They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' (Mark 11:31)
The religious leaders might be perplexed for Jesus’ question, “John's baptism--was it from heaven, or from men?” They couldn’t say it from heaven for they didn’t believe him. They couldn’t say a transparent lie.
Why did they not believe John the Baptist? The Bible doesn’t give any explanation for this. Originally John was from a noble family background like them. According to Luke’s gospel, his father Zachariah was a priest. When he was serving his duty according to his turn, serving God as a pastor or an elder in modern terms, he was heard the news of giving birth to a son from an angel in the temple. There was no reason at all for their rejection to John if they premised such background.
The important point was that John’s theology wasn’t match with them. John was a man to pursue a drastic revolution. He demanded a personal and the society to live a complete new life. Such progressive was uncomfortable for the conservatives like the priests and the scribes. In a broad point of view, John was standing at the position of prophet’s tradition while the religious leaders, picking up a quarrel with Jesus, standing at the priest’s position.
The prophet group and the priest group took a different role in Israel’s history. It is said that the prophet tried to embody God’s justice and peace in history while the priest led the religious formality of Israel people. If the former tried the revolution of history then the latter tried to keep the maintenance of reality. Judging from today’s view, the former’s function was sermon while the latter worship service. When these two, tradition and function operate properly then it can establish a healthy church and if not then it results otherwise.
The religious leaders might be perplexed for Jesus’ question, “John's baptism--was it from heaven, or from men?” They couldn’t say it from heaven for they didn’t believe him. They couldn’t say a transparent lie.
Why did they not believe John the Baptist? The Bible doesn’t give any explanation for this. Originally John was from a noble family background like them. According to Luke’s gospel, his father Zachariah was a priest. When he was serving his duty according to his turn, serving God as a pastor or an elder in modern terms, he was heard the news of giving birth to a son from an angel in the temple. There was no reason at all for their rejection to John if they premised such background.
The important point was that John’s theology wasn’t match with them. John was a man to pursue a drastic revolution. He demanded a personal and the society to live a complete new life. Such progressive was uncomfortable for the conservatives like the priests and the scribes. In a broad point of view, John was standing at the position of prophet’s tradition while the religious leaders, picking up a quarrel with Jesus, standing at the priest’s position.
The prophet group and the priest group took a different role in Israel’s history. It is said that the prophet tried to embody God’s justice and peace in history while the priest led the religious formality of Israel people. If the former tried the revolution of history then the latter tried to keep the maintenance of reality. Judging from today’s view, the former’s function was sermon while the latter worship service. When these two, tradition and function operate properly then it can establish a healthy church and if not then it results otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment