The stay tuned part speaks for itself, but what does it mean to trust Jesus? The answer to this inquiry is to be found in the immutable truth or ultimate given, if one prefers, which is embodied by the Greek word χαρις, or, as it is more easily read and pronounced in western characters, charis, which is often translated in early Christian writings as grace.
χαρις – the concept of grace revealed
Yet the word grace, as it is understood today, does a great disservice to the concept of charis that the early Christian writers were attempting to convey. So what does charis mean if not grace?
Charis means that you, fellow taxpayer, are the One True God’s greatest delight, joy, and happiness imaginable, and it is His greatest delight, joy, and happiness imaginable to give you, who are His greatest delight, joy, and happiness imaginable, freely, without conditions, your greatest delight, joy, and happiness imaginable in never-ending abundance.
This is what Jesus came to reveal to us, and it is as simple as believing in YHWH and believing in yourself.
For those who are suffering persecution, Jesus says, “I am there with you.”
For those who are trying to please YHWH with their thoughts and deeds, Jesus says “quit trying to please me, because you already do.”
Do you believe it? For if you do, you will live with in peace and freedom with Jesus forever, starting today, no matter what happens. Charis is the only way that mankind can hope to attain peace with God and with their fellow man.
If you believe this, you will quickly begin to understand that the same charis that you live in is available to all of humanity with no strings attached, no matter what they are doing or have done.
More importantly, you will begin to forgive people, no matter what, and this forgiveness will turn your world into a place that your greatest delight, joy, and happiness imaginable occur daily in never-ending abundance.
With Japan’s recent aggressive devaluation of the Yen, the financial news has again taken up the phrase “currency war” to describe any lack of coordination in the steady devaluation of fiat currencies across the globe.
In a recent piece over at the Financial Times, Niall Ferguson identifies the Bank of England as the current winner in the stealth currency war that is currently being waged. While the Bank of England may be the winner, the losers are not other nations, as the term war would suggest, but rather the savings of those who are unfortunate to count bank accounts or debt instruments denominated in national currencies among their assets.
Who, then, are the winners in what we have dubbed the currency war to end all currency wars? In a simplified sense, those who hold the Dow Jones Industrial stock index (not the individual stocks, which are, in the final analysis, a crap shoot) and those who own gold.
In an attempt to illustrate this point while at the same time saving 1,000 words, should the old adage hold true, we have created the following graph, which plots a normalization (which brings the sheer magnitude of the numbers down to a workable scale) of the M1 and M2 monetary measures against both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and gold prices, all averaged on a monthly basis since April of 1968.
Graph of normalized DJIA and Gold assets classes vs. M1, M2, and Federal Funds Rate measures
Those with a keen eye will notice that the only data point that has been on a downward trend since the US Dollar was officially released from the shackles of the gold standard on August 15, 1971 has been the Federal Funds Rate, which in theory should have an inverse relationship with all of the other data points.
We will leave you with three observations from our graphic exercise:
1. The most volatile of the two asset data sets has been that of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. However, despite its volatility, its overall trend tends to follow that of the M2, or expanded, money supply measure.
2. The more stable of the two asset data sets has been gold, which has generally lagged growth in the M1, or base money supply to which it was tied to pre 1971. Beginning in the year 2000, gold again began to follow the M1 trend.
3. The light blue line, which tracks the Federal Funds Rate, has been on a downtrend. The upticks in the Federal Funds Rate, in theory, should have lead to downward ticks in the M1 and M2 As you can see from the graph, this is not the case.
The conclusion of this brief analysis is the following: Holding Stock Indices such as the Dow Jones should give some measure of protection against inflation over the long term, perhaps even superior to gold. However, since 2000, gold has held steady as an inflation hedge and generally will have less liquidity risk than stocks.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is that upwards changes in the Federal Funds rate, even those as dramatic as were experienced during the Volcker years, have little or no effect on the near term trajectory of the M1 and M2 monetary measures and have never caused these monetary measures to trend downwards, ever. At most, these movements may serve to temporarily arrest the upwards slope of the growth of the M1 and M2 monetary measures.
What does it mean? While the Federal Funds Rate may serve to weakly toggle the rise in the M1 and M2 measures, the Quantitative easing programs, which began in 2008 and are now a permanent piece of monetary policy, have had a much greater direct impact on both the monetary measures and the asset classes which have been included above.
Given the current state of affairs, the QE program must be watched closely as it will have an outsized immediate impact on asset prices.
In the long run, it is clear that the Federal Reserve has set monetary policy on autopilot and programmed a course straight through the stratosphere and into the far reaches of outer space. There is no plan for the US Dollar to return to earth. The M1 and M2 monetary measures will not come down, no matter what happens to QE and the Federal Funds Rate.
It is time to organize investments in the real world accordingly.
We have been remiss in our regular correspondence to you, fellow taxpayer, and we pray you will forgive us. We have completed and published the first two volumes in our series, called “Why what we use as Money Matters.” It is our humble attempt to explain, well, why what we use as money matters. The volumes are currently available on Amazon’s Kindle as wells as in various eBook formats on Smashwords and can be accessed at the following links:
Our objective in writing the series is to convince humanity of two truths:
1. That if the activities of the earth are to be in balance with the available resources, money must be something natural, in other words, not debt or a sort of promise or idea.
2. That Anarchy is an ultimate given, and that Capitalism is the best response to this given.
The governments of the world, as we have known them, are disintegrating, but this will be addressed in our upcoming volumes in the series.
We would be honored if you would give them a read and keep watch for the upcoming volumes, for these ideas are exceedingly important.
Back to finance
While the Fiscal cliff and subsequent fallout have taken a toll on the average working American to the count of 2% right where it counts, there is a something altogether wonderful and dreadful knocking at the door:
Inflation
The wave of inflation that has been on the horizon ever since Federal Reserve monetary policy gave us new acronyms such as ZIRP and QE, appears to be breaking and will soon wash ashore. Now that it is breaking, the only thing that stands between it and the average working American is some flavor of collective default by the nation’s banks. Thanks to the programs which are represented by the above mentioned acronyms, this is highly unlikely.
At this point, then, the only entities whose default could cause such a chain reaction are the Federal Reserve, US Treasury, or possibly the ECB. However, here at The Mint we believe that the tidal waves of cash that have been unleashed may even make the default of one of these institutions manageable.
The Federal Reserve has succeeded in the sense that they have flooded the system with so much cash and have repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that they will backstop the Treasury and MBS market until the US Dollar’s last dying breath. While for a time, maturing debt obligations were mopping up the liquidity that the FED was pumping in, most consumers have now moved to extend maturities via refinancing or, on the conservative end, have closed out both cash and debt positions by paying off mortgages with savings which had been “ZIRPed” into dormance as an income producing asset. This collective action has put the economy in a sort of warped reset where the fiat currency debt monster can run amok for the foreseeable future, with the attendant fatal real world consequences.
Oddly enough, as the FED begins to claim victory over the financial crises which its own policies have made possible, the double whammy of the Basel accords and Dodd-Frank regulatory regimens may eventually eliminate many of the financial institutions which today are household names.
The Repo man cometh
In what is perhaps an unintended consequence, the afore mentioned regulations have given what is known as a REPO contract its walking papers. In our oversimplified understanding of the matter, for simplicity is a virtue here at The Mint, the REPO arrangement, which is a glorified demand deposit, has allowed banks to hold their client’s funds on their balance sheet as Tier I capital.
In 2017, these arrangements will be forced to be properly classified as demand deposits, and many of the wiser financial institutions, who already have a long way to go to reach the Basel Tier I requirements, are already steering their clients away from these arrangements.
How much capital will this pull out of the banking system? Nobody knows. But what is for sure is that unwinding these REPO positions will leave some institutions exposed and unprepared. They will probably become aware of their exposure via the classic individual financial panic mechanism:
Of Money and Metals: The Operation of a Free Money Supply Explained is Volume II in the “Why what we use as Money Matters” series. Of Money and Metals presents the fallacies of the current day practice of circulating debt in the place of money and explains the urgent need for and the operation of a free money supply. This volume also explores the phenomenon of Bitcoins and digital currencies.
It is available to our dear readers for free until January 31, 2013 at smashwords.com, just enter coupon code: MA65L
3D printing has come a long ways, but few imagined it would coincide with the national gun control debate. The technology, on the surface, allows one to create a plastic prototype of nearly anything that will fit into its print area.
While the national gun control debate rages on, these guys are using 3D print technology to great a ban that does not, as of yet, exist. Moral judgments aside, we present it of as an example that control, in this case control over the manufacture of high capacity magazines, is an illusion or delusion, the line between the two is determined by how much control a group of people think they have over another.
Without voluntary compliance, laws are impossible to enforce, and unjust laws are the first to be ignored. We are all subject to natural law, and must answer to it. In the meantime, we imagine that, while a novelty, those who have use for a HI-CAP, most of whom wear a military uniform, will opt to get them from a mass producer.
Today, the United States of America will live through a day which is charged with irony. On one hand, its citizens will hear a discourse given with the aid of teleprompters from the Commander-in-Chief of the most lethal killing machine on the planet. On the other, the same nation will celebrate one of the greatest community organizers and peacemakers of modern times, Martin Luther King, Jr.
In honor of the Dr. King, we wish to share perhaps some little known facts about the man who immortalized the words, “I have a dream.”
The first is that Martin Luther King was seeking a relatively low-key role in the desegregation movement that he is now recognized as the leader of. According to the documentary of the Civil Rights Movement, “Soundtrack for a Revolution,” Dr. King was thrust into the leadership role of the movement in Alabama largely so that the local leaders could save face should it fail.
The second, and most enduring, are the tactics which Dr. King employed in mobilizing forces against segregation, those of non-violent resistance. These tactics made the American Civil Rights Movement both unique and undeniably effective.
In Dr. King’s time, non-violent resistance had been most recently employed on a large-scale by Gandhi in India. Non-violent resistance is the idea that acts of non-resistance in the face of aggression are more powerful than the all of the weapons and anger on earth, for it is clear that fighting violence with violence tends to lead to further violence. In order to break the cycle of violence, it must be confronted with peace.
Some of the most eloquent defenses of Dr. King’s moral guiding light have been written by relative unknowns such as Adin Ballou, who wrote the Catechism of Non-Resistance, and William Lloyd Garrison, who penned the Declaration of non-resistance.
In practice, Dr. King employed the tactics championed by Wyatt Tee Walker, who advocated direct but peaceful confrontation in the form of protests and marches. The premise being that unjust laws, such as those employed to maintain the policy of segregation, would not stand in the face of public scrutiny if peacefully resisted on a large-scale.
Today, in honor of one of the greatest leaders of the modern age, let us embrace non-aggression and turning the other cheek as the ultimate solution to our problems, if even for a day.
Famous quotes attributed to Dr. King:
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
“Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.”
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Lance Armstrong in a Nike spot aired during the Tour de France. It would appear that now the script can be officially amended. We still like Lance Armstrong. PEDs appear to be a fact of life near the front of the peleton:
While much of the focus of the policy response to the recent tragedies in the US has focused on some form of gun control, it is important to recognize the limits of gun control as a means of diminishing violence.
As the video above suggests, removing guns from a society may have either no effect on violent crime rates or, in the worst case scenario, actually backfire and increase the rate of violent crime.
Yes, you read correctly, that imposing restrictions on gun ownership by the populace may actually increase violent crime rates. Prominent examples of this phenomenon can be found in Piers Morgan’s jolly old England, which, while having a lower incidence of gun crime, boasts a violent crime rate which is substantially higher than the United States and even South Africa. They can also be found in Chicago, which, despite the most restrictive gun laws in the US, lamentably has the highest student death toll by firearms.
How can this be? To understand the answer, one must understand something about Contrarian thought as well as game theory.
First, Contrarian thought. This logic is detestable and unacceptable for anyone in the anti-gun control, “if it even saves one life,” crowd. Likewise, it will be unpalatable for those who see capital punishment as repaying evil with evil. None the less, the following logic is compelling.
Permitting gun ownership by citizens serves as a tacit deterrent to perpetrators of gun crimes who, if they are carrying a gun in a zone where gun ownership is illegal or legally restricted, can assume that a great majority of the population that they will encounter in that zone will not be carrying a firearm, a fact that puts the criminal perpetrator at a great advantage and the peaceful citizens at a great disadvantage. The anti-gun control argument falls apart once the inescapable fact that it is impossible to guarantee 100% compliance with such laws.
On the other hand, if the perpetrator approaches an individual or crowd with no way of knowing whether or not they can defend themselves, this element of uncertainty may serve as a deterrent to any number of gun crimes which are not permitted. This is a data point that, by definition, is silent in the statistics, how many violent crimes have been deterred or aborted in the planning stages due to the perceived probability of the victims being armed.
