|
 |
|
|
|
Stupid Pharisees.
They waited, prayed, studied, and waited some more for the Messiah. And when the time came, they blew it. They wailed at the graves of the prophets, adored Moses, memorized the messages of the prophets, and then they killed the greatest prophet of them all. How could they have been so blind to the Messiah with so many miracles, so much wisdom, and so many fulfilled prophecies?
Simple, Jesus made them angry by telling them they had it all wrong.
But how could they have been angry at Jesus? Even the most hardened sinners have a soft spot for the Son of God.
The truth is that Jesus attacked their theology, their religious system, their politics, and their lifestyle. He was a very real threat that needed to be disposed of in order to maintain the status quo. What's truly terrifying is that Jesus is just as much a threat to us today and we are in real danger of making the same mistakes as the Pharisees.
Perhaps the most important issue is contextualization and the power of crystal clear hindsight. It was a piece of cake for the Pharisees to look back at Moses and take his side, feeling his frustration at the idolatry of Israel. They know how everything turned out, hindsight being 20/20. Fiery snakes, plagues, and earthquakes all point to the sovereignty of God and his servant Moses. All of the Pharisees loved Moses, why would anyone challenge his authority or make a golden calf?
Though we are limited in reconstructing history, it's a safe bet to say that 400 years in Egypt, a civilization with a wide variety of gods, would have a profound effect on one's feelings toward polytheism. In other words, Moses challenged the status quo of ancient Israel, the wisdom of the age, and centuries of tradition. Let's not forget all of the traditions that have accumulated in just 200+ years in America. Israel spent twice that long in Egypt.
It was easy to like Moses after 1,000 years of monotheism. Separation from the context tamed Moses and made the demands of God very reasonable to the Pharisees. From the standpoint of the Pharisees, nobody could top Moses. And curiously, Jesus accused the Pharisees of placing their hope in Moses, not in the God of Moses.
And then there's a wide array of prophets from the time of the Israelite kings long after Moses passed away. Isaiah's message was heard, but not understood. Jeremiah was put into prison. Many other prophets of the Lord were mistreated by the Jewish leaders.
As the Pharisees wept at the graves of prophets they swore they would have received them and their message. But without the context of the struggles with idolatry and the wars with powerful kingdoms, the judgment messages of Isaiah fell flat and the weighty message of Jeremiah to surrender to Babylon simply hangs in thin air.
Would we have liked someone who predicted doom for our nation, advocated peace with sworn enemies, and condemned the religious establishment of the nation? Not likely. And that's why Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jesus had it so hard in their respective times. As hindsight became clearer, people lost touch with the power of the contextual message of each prophet and subsequently missed out on the next prophet sent from God.
In his own time, Jesus challenged the system of Torah developed by the Pharisees that aimed to bring about the restoration of Israel. He attacked the money-making system of the temple and then predicted the destruction of this sacred, time-honored institution first brought about by David and Solomon. After 50 years of construction they were not ready to see the new facility leveled or neglected.
Jesus let people in who were most certainly out. He challenged the morality, piety, and ethics of the prominent leaders of his time. Jesus claimed to be the true king while not taking up a political party to set up his rule on earth.
What could the Pharisees do with such a man? If they supported him, they lost everything they and their ancestors gave their lives for: their country, their temple, their religious system, their status in society, and their plans for the future. If they rejected him, they could keep everything as it was.
And so the question becomes "If we could hear Jesus in the way his contemporaries heard him, would we like him?"
How would Jesus address our economic practices, morality, religious institutions, or government? How has the clarity of hindsight blinded us from the radical, costly, and world-changing message of Jesus?
If we do not find Jesus to be disruptive and disturbing, then perhaps we too are blinded by perfect hindsight.
Ed can be found in two places.
|
You have raised emphatic questions that a seeker of truth cannot ignore. Like the Pharisees I think we, too, may fear what we may lose if we follow this radical Christ out of the comfort zone christianity our culture allows. I fear more what we may be losing if we continue in our contentedness and spiritual compromise. God grant us the courage to follow the Christ as he takes us outside the camp to meet with him and learn of his deeper ways.
Very thought provoking article. Thanks for saying it so well. Here is my take...
I think that we can pursue the radical without the love but it was radical love--for God and humanity--that drove Jesus' radical agenda. If we are driven by either a taste for the comfortable or for the radical, we've settled for compromise. Only the love God pours into us by His Spirit can sustain the revolution Jesus began. Only that kind of love is capable of lighting the radical, narrow path to which we are called. Any other focus leads to unfortunate detours.
I think you point out many good questions too, but I have seen the pedulum swing right past love into another, equally unfulfilling, personal agenda of reform. If we truly love one another as Jesus loves us, that is radical revolution enough. It will effect reform so the focus is love, not reform. Subtle difference but life giving. I think it's the very thing the Pharisees missed.
"How would Jesus address our economic practices, morality, religious institutions, or government?"
He would love us enough to die for us and demand that His followers do the same. Now that's radical.
I am not sure how the universal church would accept Jesus today. I know that spoken Truth w/o love is a bunch of noise everyone shuts off, but I also know that love w/o Truth is enabling the same sin over and over. I've often thought the same things...everything about Jesus was "backwards"--he was a King, but not of robe and silk, he was Righteous, but not of himself, He was the one true God who gave his life, but didn't have a martyr mindset. He truly was human and divine in one loving the unloveable, reaching out to those we are uncomfortable around and healing the unexpected. Good words.
|
|
|
|
(1)
You have raised emphatic questions that a seeker of truth cannot ignore. Like the Pharisees I think we, too, may fear what we may lose if we follow this radical Christ out of the comfort zone christianity our culture allows. I fear more what we may be losing if we continue in our contentedness and spiritual compromise. God grant us the courage to follow the Christ as he takes us outside the camp to meet with him and learn of his deeper ways. Posted by Stander | Posted at 01/01/2007 7:39 AM
Very thought provoking article. Thanks for saying it so well. Here is my take...
I think that we can pursue the radical without the love but it was radical love--for God and humanity--that drove Jesus' radical agenda. If we are driven by either a taste for the comfortable or for the radical, we've settled for compromise. Only the love God pours into us by His Spirit can sustain the revolution Jesus began. Only that kind of love is capable of lighting the radical, narrow path to which we are called. Any other focus leads to unfortunate detours.
I think you point out many good questions too, but I have seen the pedulum swing right past love into another, equally unfulfilling, personal agenda of reform. If we truly love one another as Jesus loves us, that is radical revolution enough. It will effect reform so the focus is love, not reform. Subtle difference but life giving. I think it's the very thing the Pharisees missed.
"How would Jesus address our economic practices, morality, religious institutions, or government?"
He would love us enough to die for us and demand that His followers do the same. Now that's radical.
Posted by Phil | Posted at 01/01/2007 8:32 AMI am not sure how the universal church would accept Jesus today. I know that spoken Truth w/o love is a bunch of noise everyone shuts off, but I also know that love w/o Truth is enabling the same sin over and over. I've often thought the same things...everything about Jesus was "backwards"--he was a King, but not of robe and silk, he was Righteous, but not of himself, He was the one true God who gave his life, but didn't have a martyr mindset. He truly was human and divine in one loving the unloveable, reaching out to those we are uncomfortable around and healing the unexpected. Good words. Posted by Vanessa | Posted at 01/06/2007 1:52 PM