When people have decided they want nothing to do with Jesus, they search the spectrum of possible reasons, most of them pointing away from themselves and finding some fault in him to justify their rejection. In that regard, several have pinned the label ‘iconoclast’ on him, as one who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions. Certainly, the Jewish elite (yes, all male) in Jerusalem would have found that term à propos of Jesus. After all, their excessive pomposity, opulent lifestyle, vacuous worship, egotistical prayers, and, yes, elitism, were all in the crosshairs of Jesus’ attention. Centuries-old traditions, too, were found to be self-serving to the point of disobeying the Law of Moses they touted so proudly. Their marketplace dealings (stealings?) in the temple were scathingly called out, too. And if that weren’t enough reason to be eager to be rid of him, Jesus’ vast and rapidly growing popularity with the masses was another galling and unsettling trait. Why, every aspect of their societal importance was at risk of crumbling before their eyes! And his miracles! When would this onslaught end?
Without any trace of malice, Jesus pushed every envelope, blurred the lines of every acceptable behavior, and welcomed every wrong type of person to follow him. To the masses of common Jews, these were some of his most endearing traits, while to those in the ‘Holy City, they were anything but. To them, these reeked of heresy, of blasphemy.
I’m sure that when the news reached Jerusalem of the ‘Sychar Revival’ following a shockingly indecent exchange with a woman of questionable character, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Scribes, together, exploded with rage! Then, there was that healing on the Sabbath! And that Synagogue declaration that he, in the hearing of all present, was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy! The world had gone mad! This/he, had to be stopped!
I think if all we held dear, if not sacred, were suddenly questioned, rejected outright even, if all our ‘untouchable’ institutions were suddenly tampered with, we might react not unsimilarly. If some upstart arrived on the scene and began shaking things up, we’d at the least be alarmed and wondering where this was going. And we might be tempted to banter the moniker ‘iconoclast’ around a bit. But what if, like the Jewish leadership, our reactions were short-sighted? What if, like them, we just couldn’t see beyond our immediate discomfort? What if there was dire need for a level of change that would replace our same-old-same-old with a ‘gushing fountain of the Holy Spirit’? Would we choose violent opposition or humble, grateful submission to God’s Plan ‘A’? PD
