John 11
This is another beautiful story I have written about before - Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. And I had planned to wax philosophical about (try to riddle out a lesson from) the two responses of Martha and Mary - the difference between whom the other famous story about them so well demonstrates.
Martha: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died, but even now God will grant whatever you ask of him."
Mary: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."
There's something fascinating about my confirmation saint in this - in Martha's belief that Jesus could still save her family, in her need to express her continuing faith. In her ability to accept Jesus's decision not to save Lazarus. Where Mary, who listened at his feet while Martha worked, says only that Jesus could have stopped it.
But then, perhaps Martha and Jesus simply needed more words than Mary and Jesus.
What really struck me anew in this chapter, however, was the account of the High Priests' reactions (and not just because for the first time I wonder how John found out about all of this). One of the priests argues this as a reason to shut Jesus down.
This isn't only interesting because of the justification for shutting down a clearly holy man by claiming it's protecting the Temple, but because of the response to Rome. There's no denial of Jesus's stature as a holy man in this conversation amongst the holy men of Jerusalem, unlike last time. This is all about damage control - about the dangerous fanatic who, though holy, will wreck the entire game and possibly get everyone killed.
But that's what's so interesting - the common people of Judea and Galilee seem to be crying out for a Messiah to lead them out from under the yoke of Rome - just as has always happened before. There are so many stories about them trying to make Jesus king, and, well, Barrabas had followers even if he wasn't to be the one they set free instead of Jesus.
Did the Chief Priests simply understand that Rome was a different beast than the comparatively piddling empires that had captured the Jewish nation before? Did they realize what a rare license Rome offered them in allowing their holy places to stand - a policy which flew in direct contrast to their treatment of local religions in every other conquered place? Did they not believe that God would allow them to conquer?
Were they of so little faith? Or did they simply lack hope? Or did they simply want to preserve the status quo that worked so in their favor?
Why did they - in contrast to the people - fear any uprising against Rome so much that they would sacrifice a charismatic holy man who clearly had God's ear? Here it's not about His message or His Sabbath habits or His threat to their power. At least explicitly. It's about how He'll stir the people up - and the Chief Priests believe the only possible result from that is Rome cracking down hard, and no longer indulging the varying religion practices of this little corner of the empire.
They didn't think they were living in the time of miracles. They thought the days of God sweeping in to vanquish their enemies (like, say, Egypt at its height - which was still a HUGE geopolitical power in the world, mind you). Those were the days of olde, the days of Scripture. The stories you tell about long ago. You don't see signs and wonders like that now.
They were living in the time of the Christ, and they thought the days of real signs and wonders were long past.
We always think the days of miracles are over, that we live in a sadder and crueler and realer world now. Back in the days of wonders, they thought so too.
The Time of Miracles is always now.
No comments:
Post a Comment