When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came
not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the
dead. So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, since it
was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing
in Jesus. … The
Pharisees then said to one another, "You see, you can do nothing. Look,
the world has gone after him!"[1]
And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord,
descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His
appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him
the guards shook and became like dead men. … He has been raised from the dead, … some of the guard went into the
city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. After the priests
had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum of money
to the soldiers, telling them, "You must say, 'His disciples came by night
and stole him away while we were asleep.'"[2]
As I read these excerpts I wonder how it was possible for
people not to be move toward belief by the undeniable miracles surrounding
Jesus life and resurrection. If it were not for the human proclivity toward
seeing only what one believes, there would be no answer to the Jews’ behaviour,
other than sheer obstinacy. The latter seems more probable for those religious
leaders who orchestrated Jesus’ death. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead,
there was not a shred of doubt regarding that miracle. The sister of the dead
man, hearing that Jesus wanted the stone moved from the entrance to the tomb,
remarked that it would be unwise because of the smell of decay. A number of
mourners from Jerusalem witnessed Lazarus coming out of the tomb wrapped in
burial cloth. The chief priests did not challenge the fact that Lazarus was
raised from the dead, their remedy was to kill him and get rid of the evidence.
At the time of Jesus’ death the Jewish leaders asked Pilate
for guards to prevent anyone from removing his body. Those were the same guards
that reported to the chief priests all that had taken place. I ponder on what might
have been in their report. I doubt they would have included the part about them
being so afraid they fainted. Whatever was in their report it left the priests
convinced that Jesus had risen from the grave, which was their worst nightmare.
Jesus had told them he would rise from the grave, which was why the priests insisted
that guards be placed at the tomb site. Faced with the undeniable miracle, the
priests paid to have the evidence countered by lies. The Council, priests and Pharisees,
had in their possession the ancient Hebrew Scriptures containing the writings
of the prophets. Those scriptures included prophecies of Jesus the Messiah. At
that time and throughout history religious leaders used scripture to support
their own inclinations and teachings. The tendency to see what one believes is
taken a step further by people seeing what they want to see in scripture. One
of the main pieces of evidence against Jesus being the Messiah was that he came
from Galilee. Anyone at that time could have verified Jesus’ birth place by
researching synagogue records. The religious leaders were content to believe
anything that opposed the claims of Jesus.
There is no excuse for the antipathy displayed by the Jewish
leadership for Jesus. Behind their hatred was a paradigm which compelled them
to reject and murder the Son of God. Not, compelled as one pulled along by an
unbreakable chain, but by a paradigm which supported their traditions. They
were blinded to real truth, because their “truth” rested on the acceptance of a
paradigm which had no place for a non-political Messiah. The Jewish leadership
was material, and scripture was used for their convenience. Tradition was more
important than truth. We might consider how any religious group could become so
entrenched in its own traditions so as to reject the Son of God. If we choose
to think about that, we might start by looking at the Roman Church, because the
“church paradigm” pervasive today started with it. Despite the Reformation, despite
what’s called the restoration, despite every modification made to Christian
churches, the paradigm that evolved from the Council of Nicaea is the same
paradigm governing every church, and denomination.
The first change in the “church paradigm” must be that
believers are encouraged by fellowship in egalitarian gatherings. Christians
should not submit to membership in churches, since they are already citizens in
the kingdom of God. The “church paradigm” needs to be aligned with the concept
of the family, the body, and the kingdom. Christianity cannot be
institutionalized and be the family of God, the two concepts are very
different. The church is an added feature which does not fit into the metaphor
of the body of Christ. Believers are members of that body, Jesus is the head.
The church organization fragments the kingdom of God. It is not appropriate to
have schisms and cliques in the kingdom. That is what the “church paradigm” has
introduced. The simple assemblies of the early Christians, has become the tool
of the devil to causing harm to the body of Christ. It initiates division in
the family of God, and adds confusion in the kingdom. John the Baptist played
supporting role, at the right time he told his disciples, “He must increase, but I must decrease.”[3] The Church needs to break with
tradition, to break away from the paradigm that has kept it as an institution; to
be a gathering of saints.
No comments:
Post a Comment