Unit 11 – The Transfiguration, Miracles, And Disciple Training

11.02.15 NICODEMUS COUNSELS CAUTION

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.15 NICODEMUS COUNSELS CAUTION

11.02.15 Jn. 7:40-53; 8:1 In the Temple

 

NICODEMUS COUNSELS CAUTION

 

40 When some from the crowd heard these words, they said, “This really is the Prophet!” 41 Others said, “This is the Messiah!” But some said, “Surely the Messiah doesn’t come from Galilee, does He? 42 Doesn’t the Scripture say that the Messiah comes from David’s offspring and from the town of Bethlehem, where David once lived?” 43 So a division occurred among the crowd because of Him. 44 Some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him.

45 Then the temple police came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why haven’t you brought Him?”

46 The police answered, “No man ever spoke like this!”

47 Then the Pharisees responded to them: “Are you fooled too? 48 Have any of the rulers or Pharisees believed in Him? 49 But this crowd, which doesn’t know the law, is accursed!”

50 Nicodemus — the one who came to Him previously, being one of them — said to them, 51 Our law doesn’t judge a man before it hears from him and knows what he’s doing, does it?”

52 “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you?” they replied. “Investigate and you will see that no prophet arises from Galilee.

[53 So each one went to his house…

 1 …but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.][1]

The common people continued to be divided on the identity of Jesus. The leading Pharisees did everything they could to discredit Him, including the charge that He healed with the use of demonic powers (Jn. 7:20). Unfortunately, many believed the lie (Jn. 7:31). It is an irony that the Roman soldiers and temple police, though hardened by their training and occupation, were touched by His words and kindness.  They acknowledged that they had never heard a man speak as He did.  Yet in comparison, the Sadducees and leading Pharisees were unaffected and they soon planned their next attack (Jn. 7:32).

In the meantime, Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin who refused to be under their manipulative control attempted to be a righteous and independent thinker. The difficulty was that his own popularity was so great that the only time he could see Jesus privately was to steal a few moments alone with Him at night. Some have judged Nicodemus for his lack of faith, when in fact, he was simply cautious.  He recognized a biased court and by the time Jesus was crucified, his perception had changed. He was not only a representative for justice and fairness, but a follower of Jesus as well.

Others were convinced that Jesus was sent by God and said, “This really is the Prophet.” Some translations read, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”  The title “prophet” was the highest honor anyone could bestow upon a Jew; an opinion held by many concerning Jesus. Yet from the early days of His ministry, some were still were debating who this He was.  Some said he was “the prophet” (Jn. 7:40; Deut. 18:15) while others said, “He is the Christ” (Jn. 7:41). And other said He was demonic.

“The temple police.”  Literally, the “temple guards.” They functioned as do modern police and were under direct command of the Sadducees. They were a para-military unit separate from the Roman soldiers stationed in the adjacent Antonio Fortress.

Our law doesn’t judge a man before it hears from him and knows what he’s doing, does it?” Nicodemus had previously met Jesus at night and now came forth in public with a bold legitimate legal objection. He did not defend Jesus, but rather, he raised a principle of law suggesting that he was aware of the illegality of the procedure that was in process.  This objection would be normal for a teacher to do. He was faithful to the Scripture to the point that he failed to recognize who Jesus was until after the resurrection.  The Mosaic Law required impartial judges (Duet. 1:16) and this issue was required to be thoroughly investigated (Ex. 23:1).   A person was considered innocent until the accused was heard, witnesses testified, and judgment was announced concerning his or her guilt (Deut. 17:8-9; 19:15-19). Most certainly, Nicodemus heard the rumors that some Pharisees were planning to kill Jesus. And he probably felt that in a legal court Jesus would be found to be completely innocent. His feelings remain unknown, but the final decision was not what he expected – he was a man of higher integrity and expected the court to be likewise, in spite of its shortcomings.  The reason he did not participate in the trial was probably because Caiaphas handpicked only “judges” who would endorse his plan for the crucifixion.

The Sadducees and leading Pharisees were so highly irritated with Jesus, that they said, “Investigate and you will see that no prophet arises from Galilee.”  It was ethnic sarcasm because Jerusalem was considered the center of Jewish culture and religion. Galilee, in their minds, was a backwater town where the people were ignorant and socially depraved. However, much of this sarcasm was based upon the fact that the Sanhedrin had its legal authority removed from this district previously by Herod the Great, so they nurtured hostile feelings against all Galileans.

This ethnic sarcasm revealed Jewish anti-Semitism that was common not only between geographical areas but also among the twenty-five to thirty sects that comprised first century Judaism.  At times unkind words became physical.  For example, the Babylonian Talmud recorded that the wife of a rabbi called an elderly rabbi a “Galilean fool,” which was both insulting and highly disrespectful to an older teacher.  She also kicked a student whom she believed was not giving full attention to his or her studies.[2]  With strong ethnic and regional feelings commonplace, the critical words spoken to Jesus were, in fact, relatively mild.

As to the accuracy of the phrase concerning no prophet coming from Galilee, the Pharisees were wrong because the prophets Elisha, Hosea, Jonah, and possibly Nahum were all from the Galilee area.[3] Barak the deliverer, Elon the judge, and Anna the prophetess, also came from Galilee. During the days of Jesus, a large number of rabbis likewise came from this district. However, their reference probably was not relative to these prophets, but for the fact that there were no rabbinic schools in Galilee.

Since Capernaum was the principal Jewish town of Galilee although Sepphoris, and later Tiberias was the capital. The fishing village had grown to a significant size due to the caravans that traveled along the Via Maris.  It became the center of commerce, education, and religious activity, which is probably why Jesus spent a considerable amount of time there.

 

[1]. John 7:53 – 8:11 is not found in some of the oldest manuscripts. For further information on the authenticity of this debated passage, see Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda – John 5:4.” 25-39.

 

[2]. Babylonian Talmud, Erubin 53b.

 

[3]. Tenney, The Gospel of John. 88.

 



11.02.16 WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.16 WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY

11.02.16 Jn. 8:2-11 At the Temple

 

WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY[1]

2 At dawn He went to the temple complex again, and all the people were coming to Him. He sat down and began to teach them.

3 Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center. 4 “Teacher,” they said to Him, “this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. 5 In the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?” 6 They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him.

Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. 7 When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.”

8 Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. 9 When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center. 10 When Jesus stood up, He said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, Lord,” she answered.

“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus. “Go, and from now on do not sin anymore.”

 

The Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman they claimed was an adulteress. The narrative implies that she probably spent the night with one of them as part of a premeditated plan of entrapment.  While it was the woman who was brought before Jesus, there is no mention of the man she was with – a situation that underscores to an attempt of entrapment.  Scholars believe those who brought her before Jesus most certainly were from the School of Hillel as Hillel and his disciples were extremely legalistic and conservative about marriage, adultery, and divorce issues. The School of Shammai, on the other hand, was considerably more liberal in this matter and effectively endorsed an ancient form of “no-fault divorce” (divorce for any reason).[2]

Ironically, the leading Pharisees never attempted to lure Jesus into breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Rather, they focused on their Oral Laws. In that legal context, this seemed to be the perfect trap.  If Jesus held to the Law of Moses, there would be two sets of negative consequences.

  1. Jesus would lose His reputation for compassion the public had seen for the past three years.
  1. Since the authority to impose capital punishment had been removed from the Sanhedrin, except for unauthorized entry into the inner temple, only Rome could condemn the woman to death. Jesus would therefore, be in collision with the Roman authorities.

 

Concerning the consequences of whatever Jesus would say, these were the possibilities,

  1. If Jesus had said that the Mosaic Law needed to be observed and, therefore, the woman had to be condemned to death by stoning, He would be going against the Emperor as only he or his agent could condemn one to capital punishment.
  1. If Jesus did not condemn her to death, He would be breaking the Law of Moses, and thereby, could not possibly be a righteous man.

 

It seemed like the perfect trap. So they came to Jesus “at dawn.” This was hardly the time to catch anyone in adultery and enhances the appearance of trickery.  They came to Him because they found “a woman caught in adultery.”  The word adultery, Greek moicheia, is defined as one having sexual relations with another person who is married, for which the Mosaic Law clearly states that both are partners are to be put to death (Num. 5:11-31). Obviously this is a serious matter in the eyes of God. Yet according to Jewish tradition, adultery was far more serious than prostitution or fornication (Gk. porneia).[3]  See Professor Gary Byer’s comments on the video titled The Nicanor Gate of the Temple, at 04.04.04.V where he refers to this event.

In the first century Jewish rabbis differentiated between two types of adulterous women – the married woman and engaged virgin. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 50a, the punishments were as follows:

  1. The adulterous married woman was sentenced to death by hanging
  1. The adulterous betrothed virgin was sentenced to death by stoning

 

Since the woman who was brought before Jesus was to be stoned, she evidently was a betrothed virgin and not a married woman.[4]  It should be noted that the betrothed virgin was considered to be a “married woman” and, therefore, her act was not technically considered to be fornication.  Furthermore, divorce had become the popular solution for an unfaithful spouse rather than death by stoning. The Pharisees had presented Jesus with a theoretical argument which they themselves did not even follow. No wonder they did not stone her! This entire hypothetical situation was therefore, on their part, illegal and a most unconventional practice.  Their best schemes challenged Jesus because they were convinced there was no possibility that they could lose this argument.

11.02.16a

However, this is another case where history shows that the religious leaders did not always follow their own laws.  The Mishnah records that at one time the daughter of a priest was burned for being suspected of adultery and, again, there was no evidence of a trial.

It happened once that a priest’s daughter committed adultery and they encompassed her with bundles of branches and burnt her.

Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:2

 

Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger.”  One of the mysteries is the question of what He wrote.  This is the only instance in Scripture where there is any mention of Him writing, and it is in a situation of accusations.  The Greek word meaning “to write” is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. However, in Job 13:26 there is a powerful clue. The Greek word that is frequently used to write the phrase to write is graphein. However, Jesus was more explicit than that, He used the word katagraphein which includes the definition to write a record against someone. That is the same word used in the Septuagint translation of Job 13:26.[5]

  For You record (katagraphein) bitter accusations against me
and make me inherit the iniquities of my youth.

Job 13:26

 

Therefore, this writer believes that when the Pharisees came to Jesus to accuse the woman of adultery, Jesus kneeled down in the road dust.  He identified the sins of her accusers in a manner similar to that which the Old Testament accusers had done to Job.  Then Jesus stood up and said that anyone without sin should throw the first stone.  However, the Pharisees saw their sins written on the ground in public view, an embarrassment for all of them.

This interpretation would agree with the fact that the finger of Jesus, in essence the finger of God – that inscribed the Ten Commandments (Deut. 9:10), and cast out demons (Lk. 11:20) left a dynamic impact upon the accusers.  While the emphasis is often on the written statement, it should be on the finger of God. It was the divine finger that wrote the Law.[6]  Of the 613 laws Moses wrote and presented to his people, ten of them were written by the finger of God (Jesus) and confirmed by Him.[7]  However, there is another aspect to this passage.  The fact that Jesus referred to the finger of God also is reflective of the hardness of heart the Pharaoh had at the time of the Exodus.  In this passage, the Jewish leaders would have understood that Jesus was connecting the Pharaoh’s attitude with theirs.[8] Little wonder then, that they grew increasingly angry at Him.

One scholar suggested a Jewish tradition that, if a woman was suspected of being an adulteress, she had to be brought before a priest.  He would take some dust from the floor of the sanctuary and mix it with a little water and she had to drink some of it.  He also wrote in a book the curses that were placed upon her (see Num. 5:17, 23). After writing them, he tried to blot out the curses with the “bitter waters.” If the curses disappeared, meaning “blotted out,” she was free.  If not, she was guilty.[9]  However, how often these directives were implemented is unknown.[10]

Finally, writing in the dust of the temple floor was perfectly legal, because it leaves no lasting mark.[11]  The slightest breeze blows the dust away.  But in this case, the sins of the legalistic Pharisees remained.

The one without sin among you.” In the eyes of the Pharisees, a “sin” was an infraction of the ritual commands and the Oral Laws which required obedience and immersion in a mikvah.  To Jesus and John the Baptist, “sin” was broken faith with God which required repentance followed by obedience.[12]  This phrase is not relative to sin in general, as all have sinned.  If Jesus meant this to be a general comment, then it would be impossible for any human to judge when judgment is necessary.  Rather, it was obvious that this woman was not alone in her situation of adultery; somewhere in the crowd was the man she was with. The Greek phrase “the one without sin” is in reference to this same particular sin.  Furthermore, there were two or three witnesses present who were also involved in the set-up, so no legal charges could be brought against her.

These men certainly had the proverbial beam in their own eyes while they judged a woman who had a speck in her eye. Jesus was the only One who had the right to condemn her, and He gave her His compassion and told her to change her lifestyle. The statement of Jesus becomes more interesting and condemning when considering that the Greek word for without sin. which is anamartetos, could also mean without sinful desire.[13]  But when He wrote her sin in the dust, her sin of adultery disappeared because she had no charge held against her.

 Should be the first to throw a stone at her.” Punishment by stoning originated with Moses who said that there had to be two or three witnesses for a capital case (Deut. 17:6).  Furthermore, those witnesses were to be the first to throw the stones upon the condemned person (Deut. 13, 17).  There were three issues that complicated matters for the accusing Pharisees:

  1. Only the Sanhedrin could pass judgment in cases of capital punishment, although its authority to exercise that verdict was removed by the Romans.
  1. The Pharisees were barred from capital judgments. So the accusers could not have participated in the judicial system anyway.
  1. Moses also said that the witnesses could not be guilty of the same sin. Therefore, the leading Pharisees who intended to entrap Jesus were themselves trapped and found guilty. In cases of adultery, both the man and woman were to be executed (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24). They confessed their guilt when they walked away. They were so grossly humiliated that they never attempted to entrap Jesus again. This statement created one of the most amplified and dramatic moments of silence in Scripture.
  1. However, there is no record of a woman being stoned to death for committing adultery in this era.[14]

 

All civil and criminal punishments described in the Old Testament were administered by a court. The Torah provides for three modes of capital punishment:

  1. Stoning,[15]
  1. Burning at the stake (Lev. 20:14), and the most merciful,
  1. Death by the sword.[16]

 

The reference to a hanging in Deuteronomy 21:22 is worded in a manner that suggests that the person was deceased and the corpse was hung as a warning to the community.[17] This was a common practice in many ancient cultures and continues today in some Islamic nations. By the Inter-Testament Period, the Jewish leaders also used crucifixion. However, by the time of Jesus, the Romans forbade the Jews to exercise capital punishment except if a Gentile entered the sacred courts of the temple.

Does this response mean that there ought not to be a judicial system in society? Does it mean that every one of the Jews present was guilty of sin?  Hardly! There most certainly were reputable men in the audience who were His followers.  His focus was not on the abolition of justice but on the sin that is within all humanity, even in the hearts of reputable men.  One of the oldest manuscripts of this text has an addendum indicating that Jesus wrote in the dirt all the sins of those who were immediately close to Him. The manuscript reads that Jesus wrote the sin of each one of them. [18]  It is unknown if this was in fact the case.  However, it is what the early church believed to be true.

A key word in the statement by Jesus is the word “first.”  In the first century Jewish court system, when someone was accused of a capital crime punishable by stoning, the first witness threw the first stone to kill the criminal.  This made for very few false witnesses since they themselves were subject to capital punishment.[19] However, this was in theory only, as the practice of stoning by a judicial action had been abandoned. The Mishnah recorded the applicable Oral Law as follows:

When sentence (of stoning) has been passed they take him forth to stone him …. A herald goes before him (calling), “Such-a-one, the son of such-a-one, is going forth to be stoned for that he committed such or such an offence.  Such-a-one and such-a-one are witnesses against him.  If any man knowest aught in favor of his acquittal, let him come and plead it.” 

When he was about ten cubits (18 feet) from the place of stoning they used to say to him, “Make your confession,” for such is the way of them that have been condemned to death to make confession, for every one that makes his confession has a share in the world to come.

When he was four cubits from the place of stoning they stripped off his clothes.  A man is kept covered in the front and a woman both in front and back.

The place of stoning was twice the height of a man.  One of the witnesses knocked him down on his loins (by throwing a stone on him); if he turned over on his heart the witness turned him over again on his loins. If he straightway died that sufficed; but if not, the second (witness) took the stone and dropped it on his heart.  If he straightway died, that sufficed; but if not, he was stoned by all Israel….

Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6.1-4[20]

 

Jesus did not condemn those who desired to stone the woman, but presented the truth to them and the truth judged their sins.  Jesus did not condone sin but gave them opportunity to be repentant.  The truth rebuked the lies of the Pharisees.  Therefore, the Jews could not have legally stoned her under any circumstances. What an incredible hypocrisy on the part of the Pharisees!

“Women, where are they?”  These words appear harsh to modern ears, but in ancient times, these were words of endearment.[21]  Jesus called His mother “woman” as He was dying on the cross when He obviously demonstrated a great deal of compassion and forgiveness to those who crucified Him. He did not excuse her sin, but he did not condemn her either.  He simply told her not to sin in the future.

 

 11.02.16.Q1  Did Jesus forgive the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8:2-11)?

It has been said that Jesus forgave her. But did He? Scripture reads, “Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus. “Go, and from now on do not sin anymore.” But the text does not say that He forgave her, nor did she come to ask for forgiveness. That is why He just told her to change her lifestyle and not sin any more.  The implication obviously is that if she continues in her adulterous lifestyle, she will be held accountable for her past activities.  It has been said that in Jesus there is the gospel of the second chance. Throughout the Bible, forgiveness is conditional upon repentance which involves a change of mind and lifestyle. This is proof.

 

11.02.16.Q2 Why isn’t John 8:2-11 in some ancient manuscripts?

 That is a good question and, while the exact reason is unknown, there is a good answer.  Scholars believe the oldest manuscripts are considered to be the most valuable and date them between the fourth and sixth centuries.  They are known as Uncial Manuscripts because they were written with Greek capital letters. It is believed that this passage was removed from the biblical text because some church fathers believed it might excuse or even encourage some individuals to commit adultery. Augustine said that it was removed to “avoid scandal” and because some people in his church were of “slight faith.”[22]

Among the early church fathers, it appears that the Greek fathers did not know of the removed passage, but the Latin fathers did. Among those who did not comment on it are Origen, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Cyril of Alexandria. The John 8:2-11 narrative is not found in the Syriac or Egyptian Coptic Bibles. However, Jerome did include it in his Latin Vulgate Bible in the fourth century. Furthermore, Augustine and Ambrose both wrote of it and possibly the oldest tradition is found in a book known as The Apostolic Constitution. In this third century literary work, Eusebius referred to Papias who spoke of a woman who was accused of many sins before our Lord.[23] Papias lived near the end of the first century. Therefore, many scholars today believe the passage is an authentic segment of the gospel of John.

