John 5: testimony weightier than that of John
Eigenheim Church - Photo by Maryvel Friesen - thanks, Maryvel |
John 5: Jesus vs. the "Jewish leaders."
Now here's a story that should bring a chuckle. Near the
pool of Bethesda lies a paralytic on a mat, hoping someone will help him into
the healing waters of the pool. Jesus walks by, sees him and heals his
paralysis. The man gets up and walks away. He's spotted by some elders/rabbis/pharisees—John
doesn't make their identity clear—who charge the man with breaking Sabbath
law . . . by carrying his mat.
The oddities of other people's beliefs was in the news
lately when Stephen Harper defended the refusal by a citizenship court to allow
a woman wearing a Niqab to take the oath. Some dozen years ago, we were all
bent out of shape here in Canada because a man of the Sikh religion wanted to
wear a turban AND be a Mountie. I imagine there are people who find the
Christian choice of a cross as its symbol somewhat odd, or the importance they
place on Jesus' mother conceiving while a virgin.
Carrying a mat on the Sabbath strikes me as pretty odd
and counter-intuitive, especially given the circumstance of the healing of the
paralytic.
We sometimes note discrepancies in the scriptural message
when we read it as one book. Jesus' admonition to the healed paralytic to
"Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you"
seems to tie physical health to holy living. Yet in John 9, we read: "As
he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who
sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this
man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the
works of God might be displayed in him." These were two different men, of
course, and two different situations but together they create an ambivalence
about the relationship between sin and health.
We know, of course, that illnesses strike the general
population almost indiscriminately, pious and "sinner" alike, but we
also know that life style choices affect health, so the connection can't be
dismissed either.
It's little surprise that the temple leadership would
take exception to Jesus' healing on the Sabbath, even more so that he should
claim to be the Son of God. The remainder of John 5 is Jesus' defense of his
authority over matters including the Sabbath by virtue of his kinship with the
Father, the same Father under whose direction they believe themselves to be
acting. The conflict lines are clearly drawn. At the core of his defense are
two "proofs:" the works he is doing and has done, and the testimony
of the prophets who promised his coming.
"I have
testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given
me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me.
37 And the Father who
sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor
seen his form, 38 nor
does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think
that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify
about me, 40 yet
you refuse to come to me to have life."
Clearly, there is a call to awakening in
John's account, a call to replace religion
with spiritual renewal. For the early church, I imagine, the reading of the Gospel
of John would help recall where they had come from and where their hopes lay in
this new Kingdom, a Kingdom in which the numbing legalism of the past is
vanquished and the spirit of a living faith takes its place. It's no longer a
regime of orthodoxy and legal repression that stultifies, it's a place where,
for instance, the restoration of a paralytic to life obviously takes precedence
over the carrying of a mat on the Sabbath.
But there's comfort in the arms of
orthodoxy. Many—the "Jewish leadership"
included, would reject the call to renewal and the awakening of a living faith.
Comments
Post a Comment