It sounds as
though opposition is building. Jesus is back in Jerusalem and back in the
temple when he is challenged by a group of fairly significant people. It is the
leaders within the community who come to challenge Jesus. They raise the question
as to where he gains his authorisation. How legitimate are his claims? How is
he to be viewed? As Warren Carter (Mark) notes – “The questions about
authority and authorizing perceptively raise the central matter of Jesus’
identity.”
Jesus replies to
the challenge with a question about John’s baptism. This is a ‘no win’ question
for them. If they speak up in favour of John’s baptism, that raises the question
as to why they have not accepted John’s ministry and also poses a problem
because of the links between Jesus and John. On the other hand, if they reject
John’s ministry in what they say, they will incur the wrath of the crowd who
would support John. Therefore, they are non-committal, and say that they do not
know. Jesus’s response is that if they will not answer his question, then he is
not going to answer theirs. So, there is an impasse and, as Carter notes, Jesus
– “wins the manly rhetorical skirmish by exposing their rejection of him and
thereby discloses that they are not aligned with God’s purposes.”
Jesus does not completely
refuse to answer their questions, but he will only do so if they respond to the
points he raises. I wonder how we really see Jesus, and whether our understanding
of who he was, and is, has reached the point that it should.
No comments:
Post a Comment