This week’s readings are all from John chapters 9. Click here to see a full listing of each day’s reading and the full chapters for this week. Full readings of each day’s smaller segments of the readings will be posted on this site during the week.
Today's Reading
Now as Jesus was passing by, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man or his parents?” 3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him. 4 We must perform the deeds of the one who sent me as long as it is daytime. 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 Having said this, he spat on the ground and made some mud with the saliva. He smeared the mud on the blind man’s eyes 7 and said to him, “Go wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated “sent”). So the blind man went away and washed, and came back seeing.
As we read this week's reading, it is important to remember that the verse and chapter divisions in our Bibles did not exist in the original texts. The narrative in John 9 (and going into John 10) is a continuation of the narrative from John 7-8, where Jesus has conflict with the Judean leaders. This conflict and rejection theme, where the leaders and Jesus both question and challenge each other, is one unit told over several stories, leading to the declaration that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (the true leader who cares for the flock) in John 10. With this in mind, if there is time, reading John 7-10 together is recommended to get the full feel of this narrative (ignoring chapter divisions and leaving out John 7:59-8:13, which is a Jesus story was added later to this segment).
@siteadmin I have definitely been noticing this trend in tension… Jesus seems to keep saying things in a way that sounds like he is connected to and living out of relationship to a God that is entirely different than the one the Jews of that day thought they were following.
Like, it’s not just “you’re not quite following God very well” — but it’s like, “you follow your father, the father of lies.” I can understand how that would be offensive and jarring.
Are they so far off that Jesus sees such a wide gap?
Well, I think there are several things possibly taking place in this convo.
First, in the honor-shame context of the first century, this process of challenges wasn't unexpected nor was it uncommon. Even in respectful rabbinic dialogue, there was often a sort of argument, a making of case, which was a balance of argument content and the honor of the participants. And, regarding honor, this was often tied to a sense of 'where does your honor come from?'—what is the chain of honor/authority to which you appeal?
Second, some of the harsh language ('you are the sons of your father, the devil') in the first-century context was hyperbolic but may not as strong as we hear/read it now, and it is hard to know how strong it was. That's not to say it wasn't full of tension (some of these leaders eventually were seeking to kill Jesus), however, such hyperbolic language was used more commonly than we do, particularly in church circles. 😉 What is hard to tell is how this would have been intended and taken: Was Jesus laughing and the crowd laughing? Was it stern? Was it as harsh as it sounds to us today? Or was it more like co-workers in a shipyard using harsh language with each other that sounds rough to outsiders but is everyday speech to insiders? This language has been incredibly unfortunate as it has been used for horrible anti-Jewish acts in later Christian history.
Third, the use of the word 'son' in Jewish contexts often meant someone who acted like someone else or lived out of certain behaviors. For example, a 'son of a carpenter' could mean a literal son of a carpenter, or it could mean someone was carpenter even if their own father or grandfather wasn't. So, saying someone is the son of the devil and the son of a father of lies, can simply mean: 'you are a liar.'
You said:
Jesus seems to keep saying things in a way that sounds like he is connected to and living out of relationship to a God that is entirely different than the one the Jews of that day thought they were following.
I think this is key to the Gospel of John and the key to the conflict. Jesus is speaking and acting out of his own rich, living, and active Spirit-guided and baptized relationship with God. And this is what he is offering to others. This is being 'born from above.' And those who are not born-from-above/born-again don't understand it. And this is the challenge for me today: Am I living this Jesus-modeled life of Spirit baptized intimacy with God?
And I really can't recommend reading ahead into chapter 10 enough. It's really the climax of where this is all going, and Jesus uses Old Testament language from the prophets regarding the shepherds of God's people.
Jesus is critiquing strongly the leaders of the people. There is no doubt about this. They are challenging his authority, and he is challenging their authority back. From the beginning of John (chapter 2), Jesus is challenging systems of centralized spiritual leadership that has become corrupt. Jesus was not alone in this. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls had also pulled out of the Temple system and used harsh language about the leaders (particularly the corrupt priestly leaders) in Jerusalem. It is this critique, pulling from the prophetic tradition, that gets Jesus crucified. And from the perspective of John, it was inevitable: Jesus is not of this world and this world and its leaders hated him. And this will be true for Jesus' followers as well (as Jesus warns in his final messages in the later chapters in John).