I should explain. My name is Nicodemus. I am a member of
the Sanhedrin, one of the seventy men charged with the oversight
and defense of our historic and honorable faith, the faith of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the faith of our fathers for hundreds
and hundreds of years. Our task - one handed down from
generation to generation since Moses - is to provide guidance for
the people in matters pertaining to God, to oversee worship and
to challenge any who would seek to lead the nation astray.
I came by my position naturally. I was born into one of the
most respected families in Jerusalem and so had the benefit of
orthodox training from my youth. I was educated in the best of
the synagogue schools, taught by the best minds in the service of
the High Priest, and learned the Torah as thoroughly as any man.
I enjoyed the study of the Law; after all, the Law was God's
gracious gift to us for the ordering of our lives.
I am a Pharisee. Obviously, I would HAVE to be either a Pharisee or a Sadducee
just to be on the ruling council; no other sects are represented.
We Pharisees have enjoyed a remarkable growth in our
numbers over the past hundred and fifty years or so, but the Saducees, even though they are a minority in Jerusalem, are still powerful - after all, the High Priest is a Sadducee.
The most important difference between our two groups is that
we Pharisees believe that this life is NOT all there is to
existence, while most Sadducees believe it is - we Pharisees
believe in a RESURRECTION OF THE BODY when Yahweh finally comes
to establish the kingdom on earth. We would argue that, considering
all the injustice in the world and the oppression that the
children of Israel continually suffer at the hands of first one
nation and then another, there MUST be something beyond this life
to RIGHT all the WRONGS. Face it: there IS injustice and oppression that is
suffered which is NOT rectified in this life - and if our God is
a God of justice (which I believe), something will have to be
done about that. I believe justice WILL
eventually be done, but not until the day of resurrection.
We get our doctrine from the words of the prophets of
old as well as some of the writings of antiquity which we
consider as inspired Scripture. My Sadducee brothers, on the other hand,
accept no writing as Scripture except that which our tradition
says came from Moses - the TORAH - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy. The subject of resurrection is not
discussed there, and since it is not, they have always believed any
thoughts of life after death were pure speculation.
For myself, as I say, the concept of resurrection is very
appealing. Besides, why should we consider that our God's mind
is limited to that which was passed on to us through Moses?
Perhaps there was no REASON to discuss resurrection with Moses.
Does that mean it cannot BE? I wonder...and my brothers on the
Sanhedrin KNOW my position. That makes me, at least in THEIR minds,
a liberal thinker.
Well. Liberalism has its limits. I can accept the
Sadducees and their understandings. I
can accept the Essenes with their community down at Qumran who
claim that only total separation from the world allows for a
proper keeping of the Law. I can even accept the Zealots who
demand that we overthrow the Roman invaders so that our
allegiance not be divided between our God and Caesar. But I
CANNOT accept anyone who might do permanent damage to our
historic understanding of the faith. After all, protecting the
people from false prophets and erroneous teaching is a part of my
function as a member of the Sanhedrin. I may be more liberal
than some of my Sadducean brethren, but that does NOT mean I will
be swept along by any wind that blows.
Not long ago, I had occasion to travel down by the Jordan to
investigate this man they call John the Baptizer. Word had come
to the council that he had been having a remarkable impact on all
who came in contact with him, and we felt an obligation to see
whether or not what he was teaching followed the orthodox
tradition. I admit John was an impressive fellow. He may have
been influenced by the Essenes in his early days because his
lifestyle was that of an ascetic - wearing sackcloth, living in
the desert, eating only things like locusts and wild honey. He
was a thunderous preacher, calling on people to repent of their
sins, having them undergo a baptism in the river like the baptism
we Jews require of converts to OUR faith. And people
responded...in droves. Even Roman soldiers were inspired by the
man and went under the water at his urging. John was quite a
figure.
During one of these open-air sessions, we from the Jerusalem
council sought to question him as to his authority to do what he
was doing. Some had wondered whether or not he might be the
Messiah who would be the deliverer of the nation; some who
believed in that sort of thing wondered whether or not he could
be the reincarnation of Elijah the prophet. We wanted to find
out. To be sure, we did not mind itinerant preachers for they
were all over the land; we DID want to keep tabs on them though.
John responded to our questions in a strange way. He admitted
that he was neither the Messiah nor Elijah. He claimed that he
was, in his words, "the voice of one crying in the wilderness,
saying, `make straight the way of the Lord.'" And then he said
something very strange: he said there was someone coming after
him who would be so great that John would not even be worthy to
be the most lowly slave to him, the slave who ties and looses a
man's sandals. We wondered about that, of course, but there was
nothing he was doing that merited any action on our part, at
least not at the time. So we left...and came back to report our
findings to the Sanhedrin.
Not long after, our attention became focused on someone who
was making an even greater impact than John. In fact, word had
it that many of John's disciples were deserting him to follow
this new teacher...a man named Jesus, from Nazareth. I realize
that it is a little incredible that a teacher of any stature
should come from such a grimy little hole-in-the-wall town like
Nazareth, but that is where this Jesus was from. He was not the
same as John - he did not limit his activity to preaching in the
desert; he did not baptize anyone; he was certainly no ascetic -
in fact, the word we had was that he was something of a party-boy,
eating and drinking with some of the worst riff-raff in the
nation: tax-collectors, prostitutes and the like. But the
biggest difference between Jesus and John was what Jesus DID -
word had it that Jesus was performing remarkable miracles...
making the lame to walk, giving sight to the blind, even
restoring the dead to life...the stories were incredible.
I doubt that the council would have been too concerned about
him, and in fact probably would have admired him, except for one
distressing incident. Just prior to the recent Passover, Jesus
and his cohorts came into the temple courts and ran riot. He did
not desecrate the altar or do permanent damage, but he upset some
very powerful people. He went into the Court of the Gentiles,
turned over the tables of the moneychangers who were there to
exchange the coin of the realm for temple scrip and wreaked havoc
with those men who were there selling animals for sacrifice. He
even made a whip of cords and drove the merchants into the
street, fleeing for their very lives. He claimed he did it
because they were turning "HIS FATHER'S HOUSE" into a den of
robbers. Now, I will admit that some of the prices charged for
those services tend to be exorbitant, but was that any call to do
what he did? Whether he knew it or not, these merchants were
there by the express permission of the High Priest, and indeed,
some of them were the High Priest's relatives. No wonder the
council was concerned.
To be sure, some of my brethren were more than a little
distressed. They went to Jesus to demand by what authority he
had done such a thing. But the answer they came back with was
very unclear. They knew of his miracles and wonderful works and
they asked that he do one for them right then to attest that what
he was doing there in the temple was legitimate. He replied,
"Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days."
What? That made no sense. It had taken forty-six years to
construct this temple; how could he say that he could REconstruct
it in three days? At any rate, everyone was confused.
I will admit that I was not so confused about Jesus'
clearing out the merchants from the temple; it is something that
should have been done long ago. What confused me was that
reference to MY FATHER'S HOUSE. Devout Jews do not refer to God
that way. We might say GOD OF OUR FATHERS, or OUR GOD, but
certainly not My Father. It caused me to wonder about this
Jesus, to wonder whether or not there WAS a special relationship
he had to Yahweh, one that was different from the rest of us.
Who IS this Jesus?
So, last night, I took it upon myself to find out. I had
not been authorized by the Sanhedrin to do so, but my position
among them did not demand that - I was well respected. To be
honest, I did not go to Jesus simply as a member of the council;
I was interested in him myself.
I chose the evening hour to approach him because his days
were so filled with his disciples and the crowds. At any rate,
since childhood the Rabbis had taught me that the best learning
comes at night. Our minds are more receptive with the hustle and
bustle of the day out of the way. Besides, it is cooler.
We sat together in the garden of the home where he was
staying. The gentle breeze provided just the faint rustle of
leaves in the trees; the moon was bright, having only recently
begun to lose its Passover fullness; the stars twinkled in the
clear desert sky. We talked softly as was befitting the
atmosphere.
I was very open with him. I said, "Rabbi, we know you are a
teacher come from God, for no one could do the miraculous things
you do if God were not with him. Share with me, if you will, the
message God has sent you to bring." And he responded with
something which, at first, sounded very strange: he said, "I tell
you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God without being
born again."
BORN AGAIN? I understood what he meant because within our
Jewish tradition, we employed the same kind of imagery when
dealing with some of those who became converts to Judaism. Even
some of the pagan religions who baptized their new believers in
pits letting the blood of bulls wash down over them talked that
same way and called their initiates "reborn for all eternity." I
knew that the prophets of old had told our nation of the
necessity for a NEW HEART among us which was essentially the same
thing. What I found incredible was not the THOUGHT but the
POSSIBILITY. All my experience had shown me that, despite people
talking about becoming NEW again, in ANY sense of the word, all
it was was just that: TALK. So I wanted to press Jesus.
I confess to a certain level of disingenuousness in my
response to him. I made it sound as if I understood him to be
crudely literal in this idea of new birth. I asked, "How can
anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second
time into the mother's womb and be born?" But he moved right on.
He answered, "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being
born of the water of his mother's womb AND the Spirit of the
heavenly Father. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit
gives birth to spirit. Do not be surprised at my statement about
being BORN AGAIN. It IS possible...difficult to understand
perhaps, but entirely possible. After all, the WIND is difficult
to understand too: it blows wherever it pleases, you hear its
sound, but you cannot tell where it came from nor where it is
going. It is the same with the Spirit of God acting on people's
hearts - you cannot analyze it, you can only see its effects."
Jesus was beginning to make sense to me.
I wanted more. I asked, "How can this be?" And he
responded by saying that it would only happen by trust. Faith.
In HIM. He recalled the incident when our ancestors' lives were
saved from the scourge of poisonous snakes and said, "Just as
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of
Man be lifted up that whoever believes in him may have eternal
life." The Son of Man lifted up? What could that mean?
I wish I could say that the light came breaking through to
me there in that garden, that suddenly all my questions were
answered...but they were not. We bid each other SHALOM and I
left him last night with him probably having no idea of whether I
had understood him or not.
But I did understand, for the most part. And that is why I
say I now know the truth of that old axiom, "There is no fool
like an old fool." Because your brother Nicodemus has been an
old fool for not taking seriously the power of the Spirit of the
Living God to work miracles of change within the hearts of those
who would truly be God's children. There is something profound
and wondrous about this Jesus, and I suspect that, as time goes
on, more and more people will come to know how special he is.
By the time I reached my home last night, my heart was
pounding, my breathing was quickened - I realized that the Spirit
of God was working within me, changing me, making me as if I had
been BORN AGAIN, to use Jesus' phrase. As I stood in the grassy
courtyard of my home, I looked up toward the stars, stretched my
arms to the heavens, and prayed, "God of my Fathers, give me that
new life. This old fool does not want to BE a fool anymore."
Can you make that same prayer...in the name of Jesus?
Amen!
click and send us mail