The Best of John Chapter Ten

 

As we pick up the narrative in chapter ten, we find Jesus speaking. However, it is not immediately clear to whom Jesus is speaking. It might be easy for us to assume that the dialog is continued from the previous chapter where Jesus is speaking to his disciples and the Pharisees who are with him. In that instance, at the end of chapter nine, Jesus was in Jerusalem for the feast of the Tabernacles. The entirety of chapter nine took place on the eighth day or 'The Joy of the Torah', an additional holiday following the feast of Tabernacles.

It was on that day that Jesus mysteriously escaped being stoned. It was on that day that Jesus healed the blind man. It is all recorded at length, the pool of Siloam, the hearing in which the newly sighted man is questioned, and not only himself but his parents as well. At the end of all that, the man was approached by Jesus. Jesus identified himself to the man and the man worshiped him. We see no objection to this worship – and I mention this because Jesus traveled not only in the company of his disciples but there were certain of the Jews traveling with him as well.

It is at the end of the chapter, when Jesus contrasts being sighted and being blind that the Pharisees in his company ask him if they too are blind. The dialogue beginning in verse one of chapter ten seems to jump from blindness to the matter of who is the true leader of the sheep – the shepherd or the hirelings.

To bring clarity to this issue, I point to verse twenty-two, “And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.” Some two months later, we find Jesus speaking on a specific topic. Two months are missing from the account but we find Jesus in Jerusalem among people who want him dead. I ask, therefore, had Jesus gone back home to Galilee for a while? Did Jesus return to Jerusalem because of the holiday? I am inclined to think so. I have hinted at the possibility that Jesus was the Rabbi at a synagogue in Capernaum. Many of his disciples, also, lived and worked in that area.

So, Jesus is in Jerusalem and it is the winter. Is that only mentioned because of the feast? Many people would have known that the dedication feast was in the winter. The gospel of John is not specifically written for the gentiles – so, why make a point of the winter? He is in a city during cold weather. There is at least a possibility that the dialogue found at the beginning of chapter ten is, to a certain degree, an indoors account. No disciples are mentioned, no milling multitudes here, just Jesus talking to 'the Jews.'

Now, we already know and are well aware that when the author of this gospel uses the word 'Jews,' he is speaking of religious authorities. He is speaking of the elders of the synagogues, the Pharisees and Sadducees, of Priests and Rabbis and Doctors of the law. Many of these same people would have had their turn in the Sanhedrin.

Jesus spoke to the Jews, as it is my assertion that he was one of them. The evidence is plain. Jesus seemed always to be in their company, often invited into their homes, often addressed as a Rabbi, and regularly taught in synagogues, more specifically, in the synagogue of Capernaum. I will not go much into the content of his words, here, except to point out that the matters he broached were specific to the Jews rather than to the masses. When he spoke of sheep, he spoke about the masses. When he spoke of shepherds and hirelings, he spoke of those who managed the masses. When he spoke of thieves and robbers, he spoke of those who used the masses for personal advantage and gain.

Part of the conversation between Jesus and the Jews occurred on Solomon's Porch which was the architectural feature that partially enclosed the inner walls of the temple in the location of the Women's Court. It was in this general location, once before, that Jesus was nearly stoned.

That is the general picture at this point in chapter ten. Jesus is explaining to his peers the power and authority God has given to him. He is explaining to what and to whom that commandment applies. Jesus plainly states that he has been given power the Jews do not possess. He has been given the power to lay down his life. Well before his crucifixion, the Jews were made aware that Jesus walked toward his own death and of his own volition. It was not in their power to take his life but, rather, it was a matter that Jesus orchestrated with precise deliberation.

Jesus also explained that he was empowered to resume his life again after death. Well before his resurrection, the Jews were made aware that Jesus would rise from the dead. They were made aware that his plan for death and resurrection was enacted for the people whom he asserted were much maligned by the present authorities. Jesus asserted that the people, his sheep, had been abused by those in charge – who used the people for personal advantage, like thieves and robbers and who, like hirelings, fled before the enemy.

Consider for a moment the type and degree of managerial truths that Jesus imparted, truths that were specific to those who filled positions of leadership. Jesus had been in this situation before – trying to bring around his peers to a more nearly personal sense of responsibility. We know that in some of those other situations, the Jews argued with him, railed on him, called him names, sought his death. We know that not all of the Jews were against him. Some followed him and believed what he said. There had been divisions among the Jews before and we find here, in chapter ten and verse nineteen, this very telling statement: “There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.”

At this point, we might expect to see the Jews up to their old tricks. Did they argue, did they rail on him, call him names as they had before? No. At this point in the relationship between Jesus and the Jews, we see a different response altogether. We see a more cohesive and fraternal response. We see something in verses twenty through twenty-three that looks very much like a meeting among the Jews as they argue among themselves. Some say that Jesus is mad, that he has a devil. Some maintain that opening the eyes of the blind is not something that devils do. They refer to the incident just two months prior when Jesus sent the blind man to the pool of Siloam.

What we see is a closed-door meeting of the minds while Jesus waits just outside on the Porch of Solomon. “Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.” Was he by himself? Did he pace? The waiting came to an end. The Jews surrounded Jesus as he stood in Solomon's porch and this was their response. 'If you are the Christ, tell us so in plain words. How long will you keep us in suspense, making us wonder and doubt?'

How long indeed? He had given his testimony on multiple occasions – that is to say, he had been among his peers on multiple occasions telling them, the Jews, the same things again and again. On all occasions, there was a number of the religious elite that refused to believe what he said. All they saw was a man like themselves but a man they felt had lifted himself above acceptable expectations, a man who had become too big for his britches. The answer they got was that he had told them already; he had told them and they refused to believe. They had refused to believe because they were not his sheep and did not hear his voice. In his response, the Jews could only hear a common man making himself out to be God. According to the law, as they maintained it, that was blasphemy. They took up stones again to stone him. Among those polished blocks and slabs of stone, among those colonnades, I have to ask, where could they find stones? Was the women's court unfinished and rocky?

So, there they stood, stones in hand but they did not act. Was it just so much posturing? Were people ever stoned inside the temple compound? Without flinching, Jesus asked them for which of his good deeds they wanted to see him die. In other words, Jesus had proved himself to them often with works from God like healings and driving out demons, things the Jews did not and could not do. In answering his question, the Jews proved the point they could not get their heads around – that a man could claim to be equal to God. That was just too much for them.

They did not try to stone him but they did try to apprehend him. That particular stretch of wall in the temple contained the eastern gate. Jesus avoided capture and left Jerusalem. How did that happen? Did he dart out through the gate and blend immediately with the crowd? Were his disciples waiting to whisk him away? Whatever transpired, Jesus traveled to the area where he had been baptized by his cousin John. He stayed there for a time and many believers resorted to him there.

The distance from Jerusalem to the accepted site where John baptized Jesus is roughly seventy-one and a half miles. I once walked that approximate distance and it took me three nights and two days. There would have been lodging nearby in the city of Beit She'an, which was one of ten cities in the Decapolis. There were also Pella and Bethabara on the eastern side of the Jordan.

At the baptism, Jesus was asked where he stayed. He answered, come and see. Here may have been friends and supporters who took him in both then and again when he returned in chapter ten. The residents of the area well remembered John. They also accepted the fame of Jesus, as they said in verse 10:41, “John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.” Obviously, John had said more about Jesus than is recorded. The pivotal point of their belief was the fact that Jesus had performed miraculous things. The crowds gathered.

Did Jesus camp out with his disciples or did he reside in one of the nearby towns? Remember, it was winter. This information comes from www.giltravel.com: Winter (Dec-early Mar) Israels winter weather fluctuates. Some winters are mild and sunny, while some are severe and overcast. There’s often heavy rain. In January and February, it may even snow in parts of the country. Temperatures range in the 50-60F (10-15C) in most places, but in the 40’s (5C) in Jerusalem and the Galilee hills – where it can be very cold at night.

The Best of Romans Chapter Fifteen

 

Verses one through eight. The author has, by no means, finished his treatise but carries his argument over into verse one of chapter fifteen. He says that those of us who are strong should bear the infirmities of the weak. Let us stop right there and think really hard about what has been said. Let us see ourselves as strong in our particular faith or frame of mind. Let us consider exactly what it is that we feel is so right about the way we interpret reality. Let us consider why it is we interpret what others think and feel as weak. How does it all play out? What would it mean for the strong Christian to bear the “infirmities” of the Muslim? What would it mean for the Muslim, strong in his faith, to bear the “infirmities” of the Christian? How might it transpire that the faithful bear the differences of the unfaithful or the unfaithful the differences of the faithful? If any of us find it difficult to bear up under such a common weight – then maybe we are not as strong as we claim to be. Is a faith that fears or a righteousness that destroys out of hand really that strong? There is a parable that speaks of hiding a candle under a bed. Light is strong. It is good. It is commendable. However, we must ask the hard question. Is hidden light really light? Does not the hiding of one's light defeat the purpose of the light?

The point of the parable is that the light is set out for the good of all. The author of Romans suggests that we are not in this game to please ourselves but to please our fellow man by doing and saying the things that build him up in his own strength. I want to ask – when has righteousness ever been selfishness? Never. I get something wholly positive and encouraging from these words. I get that it is totally possible for the Christian to edify the Muslim or the Atheist, for the Muslim to edify the Atheist or the Christian, for the Atheist to edify the faithful. It is not only possible but it is a desirable human trait. It is desirable to follow the example of Jesus who took upon himself the reproaches that we, ourselves, face and still said and did the things that were beneficial for those who stood in opposition to the truth Jesus lived by. The record of Jesus is unique in that regard. He proved to the world what a righteous and faithful man is capable of. He saw what was “weak” in others but did not condemn, he forgave, he did, and said the things that were good for the others rather than pleasing himself. He who was strong bore the infirmities of the weak.

Each religion and frame of mind has its particular tenets. The books of the Hebrews, Muslims, and Christians each derive from the same history. We all have a Moses and a Noah and an Abraham. All of us have books that include patriarchs, prophets, and angels. To each of us, these writings provide the learning comforts that support our faith and righteousness. The Atheist and Agnostic may not share these particular books with us but they have other books that build them up in their strength. Followers of other religions also have their books and histories. The point is there is hope for all of us – whoever we are – whatever we are. We have been patient in our diligence and have found comfort in our faith or our science or philosophy but none of those writings existed for any other purpose than our learning. Divisions and differences were never inherent in those texts.

It is suggested in verse six that all of us strive to be of the same mind one toward another after the example of Jesus Christ who was, on this earth, the expression of God-mindedness. That is to say that the Muslim should be God-minded toward the Christian and the Christian should be God-minded toward the Muslim. I use the expression God-minded, here, as a more accurate interpretation of the word “like-minded.” We should have, rather than differences, the same mind toward each other – that is to draw from our personal strength to say and to do what is good and right and what builds up the other rather than to merely satisfy ourselves. Jesus is the example to follow in this regard. Jesus is the pattern of the temple in heaven.

Like-mindedness, forgiveness, selflessness, as taken from the example of Jesus, are traits in each of us that rise above the individual to glorify God. God makes no difference between one man and another. God is not a man; God is spirit. Here, the author of Romans puts forth that Jesus was the minister for the truth of that spirit to the circumcision. Circumcision speaks of the covenant between the spirit and mankind. Jesus is the minister to all faithful people who believe in the truth of the spirit. As that minister, Jesus is the confirmation of the promises that God made to the patriarchs shared between the Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Verses nine through thirteen. In that Christ is the minister for the truth of the spirit to the circumcision, there is no elite club with its doors closed to non-members. The author seamlessly includes the gentiles – and not by his own opinion. He cites from the old books we look to for authority and confirmation. In that Jesus confirmed the promises made to the fathers, it is for the purpose that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. The gentiles are included. God had a plan and it included every nation and people and faith and non-faith of the world. No one is left out. The author shows us from established scripture.

“As it is written” is a part of the author's argument. He presents a thing that any of us might turn to for fact-checking. Now, one might initially think that the Hebrews and the Muslims have different books altogether but the first fact is just that. The differences are regional. They represent the differences between mortal authors rather than the difference between God and God. If I say that the truth of my God is established in where my hand falls and you say that the truth of your God is established in where your hand falls – that only proves that neither of us, on our own, can fully reach the object of our desire. Yet, chained together – we can reach quite a bit further. The cited verses from older scripture are meant to show that God's plan is for everyone working together. Look at the words, check the language.

“For this cause, I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.” That is a statement from old scripture that includes the outlying nations, cultures, and peoples. Let us ask, then, 'includes' among whom? The Gentiles are included among the chosen. Among the Hebrews, the Muslims, and even among the Christians, there is a human tendency to think, 'I am the chosen.' It is human to justify oneself, to pat oneself on the back. This human trait is not the inclusive trait of God, it is the exclusive trait of individuals who revel in creating boundaries. Yet, the word of God to all the so-called chosen is a command to include. “And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.”

God does not exclude any people. There is one God and one people. There is no single faith that is permitted to say they are the one people and that God is only God to them. There is only one God and he is above all boundaries of faith. He has created all people for Himself. Who are we to divide God among us? There is no 'us' and all the rest. There is only one people – all people. The author cites, “And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.” The word of God is not to this faith or that faith. It not only to the nation of the Hebrews or the Muslim nation. The word of God is not to this people or that people but to “all” people.

Admittedly, these references are vague. They do not point specifically to a shared source. However, the author, in verse twelve, quotes a prophet that is shared not only in Hebrew and Christian tradition but in Islamic tradition as well. I speak of the prophet Isaiah. This is what Wikipedia says about Isaiah in Islamic tradition. Isaiah, or his Arabic name أشعياء (transliterated: Ashiʻyā'), is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an or the Hadith, but appears frequently as a prophet in Islamic sources, such as Qisas Al-Anbiya and Tafsir. Tabari (310/923) provides the typical accounts for Islamic traditions regarding Isaiah. He is further mentioned and accepted as a prophet by other Islamic scholars such as Ibn Kathir, Al-Tha`labi and Kisa'i and also modern scholars such as Muhammad Asad and Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Isaiah is notable for his predictions of the coming of Jesus and Muhammad. Isaiah's narrative in Islamic literature can be divided into three sections. The first establishes Isaiah as a prophet of Israel during the reign of Hezekiah; the second relates Isaiah's actions during the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib; and the third warns the nation of coming doom. Paralleling the Hebrew Bible, Islamic tradition states that Hezekiah was king in Jerusalem during Isaiah's time. Hezekiah heard and obeyed Isaiah's advice, but could not quell the turbulence in Israel. This tradition maintains that Hezekiah was a righteous man and that the turbulence worsened after him. After the death of the king, Isaiah told the people not to forsake God, and warned Israel to cease from its persistent sin and disobedience. Muslim tradition maintains that the unrighteous of Israel in their anger sought to kill Isaiah. In a death that resembles that attributed to Isaiah in Lives of the Prophets, Muslim exegesis recounts that Isaiah was martyred by Israelites by being sawn in two.

The author of Romans quotes Isaiah thus, “And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.” The nations are not presented as conglomerates of individuals but, rather, as entities that, as a whole, may be known for such shared human traits as “trust.” The nation of the United States of America, not as individuals but as a whole, trusts the risen one who is meant to reign over the Gentiles. We have inscribed our trust upon our currency as a national motto – 'In God We Trust.' Recall that Jesus said in John 10:30, “I and my father are one.” Christ, as an example of God in man, is named the Truth. The Truth may apply to any man. What is the mind, the spirit, in a man? What is the most special, that is to say, Holy, mind or spirit in man? It is the Holy Spirit of Truth – the truth being God in man. This is desirable in a Hebrew, in a Muslim, in a Christian, or any other individual of faith. Just as Jesus can be one with God, we can be one with God – but only if we try, only if that is what we want. The author continues in verse thirteen, “Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.” Think of that for a moment. The spirit of God in man, the Holy Ghost, is ascribed with the power of our faith to bring about joy, peace, and fulfillment.

Continuing in verse fourteen, the author speaks to the believers among the gentiles. That is to say, he speaks to the monotheists among the polytheist Romans. He has a good feeling about them. He gets a good vibe from them. He is fully persuaded about their positive attributes. Whoever they may be that believe in the one true God and his representative son, the author considers them to be brethren. He deems that all of his monotheist brothers and sisters are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and, as such, are able to admonish one another. Let us zero in on the two salient points in this verse.

Point one is about the knowledge. It is not just knowledge that they are full of, per se. No. Limited or localized knowledge is not what the author addresses here. Rather, he addresses “all” knowledge. What does it mean that the author puts it that way? It means that the Jews have a measure of the whole, the Christians have a measure of the whole, the Muslims have a measure of the whole. If knowledge could be presented as a jig-saw puzzle, we could then say that each group, in and of themselves, only possess a handful of the pieces needed to complete the big picture. Together, and only together, it may be said that they possess “all” knowledge.

Point two is about what the monotheists do with their handful of puzzle pieces. They are, as the author claims, “able also to admonish one another.” Admonish means to advise, urge, recommend, caution, warn, counsel, exhort, implore, beseech, and encourage. These actions are taken to maintain unity, solidarity, and forward momentum. The actions, all of them, are on a par with the self-healing function within a single body. The white blood cells in my body will maintain my own growth and good health but are of no purpose to any organism outside of myself. Also, just as the white blood cells derive from the skeleton that supports the body, the actions listed above derive from the system of support within a single body. They are not meant to be applied to external bodies. “All” knowledge, as well as the action of admonishment, is a single-body event.

Admonishment is not intended for the enemy. We do not encourage the enemy to oppose us. The concept of 'all knowledge,' as presented by the author of the book of Romans, is not a concept whereby scattered entities assist the entities that oppose them. No. It is a concept, rather, in which a single body, using all of the combined puzzle pieces, recognizes and promotes self-awareness within the context of unity. What that means is that if you hold some of the pieces, you are part of the body. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are not separate, are not inimical, not alien. They are, in actuality, three organs within the single body of monotheism. Each of the three arms of truth is meant to support the others, to hold each other in check. In that sense, if one sibling begins to color outside the lines, the actions of self-maintenance may appear to be a reprimand or a rebuke. Actions of this nature, while seeming hostile, are still acts of self-maintenance within a single body.

The author has been deliberately bold in his writing. He has gathered the three arms of truth and tried his best to put them in mind, as he says, that because of the grace of the one true God, he has dedicated himself to be the minister of the representative son among the Gentiles. That is to say, the office and purpose of the author are to be the minister of Jesus Christ among the differing cultures. If his small life has any meaning, he so much as says, it is in the fact that he attends those matters that pertain to the one true God. He accomplishes that duty through the agency of Jesus Christ. He is not putting forward anything that was not accomplished through Christ. In other words, he is not making any of this up. His words and deeds, for the self-maintenance of the body (to bring the nations and cultures of monotheism together in acts of obedience (self-awareness within the context of unity) to God), originate in and are powered by the truth of God in man – Jesus Christ. He reminds his readers that through the power of the spirit of God, through signs and wonders beyond the scope of mortal ability, he has gone from Jerusalem to Illyricum in the single-minded act of self-maintenance for the body of monotheism – he has preached the gospel, and only the gospel, of Christ. The gospel is the good news. The good news is the truth. The truth is God in man.

So, I pick up in verse twenty. The author feels that he has worked really hard for the cause. He has done his utmost. He has not striven to build upon another man's foundation in the cause of Christ. Peter and the other apostles were already bringing Christ to the Jews from which he originated. As he said: to the Jew first. The Jews had priority in the matter but no monopoly. The author also said: and also to the Greek. Sure, Jesus said he came only for 'the lost sheep of Israel' but he also said, in Luke twenty-four verse forty-seven, “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” So, yes. Jesus came from the Jews to the Jews but that was only a starting point. Note the word 'all' in “among all nations.”

It was meant to be. All nations included the nations of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Arabians, Persians, Hindus, and Turks just to name a few. Jesus is for all nations, all peoples, all cultures. Paul was the apostle to all nations. Israel already had their church. He took the ministry on the road. Did Jesus have a place in other cultures and other faiths? The author thought so. He quoted scripture as an endorsement of his ministry. “To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.” The delay in his getting to the Romans was due to the fulfillment of his franchise in other places. To add to his great desire over many years to go to them, his work in certain areas was, at that point, complete to the extent where he was able to make plans to reach them.

His intent was certain. He had faith that he would reach them by and by – to be strengthened by their fellowship insomuch that it would propel him forward into continued service in new places. They would be lumped together with his visit to Spain but after his return to Jerusalem where he hoped to minister to the saints. I pulled this from Wikisource: Ever he cherished the hope that in some way he might be instrumental in removing the prejudice of his unbelieving countrymen so that they might be led to accept the precious light of the gospel. He also desired to meet the church at Jerusalem and bear to them the gifts sent by the Gentile churches to the poor brethren in Judea. And by this visit, he hoped to bring about a firmer union between the Jewish and the Gentile converts to the faith.

He was determined and his belief was that if the nations were included in the spiritual benefits of the Jewish people, the nations were also responsible to help out in times of great need. His plan to return to Jerusalem was an iffy matter. He had intelligence that certain unbelievers in the area would try again to thwart his ministry. There was a certain amount of risk and danger involved but his mind was set. He saw the blessing in his work and asked for their prayers that things would go well. He was not completely certain that his Jewish counterparts in the Jerusalem church would accept him and the material support he had gathered for them. His hope was to come to the Romans by the will of God and that the will of God would give him some joy in his service to the saints – that after the completion and success of that work, he might, with the Romans, be refreshed. His work was arduous but his optimism was high and he wished those in Rome the best until they met.

The Best of John Chapter Nine

 

I begin in chapter nine, seeing that most of chapter eight took place on the 'eighth day' or 'the Joy of the Torah' which was an additional holiday following the seven-day feast of Tabernacles. It was on this eighth day that the Jews sought to stone Jesus. It was on this eighth day that Jesus hid himself and left the temple, as the scripture states, “and so passed by.”

Chapter nine is the continuation of the story found at the end of chapter eight. Verse one of chapter nine states, “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.” The facts we find here are these: Jesus was still passing by, his disciples were with him, and it was the Sabbath day. It was on this Sabbath following the feast of Tabernacles that Jesus healed a blind man, sending him to wash in the pool of Siloam. I found the following information about the pool of Siloam in Wikipedia:

The pool was rediscovered during an excavation work for a sewer in the autumn of 2004, by Ir David Foundation workers, following a request and directions given by archaeologists Eli Shukron accompanied by Ori Orbach from the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. Archaeologists Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich (working with the Israel Antiquities Authority) uncovered stone steps, and it became obvious that these steps were likely to have been part of the Second Temple period pool. Excavations commenced and confirmed the initial supposition; the find was formally announced on August 9, 2005, and received substantial international media attention. The excavations also revealed that the pool was 225 feet wide, and that steps existed on at least three sides of the pool. A portion of this pool remains unexcavated, as the land above it is owned by a nearby Greek Orthodox church and is occupied by an orchard known as the King's Garden (compare Nehemiah 3:15). The pool is not perfectly rectangular, but a soft trapezoid. There are three sets of five steps, two leading to a platform, before the bottom is reached, and it has been suggested that the steps were designed to accommodate various water levels. The pool is stone-lined, but underneath, there is evidence of an earlier version that was merely plastered (to help it retain water). Coins from the reign of Alexander Jannaeus were found embedded in the plaster lining of the pool, and therefore provide a secure earliest date for the pool's (re-)construction.

At this point, Jesus and his disciples have just walked away from a stoning attempt. They encounter a blind man. Jesus anoints the man's eyes with spittle mud and sends him to the pool of Siloam. If we can determine which exit he took from the women's court, and if we can determine the location of the pool, we should come away with a better mental picture of the movements of Jesus and his disciples.

There were several gates through which Jesus might have made his get-away. Each exit from the women's court led immediately into the court of the gentiles, which surrounded the whole temple. On the last day of the feast, when all men went to their own houses, Jesus was seen going to the Mount of Olives, which is east of the city. He might have opted for the eastern-most gate.

A blind man would depend on charity and donations for a living. He might have chosen a spot in the court of gentiles to ask for alms. From the temple mount, a long street led down through the city southward toward the pool of Siloam. I think it was likely that Jesus encountered the blind man there. Another thought is that Jesus might have had his disciples busy or waiting in that court. It seems unlikely that Jesus and his entire group of disciples could have, in terms of passing by unseen, walked out of the women's court unnoticed.

It seems evident, from the answer Jesus gave his disciples in regard to who sinned, that the blind man was deliberately placed in that time and on hold for the day Jesus would pass by and heal him. This answers at least two of our own unasked questions. We have an opportunity, here, to learn – to spiritually one-up. We may, first of all, learn the common take on sin back in the day of Jesus. The thought was, if someone's life was so grievously smitten, someone somewhere had sinned. In other words, the thought was that such as the blindness of that man was brought on by the actions of people – something akin to instant karma.

Secondly, we may learn an important point in regard to the nature of God's relationship with man. We would all like to think that God has our best interests at heart, that we matter on a personal level. It should be an eye-opener that God doomed this man to a lifetime of misery, shame, and poverty just so Jesus could pass by and heal him one day. Many bitter complaints are leveled against God because we suffer in some way or the other. We blame God. Here is the point we should learn: God is not our personal servant; God has his own agenda. God is not some genie let loose from a bottle that he should be concerned with our daily wishes. Life is hard for no particular reason. That is the nature of existence. We suffer and no one is to blame. Life comes as a package deal – the good and the bad together.

I want us to look at verses four and five, two statements made by Jesus. While even the men hand-picked and personally tutored by the son of God misunderstood both the nature of sin and the providence of God, while we see that a man was singled out to suffer a lifetime of bitter want, Jesus, within that context, made two statements that at once seem so far above the common muddle of life and, yet, deeply immersed and wholly applicable to that muddle and the nature of man.

Let me approach them in reverse order. In verse five, Jesus said, “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Who actually said that? Was it Jesus the man or was it God within? This is my interpretation of the matter but I will make my case with Jesus' own words. Jesus had previously said in chapter eight verse twenty-six, “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of (from) him.” He had also told the Jews in verses fifteen and sixteen of the same chapter, “I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” My take is that when he said “I” he referenced the spirit of the Father within.

Had Jesus only referred to himself, his light would have been taken from the world at his death on the cross. In this regard, it is important to note some words he left with his disciples. In chapter fifteen and verse twenty-six Jesus said, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father . . . ” Since Jesus is truly named 'the Truth' and since the Spirit of 'Truth' (the Holy Ghost) comes from God the Father, the common denominator of “I and my Father are one” is the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from the Father. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of Jesus is the light of the world.

Jesus was a man inhabited by the Spirit of God, inhabited by the Spirit of Truth. Jesus said in verse four, “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day . . . ” In other words, while the light of the world was in the world. Remember, that after Jesus rose from the dead, he was back in the world, speaking what he heard from God and just generally being the light of the world. In that case, the light was only missing from the world for three days. When Christ ascended, He sent the Comforter. We may not think that the light of the world was once again missing until Pentecost. While there was a major display at that time, the disciples already had the Spirit of truth. Recall this from chapter twenty and verse twenty-two, “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost . . . ” Thomas was not there for that and since Judas was dead, there were ten disciples within whom lived the light of the world.

I have only recorded, so far, the first half of Jesus' statement in verse four. The second half goes like this, “The night cometh, when no man can work.” Jesus returned from the grave and worked. So, to what might he have referred? As a possible candidate, I submit Revelation 8:1 “And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.” I submit that for there to be light in the world worked through men, that light must be communicated from a heavenly source. If that communication is withheld, no man can work. If the light of the world is quiet, or absent, it is night.

Finally, in regard to John 9:4, and on a personal level, The Spirit that proceeds from God was denied to Jesus for three days. Jesus had a job to do and he had to fly solo for a while. His victory over death and hell, his defeat of Satan – Jesus did that on his own. Witness Matthew 27:46 “ . . . My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Notes on the remainder of chapter Nine: So, Jesus 'passed by' going right through the 'midst' of those who sought to stone him in the treasury. Then, with his disciples in tow, Jesus sent the blind beggar to wash the mud from his eyes in the pool of Siloam. The man came back seeing and what ensues is somewhat of a trial. The man is hauled up in front of the Jews, possibly, he was drawn as deep into that mire as the Sanhedrin. Pretty much the rest of chapter nine is devoted to that one event. Even the parents of the beggar were called to testify. It seems as though the Jews assumed it was Jesus even as they sought the identity of the one who healed the man. He had been healed on a Sabbath day and that would have been an issue for the Jews.

All their efforts and inquiries ended in failure and, in their consternation, they sent away both the parents and the healed man.

The Jews were on a rampage. We might be tempted to think that Jesus might have left the area altogether but that is not the case. We ask, what happened to the Jews who sought to stone Jesus? Were they still holding rocks in their hands? Were they sweeping the area in search of him? Had they disbanded or were they the ones who interrogated the healed man? How far away had Jesus distanced himself from them? It may be that he hid in plain sight.

After the trial, Jesus found the man he had healed and revealed himself to him. It is at this point in the flow of events, just there at the end of the chapter, that we make a startling discovery. Jesus proclaimed that his purpose on the earth was to pass judgment – to decide sight for the blind and blindness for the sighted. In response, the Jews that were in his company asked if that also applied to them. It did but notice the composition of his company.

Jesus fled from the Jews who wanted to stone him. Yet, aside from the disciples, Jews still accompanied him. These Jews were Pharisees. Were these also disciples? Was the split among the Jews that pronounced? For that matter, had these particular Jews aided Jesus in his passing by?

Finally, I would like to take a moment to consider the statement Jesus made to the Jews in his company. He said to them that if they were blind, they would have no sin. Did that apply to the formerly blind beggar? If it did, it was a physical truth. If that truth was a physical truth, did it mean the formerly blind beggar now had sin? The former beggar worshiped the Son of God and that was accepted. So, perhaps, what Jesus referred to was the spirit or mindset. To 'see' is a concept commonly associated with knowing, knowledge, and presumed wisdom.

This theme of reversal is something I have noticed frequently in the teachings of Jesus. The things which men laud the most are the things which God disdains. Consider Isaiah 64:6, “ . . . and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags . . . ” The mindset of the Jews was that they knew all there was to know. They were not humble in their approach to God but, rather, they were proud in their sense of accomplishment. For that, they were judged to be blind.

The Best of Romans Chapter Fourteen

 

Verse one. We are instructed to receive those who are weak in the faith. That is, we should neither reject them nor avoid them. It is important to note that this instruction is not about those who have not the faith or those who reject faith. We must not, for softness of heart, include any element that works against the faith. Save your strength for those who might actually be brought forward. Why would we waste our time on those who simply squander our energies? If there is at least some faith with which to work, concentrate on those souls that you can bring forward.

I see, in the first half of verse one, a forewarning to shore up the outer reaches, the lesser members of the body of Christ. Those who try and fail have at least tried. They are worthy of our help. What I do not see in the first part of that verse is an instruction to spend any time or effort on the person who refuses to believe. Neither do I see an instruction to include in our efforts those who believe differently – those who believe in other gods. In both cases, those individuals have made deliberate choices insofar that the matter is no longer between themselves and ourselves but, rather, the matter is now between them and the one true God.

There is a second half to the first verse. There is an addendum to the admonition to receive the weak in faith. It is a secondary instruction, a warning, actually, not to engage with the weak in faith in any manner that becomes contentious. In other words, we should never engage in “doubtful disputations.” This is an important point that every strong believer must keep in mind to remain strong and not, himself, become weak.

What is a doubtful disputation? The Institute for Creation Research gives this concise explanation: “Doubtful disputations” refer to critical judgments on the inward reasonings of others. Unless some practice is specifically revealed in Scripture to be right or wrong, each believer should be free to formulate his own convictions about it. New Christians may still feel constrained by certain criteria they had followed earlier, and thus may be reluctant to change when they become saved. Unless these are specifically enjoined or prohibited in the Word of God, older believers should receive them into fellowship without argument or criticism. The link to that, if you wish to verify, is https://www.icr.org › books › defenders

My Dad once told me a story about doubtful disputations. He told a tale of his youthful days in the city of Gadsden, Alabama. His anecdote involved two preachers both of whom were weak in the faith. As he walked down the main street in downtown Gadsden, two preachers stood on the sidewalk in front of the rented building they used as their church. It was one church shared by two preachers because neither could afford the rent on his own. They took my Dad by the elbows and led him inside. “Young man,” they said, “you need to be saved.” As they led him down the aisle in the old narrow building, a dispute erupted between the two preachers. One of them believed that Dad needed to repent before God would save him. The other man believed that God's love for Dad came before Dad's need to repent. By the time they reached the altar, they were engaged in a fistfight. Dad looked on in dismay. Quietly, while they were occupied, Dad turned and walked away.

Verses two through eight. People are different. Each of us has our own way. Above the minor differences, God deals with all of us. The author notes that one person might eat freely without qualms or reservations while another person, and here, the author places this second person as 'weak,' only eats herbs. These are two different choices based on two separate opinions. The one who, by comparison, eats meat is considered strong while the vegetarian or vegan is considered weak. I don't think the author intended us to view the so-called strong eater as someone who would just put anything in his mouth. Being both a Jew and a Roman, the author may or may not have subscribed to the Jewish restriction against pork but we know that he argued for the inclusion of pork eaters into Christianity.

Perhaps his point is not so much about food as it is about the spirit of the person. Perhaps the author recognized the stronger of the two as the one who walked in faith rather than living a life based on fear or a softness of heart. The vegetarian may not necessarily be seen as fearing to eat meat but rather as fearing for the animal. Yet, a reluctance can hold a person back. The person who is reluctant to fly may take the bus instead. He will not get there as soon as the flier but he will get there nonetheless. For weakness, that person has amputated his wings. A person is then seen to restrict not something outside of himself but, rather, a part of his own being. In regard to eating meat, I find it interesting that science makes the claim that a meat diet was responsible for the evolution of primates into humans – meaning, I think, that a vegetarian diet would have restricted the advancement of intellect.

Not necessarily in the author's own words, the person who flies should not despise the person who takes the bus. The person who takes the bus should not despise the person who flies. Both of them, barring the unforeseen, will reach their destinations. People are different. Still, there is an area of concern where it may be said that there is a right way and a wrong way. The person who walks on the sidewalk may think his way is right and that it more or less assures his likelihood of not being struck by a car. The person who enjoys the freedom of walking in the street may think his way is right because it is his way and that it is just as valid, as ways go, as the way of the side-walker. Equality under the law. Right? The man on the sidewalk may call out an earnest warning to the man in the street. The man in the street may reject that call. The man in the street may, indeed, increase his chances of being hit or reduce his opportunities to be in a safer area. He may for the time get by with his way but if he gets hit, he has only himself to blame.

What comes down, comes down from a level that is higher than the one on which we exercise our personal choices. While one man may be of the opinion that certain days of the week or year are special and should be celebrated, another person may hold a more profane view of the days, thinking that no one day is any different than any other day. It is permissible that each of us may be fully persuaded in our own view. We may look at the differences between Christianity and Atheism and it may be the view of the Christian that the Atheist needs to get right with God. On the other hand, the Atheist may view the Christian as someone who just needs to chill out and enjoy life without over-complicating matters. It is permissible that each of us be assured in our own world view. According to the author of this Biblical book, the Christian should not judge the Atheist and the Atheist should not judge the Christian.

He said that because of the higher level from which comes down to us all that occurs. In that regard, no man is an island. In other words, no man lives unto himself and no man dies unto himself. Where we come from and where we go are higher matters that have never been under our control. Therefore, while it is expedient for the faithful to exercise their faith, it is not beneficial to judge others by our own standards. Revelation 22:11 instructs all of us, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” Beyond expressing our views and hopes and concerns, we should simply let the matter alone. Christians should serve their master and allow the Atheists to serve their master – whoever or whatever that master may be. The same standard should apply to all intelligent people. Atheists should allow Christians their place in the world we hold in common. Muslims and adherents to other faiths should allow a place in this common world for those of other views. It is wrong not only to condemn those unlike ourselves but worse, for our own sakes, to harm another for superficial differences.

