Blind and Lame (John 5, John 9)

Two of Jesus' miraculous signs, the healing of the lame man in John 5 and the healing of the blind man in John 9, come into sharper focus when we place them next to each other. The set of remarkable similarities and striking differences between the two scenes suggests that John wants us to flip back and forth between these pages. Let's start with the similarities. Both:

Have had many years of suffering

Are singled out by Jesus for healing

Are healed in association with a pool in Jerusalem

Are healed on the Sabbath, resulting in controversy

Talk to the Pharisees about the healing

Are sought out by Jesus after the healing

Healings result in a discourse by Jesus about his identity (John 5:17-47, 9:35-10:30)

But there are some significant differences as well:

The lame man hopes to be healed at a well-known healing pool (Bethzatha), but Jesus heals him by declaration; the blind man is sent for healing to a pool not known for healing (Siloam). Siloam was known as the source of the water used in the water ceremony at the Feast of Tabernacles. This is the same ceremony at which Jesus had declared himself to be the source of living water (John 7:37-39). In one healing, Jesus rejects a superstitious (or at least manipulative) method of healing; in the second, Jesus reminds us that he is the source of living water.

When the lame man talks to the Pharisees, John subtly portrays it as a betrayal by a spiritually dim man. When the blind man talks to the Pharisees, John portrays it as an act of belief, courage and even cleverness. Jesus has no reason to be at the trial, because the blind man capably uses all the sorts of arguments that Jesus would use to prove that Jesus must be from God.

When Jesus seeks out the lame man, he warns him about his sin (John 5:14). But when Jesus seeks out the blind man, he reveals his identity as the Son of Man, (John 9:35-39); he defends the blind man as one who truly sees (John 9:39-41); and even hints that the blind man is one of his true sheep, who hears the voice of the Shepherd (John 10:4-5, 27).

Jesus' warning to the lame man, "Don't sin any more, so that nothing worse may happen to you," affirms his agreement with the Jewish belief that some suffering results from sin. But when Jesus sees the blind man, he reveals something new: "Neither this man nor his father sinned; he was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him" (John 9:3). Jesus reminds us that suffering is not necessarily because of something but for something.

Both healing scenes are an opportunity for John to reveal something about Jesus. In John 5, Jesus teaches that he can give life to whomever he wishes (as he picked out the lame man) - both now and on the last day. In John 9-10, Jesus is revealed as the source of light and the good shepherd, in contrast to the leaders of Jerusalem.

The sharpest contrast between the two scenes is about discipleship. The lame man is uncertain if he wants healing, has no recognition of who heals him, and informs the Pharisees as soon as he knows who broke the Sabbath by healing him. There is no evidence that he believes or comes closer to belief. In contrast, the blind man begins the scene as an innocent man. At Jesus' command, he leaves his begging post and walks across town to Siloam (surely an act of faith for a blind man). Before he ever sees Jesus, he testifies in defense of Jesus, refuses to back down, is labelled a disciple of Jesus by Jesus' enemies, and suffers rejection. When he learns more about Jesus, he believes even more, and worships Jesus (John 9:38).

The picture: Healing of the Blind Man, by Duccio di Buoninsegna, ca. 1308.

The Rolling Stone

Question: How do we know the stone [on Jesus’ tomb] was too heavy for anyone to roll away? How did they get it there in the first place? (posted by Anonymous, 4-13-09)

Many tombs in first-century Israel were blocked by a stone, either square or round. Rolling stone tombs have a large disk-shaped rock door that rolls in a stone slot, usually sloped downward. Rolling stones recovered by archeologists are 4-6 feet across and a foot thick, and weighed a ton or more (my calculation, but seems to match the estimates given by others). They were thus very hard to open, but easy to close. Presumably several men would roll the stone up the slot and wedge it in place when the tomb was needed, and then it could be easily closed by removing the wedge. Such tombs were designed to hold entire families, so they needed to be reopened occasionally. In between openings, they were often sealed with clay, although Jesus’ tomb probably had not yet been sealed in this fashion. Rolling stone tombs were mainly used by wealthy families, matching the gospels’ account that Jesus was placed in tomb space donated by Sanhedrin member Joseph of Arimathea.

Matthew and Mark record that the stone was too big for the three women to move (see Mark 16:1-5) and that it was "very large." One later Christian document says that twenty men were needed to roll away the stone, but this is probably exaggeration.

Why does the weight of the stone matter? In the past few centuries, skeptics have claimed that Jesus was not really dead (also an unlikely claim), and that he awoke in the tomb and rolled away the stone. Others have claimed that the women stole the body. The size of the stone makes both claims historically unlikely.

If you watch these video clips of resurrection expert William Lane Craig, you can hear why such conspiracy theories are not accepted by reputable historians. Even more important, Craig correctly points out that almost all Jesus scholars, whether they are Christians or not, agree that Jesus really died, that his tomb was found empty, and that the disciples had some experience that convinced them that Jesus was alive.

Nerd note on the weight of the stone: Archeological records list rolling stone size as radius 0.7-0.8 m and width 0.3-0.4 m. That produces a volume of about 0.5 cubic meters (pi*r^2 *w). Workable stone such as granite weighs about 2500 kg (5500 lbs) per cubic meter, giving a weight of at least 2750 lbs.

The picture: Another rolling stone tomb outside Jerusalem. Jesus' tomb was covered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre centuries ago, and the opening was destroyed.

Roman Soldiers at the Tomb

Question: How do we know Roman guards were posted at [Jesus’] tomb? Why would the Romans put guards there? (from Anonymous, posted 4-13-09)

This is an important question, since it serves as part of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. First, let me highly recommend a series of video clips from one of the best experts on the resurrection of Jesus, William Lane Craig. If you want the short version, just look at this clip, but I encourage you to watch the whole playlist (I tried to post one of the clips on this blog, but Blogger does not support their format).

How do we know that Roman guards were posted at the tomb? First, because Matthew records it (see Matt 27:62-66, 28:11-15). The chief priests had heard at least one claim that Jesus would rise from the dead, so they asked Pilate to post a Roman guard contingent to prevent the disciples from tampering with the evidence. Although some people might discount Matthew's testimony, it is important to remember that most historical facts are based on single documents, often not even based on eyewitness. In this case, Matthew is a document based on eyewitness accounts written within 30 to 40 years of the event; and both Matthew and Luke reveal evidence that they relied on documents even closer to the date of the resurrection.

Second, Matthew's claim is historically plausible. Some of the biggest political problems in first-century Israel were violent uprisings backed by messianic claims (at least eleven occasions from AD 6-140). The chief priests and the Roman governor had to quell these movements quickly to avoid civil disorder or open war (see John 11:47-53). On one occasion, Pilate sent cavalry to attack a Samaritan messiah-figure and his followers who were trying to dig up their lost temple artifacts. This event proves that the Roman government would use force to deal with religious beliefs.

The Roman government in Judea was on alert every Passover because of political and religious tensions - after all, Passover celebrated God’s rescue of Israel from Gentile oppressors. Every Passover, the Roman governor left the Roman regional capital in Caesarea Maritima and brought a cohort of soldiers to Jerusalem to deal with potential problems.

By this period in Pilate's career, he also had to try to placate the Jewish authorities. Jewish leaders had complained to the emperor about Pilate, and the emperor had warned Pilate that he would be removed if there were further incidents. So it makes sense that Pilate would accede to the request of the chief priests to guard the tomb.

The picture: The Resurrection, from a Chinese Bible from the 1800s. Note the soldiers with Chinese weapons and the seal on the tomb door.

The Good Shepherd (John 10)

I find this passage to be one of the most fascinating in John. It's difficult for me to write a short blog post on John 10, since I wrote a lengthy chapter on it several years ago! But I'll try to pick out just a few of the significant gems in the passage.

1) Jesus starts this sermon angry at abusive leadership. In John 9, Jesus heals a blind man on the Sabbath. The leadership of Jerusalem (Pharisees and priests) ought to respond by thanking God and helping the blind man start a new life. Instead, they insult him and expel him from the synagogue since he insists that his healer must be from God. John 9:35-41 is a pivot passage - it wraps up the conflict of John 9, but also begins Jesus' denunciation of the Pharisees and Temple leadership. John 10 is thus both a defense of Jesus' status as the true leader of Israel and an attack on the abusive leadership of Jerusalem.

2) It's common for Christians to quote John 10:10, "The thief comes only to kill and steal and destroy" as a reference to Satan. However, all the "bad guys" in this chapter are the leaders of Jerusalem, not Satan. NT scholar Craig Evans points out that in other Jewish literature of this period, "thief" was a common term used for the priestly leadership of Jerusalem.