The same argument holds in theory for capital punishment. If perpetrators of violent crimes knew that their violent act was likely to be punished by death, it follows that this ever present deterrent would be taken into account, and an unknown number of potential violent crimes would be deterred or aborted in the planning phase.
While gun control may serve as a deterrent for impulsive violence, it is just as likely to invite a number of premeditated acts of violence, where the perpetrator can operate with a high degree of certainty that they will not, at least at first, be challenged by an adversary that can harm them in self defense, thereby thwarting their plan.
The understanding of game theory is important in this analysis as well with regards to the assumption on the part of perpetrators of violent crimes as to whether or not their victims can defend themselves and repel an armed assault in kind.
In his famous book, The Strategy of Conflict, Thomas C. Schelling goes to great pains to prove that two individuals who have the ability to destroy each other will tacitly gravitate to living in an uneasy peace with one another, mostly owed to the perception that any act of aggression taken will cause the instigator to suffer in-kind retaliation from the other party. Given the assumption that both parties possess the same capabilities when it comes to weaponry, they are more likely to tacitly choose to peacefully coexist than to instigate violence in hopes of gaining what in game theory is called the “first strike advantage.”
Schelling used the US and the USSR’s offsetting nuclear capabilities to prove this theory, and, in theory, the same tacit decision to peacefully coexistence would be reached among those who live in an armed population. If this theory is correct, the right to bear arms, which on the surface appears to be the cause of a great deal of violent crime, may actually serve as the best deterrent to an increase in violent crime in a population, while having the side effect of discouraging foreign invasion.
While the cry for gun control rings loud and clear throughout the land, it is proper for all citizens to be appalled at the heinous acts which have been committed. However, as in the game of Clue, the weapon is only one piece of the mystery, and the violent crime rates in England suggest that, were the revolver removed from the game, the rate of homicide inside the mansion would scarcely decrease.
Our latest ebook on the Seven miracles of Jesus in the Gospel is finally ready. You can pick up your free copy over at smashwords.com for a limited time. Just follow this link: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/274564
Or click on the cover below and put in the code: AV98M
Were the the apostle John alive today, what would he say to us? Would we find him wandering alone, like William H. Bonney at the end of Young Guns II? When asked about Jesus, he might say:
“Did I like him? Hell no; I loved {Him}. You asked me if I have scars? Yessir, I have my scars.”
Perhaps he would introduce himself in the following way:
“I had been looking for the Messiah for as long as I knew of Him. In John the Baptist, I saw the same eagerness to know the Messiah, and to prepare the way for His coming, so I followed Him.
When Jesus came to be baptized in the Jordan, I knew the it was He, the promised Messiah. I cannot tell you exactly how, I simply knew. From that day on, I arose and followed Jesus.
Many wanted to see a sign from Jesus, and He performed many. For me, they were not necessary. For I knew, from the moment I saw Him, that Jesus was the savior of the world, and that He loved me.”
The Apostle John, witness to the watershed moment in human history. How would he finish the game?
60 years after Jesus had risen, John was contemplating his own earthly mortality. What could he leave behind? What would he say about Jesus? What would he share so that the world would be moved as he had been moved by YHWH’s taking on flesh and dwelling amongst us, teaching us how to live, and then giving Himself as the final sacrifice for sin, so that humanity may be reconciled with Him in eternity? While the seven signs are exceedingly important, John saw it as even more urgent that we focus on Jesus and finish the game.
Again, to quote Billy the Kid in Young Guns II:
“You remember the stories John use to tell us about the the three chinamen playing Fantan? This guy runs up to them and says, “Hey, the world’s coming to an end!” and the first one says, “Well, I best go to the mission and pray,” and the second one says, “Well, hell, I’m gonna go and buy me a case of Mezcal and six whores,” and the third one says “Well, I’m gonna finish the game.” I shall finish the game, Doc.”
