what you think.

That’s my view through this knothole this morning.  What’s yours?

Advertisement

Passion Week XXV

When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not answer.  But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.”  And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”  Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” (Luke 22:66-71 NASB)

In Luke, we have an abbreviated version of the trial.  He skips the false witnesses.  There are no comments about Jesus building the temple in three days.  Missing are the frustrations of the religious leaders as they struggle to gain some way to accuse Him.  But in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we have the same allusion to Psalm 110.  And we have Jesus’ answer of “You have said it yourself” when asked if He were the Messiah and Son of God.  The order is reversed in the other two, but the content is essentially the same.

John doesn’t record much of a trial by the Jewish leaders.  What we have in Matthew and Mark is the greatest amount of detail.  Considering that there were no disciples present at this proceeding, it’s not hard to understand the lack of detail.  But in Luke we do have two peculiar details that are missing in the other three.  First is the odd answer Jesus gives to the question about whether or not He is the Messiah.  Jesus’ answer has three parts.  Only the third occurs in other Gospels.

Jesus says, “If I tell you, you might not believe.  But if I ask, you might not answer.”  Scholars are confused by the second part.  So am I, and I suspect so are you.  If Jesus asks what they might not answer?  Most translations use a confident future tense in English, “…you will not believe…”, “…you will not answer…”.  In Greek it’s actually subjunctive, which leaves open the potential without such certainty.  It’s the negation that lends itself to the choice of English translation.  With the combination of the verb tense and mode with the negation, the meaning is an ingressive sense, as in “do not begin to…”.  And that’s the other problem, if it’s taken that way, it’s a prohibition, not an indicative statement.  In other words, Jesus is telling them to not begin to believe, to not begin to answer.  It’s context that suggests otherwise, so what’s a translator to do?  They all pretty much do the same thing, done since 1611, translate it as a confident future.  Even so, it’s probably good to keep in mind that Jesus is saying that they won’t even begin to believe or answer.  He’s saying He’ll get nothing from them.

But what does that combination in Luke mean?  Why claim they won’t believe, why state they won’t answer?  While the answers to that are not really clear, I suspect that that Jesus is protesting that there is no dialogue here.  There is no option to discuss, but, rather, the discussion is all one-sided.  They want Jesus to only tell them what they want to hear so they will have an excuse to have Him killed.  They don’t want to hear anything else.  They don’t want to discuss, their minds and hearts are already set.

Don’t we do that though?  We have a point of view in our minds and hearts, and let nothing add or detract from that view?  I have struggled with that for a lot of my life.  The concept of this blog has come out of that struggle.  Have you also come to the place that you are convinced that you need the perspective of others?  It has been a tough lesson to learn that I need to listen more and speak less.  I do have my own views, and often I fall in love with those views over and above my Master.  I have the potential to idolize my own conclusions.  I hope I’ve grown out of that, but the potential will probably always haunt me.

Where are you in that?  Have you attached yourself to some view of God without realizing that it’s impossibly narrow?  Maybe it’s a teacher you believe makes no mistakes.  Maybe it’s a comment you’ve heard or read on a passage that has framed your entire view of God.  Whatever it is, it’s possible Jesus is asking you whether you will begin to believe and begin to answer so the two of you can dialogue.  The problem I faced was that my Master uses the views of others to help refocus my own; lots of others.  Sure I filter them, but I find truth in the oddest places, but only if I look, listen, and ask questions.  If I dialogue I learn.  If I’m open to belief I grow.

That’s my view this morning.  What’s your view?