It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people
As I said above, my interest here is not in taking sides in the argument regarding drone strikes or targeted killings, but in opening up new avenues of thought – reminding us in this case that “one for many” arguments, pro and con, have been with us a long time.
And dare I suggest that the High Priest’s argument, together with the Evangelist’s skillful way of turning it on its head, offers us a stunning instance of how difficult it can be to reconcile qualitative with quantitative thinking — the interests of the one with those of the many? And perhaps too, that for an immortal deity (viewed now from within the faith perspective of Christianity) to make of himself a mortal sacrifice, could be an indicator of just how paradoxical that kind of difficulty really is?
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
joey:
March 12th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Looking at that example one can see that a presumed dangerous and self destructive rebellion was averted by the killing of Jesus. But that killing resulted in the entire roman empire being converted to Christianity (and of course for the latter demonizing of the Jews).