Vern Schanilec
January 13, 2018
Willie Nelson and Waylan Jennings both recorded the song Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Cowboys. The lyrics advise “Let 'em be doctors and lawyers and such.” Joseph and Mary may just have taken their advice, anachronistically of course, judging by their observation of their son Jesus and how he later matured. “You’re a bright boy son, why don’t you go to the Temple and pursue doctorates in Messiahship and Law."
He followed their advisement, submitted to Temple teachings, and upon returning to Nazareth hung out his shingle (metaphorically speaking) and began a career as an itinerant spokesman for God which would test both his ecclesiastical and legal knowledge.
How do I dare speak of Jesus in such earth-bound and mordant terms. The evidence will speak for itself. The job description for a messiah was thought to be, by Israelis at the time, one who would vanquish Israel’s enemies and restore King David’s theocratic monarchy. Israel would once again dominate the Near East. We all know how that played out. God upset their apple cart by redefining the role as one of humanitarianism with the opportunity of understanding a one-on-one personal relationship with God that already exists.
Neither the Israeli powerbrokers, Jesus or God defined the attributes of a lawyer, though the Pharisees played the role as they saw it by judging how the masses lived up to the Law, i.e., the Law of Moses known as the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. Jesus will define the role by his actions.
A “good lawyer,” in the case of a defense lawyer, will defend the client with all legal means possible in an attempt to convince the jury of the client’s innocence. If the prosecution’s case is weak, or there are holes in its presentation, or the defense cleverly discovers an end-run around existing legal wisdom, the defense may just pull off what may seem a miscarriage of justice in manipulating the legal system.
The prosecution’s client is the people and whose presentation would protect them/us from the antics of the defense counsel while bringing justice. In both cases, cross-examination will occur. A good lawyer will already know the answer to his/her question, and upon the witness’ answer will either attempt to trip up the witness, or turn the answer and evidence back onto the witness.
Jesus’ role and the direction in which he used his gifts of knowledge, wisdom, and heavenly essence can be shown to be that of both a prosecutor and defense counsel. He prosecuted the Pharisees and Sadducees on the basis of their distortion of the Torah while kowtowing to Rome and persecuting their own peoples, all the while enriching their “bank accounts”. Jesus defended the Israeli people by standing up to the Pharisees and Sadducees in terms of forgiving sin, healing the sick and speaking of a kingdom already realized, the latter certainly a difficult concept.
Herein I present evidence of questions and accusations put upon Jesus which included answering directly or indirectly, or turning the question back on the questioner. In the case of parable, lawyer Jesus wanted the questioner to take Jesus’ words and think about them as to where there the questioner could fit and what course of action to take as a result.
Jesus’ main teaching tool was parable and are among the easier teachings to understand. Matthew 19:16, 21
“Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life? ... (Jesus’ answer) "... go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
Now, does that advice apply to us all or just where it fits? The wealthy man who approached Jesus with the question claimed he had done all the good works he could think of. Can you sense Jesus arching his eyebrow and addressing the question with a turn-back on the questioner, this time offering a direct answer and a direct challenge. The man would need do some serious thinking, particularly the bonus round of giving it all up and following Jesus.
The messy ones involved the power brokers of the Judaic culture: the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Matthew 21:23 Pharisees: "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?"
Jesus did not answer the question directly but tied his authority to the healing before them, a paralytic.
Undaunted, the Pharisees followed with “We demand a sign” (Matthew 12:38-40). Jesus’ response: “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah (who) was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.” Jesus turned their Old Testament teaching on them in which they would be tersely reminded prophet Jonah reached out to the gentiles in Nineveh that they should change their ways, which they did. What was not lost on the Pharisees is that Nineveh was gentile country, and the people listened to a prophet. The Pharisees wouldn’t listen to prophet Jesus who further explained (Luke 24:48) “There is forgiveness of sins for all who turn to me and you are witnesses” (e.g. healing the paralytic). How clever was that: using their position as a means of answering their demand. And, Jesus used the opportunity to announce his resurrection (in a manner they probably didn’t get) in parallel to the resurrection of Jonah. Case dismissed.
Jesus turned the tables on the Pharisees regularly, herein. “I’ll tell you of my authority if you answer my question…Is John’s baptism from above or from men” (Matthew 21:26).They commiserated for a time thinking “If we say from heaven Jesus will say why didn’t we believe John. If from man we risk the crowd becoming angry and hostile since they consider John a prophet.” They finally responded “We don’t know” and melted away in humiliation. Touché. Case dismissed.
Matthew 22:16 “Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor?”
The Pharisees had to be thinking “We’ve got him this time because if he says yes, he’s condoning Rome’s occupation of Israel. If he says no he’s committing treason.” Remember, Caesar claimed to be a god. We know Jesus’ classic answer, paraphrased, “Put your money where your god/God is.” Did Jesus answer the question? Directly? Indirectly? Since the Pharisees allegedly honored the God of the Torah, they needed to think about which God/god they would put their money on. This hypothetical parable became a reality in the court of knowledge and wisdom. Case dismissed.
The big guns, the Sadducees (who operated the legislative body known as the Sanhedrin) decided they also had the entrapment question of questions with this recounting of a law in Deuteronomy 25:5: “Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be?" (Matthew 22:25)
Jesus reached into his ecclesiastical messiahship and answered thusly and simply (paraphrased) “There is no marriage in heaven”. Blink. How do you argue with that.
Word came to the Pharisees how Jesus had just splayed the Sadducees and thought they’d take one more run at him with a perfect-storm, coup de gras question "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” (Matthew 22:36). If Jesus picked one or another he’d be saying the others are less important. They anticipated he might choose one of the Ten Commandments given Moses by God; or one of the 613 laws they manufactured as doctrine over the centuries. Jesus splayed them as well by resorting to both his ecclesiastical messiahship and legalese by coming out of nowhere with (paraphrased) “Love god, neighbor, self” (Matthew 22:36-39). Blink. Case dismissed.
As an aside, one could ask: how was so momentous a commandment was not stated by Moses. Did God forget it, not see it as timely? Did Moses not understand? If God is love and always was, how did that fundamental statement of faith get overlooked? What’s the deal?
The classic Messiahship and legal postulation came on the last day of his earthly life, the day of his murder. Pilate: “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You say so." Did Jesus answer directly? Indirectly? At all? He apparently left it to the jury.
And the final question from Pilate to Jesus “What is truth?” (John 18:38)
Jesus did not reply and the question hangs there, unanswered, unto this day.
One could speculate as to why Jesus did not answer even indirectly or better, turning it back on Pilate. My thinking is that somehow Jesus knew we’d be reading the exchange one day, wondering where to take it. Whereas Jesus left no doubt as to his authority along the way, if you examine just his words, you’ll find he never said outright that he was/is God. He alluded to that notion several times, but in just as many denied it thereby leaving the notion ambiguous, as lawyers do. That may seem unecclesiastical of Jesus but having documented his m.o., why would we be surprised. Beyond that, perhaps he rather wisely wanted all of us to take the thought home, in a parabolic manner, think about it, and see where we place ourselves in the journalistic discussion of who, what, where, when and how in pursuit of the truth.
I believe Mary and Joseph would agree their boy did good. And when I need a lawyer I’ll call on the supernatural Messiah-Prophet Jesus.
Comments
Post a Comment