Like the author, I'd always been a bit
puzzled as to why the crowds 'suddenly' seemed to turn on Jesus,
after waving palm branches and shouting “Hallelujuah”.
Even after having read the gospels
multiple times, I didn't quite get the full picture of how Jesus
intentionally and continually pointed out human failings and flaws to
his audience, who clearly were happy to be fed and healed - but
didn't want God's Son telling them what to do. More importantly, they
didn't want to be told that their fond ideas of God, who He was, what
He required (heart change along with living out the Commandments),
and what He came to earth to accomplish - were all wrong. Sadly, that
doesn't seem all that unfamiliar to those of us who follow Him,
slowly and haltingly and occasionally with much complaint. (“Lord,
are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”)
I'd always known that occasionally the
crowds in Nazareth or around the temple were enraged enough to want
to stone Him, but the author makes it very clear that part of Jesus'
intent was to poke at their issues of pride, self-deceit, and
hypocrisy...starting but not ending with their Pharisee and Sadducee
leaders. The author makes it abundantly clear that there is no
possible way, based on a thorough reading of the Gospels, to just see
Jesus as a self-proclaimed agent of political and social change. HIs
kingdom was not of this world, and He frequently used means that
wouldn't make sense for someone trying to wow the crowds long enough
to snatch political power.
Whenever the crowds tried to coerce or
haggle with Jesus, he challenged their assumptions and ideas. They
would try to force him to become king, at the improper time, and
without consulting His Father. When He tells them point-blank that
they only seek Him for more physical food, they ask to be given the
ability to “work the works of God”. When He says their work is to
believe, they throw the question back and cynically ask for a sign –
even after having been fed with 5,000 loaves. “Our fathers ate the
manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from
heaven to eat'.” Unlike the Samaritan woman at the well, who first
asked for the water of eternal life and then believed, these noble
bread-seekers complain about Jesus when He says that He is the
eternal Bread of Life.
They really don't like it when Jesus
says that there is no side road to salvation. “Therefore I have
said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to
him by My Father.” One, that's offensive because it puts all the
power in God's hands, not in man. Two, that's doubly offensive
because birth and privilege don't matter – if the Father hasn't
allowed access to the Messiah, you won't get it. No wonder many of
the disciples turned around, leaving the original twelve astounded at
the turn of events.
The text does not say this last bit.
I'm just putting myself in their shoes, watching Jesus (a) wow the
crowds with the food miracle and His dynamic words, (b) see Jesus
evade their attempts to make Him their leader, (c) see the crowds
have a very sharp and public debate with Jesus, and (d) see a whole
crowd of seeming Jesus-followers melt away.
The only difficulty that I have with
this book is the author's habit of doing what I just did – read
meaning into the text. Sometimes it's difficult to spot the
difference between the author's realistic imagination, and what the
text actually says. It's good to read the book while flipping through
to the noted chapter and its context.
Besides the clear rebuttals about Jesus
being 'only' a good moral Teacher or political activist, the author
clearly shows that the Pharisees were not the problem during Christ's
time on earth. Man's sinful rebellion against God is the ultimate
problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment