I hate to say it, but sometimes I
actually laugh at the Pharisees. I know we shouldn’t. The spiritual deception
they participated in and perpetuated was no laughing matter. But sometimes
they’re so over the top in the Gospels that they almost become caricatures of
themselves.
I mean, look at today’s reading. A man
had been blind from birth. He'd never seen a sunrise, or a beautiful woman’s
face, or a child’s smile. He'd been completely helpless, totally dependent on
the charity of others, a constant object of pity at best. And then Jesus came
along and healed him, and what’s their reaction? Praising God for the
incredible miracle (or “sign”) that they were witnessing? Rejoicing with the
man that he could live a productive life instead of being dependent like a
little child? Of course not!
The first words out of their mouth were “This man is not from God, for he does
not keep the Sabbath." Now, to be fair, not all the religious leaders were
like this. John’s pretty clear that there was stark division as to how to
react, and some of them were a lot more open to what God could do. The second
group was certainly correct in its basic theology: A man who wasn’t right with
God couldn’t accomplish things like this.
They then turned to the former blind
man and asked him who he thought Jesus was, indicating
their complete frustration and confusion. If you notice throughout this
passage, his opinion of Jesus improves: First he’s a “prophet,” then someone
who could attract disciples, then a “godly” man. If you read ahead in the
chapter, then you know that he eventually recognizes Jesus as the Messiah.
Then they bring in his parents, and
obviously his folks want nothing to do with all this. They give completely
evasive responses, only answering the bare minimum. They acknowledged that
their son had been born blind (this negating any theory that this was all an
elaborate hoax), then turn it totally back on their son.
In absolute frustration they returned
to interrogating the man and ask him again how Jesus had healed him. Their term
“Give glory to God,” was an official charge to tell the truth in a legal
setting. Of course this Man was a sinner! He didn’t fit into our exact mold of
how to follow the Law, so obviously he’s a con-man!
But the proof against their assertion
was standing right in front of them, and they couldn’t gainsay it. I love his
response; in effect he said “I don’t know all the answers to your questions,
and I don’t know all there is to know about this Man. But I do know that I woke
up this morning without my eyesight, and he healed me.” This is a great example
of witnessing, by the way. You might not be able to answer all the questions of
the skeptics, but they can’t disprove your experience and the testimony of what
he’s done for you.
So the Pharisees had a choice. They
could slightly adjust their tradition, or they could ignore all the evidence.
Naturally they chose option “B.” They “threw him out,” which probably means
that they excommunicated him. He'd no longer be welcome in their temple, and
all good Jews were supposed to avoid him from now on.
So how can we apply this? Does this
mean that all truth is “up for grabs,” and that experience trumps what we know
from Scripture? What if someone claims that their “experience” tells them
something that’s contrary to God’s word? Um, no. We must interpret our
experience by Scripture, not the other way around.
But is it possible that God might be
doing things outside of my narrow understanding? Of course it is. God’s word is
always true and never changes, but my interpretation of it is always subject to scrutiny.
When it comes to his truth, all of us are in the dark to some degree, and we
need to constantly be in prayer that his light will invade us, too.
Father, your ways are so much higher than my ways, and your
thoughts are so much higher than my thoughts. When you’re speaking to me,
especially you’re telling me to change course, please give me listening ears.
No comments:
Post a Comment