"What are we going to do?
This man is performing many signs.
If we leave him alone, all will believe in him,
and the Romans will come
and take away both our land and our nation."
The Sanhedrin refused to listen to the invitation from Jesus to "believe the works, so that you may realize and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father". They did recognize that he performed signs, and that these signs were so persuasive that eventually "all will believe in him", but could only think of them in terms of politics. Their concern was only about how it would affect the delicate status quo which allowed them to maintain some measure of religious authority as long as they didn't become a problem for the Romans. They were deeply committed to this tenuous balance of power because from it they derived a sense of safety stemming from a relative sense of control. Jesus was performing works that testified that his Father was working in and through him. But the Sanhedrin could only see him as a wildcard that could upset the balance. They weren't concerned with what his works meant, much less what he himself actually was, but only with the danger he represented to the control they imagined themselves to have over the situation of their nation and their lives individually.
"You know nothing,
nor do you consider that it is better for you
that one man should die instead of the people,
so that the whole nation may not perish."
Caiaphas no doubt intended the superficial meaning of these words, that the outlier should be removed, the unpredictable element destroyed, in order to prevent military retribution by the Romans. The Romans had a history of destroying what they perceived to be rebellious movements among the Jews, and they might well have seen Jesus the same way. This threat may have been entirely real. Perhaps this time they would not only destroy him and his movement but also finally become fed up with the nation which kept giving rise to such movements and cause the "whole nation" to "perish". Such, we say, was most likely the meaning Caiaphas intended while he spoke. But because he was the high priest for that year there was something deeper and more true that was spoken through him.
He did not say this on his own,
but since he was high priest for that year,
he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
and not only for the nation,
but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.
The death of Jesus was not going to turn the tide of Roman aggression away from Israel. Precisely what the Sanhedrin feared did in fact happen with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Yet at a deeper level the death of Jesus was precisely for that nation and also the entire world, to free them from the true oppression of sin, the true oppressor, the Devil. Having defeated these enemies Jesus would then gather all the dispersed children of God into his Kingdom. This was time about which Ezekiel prophesied.
I will take the children of Israel from among the nations
to which they have come,
and gather them from all sides to bring them back to their land.
I will make them one nation upon the land,
in the mountains of Israel,
and there shall be one prince for them all.
On the one hand it might have seemed that the prophecy of Ezekiel had failed when the temple was destroyed. But those with the eyes of faith could see that God himself had indeed brought it to fulfillment in a supernatural way. Rather than destroying the Roman oppressors Jesus destroyed the powers of darkness who instigated and used divisions such as those between Jew and Gentile to maintain a world of hostility in violence. The cross of Christ tore down the dividing wall between peoples and nations (see Ephesians 2:14). All those who received the gift of salvation purchased by Jesus on his cross would be made one body with him, and find themselves united even with those who would have previously been their enemies as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord. So it was not as though the problem of Roman aggression was left unanswered. Rather, Jesus chose to treat the deepest cause rather than mere symptoms.
So from that day on they planned to kill him.
It was the raising of Lazarus that finally seemed to push them over the edge and caused them to actively plot the death of Jesus. It was true, therefore, that Jesus gave his life for Lazarus. But John the Evangelist would have us see that it was not only for the sake of Lazarus and those others whom he healed during his earthly ministry. Jesus did not die for them only, nor only for his nation, but for the whole world and for each one of us individually. It has been said, and is true, that Jesus would have died just for us, for any of us, even if we were the only person in the world. He desired us to be his friends, even while we were yet enemies, and would prove it by laying down his life for our sakes.
My dwelling shall be with them;
I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Thus the nations shall know that it is I, the LORD,
who make Israel holy,
when my sanctuary shall be set up among them forever.
Have we fully received the death of Jesus as done for us, for you and for me? If so then the words of Paul will have poignant resonance for us: "you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body" (see First Corinthians 6:20). Are we still living as though the old divisions between peoples and nations are unbridgeable, ultimate realities? Do we still turn chiefly to power and politics as though such strategies could somehow resolve or at least mitigate such admittedly challenging issues? Are we in fact a people who has been given an unfathomable gift and inheritance but do not avail ourselves of it?
Jesus, please teach us that you died for us. Please reveal to us everything that you purchased for us by your death so that we can come to live more fully in your Kingdom and to rejoice to know that your sanctuary is set up among us forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment