JOHN 9
The story of Jesus healing the man born blind was one of the first stories in John that disturbed me enough to pay attention to what this gospel is about. Again we are presented with a story that has multiple levels of meaning and theological application. Rooted in this story is the Christian notion of the implacable nature of God's righteous judgment on those not chosen for re-creation. In John God is merciful to those chosen to believe, those who see the light, but is not merciful to those who are not chosen, who are deemed unworthy. Also rooted in this story is the idea that belief is the basis of true knowledge rather than knowledge as the basis of fact-based belief. This particular story may explain why so many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have a near impossible time accepting scientific evidence; such as climate change, evolution and display an ardent rejection towards people of other religions or those who are non-religious.
Although I do not believe the story was written with these particular outcomes that have resulted some 2000 years later, the seeds for such intransigent thinking on the part of Christians can be found in this story. This story was originally written to addresses a particular situation that the early Jewish Christians encountered in being rejected by the larger Jewish community after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE. It was meant to give encouragement to those who were kicked out of their synagogues by illustrating through this story that they are a new creation through baptism; that they are reborn and now see the light and are children of the light.
A CAPRICIOUS DEPICTION OF GOD
It begins with Jesus and his disciples coming across a man blind from birth. This of course is a metaphor for any person who does not know Jesus. In essence he represents the uninitiated, the unbaptized, the unborn-again. We are all born blind to God.
The disciples ask Jesus who sinned, the man or his parents?
It's an interesting question. How could this man sin before he was born, unless one accepts the notion of original sin, which could be read back in John's account. That his parents sinned reflects the thinking of the times; that chronic illness or deformity of any kind was the direct result of sin, a sign of divine retribution.
In this particular case, Jesus answers the man was born blind for the sole purpose of being healed by Jesus as a sign and symbol of the work he was sent to do. On the surface this would appear that Jesus debunks both the notion of original sin and that illnesses and deformities as a sign of divine retribution.
The fact is Jesus does neither.
Instead the writer adds another disturbing possibility; God causes such suffering to serve his own purposes. If we were to take what Jesus says in this story as factual, we would have to accept that we are mere pawns; subject to the whims of a capricious God which, unfortunately, many Christians believe. What this should do is clue us into understanding that this is just a story, not a fact but rather a tale. As such, I don't believe the writer of John 9 is trying to make a theological statement about sin, rather the writer is banking off of an existing belief prevalent at that time, that the gods are indeed capricious. Capriciousness is not something Abrahamic monotheists would readily admit or associate with the God of Abraham, but the concept of divine capriciousness is nevertheless implied in all ancient theistic religions.
The fact is Jesus does neither.
Instead the writer adds another disturbing possibility; God causes such suffering to serve his own purposes. If we were to take what Jesus says in this story as factual, we would have to accept that we are mere pawns; subject to the whims of a capricious God which, unfortunately, many Christians believe. What this should do is clue us into understanding that this is just a story, not a fact but rather a tale. As such, I don't believe the writer of John 9 is trying to make a theological statement about sin, rather the writer is banking off of an existing belief prevalent at that time, that the gods are indeed capricious. Capriciousness is not something Abrahamic monotheists would readily admit or associate with the God of Abraham, but the concept of divine capriciousness is nevertheless implied in all ancient theistic religions.
BAPTISM AS A RECREATIVE ACT
Unlike the story of the paralytic in John 5, neither the man asks to be healed nor does Jesus ask if he wants to be healed. This is a factor that can be easily overlooked as Jesus simply having compassion on the man, but remember that in John 5 Jesus asked the paralytic if he wanted to be healed. There is a purpose in the question never being asked by either party. Remember the man is chosen for this purpose - people are chosen for purposes known only to God according to John. Jesus goes to this chosen man of God to figuratively and literally recreate him. Jesus mixes his spittle with dirt as if to make a poultice to draw out the blindness. The writer of John may be referencing stories of Jesus healing the blind as found in Mark 8. In John, however, there is a sense that Jesus is doing more than just making a poultice. In John what is being intimated is that Jesus re-forms or recreates the blind man from the spiritual clay that calls to mind the creation of Adam in Genesis 2. In addition, there is another step that Jesus adds to process before the man's sight is restored and that is for the man to wash in the pool of Siloam. This is a clear reference to baptism. It is only after he complies with this request, that the man's sight is restored.
BEING DIFFERENT
What is noteworthy in this story is that once receiving his sight, it is others who see the former blind man differently. Being a sighted person suddenly raises questions as to who he is. He is changed, no longer dependent on begging, no longer dependent on their mercy. More importantly, he knows who healed him, even though the story never depicts this man and Jesus having a conversation.
How does he know Jesus's name?
I would suggest that the writer is saying that even though people who are recreated by God through baptism have never seen the historical Jesus (like the audience John is addressing), they know who he is because they are known by him, that they have a purpose just as the blind man had a purpose in being made blind from birth.
The man's neighbors, people who have known him all his life are now confused by his new identity and bring him to the Pharisees (John's synonym for Jewish authority). Again, this occurrence takes place on the Sabbath day, the day of rest and is in violation of the prohibition against working on the Sabbath. What we know of the Sabbath Day healings is that, in John, it is a symbol and a reminder of the intransigent traditions of Judaism that get in the way of seeing the good - of seeing God as presented in Jesus; that they are being willfully blind to workings of God's mercy and grace that have been enacted through Jesus.