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn’t overcome it. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came as a witness, that he might testify about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but was sent that he might testify about the light. 9 The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn’t recognize him. 11 He came to his own, and those who were his own didn’t receive him. 12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about him. He cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.’” 16 From his fullness we all received grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
Today, we begin the new year with the conclusion of our series on the seven signs that Jesus performed which are related in the Gospel of John. What is taught through these seven signs is of eternal significance. If you have just now joined us, we recommend reading the following for additional context:
Those who have followed the Mint for any time now know that our word is far from the final one on this or any subject. Rather, we encourage every one of you to allow yourself to be studied by the Holy Scriptures, for if we simply study the scriptures, we will have gained nothing worth saving, but if we allow the scriptures to study us, our lives will be miraculously purified and enriched. We will leave changed by the power of the Living God at work in us.
With this in mind, we encourage those of you in the Portland area to join us at 6:30pm on Wednesday, January 9th, at Good Samaritan Ministries in Beaverton (click here for a map), where we will attempt to present a portion of this series in a two-hour class format. It is little time and we can only hope to scratch the surface, but at the same time, gathering in the synagogue, as it were, allows the Holy Spirit to move among us and transform us in ways that are impossible through individual study.
We now move into the seventh sign, the sign that proved once and for all that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, foretold by the prophets and seen by Isaiah 700 years earlier, and that all of humanity can have eternal life in Him.
Again, Jesus had performed many signs, of which John, the disciple who shared Isaiah’s spirit and was perhaps closer to Jesus than any other disciple, witnessed more than any other person. Of the many, John chose to relate seven of them when he penned his Gospel some 60 years later. While the previous six signs are important, none was more important in John’s eyes than the seventh sign.
It was the sign that proved He is YHWH, and the sign that sealed His fate on earth: The raising of Lazarus from the dead.
After Jesus’ decision to attend the Festival of Booths, it is not clear in the Gospel of John whether or not He ever returned to the Galilee. From what we can tell, His initial reluctance and subsequent decision to attend the Festival of Booths were an indication that Jesus was assenting to complete His mission, the salvation of the world, on the upcoming Passover.
The air in Judea and Jerusalem was thick with tension. In Palestine, politics and religion are deeply intertwined, and it is impossible to understand what is occurring in one sphere without recognizing the influences of the other upon it.
After walking on water to His Disciples and healing the man blind from birth, Jesus had set Himself on a collision course with the Jewish authorities. With the benefit of hindsight, it may seem obvious that the Jews would want to eliminate Jesus.
Why the animosity towards Jesus?
However, to the casual observer, both in first century Palestine and today, it is difficult to understand why the Jewish leadership would seek to kill the Messiah. Was not He the one who would remove the oppressors, set the captives free, and declare the year of the Lord’s favor for them? Was this not the fulfillment of YHWH’s promise which had been proclaimed by Israel’s greatest prophets seven centuries before?
The answer to this question can be found by examining the condition of the Jewish leadership of the day. In the first century, Palestine was under Roman control. The Romans ruled with an iron fist, and moved quickly to squash rebellion. The Jewish leadership, down to the priesthood, which had previously been bestowed by virtue of heredity, was now a post appointed by the Roman authorities. As such, the hand picked Jewish leaders in Judea found themselves responsible for managing the delicate balance of Jewish nationalism and submission to Roman authorities.
Naturally, those appointed were those who had mastered the art of compromise, and used their appointments to play one side off of the other, often to great personal advantage.
As the Maccabeans had done nearly two centuries earlier, Jesus was exposing the hypocrisy and extortion which was rampant in the ranks of the Jewish priesthood. At the same time, He was restoring the faith of the people in YHWH.
The Jewish leaders began to fear another revolt of the type which had temporarily freed the Jews from the Seleucid Empire and overthrew the Jewish elite of the day, who had compromised the Jewish religion to the point of allowing Greek gods to be erected in the Temple and pigs to be butchered on the altar, on the Sabbath.
The Feast of the Dedication: Hanukkah
In 168 BCE, roughly 200 years earlier, Antiochus IV, then ruler of the Seleucid empire, had Judaism outlawed. This sparked a revolt of devout Jews against the empire which would become known as the Maccabean revolt of 167-160 BCE. The Maccabeans were successful in establishing a Jewish commonwealth which would last for 100 years.
A Menorah in Donetsk Ukraine Photo by Andrew Butko
The celebration of the success of the Maccabean revolt is celebrated today. It is known as Hanukkah, the Festival of lights. In Jesus’ day, it was known by its Greek name, The Feast of the Dedication, acknowledging the re dedication of the Temple to YHWH by the Maccabeans.
Then, in 63 BCE, the Romans annexed Judea into their Empire in violent fashion. When Jesus arrived on the scene, the Jewish elite, not unlike their counterparts under the Seleucid rule of Judea, had assumed a position of compromise, appealing to the people to tolerate the Roman rule in exchange for a measure of religious autonomy. An autonomy that both the Jewish ruling class and the Romans used to exploit the population under the cover of religious observances, among other things.
At this point we call to the reader’s attention the incident where Jesus clears the Temple, related by John in chapter 2 of his Gospel:
12 After this, he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they stayed there a few days. 13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 He found in the temple those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting. 15 He made a whip of cords, and threw all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew their tables. 16 To those who sold the doves, he said, “Take these things out of here! Don’t make my Father’s house a marketplace!” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will eat me up.”✡
18 The Jews therefore answered him, “What sign do you show us, seeing that you do these things?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 The Jews therefore said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple! Will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this, and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
Jesus was passionate about Judaism and true worship of YHWH. After the events which took place during the Festival of Booths, is should come as no surprise that Jesus would again show up in Jerusalem at the Temple, openly declaring that He is the Son of God, at the Feast of the Dedication.
Jesus had declared sternly that the religious leaders of the day are, “not my sheep.” He seemed to affirm the line that was already drawn in the sand, pitting the devout Jews against the Jewish elite. In doing so, the devout Jews assumed that Jesus was going to stir up the next Maccabean revolt and once again, “re dedicate” the Temple to YHWH. The ruling elite took this threat of revolt, along with the increasingly personal attacks against them which Jesus explicitly and implicitly implied in His teachings, and began to plot in earnest to eliminate Jesus before He gained a wider following among the people.
For even if He was the Messiah, Jesus, through righteousness and the power of God, posed a direct threat to the status quo, a status quo which had allowed the Jewish elite not only to maintain the semblance of a Jewish quasi state and religious system, but more importantly, their appointed position as religious leaders and intermediaries between the Jewish nation and Rome. It was a system that had made them very wealthy and at the same time extremely vulnerable. Were the system to crash, it would come toppling down directly on top of them.
Enter Caiaphas
This seemingly complex relationship between a nation awaiting their promised Messiah and the leaders of that nation taking great pains to prevent the Messiah from appearing is embodied in a man named Caiaphas.
Christ before Caiaphas by Mattias Stom
Caiaphas was the Roman appointed high priest during this tempestuous time. He was appointed in a semi-nepotistic way, as is the custom in most corrupt leadership structures. While attempting to maintain the status quo and at the same time appear religious, Caiaphas, as high priest, had famously prophesied that:
“…Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” – John 11:52
Such was the state of mind of the Jewish leadership of the day. Their vulnerability and greed had ultimately pitted their will against the will of YHWH, the God whose observances they were charged with carrying out.
It is important to note that Caiaphas, as were most of the Jewish elite of the day, was a member of the Sadducee sect, a line of Judaism which denied spiritual phenomena associated with the afterlife. This put them in opposition to many other branches of Judaism as well as Jesus, as they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, a belief system which lends itself to a situational system of morality in which the right thing is more often than not what is expedient at the moment.
After the Feast of Dedication, Jesus again left Jerusalem, presumably under the threat of detention and physical harm. He went not home to Galilee but beyond the Jordan where John the Baptist had baptized Him just three short years before. It was the place where His earthly ministry had begun. Many people came to Jesus in that holy place, and put their faith in Him.
It is there, in the wilderness, that we find Jesus in the days before He performs what John, and this author believe to be the most important miracle of His earthly ministry. We pick up the narrative in John 11:1-54:
1 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus from Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister, Martha. 2 It was that Mary who had anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother, Lazarus, was sick. 3 The sisters therefore sent to him, saying, “Lord, behold, he for whom you have great affection is sick.” 4 But when Jesus heard it, he said, “This sickness is not to death, but for the glory of God, that God’s Son may be glorified by it.” 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. 6 When therefore he heard that he was sick, he stayed two days in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let’s go into Judea again.”
8 The disciples told him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just trying to stone you, and are you going there again?”
9 Jesus answered, “Aren’t there twelve hours of daylight? If a man walks in the day, he doesn’t stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if a man walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light isn’t in him.” 11 He said these things, and after that, he said to them, “Our friend, Lazarus, has fallen asleep, but I am going so that I may awake him out of sleep.”
