AUSTRALIAN BIBLE CHURCH February 28, 2010
Continuing the work of the Australian Presbyterian Church (Union 1901),
following the Lord without Compromise and the Bible without Qualification,
by Faith
GRATIFICATION OR GOVERNMENT
from Mark 14:60 - 15:20
PART I
THE PRELIMINARY QUESTION
Government ? In The Australian, Feb. 22, 2011, there is an article taken from HAARETZ, the Israeli newspaper. In this, it is alleged that so slight is the margin for Netanyahu to continue to govern, with various segments making up his government, that if he thinks a measure will fail (to be passed in the Knesset), then he does not push it. It states that lacking backing, he moved away from the idea of a fence in the South, near Egypt, and that he would move from some removal of settlers, on the way to a Two State solution to the Palestinian problem, IF he did not find a sure way to get it through. He does not wish to fall in government, the thrust of the article seems to be.
Whatever may be his actual reasons, this is the sort of thing that the Rudd government faces at times, as it deals with Greens in the Senate. Would this or that party sacrifice something RIGHT in order to a void a wrong ? It is said that politics is the art of compromise (when of course, it is not the artifices of heedless and reckless power thirst, with shove); but what SHOULD be compromised ?
Certainly not, any matter of principle. The title 'unprincipled' is not avidly sought. But WHICH principle should one sacrifice (if any) ? If it is personal preference sanctified by the word 'principle', then it may be. If it is something fundamental, basic, a matter of due belief and true faith, then it can never be sacrificed. Which of us does not vastly prefer the man who loses his opportunities of power and riches, fame or name, in order to stick to his principles ? unless of course, they are heedless and reckless, not a matter of faith but pure psychic determination.
When Pilate was examining Christ, before resolving whether or not to sacrifice Him, by allowing the crafty callowness of the priests to over-rule, he asked some questions, and stated some principles.
'Do you want me to release to you, the King of the Jews ?' (15:9).
PROPOSITIONS IN THE PRELUDE
Now we read in 15:15, that Pilate was wanting to gratify the crowd. That is government by gratification (of whatever wild lusts, feckless aims, or unscrupulous means the crowd - statistically estimated now - may wish).
Not dealing in actual federal force with the Murray arrangements in Australia, merely making very distant plans and agreements, may be one of these; for these do not nurture the thousands of dying trees. Seeking submarine building for South Australia may be one of these, for employment purposes, without undue concern as to what is the use of submarines so far in the future, with admittedly inadequate means to make them here, and uncertainties about the date, if any, of their eventuation. This is only exacerbated when despite your vast cost of the existing 6, by last statement, only one was left, fit for action! Years of unprotection are like a chin left without a guard from one of your fists, while the other hand does what is convenient. A knock-out blow is not normally invited, by plans for the future whenever it may come.
When you ask a question, as with Pilate, the question is this, On what criteria will you heed an answer ? When I wished as a Lecturer, to teach scientific method in a tertiary institution in this State, and insisted when brought to task, that I stood by what I had said, and that there was needed more exposure to suppressed areas, such as its application to creation, the answer to my challenge and exhortation was this: "It is not convenient."
This SHOULD be heresy in any reputable university! It is the open door to culture culture cliques, academia-chiks, rule by rote and rearguard from evidence! Did they have data to constrain me, to show me in any sense false ? Could they point to anything whatever amiss ? Not at all; it was not even relevant. The criterion was convenience. Truth AS SUCH was not to the point. There are more deaths than those biological!
PRESSING QUESTIONS FOR PILATE
Thus when Pilate asked the people what they wanted him to do (a strange request, in view of excited state of the urging mass of the people, if justice or truth were to have any bearing, and the WHAT related to the One called King of the Jews), one would have thought that the reply would be required to have to contain both principles and reasonings, data and defensible modes of assessment. It did not.
What makes it the worse, is this, that Pilate was not altogether lacking in discernment. We find, in Mark 15:10, that the priests had put Christ in the death-dock because of envy. Pilate knew the distorting motivation, the twisted desire, and yet still simply asked for what was sought! To be sure, he first asked if they would like him to release to them, the King of the Jews. In this he may have intended to indicate in the 'to you' that they would still have liberty (short of death penalty), and this was considerable, as they even had a Temple Guard. He may have thought that the possibly popular title, King of the Jews, would appeal to them, and show his interest in their inventions, ideas and culture.
Now we find that the chief priests were stirring up the people, manipulating the mob to express a lustful desire for a murderer to fit the annual privilege of having someone delivered to them, at their request. The one to be chosen, named Barabbas, appears (from Luke 23:19, Acts 3:14, John 18:40) to have been an insurrectionist, a murderer and a robber. Therefore Pilate may have wished to appease dissatisfaction with his administration in Rome's name, the government of the defeated nation, by yielding to their request even though they were moved to deliver one who had attacked public order, conceivably even Rome's rule, to some extent.
He was successful so far. When the crowd, so manipulated by corrupt, worldly priests, as to cry to Barabbus, not Christ, for the released prisoner, Pilate asked another question. Remember he had military power and an appointment to execute justice rather than to please crowds or release criminals; rather than to execute One whose miracles were legion, had never been refuted.. They were not here subjected to contest, but rather to priestly envy, the release of popular desire, even though Jesus the Christ had provided profound nurture to the people. Indeed, such irrational action, inequitable judgment, careering away from evidence even as a criterion, led to an additional error: that of repaying evil for good; and for this, the crowd in effect lusted, if ever anyone did!