3) In John 10:1-9, a number of distinctive phrases are intended to remind the reader of Numbers 27:15-23, the appointment of Joshua. These similarities are even more obvious when you read them in Greek. in Num 27, Joshua is appointed as the next shepherd of the nation. His appointment is affirmed by Moses and by the high priest before all the people of Israel. By referring to this passage, Jesus compares himself to Joshua (who has the same name as Jesus, after all), and suggests that the priests and Pharisees of his time should also affirm Jesus' leadership.

4) In John 10:8-16, a number of distinctive phrases are intended to remind the reader of God's condemnation of the leaders of Israel in Ezekiel 34. In Ezek 34, God is the good shepherd, and all the other leaders of Israel are described as bad hired shepherds who steal, kill, and scatter the sheep. Ezekiel 34 also talks about God's appointment of "David" as a good shepherd. Jesus' use of this passage from Ezek 34 shows that he was claiming the status of both good shepherds from Ezek 34 - David and God.

Like most other scenes in John, this passage reveals Jesus as the source of life to those who believe. This passage also contains a warning: the Temple leadership (both political and spiritual) of Jesus' day cannot provide life, but in fact steals life. As John most likely wrote after the destruction of the Temple, he intended this to be a timeless warning: no other leader can provide genuine life as Jesus can.

New Podcast

I have a new sermon podcasted in the "Eutychus' Podcasts" section in the right column of this blog. I preached on Exodus 34 / 2 Corinthians 3 on Feb 15, 2009 at Hope Chapel West Oahu. DJ Garces and I worked on the sermon outline together; if you would like to hear his sermon, it is posted here along with other HCWO sermons.

Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3)

Confrontation/Replacement/Fullfillment: In most scenes in John 1-12, Jesus confronts, replaces or fulfills some significant element of first-century Judaism. Here, Jesus faces Nicodemus, "the teacher of Israel" (3:10). Jesus is greater than this great teacher - Nicodemus cannot even really understand what Jesus is talking about.

Flashbacks: Misunderstanding, Life, Revelation

Misunderstanding: In John 1, "the darkness did not understand the light." In John 3, Nicodemus arrives at night, and misunderstands Jesus. When Jesus says "You must be born from above/again [anothen]," Nicodemus takes the second possible meaning, being born again, rather than the first meaning, being born from above. Further, he (perhapes jokingly) takes Jesus very literally rather than figuratively. Jesus intends to talk about birth from above, birth by the Spirit, but Nicodemus cannot get away from human birth. Human ancestry was crucial to Judaism, but Jesus says that divine birth is necessary to enter the kingdom of God.

There is a second element of misunderstanding in this passage. Jesus says that all those born from the Spirit become like the Spirit: no one understands their origin (birth from above) or their destiny (eternal life). This is like Jesus - throughout the Gospel, people fail to recognize Jesus' origin and destiny in heaven.

Life. Jesus talks about the new life that comes by birth from above, birth from the Spirit. He also describes the eternal life that will come to all who believe in the lifted-up Son of Man.

Revelation: Ch. 1 describes the Son as the only one who can reveal the Father. In ch. 3, Jesus is the only one to ascend and descend from Heaven , and the only one who can reveal "earthly" and "heavenly" truths.

Foreshadowing: Jesus compares his future "lifting up" on the cross to the lifting up of the serpent in Deuteronomy. The sin of Israel in the wilderness resulted in judgment through poisonous snakes. Ironically, healing came through looking at a bronze snake lifted up on a pole. Jesus likewise offers an ironic salvation: eternal life will come to those who look on and believe in one who dies an accursed death. Looking at the bronze serpent and looking at the lifted Son are both acts of faith: one must believe that God will give life through them.

Symbolism:

Dark/light: John may be drawing our attention to Nicodemus' arrival at night, in contrast to Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman at midday.

Spirit: In Greek, pneuma means both spirit and wind, so 3:8 can be read as "The wind/Spirit blows where it/he wishes, and you hear its/his sound/voice, but you do not know where..."

"Born of water and Spirit" is a very difficult phrase; Christians throughout the centuries have had a variety of interpretations. However, water is commonly symbolic of the Spirit in John (see esp. John 7:37-39). Many John scholars today think that Jesus meant something like "born of water, even the Spirit."

Big idea: Jesus is greater than the great rabbis of Israel. He teaches Nicodemus that the primary requirement for entry into the Kingdom is birth from above, by the Father and the Spirit. That birth is granted to those who believe in the lifted-up Son.

The picture: Nicodemus, in Christenliche Ausslegung der Euangelienn by Johann Eck, 1530. Note that Nicodemus is wearing the appropriate clothing for a late medieval scholar, and that Jesus has a cool Trinitarian halo.

Nicodemus vs. the Samaritan Woman (John 3, John 4)

Nicodemus	Samaritan Woman
He is well-known	She is anonymous
He scrupulously keeps purity laws	She is permanently unclean
He is a religious leader	She is a religious outsider (even among Samaritans)
He is a great teacher of truth	She believes Samaritan heresies
He is a high government official	She has no power
He is morally respectable	She is morally suspect
He seeks out Jesus at night	Jesus seeks her out at noon
He knows that Jesus is a teacher from God	She knows that Jesus is a Jewish man
Jesus does not fully reveal himself to him	Jesus teaches her clearly that he is the Messiah
He does not understand the living water	She asks Jesus for the living water
He leaves lacking understanding	She leaves knowing who Jesus is
He hides his belief	She tells her whole town about Jesus

Notes:
Some rabbis believed that all Samaritan women were permanently unclean.
Jews viewed Samaritans as heretics: Samaritans only believed in the Pentateuch, which they had altered that to fit their beliefs, and Samaritans believed the correct temple was on top of Mt. Gerizim. There was also a history of violence between Jews and Samaritans.
Samaritans were probably not "half-breeds"; this view comes from assuming that the residents of Samaria mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah are the same residents of Samaria mentioned in the Gospels. However, they are probably not the same people. First-century Samaritans are probably a sect of Judaism, which is how they regarded themselves.

Here are some more posts on Nicodemus; here are some more on the Samaritan woman; and here are all my posts on the Gospel of John.

Six-Word Love Story

Calculation became giddiness, adventure, then comfort.

(See this article on six-word love stories.)

Good Questions

What sort of person am I becoming?

What is the state of my soul?

Synergistic Lemons

"The synergistic action of the botanical lemon complex serves as a protective barrier against atmospheric pollutants." The scary thing is, I have memorized this phrase. Every morning, when I take a shower, my wife's conditioner is right in front of my face, and the advertising blurb on the back always jumps out at me. And since I am only half awake, my brain always goes through the same questions. What are the lemons synergizing with? The only lemons I have ever seen on trees don't seem to be active enough to get any synergy. Maybe it's the lemon juice that is synergizing?

I'm glad to hear that they are using a botanical lemon complex. Heaven forbid if they were to use any non-botanical lemons. I bet that other shampoo companies and lemonade companies use those terrible non-botanical lemons. Are they cyborg lemons? Wait - maybe I'm misunderstanding those brilliant shampoo technical writers (is that a career?). Maybe they mean that their lemons were grown in a botanical park, like Foster Botanical Gardens in Honolulu. Everyone else's lemons come from pathetic lemon orchards.

And why is it a lemon complex? Is this like the military-industrial complex that Truman (or was it Eisenhower) warned us about? Should I be concerned about an arms race in my wife's hair? Or are we talking about a Freudian complex, in which case I should have more serious concerns about my wife's hair?

I'm glad to hear that the shampoo makers have finally found a way to protect us from pollution. This conditioner, I'm sure, will protect your hair from carbon monoxide, chlorofluorocarbons, asbestos fibers, sulfur emissions, dioxin, and bad breath. And because those shampoo makers are so careful, I am sure that they have thoroughly tested their claims using rigorous laboratory experiments (but they didn't test them on animals, I am happy to see on the label).

Clearly, the shampoo makers are on to a solution to global warming and that nasty hole in the ozone layer. All we have to do is smear a thick layer of my wife's hair conditioner over everything on earth, and then we won't need to worry about how much we pollute. The only problem is that my wife's conditioner bottle is getting low, and I don't know if Costco is still carrying this brand.

One final shampoo thought, and then I am done with my rant. If I ever start a shampoo company, it will have no lemon complex, botanical or otherwise. More importantly, it will be called "oodways shampoo." If you turn the bottle upside down, it will still read "oodways shampoo," if you're using a font where the y looks like an upside-down h. Go ahead, turn your screen upside down to test it. Don't tell me you're not impressed.