Listen to the podcast of this post by clicking on the player below, and you can also subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or Audible.
Jesus had just been taken from the high priest Caiaphas to the praetorium where the Roman governor Pontius Pilate presided. And then I read one of the most ridiculous statements in this whole crucifixion scenario.
In order for you to grasp the full impact of this outrageous request, let me take you back in time a few hours.
Jesus was arrested by the temple guards without there being any formal charges filed against Him. He was taken to the home of the former high priest for an off-the-record interview to attempt to get Jesus to stumble in something He said so that they would have official charges to lodge against Him.
The Sanhedrin was then convened in the middle of the night. Witnesses were brought in not really to testify as to what they saw or heard, but because the Sanhedrin was “looking for evidence” (Mark 14:55). In the meantime, the Sanhedrin asked Jesus to answer non-existent charges without having any legal representation of His own. They even resorted to physical violence to try to coerce Him to say something incriminating.
The Sanhedrin eventually reached a non-unanimous decision, without any corroborating testimony, to ask Pilate for the death sentence.
Now here comes the silly statement—“Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover” (John 18:28).
To avoid ceremonial uncleanness?!
In their blind fury and rabid self-righteousness, these men broke both mosaic law and their own rules of order. Doing things like:
not securing charges first before arresting Jesus
physically abusing Jesus without a conviction or even a proper trial
meeting at night instead of during the day
not calling in witnesses one at a time
not getting corroborating testimony from two or three witnesses
not allowing Jesus to have a legal advocate
not getting a unanimous guilty decision before asking for the death sentence
After all that, they’re concerned about being ceremonially clean for the Passover? Oh, the silliness!
Then I began to wonder: Am I guilty of this same folly?
Do I keep my own set of rules? Do I justify bending God’s rules because of what I think are special circumstances? Am I self-righteous? Do I really think that I can do things the way that I want to do them and that God will put His stamp of approval on that?
Isn’t it far better to simply follow God’s ways, to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking to my conscience, and then to repent if I begin to deviate from the truth?
I need to always deal with my own self-righteousness first—to take care of the plank in my own eye before I point out the speck in someone else’s eye. Or else, I am being just as silly as those religious leaders were!
You may also be interested in these related blog posts:
Listen to the podcast of this post by clicking on the player below, and you can also subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or Audible.
There are some know-it-alls who want to tell pastoral leaders how they should have done things differently. Much like the “armchair quarterbacks” that seem to know all the right calls a team should make, even though they have virtually no experience.
Pastor, pay very little attention to those armchair quarterbacks that would speak into your life!
To put the quote that Jim shared from When Sheep Bite into context, here is the full passage—
Jesus is our perfect example of a Shepherd Leader. His example was to lay it all on the line, regardless of how the sheep were behaving or misbehaving: “I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11). By contrast, Jesus warns us that those who are not willing to put their lives on the line for the sheep are worse than armchair pastors—Jesus calls them mere hired hands: “The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (John 10:12-13).
If I am called to be a shepherd leader, attacks will come from both sheep and wolves. It’s what I do in those hard times that shows whether I am truly called or merely acting as an armchair shepherd.
Listen to the podcast of this post by clicking on the player below, and you can also subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or Audible.
We have to be very attentive when we hear anyone say something that they claim is a word from God. The first question we need to ask is, “Is that in the Bible?” If it is, then the next question is, “Is that statement being used in its proper context—does it conform with the whole counsel of God’s Word?”
So here is statement #14 in our series—An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Is that in the Bible? Yes.
This first shows up in Exodus 21:24, and it is a part of the legal code God gave through Moses (Exodus 21:1). This code was entrusted to capable men (i.e. judges) in Exodus 18:19-22, 25.
This has been referred to as “the law of exact retribution.” Later on the Romans would name it lex talionis—the law of the tooth. This was to prevent one-upmanship or escalating retaliation, and it also applied to false witnesses who were trying to get someone else in trouble (Deuteronomy 19:15-21).
By the time of Jesus, this legal maxim was so well known that when Jesus quoted it to His audience, everyone knew what it meant (Matthew 5:38).
One of the most innate responses that we humans have to threats or to an attack is fight-or-flight.
In this case, flight would be sweeping it under the run or pretending it didn’t happen. But it did happen, and there is a sense of justice in us that wants to see retribution. If this offense isn’t acknowledged and dealt with appropriately, the desire for retribution will allow unforgiveness to fester. This shows up in all sort of negative ways—physically and emotionally—and often there is a breaking point where the injured party lashes out.
Fight would be taking the law into our own hands. I want everyone to know that I was wronged by you, and I want you to suffer more than you made me suffer. But the first time this law is given, God calls for precise compensation (Exodus 21:22-25).
God’s means for carrying our the lex talionis today is exactly the same—a legal code administered by trained judges (Romans 13:1-4).
This is the law of the land—the natural law—but Jesus calls on us to respond supernaturally. Not to be the judge or jury, but to remember that God perfectly judges and vindicates (Luke 8:17; Deuteronomy 32:35).
Jesus continually calls us forego the natural reaction for the supernatural response. Notice the repeated pattern of, “You have heard that it was said” and then, “But I tell you…” in Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-37, 43-44 and specifically vv. 38-42.
If our eyes are on the one who injured us, our eyes are off of the only One who can vindicate and heal us (Romans 12:17-21).
Natural people merely react out of innate instinct. Supernatural people are able to respond with Christlike love.
Don’t give in to the merely natural reaction, but submit to the Holy Spirit who can help you respond supernaturally.
Craig T. Owens 