The Christian lives and dies unto his Lord. The people of other faiths live and die unto their respective Lords. The non-believer lives and dies unto the higher force of his or her existence. While we live and share this common realm, it is good to be useful to those we care about. It is also expedient to exercise the best within us, and that 'best' must necessarily include tolerance for those of different views.

Verses nine through twenty-three. The first word of verse nine leads our inquiry. To continue his argument, the author began verse nine with the word 'for.' To use the word 'for' as a connector between his previous argument and his current continuation is a matter that could as well be served by the use of the word 'because.' In other words, his former argument is the reason Christ died, arose, and revived. By doing what no one but Christ could do, he established his Lordship over not only the saved but the unsaved, as well. Think of it that way and connect the dots. For Jesus to be the “Lord both of the dead and the living,” it is the same as saying Jesus is the Lord both of the Christian and every other believer and non-believer, as well. It doesn't matter that some people don't believe or that some people believe differently, Jesus Christ is the one and only Lord.

Being the only Lord means that he is the only judge. All of us – Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, or whatever – all of us must stand before the judgment seat of Christ. In this life, it is not our place to judge another. It is not our place to belittle or despise. Simply put, such thoughts and actions only add to the crimes that we commit against ourselves. We condemn ourselves by condemning others. In doing so, we are stealing the thunder from thunder's true owner.

The author justifies this view in verse eleven when he states, “For (because) it is written (it is legally established) As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Every one of us must personally answer to the judge who is judge overall. There is no mention of a substitute judge. There is no stand-in. There is only one judge and “every” knee shall bow to that one judge. Likewise, there is established in writing only one God to whom “every” tongue must make confession. This is not a Hebrew thing. It is not an old testament thing. Neither is it a Christian thing. It is an everyone thing. It covers all of us. The Atheist is not excluded because he does not believe. The Muslim is not excluded because he believes in Allah. If you have a spirit, that spirit will stand before Christ. Every spirit must give an account of all that he or she truly said and truly did in this short life on Earth.

It is the conclusion and suggestion of the author that all of us stop judging and condemning our fellow man. We are challenged, rather, to no longer place a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in the paths of our brothers and sisters. What does that mean? To behead a Christian for not being a Muslim is a stumbling block. To excommunicate a so-called heretic is an occasion to fall. For the purpose of being righteous, there must no longer be the view that a brother can be an infidel. Knowing that we must all make an accounting of our righteousness before a righteous judge, there can be no infidels, there can be no heathen. There may only be brothers and sisters and beloved all.

Many of us know in our hearts what the author is persuaded of in verse fourteen. Is it merely an opinion? No. It comes down from the judge of all. There are no infidels. There are no heathen. There are no heretics. In and of ourselves, none of us are unclean. None of us are wrong except in the minds of those who insist that it is so. The message is clear in verse fifteen. We should not destroy another with the thing in which we are strong, be it our meat or our faith or our lack of faith. The meat-eater should not in any way cause harm to the vegetarian. The vegetarian should not do harm to the eater of meat. Both are blessed with sustenance. The Christian should not destroy the Muslim for the sake of his Christian faith and the Muslim should not destroy the Christian for the sake of his Muslim faith. Both are blessed with faith that gives them the strength to live. Christ died for all. Our attitudes toward our brothers and sisters should be charitable.

Verse sixteen is advice for the ages. If you think there is something in you that is good – whether it be your faith as a Muslim or your faith as a Christian, don't give it a bad reputation. Give no cause for others to see you as an evil enemy. Tolerance is the skeleton of the spirit. Charity is the muscle of the spirit. How can we stand without tolerance for our brothers and sisters? How can we move without charity? What is the highest ideal that we strive for in life? What is our heaven and what is our paradise? It is not found in setting differences and insisting that yours is the best. It is not in the dietary restrictions of a religion. It is not in the particular name we employ for our God. It is not found in a desire to have power or the bitter arguments that lead to destruction. It is only found in right-thinking and good deeds toward all people. It is found in peace between people and joy in the assurance of a right mind.

If in peace, joy, and rightness of mind, you serve the judge you will someday stand before, two things will be true of you. You will be acceptable to God and you will be approved by men. You will be a hero with an assured reward. If you know the work belongs above you and is not in your control, why would you destroy the work of God for your small opinion or desire? All things are pure, the evil is in forcing another to receive what is not for them. Don't force the vegetarian to eat meat. Don't force the Christian to be a Muslim or the Muslim to be a Christian. Don't force the Atheist to believe. It is not good to do anything to offend a brother or to make him stumble in his particular path through life. Do not offend them or wear them down.

This is the culmination of chapter fourteen in the book of Romans – a book considered to be only Christian. It is better for us to see it as spiritual. If you have faith, exercise your faith within yourself before God. If you do not condemn yourself before the true judge in the things that you adopt for yourself, you can count yourself happy. The things that you allow are things for you. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. That is to say that if you do not have full assurance in the thing that you do, you are damned in the doing of it. If the vegetarian who is doubtful of meat is forced to eat meat, he is damned by doing so. It is not the meat eater's place to damn his vegetarian brother. It is not the Muslim's place to damn his Christian brother. It is not the Christian's place to damn his Atheist brother. While this is what the author of a Christian book has said, it is more a tenet of the spirit. Greater than the petty differences between mortal men is the Spirit within us.