This passage has always seemed awkward to me. Jesus’ response to the question about if he was the Son of God or not. I almost wanted him to just say yes or no. Some translations make it sound as if he merely repeated what they had said without admitting anything. Other translations more plainly show him answering in the affirmative.
One thing for sure is that the trial was over. They did not need any witnesses because he had admitted something from his own mouth. It was enough to get the death penalty. The prosecution rested its case. There was no need of defense unless it would be for a possible plea of insanity.
So Jesus was eventually executed because he claimed equality with God. So then, the “religious right” of Jesus’ day killed the god they were fervent to protect. (What kind of gods need protecting/defending anyway?)
I wonder about fundamentalism that demands we all conform to a single rigorous standard. A standard where a mere verbalization of dissent is met with unprecedented retribution. Like a death sentence for blasphemy.
Does the mere outward form of a religion constitute purity of that religion? The very thing Jesus sought to change was that the heart of religion had died. All that was left was the form.
Form can be maintained by coercion and fear but the heart cannot. I wonder if this is the purest expression of idolatry. Replacing the heart of religion with the outward shell and then legislating the form into law in the illbegotton(illegitimate) hope that it will somehow replace the heart . The form then becomes the focus of worship.
No comments:
Post a Comment