As with a number of other stories in the gospels, the ending to this event is missing.  The reader is not told of her name or the situation of the trickery that entrapped her. A thousand years later, in one of Europe’s monasteries, a so-called historical account appeared in which she is said to have been related to a priestly family.  Such fanciful and factious accounts draw the reader away from the basic truth revealed by Jesus who cautioned believers of deceptions in Mathew 24.[24]    

11.02.16b

 

[1].  John 7:53 – 8:11 is not found in some of the oldest manuscripts, but is found in an old edition of Luke. Textual Critics say that this passage does not fit John’s writing style. But, it seems to portray an authentic event in the life of Jesus. Early church fathers such as Augustine and Ambrose verified the passage, thereby presenting the obvious answer to the question. According to Burgon, this section was deliberately omitted from some texts because some church leaders feared the passage might promote immorality. See Burgon, The Causes of Corruption in the Traditional Text. 251-52, 259;and Trites, “The Woman Taken in Adultery.” 137-46. See also Fischer, The Gospels in Their Jewish Context. (Lecture on CD/MP3). Week 9, Session 2.

 

[2]. For related opinion on divorce issues, see Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.23.

[3]. Graystone, “Adultery.” 16-17.

 

[4]. See also Sadan, “Neither do I Condemn You; Go and Sin no More.” 14.

 

[5]. Barclay, “John.” 2:3; Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes. 229.

 

[6]. Ex. 31:18; 32:15-16; Deut. 4:13; 9:10.

 

[7]. Appendix 4.

 

[8]. Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom.” 171-73.

 

[9]. There is no record of a woman being stoned to death by court action for committing adultery in this era. Source: Fischer, The Gospels in Their Jewish Context. (Lecture on CD/MP3). Week 9, Session 2.

 

[10]. Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. 3:327-31.

 

[11]. Mishnah, Sabbath. 12:5; Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath, 104b.

 

[12]. Smith, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew. 51.   

 

[13]. Barclay, “John.” 2:4.

[14]. Fischer, The Gospels in Their Jewish Context. (Lecture on CD/MP3). Week 9, Session 2.

 

[15]. Deut. 17:7; 17:2-7; 13:1-5; 21:18-21; 22:22-23; Lev. 20:2-5; 20:27; 24:15-16; Num. 15:32-36. Capital punishment was always directed by a court and not by individuals. The death of Stephen in Acts 7:57-58 was by a rioting mob and not an act of judicial action.

 

[16]. Num. 35:19, 21; Deut. 13:15; Ex. 32:27.

 

[17]. Archer, “Crimes and Punishment.” 1:1035.

[18]. Macartney, Great Interviews of Jesus. 60-61.

 

[19]. Mishnah, Makkoth 1.5.

 

[20]. Parenthesis by Danby, ed., Mishnah.

 

[21]. Barclay, “John.” 1:98; Vine, “Woman.” Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary. 2:681.

 

[22]. Barclay, “John.” 2:290-91.

 

[23]. Barclay, “John.” 2:291.

 

[24]. One ancient legend is the story that the man with the withered right hand went on to build a palace for Emperor Nero that had a secret room for Christians. Still, another ancient “Christian myth” claims Pilate and his wife Procula became believers. Little wonder then, that Jesus and the Apostle Paul both cautioned believers to be aware of false teachers. Two modern writers who promote a variety of creative stories are: 1) Ron Charles, who has gathered scores of fanciful legends and myths, mostly written between the sixth and sixteenth centuries, that pertain to the life of Christ in his book titled, The Search: A Historian’s Search for Historical Jesus. (Self-Published, 2007); and 2) Nicholas Notovich, whose book,  The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ. Trans. (Virchand R. Gandhi, Dover Pub.) is a so-called historical account of when Jesus went to Asia to study between the ages 13 and 29.

 

 



11.02.17 LIGHT OF THE WORLD

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.17 LIGHT OF THE WORLD

11.02.17 Jn. 8:12-20 Jerusalem

 

LIGHT OF THE WORLD   

 

12 Then Jesus spoke to them again: I am the light of the world. Anyone who follows Me will never walk in the darkness but will have the light of life.”

13 So the Pharisees said to Him, “You are testifying about Yourself. Your testimony is not valid.”

14 Even if I testify about Myself,” Jesus replied,

My testimony is valid,

because I know where I came from

and where I’m going.

But you don’t know where I come from or

where I’m going.

15 You judge by human standards.

I judge no one.

16 And if I do judge,

My judgment is true,

because I am not alone,

but I and the Father who sent Me judge together.

17 Even in your law it is written that the witness of two men is valid. 18 I am the One who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me.”

19 Then they asked Him, “Where is Your Father?”

“You know neither Me nor My Father,” Jesus answered. “If you knew Me, you would also know My Father.” 20 He spoke these words by the treasury, while teaching in the temple complex. But no one seized Him, because His hour had not come.

 

As mentioned previously, in the temple were four huge golden menorahs that shone brightly.[1] The rabbis said that these lamps lit up the city of Jerusalem[2]  and represented the Shekinah Glory of God — God’s visible presence to Israel.[3]  It was there when Jesus and His disciples were in the temple courts that He said that He was the light of the world – a comment with profound meaning in that He said He was the Shekinah Glory of God.

“I am the light of the world.”[4]  This was a statement Jesus made about Himself, as it represents the following meanings:

  1. Jesus claimed that He is the Shekinah Glory – the visible presence to Israel. It was therefore, a claim to His deity. Previously, three disciples experienced the Transfiguration in which they saw the Shekinah Glory, and now Jesus confirmed it again, but within the cultural context.
  1. The phrase is a reference to the numerous Old Testament comments about God being “the Light.”[5] Jesus is that light, meaning that He brings understanding concerning God. The simple formula concerning light and darkness is this:

Light equals understanding,

which results in life

Darkness equals ignorance,

which results in death.[6]

 

The words of Jesus were specifically suited to the Feast of Tabernacles.  Note the recorded history in the Mishnah.

There were four golden menorahs with four golden bowls at the top of each, and four ladders each leading to a bowl.  Four strong young cohanim (priests) would climb up with pitchers each holding nine liters of oil which they would pour into the bowls. From worn-out drawers and girdles of the cohanim they made wicks, and with them lit the menorahs; and there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not lit up by the light of the Beit-HaSho’evah [festivals]. Pious men and men of good deeds would dance around [the menorahs] with lit torches in their hands, singing songs and praises, while the Levites played harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets, and innumerable other musical instruments.

 Mishnah, Sukkah 5:2-4

 

Every evening of the festival, as the sun was setting four gigantic menorahs in the Court of the Women were lit.[7]  These gilded candelabra were fifty cubits (75 ft.) high and their soft light shone throughout the temple courtyards and nearby Jerusalem. These were reminiscent of the pillar of fire that led the Israelites through the desert centuries earlier and were symbolic of the Shekinah Glory of God.  Now around these lighted monuments the people danced and sang for joy for what God had done in their lives.  The sounds of flutes and stringed instruments were everywhere.  The Levites led everyone in singing Psalms as even the priests and Pharisees joined the joyful procession that danced throughout the courtyards and encircled the menorahs.[8] But the Sadducees, the faithful antagonists of the Pharisees, mocked the celebrations.

Throughout Jewish and Christian history, darkness has always been associated with the ignorance of God, which leads to sin and death.  Light always referred to the knowledge of God and eternal life, and God is the only true source of light and understanding.  The light was in the temple, which at that time was considered the presence or dwelling place of God.  One of those menorahs was known as the Servant Lamp. Some scholars believe that Jesus referred to Himself as the light of the world when He stood by the Servant Lamp, meaning that He would not only bring knowledge of God but also salvation, joy, and happiness.

Ironically, one of the four menorahs known as the Servant Lamp refused to light after the crucifixion. For the next forty years, until the temple was destroyed, priests and Levites must have wondered why this menorah would not light or, if it was lit, why it didn’t remain lit. Many years later the Jews wrote in the Jerusalem Talmud an observation that, to them was a mystery.

Forty years before the destruction of the temple, the Servant Lamp refused to light.

            Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma 43:3

 

It was a continuing silent message of Jesus that He is the light of the world.  However, the worst was yet to come.  Because the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, the Romans would bring utter destruction upon their beloved temple.  Josephus recorded the account in which a menorah was taken to Rome.[9] Whether this was the Servant Lamp is unknown, but it clearly was the ancient symbol of God’s people being led into captivity once again (see 17.01.01.Q1).

11.02.17a

You are testifying about Yourself.” The Mosaic Law required two or three witnesses to validate truth (Deut. 17:6).  This was written for civil matters and the civil court (See Jn. 8:21-30 below). The same principle was applied to biblical interpretation.  So by the first century, the leading Pharisees had created their own rules and regulations, which they touted as truth because they created their own witnesses.

“My testimony is valid.”  When the New Testament writers used terms such as “testimony,”  “bore witness,” or “I have seen and testify,” these were statements of legal terminology.  Such legal statements were also common in both the Roman and Greek cultures whereby the author placed himself under an oath concerning the truthfulness of his conversation.[10]

Even if I testify about Myself.”  To exceed the compliance of Deuteronomy 17:6, Jesus offered several witnesses beginning with Himself.

  1. He knew who He was,
  1. His divine origin,
  1. His destination, and
  1. The purpose of His human life.
  1. His miracles were confirmed by His message to be from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

But His accusers were ignorant on all four points.

 

11.02.17.A. THE TEMPLE MENORAH ON THE ARCH OF TITUS (2)

11.02.17.A. THE TEMPLE MENORAH ON THE ARCH OF TITUS.  The victorious scene depicted on the Arch of Titus in Rome shows the temple menorah being carried to Rome. Some historians believe these artifacts are now in the Vatican. Obviously the artists who carved the menorah took artistic license, as the menorahs were much larger than could be depicted on the Arch. The Romans were so proud of their victory that the arch was built to commemorate it.  Also shown on the arch is a titulus.[11]

 

11.02.17.Q1 Why did Jesus present two witnesses (Jn. 8:12-20)?