12 The disciples therefore said, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.”
13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he spoke of taking rest in sleep. 14 So Jesus said to them plainly then, “Lazarus is dead. 15 I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe. Nevertheless, let’s go to him.”
16 Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus,*{Note: “Didymus” means “Twin”}. said to his fellow disciples, “Let’s go also, that we may die with him.”
17 So when Jesus came, he found that he had been in the tomb four days already. 18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia†{Note: 15 stadia is about 2.8 kilometers or 1.7 miles} away. 19 Many of the Jews had joined the women around Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother. 20 Then when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, but Mary stayed in the house. 21 Therefore Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you would have been here, my brother wouldn’t have died. 22 Even now I know that, whatever you ask of God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will still live, even if he dies. 26 Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord. I have come to believe that you are the Christ, God’s Son, he who comes into the world.”
28 When she had said this, she went away, and called Mary, her sister, secretly, saying, “The Teacher is here, and is calling you.”
29 When she heard this, she arose quickly, and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was in the place where Martha met him. 31 Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and were consoling her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up quickly and went out, followed her, saying, “She is going to the tomb to weep there.” 32 Therefore when Mary came to where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you would have been here, my brother wouldn’t have died.”
33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews weeping who came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, 34 and said, “Where have you laid him?”
They told him, “Lord, come and see.”
35 Jesus wept.
36 The Jews therefore said, “See how much affection he had for him!” 37 Some of them said, “Couldn’t this man, who opened the eyes of him who was blind, have also kept this man from dying?”
38 Jesus therefore, again groaning in himself, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.”
Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to him, “Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.”
40 Jesus said to her, “Didn’t I tell you that if you believed, you would see God’s glory?”
The Raising of Lazarus by Duccio di Buoninsegna 1310-11
41 So they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, “Father, I thank you that you listened to me. 42 I know that you always listen to me, but because of the multitude that stands around I said this, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”
44 He who was dead came out, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth.
Jesus said to them, “Free him, and let him go.”
45 Therefore many of the Jews, who came to Mary and saw what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done. 47 The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, “What are we doing? For this man does many signs. 48 If we leave him alone like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
49 But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you consider that it is advantageous for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” 51 Now he didn’t say this of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day forward they took counsel that they might put him to death. 54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed from there into the country near the wilderness, to a city called Ephraim. He stayed there with his disciples.
While in Barcelona, we had the opportunity to play the role of Lazarus in a stage adaptation of the book “The Jesus I never knew,” by Philip Yancey. As you can imagine, there was not much to do. The people mourned and I lay there in bandages from head to foot. They filmed a video short which showed one of the disciples kneeling at my side. He then abruptly rose and ran off to locate Jesus. It was a helpless feeling, yet the faith of the disciple, however far fetched, gave us cause for hope.
In this dramatization, we saw that the disciple’s faith in who Jesus was raised us from the dead, and that it was this same faith in YHWH that raised Jesus from the dead.
Will we listen when He calls us out? Will we call others out from death to life?
In raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus put to rest any latent speculation that He was the Son of God. Lazarus had been dead for four days. The situation was so hopeless that Martha, Lazarus’ sister, was compelled to give a canned religious answer, as many of us do when faced with a seemingly impossible situation, in order that Jesus might save face (verses 21-26 above):
Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you would have been here, my brother wouldn’t have died. 22 Even now I know that, whatever you ask of God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will still live, even if he dies. 26 Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
The resurrection is here and now. The seven signs presented by John bear a unique witness to this, for John had known this all along. Both the religious leaders, who feared Jesus, and the devout Jews, who were disappointed in Him, missed the point, and in the end condemned Jesus and abandoned Him in turn.
In contrast, the disciple that Jesus loved stayed by Him through the trial and to the very end on the cross. Jesus asks John to take care of His mother, Mary, perhaps the highest honor that He could bestow on earth. While Peter got the church and all of its issues, John would get to continue to know Jesus through His mother’s eyes.
Will we stay by Jesus through accusations and disappointments? Will he give us something to care for, or a unique gift of insight?
We pray that you have been both blessed and challenged in your faith as we have in exploring the seven signs.
We leave you with the words or our Lord Jesus:
“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will still live, even if he dies. 26 Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
You must be logged in to post a comment.