This new question voiced by Pilate ? It was this (Mark 15:12):
"What then do you
want me to do with him
whom you call the King of the Jews ?"
The 'then' in this question was to cover the point that Barabbus, insurrectionist, murderer, had already seemed more to be desired than was Christ; and this world has, in symbol, had him ever since, and Israel in particular, a banner for belligerence, to be received again and again.
Pilate was as putty in their hands. Crucify him! was their opinion on the matter. Barabbus, murderer, being chosen for life, Christ, One who raised from the dead, was chosen for death. A sense of the power of Israel, defiant in defeat by the arms of Rome, of its priests and Temple, still standing in defeat, of suppressed animus and lust and thrust to assert themselves may have contributed to the decision which was to haunt Israel from that time to this, if not always in conscience, then in consequences.
For Pilate's government, the criterion of his 'justice' was just this: what did the people want, what would gratify them, what would make the misdirected malice of the priests, harmless to himself, so restraining them from distorting issues with his home base in Rome. They could, perhaps he feared, even make him appear at court, to have allowed some king other than Caesar, to go free in Jerusalem. If this was obviously false, and should properly have been disregarded, yet how many false things have led to victims being dethroned, delivered to death and numbers slaughtered, both people and reputations, though evidence was lacking and mere attraction to evil words was present! This twist concerning the possible anger of Caesar, though irrelevant, was not left out (John 19:12).
THE PIVOTAL QUESTION
The people were not mollified. Crucify Him! they cried out again (Mark 15:13). Then Pilate asked the pivotal question:
"Why, what evil has He done ?"
This question enshrined a proposition, a principle, a pivotal consideration. If, after all, you are going to malign or wound or kill someone, as you see in principle in II Corinthians 12-13, it is not enough to open your mouth and act as if nothing was between your ears, hearing slander or evil, and your mouth, pronouncing judgment. That is government by gossip, which alas can occur in slack churches, especially if they want to preserve themselves or their importance, and not the relationship, through obedience and equity, with Christ.
The answer was neither cogent nor even coherent. Loudness of noise, intensity of desire, crowd dynamics, football match (as it now is) type of crowd power, and soccer match (as it now is) type of crooning, almost like hymns of hate in the case of Pilate's court, crusaded into the court rheum, the clouded vision and the intemperate racket. Crucify him! they chanted.
Had He done evil ? Now when a case is tried, the answer is not made in just circumstances by this, simply repeating the charge, only speaking more loudly. Instead, it is found in one of two ways; EITHER the alleged culprit or criminal is PROVEN to have done what gossip or slander says (the game Simon says, can in this way become Slander says, a variant, when Slander is the liar); or else he is not. If not, he remains innocent in conception. To be sure, he must be willing to answer reasonable questions, as Christ did, in telling Pilate why His servants did not fight for Him, which in turn was answer to the question, What sort of a king are you, or what type of kingdom is yours ?
"My kingdom is NOT of this world," said Christ (John 18:36). How then could it concern Caesar, who was nothing if not of this world!
Did justice heed what it heard ? No, it heard what it heeded in one thing only, the voice of the imperious, roused crowd, and that had much to say, for it also was kind enough to tell him, not only the answer to the question of guilt, without grounds, but the sentence to be passed. In this, the crowd, stirred by priests, was as if omnicompetent: no evidence, no grounds, no reason, none of this was needed - just a decision, a determination to find guilty was required. This being granted, a decision as to the penalty for this purely notional guilt, this too was gratuitously and freely provided. What generosity there was on that night, what lavish giving!
Kill Him ? No more, the very method of it. CRUCIFY HIM. All was provided. One might have hoped that Pilate, having statedly found no evil, would not like a wounded hawk before the huntsman, cry, Why, what evil have I done ? (in his case, acting for the victim), but answered like this: If you do not both present the case, and the verification of the evidence, to validate your claim overwhelmingly, I as judge have neither right nor power, mandate nor reason to act as you request. How dare you affront justice and pretend loyalty, when justice itself is to fly away before desire!
True, for this, he might just possibly have been killed; but he had troops. After all, if priests (as in John 11) were afraid to provoke Rome, what better way to do this, than by injuring or killing the Governor! Had he spoken thus, Pilate might, on the other hand, have gained respect for his even-handedness, and even admiration for his passion for justice, not alas present; and this might have served as a basis for a new popularity because of reliability.
In any case, the criterion would have been principles. For any man, powerful or weak, to abandon principles of truth and equity, righteousness and reason, mercy and kindness is the utmost folly, for it sets a man above men, and it degrades the Creator's products, to the level of pathological passion, both its domineering and the graves it digs. It pre-empts His preference for His creation, and is mere theft, brazen, belligerent, profoundly arrogant. Lust would replace liberty and crown truth with thorns.
For this, there is only one escape, the mercy of God through Christ crucified; and it is this which Christ with MORE THAN justice, made available, by NOT having His servants fight and having a kingdom NOT of this world, to which all, even one of the thieves on one of the other crosses, could come without effort or works, by mere faith in Him. And this ? it was in Him, who provided the payment for sin, meeting the wrath of God with the mercy of mandate as foretold and now wrought (Romans 1:17ff., 3:23ff., Galatians 3). The thief crossed the line by faith, and set a standard in this, to follow!
Next Sunday, DV, we will consider the outcomes, not only for Israel, but for the Gentiles, for the world, and the divine income that is coming near.