Two witnesses was the legal standard to prove a matter in a court of law. And Jesus provided more than two witnesses, beginning with the prophets and John the Baptist. Hence the statement, “the witness of two men is valid.” The judicial system is based upon Deuteronomy 17:15 and 19:15, and was also a principle of law in neighboring cultures as well.[12] Furthermore, the Oral Law stated that a man was not to be believed if he was speaking about himself. Even the Greeks said that a person could not present evidence that would support self-interest.[13]

While this Mosaic Law pertained to civil matters, by the first century, the same principle was also applied to theological studies.  John recorded that Jesus was first qualified to bear witness to God’s plan (Jn. 8:14) and second, that the Father was with Him. Furthermore, Jesus knew from where He came and of His eternal future.

“By the treasury.” In the temple courtyard were thirteen chests, each with a trumpet-shaped opening called a Shopheroth.[14] Into these chests, people placed their offerings and it was where the leading Pharisees were known to announce their giving of gifts.[15] This treasury was in the Court of the Women, not because it was exclusively for them, but that was the limit to which they could go unless they came to offer a sacrifice.[16] The Court of the Women and the Court of the Gentiles were the two most public courts of the temple complex.

 

[1]. This menorah lamp has seven lamps. However, the menorah honoring the victory of the Maccabean revolt and rededication of the temple has nine lamps.

 

[2]. Fruchtenbaum, The Jewish Foundation of the Life of Messiah: Instructor’s Manual. Class 15, page 16.

 

[3]. Fruchtenbaum, The Jewish Foundation of the Life of Messiah: Instructor’s Manual. Class 15, page 16.

 

[4]. See related comments by Rabbi John Fischer in 10.01.28.V where he discusses two unique healing methods of blind men.

 

[5]. Ps. 27:1; Isa. 60:19; Job 29:3; Micah 7:8.

 

[6]. Barclay, Jesus. 265.

 

[7]. Barclay, Jesus. 266; There appears to be a difference among scholars as to whether there were two menorahs or four, and the height of them.

 

[8]. Farrar, Life of Christ. 267.

 

[9]. Josephus, Wars 7.5.5.

 

[10]. Bookman, When God Wore Sandals. CD Trac 5.

[11]. See 11.02.17 and 16.01.11A for additional information.

 

[12]. The Greeks and Romans and several ancient civilizations has similar laws as proven by the Code of Hammurabi and other ancient codes. See http://courses.cvcc.vccs.edu/history_mcgee/courses/his101/Source%20Documents/wc1d01.htm Retrieved January 28, 2015.

 

[13]. Barclay, “John.” 1:195.

 

[14]. Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. 1:222-24.

 

[15]. Farrar, Life of Christ. 267.

 

[16]. An example of a woman’s sacrifice was when Mary and Joseph offered two doves to be sacrificed after Jesus was born.

 



11.02.18 WARNING AGAINST UNBELIEF

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.18 WARNING AGAINST UNBELIEF

11.02.18 Jn. 8:21-30 Jerusalem

 

WARNING AGAINST UNBELIEF

 

21 Then He said to them again, “I’m going away; you will look for Me, and you will die in your sin. Where I’m going, you cannot come.”

22 So the Jews said again, “He won’t kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I’m going, you cannot come’ ?”

23 “You are from below,” He told them, “I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

25 Who are You?” they questioned.

“Precisely what I’ve been telling you from the very beginning,” Jesus told them. 26 “I have many things to say and to judge about you, but the One who sent Me is true, and what I have heard from Him — these things I tell the world.”

27 They did not know He was speaking to them about the Father. 28 So Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own. But just as the Father taught Me, I say these things. 29 The One who sent Me is with Me. He has not left Me alone, because I always do what pleases Him.”

30 As He was saying these things, many believed in Him.

     

He won’t kill Himself, will He?”  Clearly, they did not understand Jesus. They believed that those who committed suicide were destined to the darkest place in Hell. The only exceptions were those who committed suicide to escape the Roman sword in conflicts such as Gamala and Masada.[1]

“Who are you?”  This question had nothing to do with the personal identity of Jesus or His genealogy; those records were available for study in the temple.  Rather, the exasperated critics questioned the authority, status, and claim of Jesus to be the leader in the religious life of Israel.  The last thing they wanted to hear were the opinions of the crowds who referred to Jesus as the prophet (Jn. 7:40) or “the Christ” (Jn. 7:16, 18, 26, 29).

11.02.18a

 

[1]. Gilbrant, “John.” 233.



11.02.19 JESUS CONFRONTS THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS WITH SEVERE SARCASM

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.19 JESUS CONFRONTS THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS WITH SEVERE SARCASM

11.02.19 Jn. 8:31-47

 

JESUS CONFRONTS THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS WITH SEVERE SARCASM 

 

31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, you really are My disciples. 32 You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 We are descendants of Abraham,” they answered Him, “and we have never been enslaved to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will become free’?”

34 Jesus responded, “I assure you: Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 A slave  does not remain in the household forever, but a son does remain forever. 36 Therefore, if the Son sets you free, you really will be free. 37 I know you are descendants of Abraham, but you are trying to kill Me because My word is not welcome among you.   38 I speak what I have seen in the presence of the Father; therefore, you do what you have heard from your father.”

39 “Our father is Abraham!” they replied.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” Jesus told them, “you would do what Abraham did. 40 But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this! 41 You’re doing what your father does.”

We weren’t born of sexual immorality,” they said. “We have one Father — God.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, because I came from God and I am here. For I didn’t come on My own, but He sent Me. 43 Why don’t you understand what I say? Because you cannot listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Who among you can convict Me of sin? If I tell the truth, why don’t you believe Me?  47 The one who is from God listens to God’s words. This is why you don’t listen, because you are not from God.”

Jesus not only had a heated discussion about their relationship to the patriarch Abraham, but they saw Jesus placing Himself above Abraham (Jn. 8:53-54, 58).  To them this was an abomination. They believed that since they were descendants of Abraham, they were “God’s Chosen People” and, therefore, did not need the salvation that Jesus taught. Furthermore, Jesus identified their true characteristics and pointed out the following:

  1. Their spiritual father is the devil that has not only has blinded them, but they also chose to remain blind. For example, they believed that exorcism was possible only through the Spirit of God, yet they claimed Jesus performed exorcisms by the power of Satan – an obvious contradiction of their own belief system.[1]
  1. If they were true sons of God, they would have recognized Him as did John the Baptist (Jn. 8:41-44), but they didn’t recognize John either.
  1. He did not break a single law of Moses, so why were they trying to kill Him (Jn. 8:36)? Obviously their motives had nothing to do with the Mosaic Law.
  1. In John 8:58 Jesus finally revealed Himself with an “I am” statement, which caused an instant outrage.

 

“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  If there was anything the Jewish people cherished, it was freedom.  They had experienced slavery in the past and now were under political bondage. With the term freedom, came the thoughts of slavery[2] and how to avoid it in the future.

The large number of Hebraisms found in the gospels is clearly indicative that the gospel writers thought like typical Jews. Therefore, it becomes incumbent to examine the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek words.  For example, the word “truth” (Heb. emet; Gk. aletheia) has a broad band of meanings but the Hebrew includes the definition to have an understanding of the justice of God.  To know and live in truth would render one free from the wrath of God.  This is illustrated in many Old Testament references, such as Isaiah 42 and 61, but most prominently in Hosea 4:6 that reads, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”[3]  There the word “knowledge” means revelation knowledge that encompasses an understanding of the justice of God.  Truly, there is freedom in divine truth, as it places one in right relationship with God.

“We are descendants of Abraham … and we have never been enslaved to anyone.”  The leading Pharisees were so emotionally caught up in the heat of discussions that they forgot their history of slavery under the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Syrians, the torment of the Greek dictator Antiochus Epiphanes IV, and the economic slavery of the Romans.  In fact, their only good leader of recent centuries was Alexandra Salome, queen of Judea (reigned 76-67 B.C.). Their prideful arrogance led them to selective recollections or denials of their past. When Jesus responded, He did not mean any particular act of sin, but the definite article the refers to a life of sin.[4]

We weren’t born of sexual immorality.” Now the leading Pharisees were on the offensive, implying that Jesus was an illegitimate child.  This phrase was the severest sarcasm one could make. It meant not only that was Jesus born out of wedlock, but He also had no right to the Abrahamic Covenant.  Therefore, in their reasoning, how could any son born of sin live a righteous life and preach of righteousness?

This phrase is also a classic example of a Hebraic play on words.  It implied that the Jews were legitimate children of Abraham.  Because God had said that the Israelites were “His Chosen People,” they felt they had no need for repentance and they were exempt from any spiritual danger.[5] Only absolutely “pure” Israelites were assured of the messianic salvation – no “impure” blood from heathen nations would be accepted – they thought.[6] Obviously this was not the opinion of John the Baptist or Jesus.

You are of your father the Devil.”  Jesus never applied terms such as “children of the devil” to sinners and tax collectors, but He did apply them to the leading Pharisees and Sadducees.  They were so evil that Jesus referred to them as sons of Satan (and so did John the Baptist in Matthew 3:7).  The reason Jesus said this was that they had become hardened against the will of God. The reason the church skewed the passage may have been for anti-Semitic reasons.[7]

During the time of Christ, on the other hand, the School of Shammai was influential in the Jerusalem synagogues and the Sanhedrin.  The two schools of biblical interpretation (Hillel and Shammai) had become immensely polarized and the Talmud essentially said that the “Torah had become two Torahs.”[8]  Some sages said that, “Whoever observed the teachings of the School of Shammai deserved death.”[9]  For example, the first century sage Dosa ben Harkinas highly criticized his brother Jonathan for a decision he made with this school concerning a levirate marriage, and for this called him “the first-born of Satan.”[10]  Essentially, the followers and disciples of the School of Shammai were accused of being the descendants or “followers of the devil.”[11]  These powerful words of Jesus appear to be out of character, but in cultural context, they were properly placed and understood in public opinion.

11.02.02a

Jesus had His greatest opposition with the School of Shammai, although the School of Hillel also came under His scrutiny.  In later years, it was from a descendant of Hillel, that his grandson Gamaliel who was the teacher of the Apostle Paul.

Who among you can convict Me of sin?”  This simple question left His critics without an answer. How they wished they could prove Him guilty of anything in the Mosaic Law, but they could not.  Had their search for any evidence have been successful, they would most certainly have broadcasted it far and wide.  For more than three years the religious scribes, leading Pharisees, and Sadducees had been watching His every move in great dismay.

 

[1]. Fruchtenbaum, The Jewish Foundation of the Life of Messiah: Instructor’s Manual. Class 16, page 16.

 

[2]. Because the Jews experienced slavery, thankfulness was one the tenth of their Eighteen Benedictions.  Since Jesus lived in a Jewish “honor culture,” for a Jew to unjustly call another Jew “a slave,” could subject him to excommunication from the synagogue. See Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ. 2:304.

 

[3]. Blizzard III, “Be Free” Yavo Digest 1:4, 15-17.

 

[4]. See 1 Jn. 2:29; 3:4-8; Jn. 3:21.

 

[5]. See Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14, 19; 22:15-18.

 

[6]. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. 301-02.

 

[7]. It is a shameful history, but so-called Christians took this passage, as well as those in Revelation 2:9, 13 and 3:19, where synagogues are referred to as Synagogues of Satan, and church leaders called all Jews, “sons of Satan.” These passages were taken grossly out of context and used for a wide variety of anti-Semitic activities for which the corporate body of the church needs to repent.

 

[8]. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 88b; Falk, Jesus the Pharisee. 48, 114.

 

[9]. Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 11a; Falk, Jesus the Pharisee. 117.

 

[10]. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 16a.

 

[11]. Falk, Jesus the Pharisee. 118-19.



11.02.20 JESUS DECLARES HIS ETERNAL EXISTENCE

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.20 JESUS DECLARES HIS ETERNAL EXISTENCE

11.02.20 Jn. 8:48-59

 

JESUS DECLARES HIS ETERNAL EXISTENCE

 

48 The Jews responded to Him, “Aren’t we right in saying that You’re a Samaritan and have a demon?”

49 “I do not have a demon,” Jesus answered. “On the contrary, I honor My Father and you dishonor Me. 50 I do not seek My glory; the One who seeks it also judges. 51 I assure you: If anyone keeps My word, he will never see death — ever!”

52 Then the Jews said, “Now we know You have a demon. Abraham died and so did the prophets. You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste death — ever!’  53 Are You greater than our father Abraham who died? Even the prophets died. Who do You pretend to be?”

54 “If I glorify Myself,” Jesus answered, “My glory is nothing. My Father — you say about Him, ‘He is our God’—He is the One who glorifies Me. 55 You’ve never known Him, but I know Him. If I were to say I don’t know Him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know Him, and I keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see My day; he saw it and rejoiced.”

57 The Jews replied, “You aren’t 50 years old yet, and You’ve seen Abraham?”

58 Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Before Abraham was, I am.”

59 At that, they picked up stones to throw at Him. But Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple complex.   

 

“The Jews responded to Him … You’re a Samaritan.”  In this passage the phrase “the Jews,”[1] was not a reference to the leadership, but it was the common people who accepted the Pharisaic argument that Jesus was demon-possessed, or used demonic powers for His miracles. In this case, they accused Jesus of being demonized by saying He was a Samaritan. The cultural context is that in rabbinic demonology, a leading demon was named Shomroni, which was also used to refer to either any demon or to a Samaritan.[2] Since the Jews viewed the Samaritans as the lowest of low-life people, they sarcastically called Jesus a “Samaritan.” The statement was highly insulting and reflected their horrible ethnic attitudes toward the Samaritans.

 “Are You greater than our father Abraham?” The Jewish leadership often accused Jesus of directly claiming to be deity.[3] But rather than making a statement that He was the “Anointed One,” meaning the “Christ,” which obviously would have been challenged, He lived, taught, and acted in a lifestyle so that men could observe His divine nature and make an intelligent decision that He was the expected “Anointed One.” His accusers made the same observation and what they concluded threatened them.  They had become so arrogant that they believed they could kill the Messiah that God sent to deliver their land from the Romans.

“You’ve never known Him.”  The word “know” (Gk. ginosko) means “a knowledge of experience,”  more than mere facts, a relationship of trust and intimacy,[4] as opposed to “I know him” (Gk. oida), meaning an instinctive perception of facts.[5]

Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see My day.” This astonishing statement indicates that Abraham had some type of future knowledge of the life and ministry of Jesus and he rejoiced at the thought of it.  He knew that one day the whole world will be blessed through his descendants (Gen. 18:18).  Ironically, the Jews, through their faith gave us the Bible, but through their unbelief, gave us the Messiah.

11.02.20a

“Before Abraham was, I am.”   In this passage and in John 10:30, Jesus made His absolute claim to deity. It infuriated the leading Pharisees and Sadducees who said the statement was blasphemy.  The punishment for making a statement like this was death by stoning (Lev. 24:16).[6] The statement also brought memories of the second century B.C. King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who claimed to be a god and instigated some of the worst persecutions that ever came upon the Jewish people.[7]

 

11.02.20.A. COINS OF ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES (2)

11.02.20.A. COINS OF ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES.  LEFT:  A coin of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a military victor and King of Syria (170 B.C.). RIGHT: A different coin of him shown as “god manifest.”

 

 11.02.20.Q1 What are the three examples of where Jesus claimed divine authority that brought Him into conflict with the religious establishment?

Jesus did not openly declare His divine authority in His early ministry.  But in the course of time, it became evident.  First, by implication, then by straightforward statements as follows:

  1. In John 8:58 Jesus said that, “Before Abraham, I am.”

 

  1. In John 10:33 the Jews attempted to stone Jesus. When He asked them why, they responded and said it was because He was a mere man and made himself equal with God.

 

  1. In Luke 5:17-20 Jesus did not heal the paralytic, but said that “Your sins are forgiven you.” This was incredibly offensive to the Pharisees because, as they correctly said, only God could forgive sins.

 

Finally, it should be noted that the divine authority He claimed in the Great Commission, was told privately to His disciples, and not to the religious establishment.

 

[1]. The term “the Jews” is used in reference to no less than three Jewish groups in the gospels, and at times it is difficult to discern which group the gospel writer is referring to.

 

[2]. Fruchtenbaum, The Jewish Foundation of the Life of Messiah: Instructor’s Manual. Class 16, page 2. The name of the demon and its association with the Samaritans was deeply rooted in the centuries-old hatred between Jews and Samaritans.  See 02.01.18 for more details.

 

[3]. See Jn. 5:18; 10:33; 19:7.

 

[4]. Tenney, New Testament Times. 109.

 

[5]. Tenney, The Gospel of John. 98.

 

[6]. Judicial punishment by stoning had not been practiced for centuries, so this was a hypothetical issue.

 

[7]. See 03.04.17 for more information on King Antiochus Epiphanies.

 



11.02.21 HEALING THE MAN BORN BLIND

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.21 HEALING THE MAN BORN BLIND

11.02.21 Jn. 9:1-12  Jesus at the Pool of Siloam

 

HEALING THE MAN BORN BLIND[1]

1 As He was passing by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples questioned Him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” Jesus answered. “This came about so that God’s works might be displayed in him. 4 We must do the works of Him who sent Me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

6 After He said these things He spit on the ground, made some mud from the saliva, and spread the mud on his eyes. 7 “Go,” He told him, wash in the pool of Siloam (which means “Sent”). So he left, washed, and came back seeing.

8 His neighbors and those who formerly had seen him as a beggar said, “Isn’t this the man who sat begging?” 9 Some said, “He’s the one.” “No,” others were saying, “but he looks like him.”

He kept saying, “I’m the one!”

10 Therefore they asked him, “Then how were your eyes opened?”

11 He answered, “The man called Jesus made mud, spread it on my eyes, and told me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So when I went and washed I received my sight.”

12 “Where is He?” they asked.

“I don’t know,” he said.

 

After Jesus declared His eternal existence (Jn. 8:48-59 above), He proceeded to perform a profound miracle – a messianic miracle that had a challenging effect on the Jewish leadership. This miracle forced them to decided whether Jesus was the expectated messiah. However, it was also an interesting historical reflection upon the Jewish people, which is why some Bible critics said the miracle never happened, but rather, it was simply a metaphor written as if it was an historical event.[2] However, with the discovery of the Pool of Siloam, the argument of the critics fell apart.

The Pool of Siloam had a most unique feature:  Its water originated at the Virgin’s Fountain, a/k/a the Gihon Spring.[3]  From there the water flowed through the 1,780 foot long Hezekiah’s Tunnel into the two sections of the Pool of Siloam, and then into a creek in the Kidron Valley. The ancient pool consists of a lower pool, known as the Pool of Shelah, and an upper pool known as the Pool of Siloah.[4] It is mentioned three times in the Hebrew Bible.[5]  The miracle of this healing was the fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah, who said,

 

Then the eyes of the blind will be opened,
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.  

Isaiah 35:5  

 

 

11.02.21.Q1 Why did Jesus use spit and mud to heal the blind man in John 9:1-12?[6]

Scholars have pondered this question for centuries.[7] In ancient times, eyes were sometimes healed with the application of a cream or salve; other times with spit and mud.  Could it be possible that Jesus purposefully mimicked existing methods?  Admittedly, nearly all evangelical scholars would demand a negative answer to this question. Furthermore, why would He have done so? He already demonstrated so many healing miracles where other so-called healers failed. To make the possible answers more challenging, the healing of a blind man in Mark 8:22-26 (10.01.28) is the only recorded miracle that was performed in two stages.  In that case, Jesus placed spittle on his eyes, but not mud.

After considerable research, a possible answer remains to be a little more than an educated guess.  The use of spit and mud was clearly out of the ordinary routine of miracles that Jesus performed, and there may have been more to it than to simply demonstrate His Messianic calling and divine authority. The religious leaders were nearly petrified at this miracle and, as if to add insult to injury upon Pharisaic legalism, this healing was not performed in a private home or environment, but in a public forum where it received maximum attention.  As stated previously, Jesus did not come to be a Healer of human bodies, but to be a Healer of souls. Miracles, with Jesus, were only a means to a higher end; credentials to enforce the reception of spiritual truth.

The Greeks, Romans, and other people groups used spit and mud because there was a widespread applied faith in its healing potency. Yet no records have been uncovered that verify a miraculous healing by this common ritual (except by those who claimed to be healers).  Some scholars believe that the ancients thought of it as a cure for eye diseases, but not blindness.[8]  However, the Roman writer Suetonius [below], in a discussion of Vespasian, said that the emperor used spittle to restore the sight to a blind man.

 

Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an unexpected and still new-made emperor; but these were also given to him.  A man of the people who was blind and another who was lame came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders, which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would condescend to touch it with his heel.  Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed and, therefore, shrank even before making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success.

Suetonius, The Deified Vespasian 7:69-121

 

It is noteworthy that Suetonius stated that the miracle was before a large crowd. Clearly Vespasian was seen as a god; especially since he claimed to be one and those who argued against it put their lives in danger. However, common sense argues against this miraculous claim.  If the emperor was so successful in healing others, why didn’t thousands come to him for a healing as they did to Jesus?

11.02.21a

Tacitus also has an account of Vespasian performing a healing, but it could be the same as reported by Suetonius.  It was not uncommon that one historian’s book was based, in part, on the work of another writer.[9] Tacitus said that a blind person in Alexandria asked Vespasian for a healing remedy, prayer, and to sprinkle his cheeks and the balls of his eyes with saliva.[10]  He wrote of an event when Vespasian visited Alexandria and two men approached him.  One was blind and the other had a diseased hand, but both claimed that their god sent them to the monarch. Vespasian initially refused.  But the blind man persisted to ask that his eyes be “moistened with spittle,” and the crippled man asked him to step on his diseased hand. Vespasian finally gave in and did as was requested of him, and

 

 “The hand immediately recovered its power; the blind man saw once more.  Both facts are attested to this day, when falsehood can bring no reward, by those who were present on the occasion.”

Tacitus, Histories 4:81

 

11.02.21b

Both were supposedly healed immediately. Yet how interesting it is that Tacitus made a comment about possible individuals who might think the report at being false. (Jesus never said anything like that.) His comment clearly suggests that it is really false. Nonetheless, it is it was about this time that Jesus apparently used a method and custom common of His day.[11]

 

Concerning another account from the first century, Aulus Persius Flaccus (34-62) was a Roman author of satires and poetry. He wrote of a woman and said,

 

She takes the babe from the cradle, and with her middle finger moistens its forehead and lips with spittle to keep away the evil eye.

Persius, Satire 2:32-33

 

Pliny the Elder (23-79) was a scholar, lawyer, soldier, and authored an encyclopedia of natural history that filled 37 books. His work remained unchallenged for nearly fourteen centuries but is now obviously rejected by modern science.  His work gives insight into first century Roman life.[12]  Among his countless comments, he said,

 

We are to believe that by continually anointing each morning with fasting saliva, inflammations of the eyes are prevented.

Pliny the Elder, Natural History 18:7

 

While these pagan accounts are obviously mythical, whether there was a healing is hardly the point, because many believed it had actually occurred. Nowhere in the Bible is the reality of pagan healings and exorcisms denied. When Jesus came to heal, He did so by His divine power that was in sharp contrast to pagan formulas and rituals. Furthermore, Jesus healed some who were blind from birth, indicating that their illness was not a temporary medical condition from which they could have naturally recovered.

 

  1. An opinion of this writer is that Jesus might have healed the man with spit and mud because others claimed to have done the same with a similar method, but Jesus actually healed where others failed.
  2. A thought worthy of consideration is this: just as the ten plagues by Moses were against the gods of Egypt, could it be possible that some of the miracles performed by Jesus were against the Greco-Roman gods? Jesus lived in a Jewish community with pagan Greek influences. He not only needed to prove to orthodox Jews who He was, but also to the Hellenized Jews who accepted many Greek ideologies.

11.02.21c

  1. Another opinion is that the use of mud reflects upon the creation of Adam in the Garden of Eden, and Jesus symbolically recreated the man’s vision so he could see his Creator. But that fails to sufficiently answer “why”?

11.02.21d

  1. However, a popular book, Tobit may give a clue to this method of healing. The apocryphal book may best be described as a novel within the culture of the second century B.C. It reflects folklore, sound moral teaching, and is a romantic story in which, at one point, the angel Raphael tells Tobias to apply the gall of the fish to the blind eyes of his father Tobit. The segment of the story is as follows:

 

Raphael said, “I know, Tobias, that your father will open his eyes. You therefore must anoint his eyes with gall; and when they smart he will rub them, and will cause the white films to fall away, and he will see you.”

 

Then Anna ran to meet them and embraced her son, and said to him, “I have seen you, my child; now I am ready to die.” And they both wept. Tobit started toward the door and stumbled.  But his son ran to him and took hold of his father and he sprinkled the gall upon his father’s eyes, saying, “Be of good cheer father.”  And when his eyes began to smart he rubbed them, and the white films scaled off from the corners of his eyes.  Then he saw his son and embraced him, and he wept and said, “Blessed art thou, O God, and blessed are all your holy angels …”

Tobit 11:7-14[13]

 

All ancient people groups believed in healing by divine intervention.[14]  It is well known that healers applied some type of ointment to the eyes of the blind.  While Jesus at times simply touched the eyes of the blind, quite possibly here He mimicked the narrative in Tobit, simply to demonstrate that He truly was the Healer as opposed to others who attempted similar feats.  But with this divine revelation the disciples, too, had their eyes of understanding opened. The healing power of Jesus was superior to the healing attempts of the best medicine man or magician of the day.

In another case, an inscription was found at the ruins of the temple of Asclepius on the island in the Tiber River in Rome. It is believed to have originated in A.D. 138 and has a reference to the healing of a blind soldier attributed, in part, to “eye salve.”

 

To the blind soldier Valerius (to whom)[15] Aprus the god commanded by an oracle to come and take the blood of a white rooster, to mix it with honey and eye salve, and to spread it on his eyes for three days.  And he recovered his sight and came and presented an offering of thanksgiving to the god.

MEB / from SIG no. 1173[16]

 

Did the ancient eye salve really heal the blind soldier? The fact that he was a soldier, obviously, indicates that at one point he had excellent vision, yet no reason for his temporary blindness is given. If, in fact, there really was a soldier by the name of Valerius, in all probability his sight was restored in spite of the medical brew.

Historians have long said that many emperors and other monarchs claimed to be gods in order to tighten their fearful control on the general population.  Stories were created in which they were said to have been born of a virgin or performed various miracles.  As previously stated, if Vespasian indeed had the power to perform miracles, it is questionable as to why he did not perform more of them and why thousands of people did not follow and worship him as they did Jesus.

11.02.21e

There are some distinct differences between ancient rulers, priests, and the ministry of Jesus. They are as follows:

  1. Ruling monarchs were proud, arrogant, and usually cared little for the common people. Jesus, on the other hand, loved everyone, was humble and demonstrated genuine care with compassion.

 

  1. While the pagans claimed to have healed only a few people, Jesus literally healed hundreds if not thousands. The pagans had no witnesses, whereas Jesus had multitudes of witnesses.

 

  1. As previously stated, claims of divinity and healings were used by rulers to solidify their power and control, while the demonstrations of healings by Jesus, along with His message, pointed people to the kingdom of God. Rulers demanded everyone recognize them as divine, whereas Jesus, by His actions, permitted observers to conclude whether He was divine.

 

  1. Possibly more important, the use of mud and spittle to make some eye salve was probably a silent attack against the pagans who used a similar method. Jesus quietly confronted the gods of the Greeks, Romans, and Hellenized Jews. He had untold numbers of witnesses who received healings or saw someone who received a healing. The pagans had only myths and a few testimonials of healings, that even they did not believe were true. In essence, He demonstrated His power over the demonic powers in a manner similar to that which God used when He sent the plagues upon Egypt fifteen centuries earlier. At that time, the plagues represented various Egyptian gods; this time Jesus demonstrated who He was.

 

  1. Pagan healers wanted as much public exposure as possible, while Jesus often told people not to tell others and avoided maximum public exposure.

 

The healing of eyes with saliva was a known remedy, even among the Jews. The Jerusalem Talmud Sorah 16,4) records the story of a Rabbi Meir and a wpman famous for her ability to heal sick eyes with her silva.[17] Ironically, those who carefully listened and observed Jesus recognized His attributes, while the leading Pharisees and Sadducees remained spiritually blind.[18]  In agreement with the Pharisees, a Jewish writer a few centuries later gave instructions in the Talmud on how not to heal a blind person with spit and mud.[19] Obviously his directives were a subtle attack against Jesus.

Many theologians have suggested that since God created man from dirt in the Garden of Eden, Jesus used spit and mud to recreate the blind man’s eyes.[20] When the first Adam opened his eyes, he saw his Creator Jesus; when the blind man opened his eyes he saw his Healer Jesus. Regardless of the reason or method of healing Jesus used, it was obvious to the observing audience that His power and authority could have only come from God. Finally, the reason for the two-step healing of a blind man is discussed in 10.01.28.Q1.

