The section of John 11 (45-57) is a completely political scene. Mythopoeically it represents the collision of two visions of religion: the worldly vision of the Sanhedrin and the spiritual vision of Jesus.
The taboo against mixing religion and politics is unfounded. Jesus' message was quintessentially political. 'Feed the hungry' is political in the most ultimate sense. Love your enemy (or your neighbor!) is completely a political matter. Politics is primarily about human relationships.
Of course unscrupulous politicians posing as religiously motivated are a different thing entirely. Speaking of Christian politics there is a true and false kind like everything else. (Here is a thoughtful discussion of the second kind.)
If you try to divorce your faith from politics, you are simply not heeding the basic message of Jesus. For example going to war is thought to be a political decision; more basically its a spiritual decision.
The high priest in this story is the antitype of Jesus (in the second meaning of the word).
It would not be an exaggeration to refer to him as a servant of the devil. No doubt he was perfectly sincere (and some people are foolish enough to equate sincerity with religion!)
I'm closing my rant here, for the time being.
2 comments:
I cannot allwo myslef to see thsi as unambbiguously as you do. To this point I could see these guys as trying to hold onto power. And I railed against John's portrayal of them as such.
But these folks are trying to avoid a blood bath. They look to Jesus as yet another wonder worker trying raise a rabble and they are trying to keep pagan armies form slaughtering hundreds and levelling their temple in the process.
It is ironic that despite their decision it happened anyway. If they were servants of the devil -- it is only possible to know them as such in retrospect.
Granted Kwak, if you're thinking historically. But as usual I'm thinking and writing mythopoeically.
Post a Comment