Again the Pharisees are depicted as not being concerned that the man is cured as they are upset that he was healed on the Sabbath. When the Pharisees argue that Jesus is not a man of God, others question how could such good occur if he was not from God? In the story the people, the Judaic Jews, turn to the healed man and ask him his opinion. The blind man tells them that he thinks Jesus is a prophet, and then his inquisitors accuse him of never having been blind in the first place, at which point they bring in his parents.
This is an interesting twist to the story and reflects the turmoil that likely occurred in families between those Jewish family members who became Christian and those who remained committed to Judaism. Here the writer of this story makes clear the issue being addressed by this story is the fear of being kicked out of one's community, family, and synagogue. When the "Jews" ask his parents if he was indeed born blind, they confirm that he was, but they don't want to go further than that. There is no rejoicing that their son is seeing or, as John might have put it, seeing the light. On the contrary, John tells us that they were afraid of being kicked out of the synagogue if they suggested that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah. No other gospels contain stories of people being kicked out of their synagogues because they confessed Jesus to be the Messiah. This factor in John assures us that this is a story about the times in which John was written.
When they question the man again, he stands by what he said. He not only confesses his belief that Jesus is sent by God but asks if they would like to be a disciple, also. At that suggestion, they throw him out. On the surface his invitation to the "Jews" appears naïve, but it actually addresses the underlying issue why Christian Jews were being thrown out of the synagogues, they were inviting their fellow Jews to be Christian and this was something those; namely, the surviving Pharisees could not afford to tolerate in their effort to keep Judaism alive after the destruction of the Temple.
What is also interesting is that after the blind man was cast out of the synagogue, Jesus approaches him and fully reveals himself to the man, who then worships Jesus as God. This is the reassurance John wants to give to those Jewish Christians who remain faithful; that Jesus - God- will come to them in fullness because of their belief in Jesus as the Christ.
BELIEF AND KNOWING
At the end of this strange story, Jesus makes an enigmatic statement that he was sent into the world to judge it; that those who do not see will see and those who see will be blinded. At this, the Pharisees respond by asking if they too are blind. Jesus answers that if they were blind, they would have no sin, but since they see, they in essence should understand and therefore remain in their sin.
These closing remarks show the metaphorical nature of this story, that blindness is a condition of not knowing that allows one to believe without the benefit of sight or knowing (a theme that is unique to John) which is to say that belief is, in itself, spiritual sight/knowing. John is saying that since the Pharisees claim to see because of their traditions and laws but do not believe that Jesus is the Christ (John makes a point of saying that Moses and Abraham were speaking of Jesus in their times), they remain in their sins and are judged because of what John sees as willful ignorance.
This is a story of suffering on various levels and by everyone in the story except Jesus. The pathos is palpable when given a close reading. This writer in John is trying to comfort the suffering of those Jewish Christians who have been rejected by kith and kin because of their beliefs. In the end, John shows Jesus coming to them to be worshiped and embraced as the fullness of God.
To those who do not believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (the Pharisees, for example) their situation is dire. Because of their willful disbelief (hearing but not accepting) John says they are deemed sinners and they remain in their sin. They too are suffering but don't know it and, according to John, there is nothing Jesus can do about it.
* * * * * * * * * *
John 9 has mostly been treated as a miracle story revealing the divine nature of Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God, but as I hope to have illustrated here, it is much more than that. In my opinion, this is one of the most important stories recorded in the New Testament which depicts what I am describing as Johannine theology of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries C.E. Throughout the history of Christianity, this and other stories in John have been interpreted without much consideration to their historical context at the time it was being written.
I feel that the Gospel of John illustrates what I have termed the differentiating paradigm found in all religions; that seeking difference is at the heart of what theistic religion and perhaps religion as a whole is geared to do and which ironically countermands the original impulse of religion which was and is to underscore the fact that we need each other. Difference is at the heart of Abrahamic Monotheism - the notion of a people set apart. This notion runs deep in all three Abrahamic monotheisms and is repeatedly demonstrated in the Gospel of John.
I feel that the Gospel of John illustrates what I have termed the differentiating paradigm found in all religions; that seeking difference is at the heart of what theistic religion and perhaps religion as a whole is geared to do and which ironically countermands the original impulse of religion which was and is to underscore the fact that we need each other. Difference is at the heart of Abrahamic Monotheism - the notion of a people set apart. This notion runs deep in all three Abrahamic monotheisms and is repeatedly demonstrated in the Gospel of John.
While many progressive Christian attempt to embrace the original purpose of religion - "We need each other" - Christians as a whole have yet to remove their holy scriptures off of the divine pedestal they have been on for almost two thousand years and admit their human origins. The failure to do so keeps God as a person who is "the Out-There-Other" rather than accepting their all too human origins.
Fully accepting holy writ's human origins can lead us to embrace the indescribable intimacy of what is termed God in all that is - that God is so close that God cannot be seen or even heard beyond our own perceptions and thoughts and that our holy writs, understood as literature written within a particular historical context, can help us better understand their applications in the age which we now live. Ultimately, such literature leads those who are open-minded enough to realize that we are connected to each other in ways that we cannot fathom, in ways that we call God.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment