I thought I was ready to move past chapter 11 - but there is the matter of one last bit of text which follows the story of Lazarus' resurrection still to be addressed.
I've mentioned already that Lazarus was raised from the dead no more than 2 months prior to when Jesus would die (then be resurrected! So glad we know that in advance....) Because of this specific miracle, which was reported back to the Pharisees, the Pharisees, their chief priests and their council of elders, got together to discuss the dilemma that faced them.
The thing about life in their times was that they were under Roman rule, but the Romans were willing to let them practice their religion as long as no one created any issues for them to contend with. Jesus was a threat. The word on the streets was that He claimed to be a King. They didn't understand that He was not a political King - He was THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS! And, never mind that what He said was true - their eyes were blinded. The spiritual leaders of Israel didn't recognize Him or accept Him as the promised Messiah. They saw Him as a radical who had the potential of creating a problem for them. The Romans wanted the Jews to keep their own people in line - and that just wasn't going to happen with Jesus - not when He violated their own weighty laws for what one could do on the Sabbath . . . not when He brought people back from the dead. That created a furor of support for Him, and they had to do something about it.... He was a political liability.
The question that they raised reflected that. (47ff) ..."What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come take away both our place and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."
John tells us immediately that Caiaphas didn't say this of his own accord . . . the words he spoke were prophetic words. They are certainly shocking words coming from the high priest's lips! He intended them to mean that it was better to get rid of Jesus than to lose their political station and their puppet-rule of their nation, but what he said had a much broader meaning, as John points out.
One would die for the nation - and not for that nation only, but for all who are scattered abroad. Caiaphas nailed it. And, as John reports, from that day they made plans to put Jesus to death. Jesus knew that, so he no longer walked openly among the Jews.... He came to His own and His own rejected Him....
Jesus and His disciples got out of Dodge. They went to the area of Ephraim, near the wilderness, situated about 12 1/2 miles NE of Jerusalem. The Passover was approaching. The timing of Jesus' death had to coincide with Passover to fulfill His purpose in becoming the Passover Lamb slain for the sins of the world. All of the symbolism of the Old Testament was to be fulfilled in Him, and the timing had to be just right.
In the final weeks leading toward Palm Sunday, Jesus was not among the crowds. He was in Ephraim with His disciples.... This time of absence gave time for the Pharisees' fervor to intensify, as they had put the order out that anyone who knew where Jesus was should tell them so they could arrest Him. And so the chapter ends....
....................
There were masses of people who had seen Jesus' miracles, who had been miraculously fed by Him, who had walked miles just to hear Him. Many believed He was the Messiah. Some just wanted to see the miracles. But they are alarmingly silent in this story....or perhaps that is just something I am projecting onto today...
I got copies of Referendum 74 yesterday, and read through every word.... R-74 is a referendum calling for the repeal of the Bill passed in our 2012 legislative session, which allows for same sex marriage.
The truth is: we cannot legislate morality. Oh, we've tried - but without God as part of the equation it is impossible. The only reason my beliefs are my beliefs is that the Bible is my plumb line. The Bible condemns many sins - and one of them is homosexual behavior. And - the Bible is the guidebook for marriage. If people don't want to follow God's guidelines, why do they want to use His word for their relationship?
In my 'live and let live' view of the world I agree that people need to be cared for well. While I pity those who feel trapped in bodies that lead them to be attracted to members of the same sex, I still believe all people need to be treated fairly. All of those issues were addressed in prior legislation which honors domestic partnerships. And - that's all same-sex relationships can be in God's eyes. They may want to call it marriage, but it's not.
The truth is, marriage is broken - not just by same-sex partners wanting to justify their sinful relationship by calling it marriage, but by all who view marriage solely as a legal contract. Marriage was meant to be a covenant between a man, a woman and God, and was to be entered into as a spiritual commitment. There cannot ever be 'holy' matrimony unless the union includes and honors God; and the final challenge of the marriage ceremony, which states, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" cannot be part of a same-sex ceremony, whether it is called marriage or not, because God does not put His stamp of approval on any union that is not between a man and a woman....
Because I believed right from the start, that this issue should have gone to the people for a vote, I will help accumulate signatures so that can happen. Then the voice of the people will be heard. Anyone who goes by His name - Christian - and who is a registered voter - should have the opportunity to sign this petition! R-74 needs to be voted on by the people! And signatures have to be gathered quickly!
My main concern is an issue not even stated in the Bill. This was treated as a civil rights issue, and if that concept is cemented in peoples' minds, speaking the truth - which rightfully calls homosexuality sin - will be an infraction of their civil rights.
The rights of religious institutions have been protected, insofar as they are not required to perform these ceremonies, but the rights of people who speak out against homosexuality as sin have not been protected..... The bottom line is that this is a case of men calling evil good, and calling good evil.
I already addressed this issue in my blog recently....so won't repeat all I have already said....
No comments:
Post a Comment