 

“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents?”  The common thinking was that any disease or infirmity as this was the result of sin in the family.[21]  This was not based on any Scripture, but an opinion that became a Pharisaic doctrine. Certain sins of the parents were thought to have resulted in specific physical ailments of leprosy or blindness in their children.  This curse (Jn. 9:1-12) was considered typical evidence that sins were passed on to the proverbial “third and fourth generation.” In other cases, some Jews believed a child might sin in its mother’s womb. To support this argument, the rabbis referred to the struggle between Jacob and Esau prior to their births (Gen. 25:22).

In light of the fact that for four centuries there was not a single prophet in the land, there was extensive corruption in both the temple and government, and Hellenism was making great inroads into Jewish theology and lifestyles. It should not be surprising that superstition had increased significantly. One of those beliefs was that the moral state of a pregnant woman could be passed on to her unborn child. For this reason, it was believed that the apostasy of one of the great rabbis was caused by the sinful delight of his mother passing through an idol grove. So therefore, the community blamed her for the rabbi’s spiritual failure.[22] No wonder they asked, “Who sinned?”

“Born blind.”   The reasons children were born with blindness were obviously unknown to the ancients, but modern scientists have been able to make an educated guess of one possible cause. The venereal diseases of gonorrhea and chlamydia are known to cause a number of ailments, and many babies born to mothers with such diseases are born blind.[23] It has been estimated that around 1900, about 30 percent of all blindness were the result of sexually transmitted diseases.[24]

A point of consideration is that:  If the ancients believed that blindness could have been the result of a venereal disease that underscores their question of “Who sinned?” However, even more condemning is the increased probability that the blindness resulted from another cause, but the parents were suspected of this “sinfulness.” Regardless of the cause, to have a family member born blind was a horrible stigma. Even though the Jewish culture was socially conservative, their Hellenistic Jewish and Gentile neighbors did not hold the same values.

Most people who were blind became life-long beggars.  They were not permitted in the inner sanctuary of the temple, but were usually seated near the entrance of a “holy place” such as the temple gate or along the road leading to the temple or a synagogue.[25] In this case, Jesus met a blind beggar in the Court of the Gentiles where He healed him, and told him to go and “wash in the Pool of Siloam.”  He obeyed Jesus and immediately had strength for the long walk to the pool.

Amazingly, Jesus had never told him he would be healed, yet he was made whole. Since the miracle occurred during the Feast of Tabernacles, the pool was one of the most crowded places. As part of the religious rituals, an unusual number of priests were needed to perform the various services, one of which was to carry water from this pool to the altar. Hence, many priests who were not a part of the temple establishment were present and witnessed Jesus performing this messianic miracle.

A Small Escape from David Sandell on Vimeo.

The Talmud states that during the one week celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, a procession went to the pool to bring water in a golden vessel to the temple.[26] There it was poured out as a libation of thanksgiving to God.  John 7 indicates that Jesus attended the Feast and thaas t halfway through the festival, He went to the temple courts to teach the crowds that He was the living water (Jn. 7:34). Clearly, everyone’s attention was on the miracle and the message.

 

[1]. See comments by Rabbi John Fischer in 10.01.28.V where he discusses two unique methods of healing blind men including the event of John 9:1-12.

 

[2]. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct2005.010.35.26.html. Retrieved November 26, 2005; In addition, on March 9, 2013, Dr. James H. Charlesworth of Princeton Seminary gave a report in Jerusalem in which he outlined several archaeological discoveries that support the historical reliability of the gospel of John. Essentially, he said that John knew the details of Jerusalem as it was prior to the A.D. 70 destruction, details that were unknown to archaeologists only a decade ago. SOURCE: Charlesworth, James H. “Gospel of John Backed by Archaeology.” Artifax. 28:3 (Summer, 2013), 11-12.

 

[3]. Josephus, Wars 5.9.4 (410).

 

[4]. Zondervan’s New International Version Archaeological Study Bible. (2005 ed.) 1739. See also 2 Chron. 32:2-8, 30; Isa. 22:9-11; 2 Kgs. 20:20; Wiseman, “Siloam.” 3:1452.

 

[5]. It is the Pool of Shelah in Neh. 3:15, the Waters of Shiloah in Isa. 8:6 and the Pool of Siloam in Jn. 9:7; Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. 3:343.

[6]. See comments by Rabbi John Fischer in 10.01.28.V where he discusses two unique healing methods of blind men including the event of John 9:1-12.

 

[7]. This writer does not have a firm answer, but has found other ancient writings in which the mud and water were said to have healed blindness. For whatever reason is given, it was Jesus who performed the true healing.

 

[8]. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 599.

 

[9]. An example is Josephus who said that some of his information on Herod the Great came from the writings of John of Damascus, who was Herod’s historian.

 

[10]. Tacitus, History 4:81.

 

[11]. Barclay, “John.” 2:42.

 

[12]. http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/pliny_elder.html. Retrieved December 7, 2013.

 

[13]. The book of Tobit is part of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bible, but is not in the Protestant Bible. Generally, it is classified as an apocryphal book by Protestant and Messianic Jewish scholars.

 

[14]. Atheists were all but unknown, and frequently mocked for their stupidity.

 

[15]. Clarification mine.

 

[16]. Cited by Boring, Berger, and Colpe, eds. Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament. 284.

 

[17]. Cited by Tsvi Sadan, “He Spat on the Ground and made Clay with the Saliva” (Part 3) Israel Today. Oct. 2013. No. 171. 14.

 

[18]. Major, Manson, and Wright, The Mission and Message of Jesus. 813.

 

[19]. Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 108-120.

 

[20]. Zondervan’s New International Version Archaeological Study Bible. (2005 ed.). 1706.

 

[21]. There were four kinds of people that were considered as good as dead, and it was believed that in all four situations their situation was a divine judgment. They were the blind, the leper, the poor, and the childless.

 

[22]. Cited by Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament. 2:181.

 

[23]. Today newborn infants receive a few drops of silver nitrate solution or antibiotic as a preventative solution.

 

[24]. Hobrink, Modern Science in the Bible. 16-17.

 

[25].  A few examples are: 1) The impotent man of Acts 3:2-10 was near the Gate Beautiful, also known as the Nicanor Gate. 2) The blind and lame people in the temple who asked Jesus for a healing were probably in the Court of the Gentiles (i.e., Mt. 21:14). 3) The man who was blind from birth probably met Jesus at one of the two southern temple gates (Jn. 9:1-8). 4) The blind man of Jericho were along the major road that festival caravans took to Jerusalem, and that is where they met Jesus. 5) Jesus also met a blind man at the Pool of Siloam, another place considered to be “holy.”

 

[26]. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah. 4.9.z



11.02.22 PHARISEES QUESTION MAN

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.22 PHARISEES QUESTION MAN

11.02.22 Jn. 9:13-17 Pool of Siloam

 

PHARISEES QUESTION MAN   

 

13 They brought the man who used to be blind to the Pharisees. 14 The day that Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes was a Sabbath. 15 So again the Pharisees asked him how he received his sight.

“He put mud on my eyes,” he told them. “I washed and I can see.”

16 Therefore some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for He doesn’t keep the Sabbath!” But others were saying, “How can a sinful man perform such signs?” And there was a division among them.

17 Again they asked the blind man, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?”

He’s a prophet,” he said.

 

In this passage the two main points of controversy between the leading Pharisees and Jesus are revealed.

 

  1. The interpretation and application of the Mosaic Law to daily life and

 

  1. The claim of Jesus to be the unique and eternal knowledge of God.

 

Every conversation Jesus had with His hostile critics demonstrated that they did not share the same opinion as He did concerning the Mosaic Law and its relation to life and God.

 

“How can a sinful man perform such signs?” Finally, someone asked a question of intelligent observation.  They recognized that Jesus was born out of wedlock and yet they could find no fault (meaning sin in reference to the Written Law of Moses) in Him.  Since the religious leaders saw Him only as an ordinary man, they concluded that He must obviously be a sinner. Furthermore, He did not honor the Sabbath laws that they had created.

 

After telling His disciples and others that He was the light of the world, He healed a blind man.  While many were discussing the reason for this man’s blindness, they failed to connect this miracle with His teaching.  When the man received his sight, Jesus told him to wash His face in the Pool of Siloam, the same pool where the priests had drawn living water to pour on the altar of God.  Ironically, the blind man could not only see, but he could also perceive who Jesus was, while the critics chose to remain spiritually blind.

 

“And there was a division among them.”  The issue of division was that, on one hand, a man born blind was healed and the identity of the Person who healed him was clearly revealed because this was a messianic miracle.   On the other hand, Jesus performed the miracle on the Sabbath which violated Sabbath restrictions.[1]  The event was an interesting reflection upon John’s theme of light vs. darkness; belief vs. unbelief. When Jesus said He did not come to bring peace but a sword, He meant that there would be divisions among the people concerning His identity — it would be a matter of belief vs. unbelief.

 

When the religious authorities then confronted the former blind man, he told them, “He’s a prophet.” That was the greatest compliment any Jew could give to another; that Jesus was no ordinary man.[2] And as such, he was among the first to proclaim the New Kingdom of God. This had a repelling effect on the leading Pharisees.[3]  However, at this point he was probably too fearful to call Jesus “the Messiah.”

[1]. See 02.04.06 “Sabbath Day Observances.”

[2]. Macartney, Great Interviews of Jesus. 23-25, 88.

 

[3]. See also 10.01.25 and 10.01.29.

 



11.02.23 PHARISEES QUESTION THE HEALED MAN’S PARENTS.

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.23 PHARISEES QUESTION THE HEALED MAN’S PARENTS.

11.02.23 Jn. 9:18-23

 

PHARISEES QUESTION THE HEALED MAN’S PARENTS

 

18 The Jews did not believe this about him—that he was blind and received sight — until they summoned the parents of the one who had received his sight.

19 They asked them, “Is this your son, the one you say was born blind? How then does he now see?”

20 “We know this is our son and that he was born blind,” his parents answered. 21 “But we don’t know how he now sees, and we don’t know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he’s of age. He will speak for himself.” 22 His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jews, since the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him as Messiah, he would be banned from the synagogue. 23 This is why his parents said, “He’s of age; ask him.”

   

As stated previously, what both the leading Pharisees and Sadducees missed, what they did not learn from the destruction of Solomon’s Temple and the exile, is that God cares more about obedience, steadfast love, justice, righteousness, and humility than sacrifices, festivals, offerings, and assemblies.[1]

The indignant Pharisees said the healed man and any other followers of Jesus would be “banned from the synagogue.” Nothing was more important to a Jewish person than the synagogue. This was a powerful response because it was the local community center, the center of social and religious life outside of the temple. But what religious rule did these people break which would cause the religious leaders to ban them from the synagogue?

Just as the Jews had prioritized the 613 commandments of the Torah,[2]  they had also established 24 violations that would result in excommunication, and prioritized them as well. One of those regulations was decreed, for the necessity of the time.[3]  In essence, this was a “catch-all” reason that could be applied to anyone, at any time, for any reason. The parents and their healed son were probably threatened with violating this decree.[4]  To be excommunicated or “put out” was a horrible social stigma. Scholars agree that there were three levels of excommunication, but slightly different in the length of each one (see footnotes).  In first century Judaism there were three levels of excommunication as follows:

 

  1. The lightest level was the neziphah or n’zifah (rebuke) in which a person was removed from seven to thirty days.[5] An individual such as the synagogue president could impose this penalty.[6]  A New Testament example is found in 1 Timothy 5:1.

 

  1. A moderate level of punishment was the niddui or niddul (casting out; rejection) of the congregation.[7] This action required the decision of three persons and the excommunication lasted for an additional thirty days. A New Testament example is found in Titus 3:10.

 

  1. The most severe form of excommunication was the cherem, which resulted in the excommunicated person being treated as if dead.[8] A New Testament example is found in Matthew 18:15-20. Such treatment included the following: [9]     

 a This person was not permitted to be in a group of ten or more men. Obviously                         that meant he could not attend a synagogue service.

b.This person was not permitted to engage in any public prayers or services.

c.The public had to keep at least four cubits of distance from him.

d.No conversations were to be held with him.

e.Whenever he died, stones were to be thrown on his coffin and mourning for him                    was forbidden.[10]   

 

11.02.23a

 

The context of John 9:18-23 appears to be that the excommunication of the man healed by Jesus was a moderate one. Clearly, there were three or more individuals who challenged Jesus and the healed man, and also had the authority to excommunicate. Yet to experience the healing was the most exhilarating one, one that demonstrated that God still loved them.

This miracle polarized the differences between the followers of Jesus and those who opposed Him. Common belief was that when the messiah came, he would perform three kinds of messianic miracles that would unquestionably demonstrate His Messiahship: He would

 

  1. Heal a Jewish leper,

 

  1. Cast a demon or demons out of a mute or deaf person (In various Inter-Testamental Jewish writings, the advent of the Messiah meant that evil would be defeated.[11]), and
  2. Heal someone who was born blind. [12]

 

Jesus had now performed the last of the three and the leading Pharisees were scathing mad. But there is a mystery that remains as such – a mystery!  If the Pharisees threatened to excommunicate the man who was healed or his parents, why didn’t they threaten to excommunicate Jesus?  Or was Jesus excommunicated and the gospel writers believed there were other matters more important to record in their gospels than this?

 

11.02.23b

 

Finally, in today’s Western culture it is nearly impossible to comprehend the social stigma that was associated with first century excommunication.  Whenever it occurred, the chief authorities of the local synagogue read the name of the excommunicated person, the length of time the sentence was to be in effect, and the reason for the judgment. The healed man was threatened with excommunication, which was also a threat to his parents.  However, there is no record that this form of punishment was never threatened upon Jesus. Is it possible that Jesus was either threatened with excommunication, or was excommunicated from some local synagogues, and the gospel writers never wrote of it?

 

[1]. Jer. 7:21-23; Hos. 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; Mic. 6:6-8.

 

[2]. The 613 laws were observed only during the times of the tabernacle or temple. Today, only 271 of those Mosaic commands can be observed. See Parry, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Talmud. 221.

 

[3]. Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. 3:345.

 

[4]. Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. 3:344-46.

 

[5]. Fruchtenbaum says this level of discipline had a limit of 7 days. Fruchtenbaum, The Jewish Foundation of the Life of Messiah: Instructor’s Manual. Class 16, page 6; Lang, Know the Words of Jesus. 320.

 

[6]. A ban from one synagogue did not mean likewise from all synagogues. Some scholars believe that Jesus may have been banned from some synagogues, which is why He did not teach in them in the latter part of His ministry.  See Farrar, The Life of Christ. 310, 326.

 

[7]. Fruchtenbaum says this level of discipline was between 8 and 30 days. Fruchtenbaum, The Jewish Foundation of the Life of Messiah: Instructor’s Manual. Class 16, page 6;  Lang, Know the Words of Jesus. 320.

 

[8]. Farrar, The Life of Christ. 309; Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary. 184.

 

[9]. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament. 2:185.

 

[10]. Some historians believe that the more severe or restrictive demands (c,d,e) upon the excommunicated person do not reflect first century Jewish practices, but are of a later period.

 

[11]. 1 Enoch 55:4; Jubilees 23:29; Testament of Simeon 6:6; Testament of Judah 25:3; Testament of Moses 10:1, and the Testament of Solomon 20:16-17.

 

[12]. Research on the “Messianic Miracles” is credited to Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a Messianic scholar and director of Ariel Ministries in San Antonio, TX, formerly of Tustin, CA. For more information, see http://ariel.org/. Retrieved September 26, 2013. See also 06.03.08.V (Video), 06.01.03 and the comparison of Dead Sea Scroll fragments 4Q278 and 4Q521 with Luke 4:16-30 at 06.02.02; See also Fruchtenbaum, Messianic Miracles. 4; Fischer, The Gospels in Their Jewish Context. (Lecture on CD/MP3). Week 10, Session 2.



11.02.24 PHARISEES QUESTION MAN AGAIN

Bill Heinrich  -  Dec 31, 2015  -  Comments Off on 11.02.24 PHARISEES QUESTION MAN AGAIN

11.02.24 Jn. 9:24-34

 

PHARISEES QUESTION MAN AGAIN 

  

24 So a second time they summoned the man who had been blind and told him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner!”

25 He answered, “Whether or not He’s a sinner, I don’t know. One thing I do know: I was blind, and now I can see!”

26 Then they asked him, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?”

27 “I already told you,” he said, “and you didn’t listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t want to become His disciples too, do you?

28 They ridiculed him: “You’re that man’s disciple, but we’re Moses’ disciples. 29 We know that God has spoken to Moses. But this man — we don’t know where He’s from!”

30 “This is an amazing thing,” the man told them. “You don’t know where He is from, yet He opened my eyes! 31 We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He listens to him. 32 Throughout history no one has ever heard of someone opening the eyes of a person born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, He wouldn’t be able to do anything.”

34 “You were born entirely in sin,” they replied, “and are you trying to teach us?” Then they threw him out.  

 

It is interesting to observe how rapidly the man’s faith, insight, and courage grew during this brief examination. Previously he stated that he did not know who Jesus was, but then stated that Jesus must be a prophet. Like the Samaritan woman whom Jesus met at the well, her insight grew exponentially during the brief discussion.

 

“Give glory to God.”  The people who witnessed the miracle realized their purpose of life; to give glory to God.[1]  But the religious leaders who were anointed for a ministry to praise and glorify God, not only failed to do so, but also brutally condemned the Healer as well as the one who was healed.

 

“I was blind, and now I can see!”  This man had more vision than he could ever imagine.  He not only was able to see the world around him, but he also had his spiritual eyes opened and he “saw” that Jesus was the Son of God.  Amazingly, this is the condition of all humanity – people are blind to the desires of God until they respond to Him and the Holy Spirit opens their eyes.

 

“You don’t want to become His disciples too, do you?” This statement was not by one of the leading Pharisees, but by the blind man who was healed. It was an amazing confrontation to the religious leaders, who were insulted by his bold statement.  In essence, if the religious leaders were so close to God, how could Jesus heal him and they not know about it? The question “You don’t want to become His disciples too, do you?” was nothing other than a comment of sarcasm.  All this occurred even though he had not met Jesus, and did not even know of Him until verse 35.

 

Throughout history no one has ever heard of someone opening the eyes of a person born blind.”  This is a key statement to identify this miracle as a “messianic miracle.” The Greeks believed that their gods healed the blind and Roman emperors claimed they had divine healing powers as well. This phrase demonstrated that no one else, including the Greeks and Romans, had performed such an incredible miracle. Nonetheless, the Pharisees threw him out.

 

Finally, it is noteworthy to review the progression of revelation of how the healed blind man recognized Jesus. The Samaritan woman also had a progressive revelation written of her (see 06.01.03).

 

  1. He called Jesus a man in verse 11.

 

  1. In verse 17 he said Jesus was a prophet.

 

  1. He concluded by saying that Jesus was the Son of Man/God (verse 35). It was a good revelation for him but an undesirable conclusion for the leading Pharisees and other critics.

[1]. See  Josh. 7:19; 1 Sam. 6:5; Jer. 13:16; Lk. 17:18.



  • Chapters