• Introduction
• A miracle in motion
  • The disability
  • The higher purpose
  • The miracle
• Post-miracle interactions
  • The neighbours
  • The man
  • The Pharisees
  • The blind man
  • The care of Jesus
  • The lesson

Introduction

This account of Jesus giving sight to a man blind from birth shows that the religious authorities had learned nothing since condemning the crowd and temple guards earlier at the Feast of Tabernacles. On that occasion, they resorted to arrogant posturing and accusation when their plan to use the temple guards failed to capture Jesus.

1. Arrogant posturing and accusation

Towards the temple guards:

⁴⁸ "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? ⁴⁹ No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them."

(John 7)

(Comment: What is the most important? To know the Law, or believe in one displaying the God who gave it?)

2. Ignorantly showing their own ignorance

⁵² "Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee."

(Comment: Look into it, and what do we find? The prophet Jonah came out of Galilee.^[1])

Now, in the case of an undeniable miracle of Jesus restoring sight to a blind man, when the Pharisees were left with no justifiable pathway for denying the miracle, their method to discount the blind man’s testimony was to fall into their same arrogant, and ignorant posturing and accusation,

²⁸ Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses!

"You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!"

And they threw him out.

Were they not also steeped in sin at birth? These elites considered not, and consequently controlled others by denigration, fear and force.

The practice of any religion, including the religion we create for ourself, surfaces similar judgemental behaviour in every person who has not faced their own flawed humanity, e.g., every religious adherent practicing rituals they believe have potential spiritual power for them; every archbishop, bishop, priest, pastor, elder, imam, cult leader, group leader, ministry leader, social leader, congregational participant etc. Fickle, dismissive judgement is the common story of religions that continue today. Religion in any cloak easily becomes the hiding place of moral failure and simultaneously a weapon of corrupted pride dragging a long trail of justified personal attacks behind it, sometimes materialising in military force.

These forces were present driving the desire of the religious authorities to kill Jesus so such an extent that their objective to destroy him became widely known and blanketed the Feast of Tabernacles with fear of demonstrating any association or sympathy with him.

A miracle in motion

¹ As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.

Jesus was often in motion from the time he began his ministry. Miracles happened when he was on the move carrying out the mission given to him by his Father^[2].

The disability

In this incident, as Jesus walks along a road with his disciples, he sees this man blind from birth. His disciples are more interested in defining the causative boundary of judgement impinging on this man’s physical state rather than questioning if Jesus could heal him, as they had watched him do previously for many. Their instant focus is judgemental, "Who is responsible for this affliction? Who needs to be held responsible?" Who sinned causing this tragedy? This is the average response of viewers of evening news reports on national TV. I have to catch myself often flipping into similar instant judgements of prime suspects in sensational news reports. John no doubt listened in to the concerns of his fellow-disciples about the man born blind.

² "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Engrained self-righteousness instantly and automatically looks for judgement rather than opportunities for grace.

Instant judgement is usually found to be nonsensical when given a second thought. The disciples’ nonsensical question in essence was, "Where is the causative sin for this blindness from birth? Is it in the child born blind or in his parents?" It does not take much thought to realise that any hint of an embryo being capable of committing a sin that warranted punishment by God is nonsensical, let alone punishment due to a parent’s previous sin inflicting the embryo for life with such an isolating condition. Nevertheless, the disciples asked the question impulsively seeking to identify the sinner who caused the blindness from birth.

"Judgemental searchlights" seeking a target always point away from those holding them, in order to divert light being shone on their own sins. Consider how frequently you catch yourself doing the same. Visual inputs stream endlessly to our brains when awake. The moment we leave our residence to go to work or shopping, the visual inputs of people within sight come like a flood. Some instantly grab my attention, such as a person with an obvious, visible handicap. My unguarded mind immediately jumps in with its interpretation of the multiple visual inputs. Suddenly I wake up to the fact that I have made a quick assessment of each person against my subconscious databank of past cause-and-effect emotional, intellectual and physical experiences that predispose my instant uniformed and wild assumptions or conclusions about the person to arise. In short, those assessments often have uninformed cause-and-effect judgements attached to them with no prior knowledge of the person.

Jesus elevated the explanation for the man’s handicap above the disciples’ limited "cause-and-effect" thinking to an infinitely higher cause-and-effect.

³ "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him".

The cause for the man’s handicap came from God, and not from his family, to fulfill the purpose of God to demonstrate his works. How much affliction do we encounter in society, or among friends, that has this higher purpose as its cause? What about any current personal affliction in your family or social network? How is it effecting those in its gambit of relationships? Consider how it may be fulfilling a higher purpose before casting judgement.

The higher purpose

Afflictions make possible the works of God to be displayed in multiple ways. They present opportunity for any disciple of Jesus associated with the afflicted person to work. These works of God go beyond the affliction itself. They also are seen in the growth of tested faith in those associated with the suffering before the healing occurs (and after). Only the few who walk with the Spirit of God can spot this possibility and seek to discern from the Spirit the way God wants his works to be displayed through them or someone else. How does God want to display his works in the specific persons who currently interface with the afflicted? Whose faith in him is he wanting to expand? What spiritual gift is he wanting to strengthen to use in the situation, (e.g., encouragement, discernment, counsel etc.)? Whose faith does he want to strengthen to claim for the sufferer physical, mental, emotional, relational or spiritual healing? Can you see the higher purpose?

What is definite and clear for each disciple of Jesus is the focus he placed on the time available to them to carry out work for God’s rule:

⁴ As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.

Jesus did not see the works of God commissioned to be done solely by him. He saw the disciples that he was training to be with him also doing those works, i.e., "…we must do the works … The night is coming for each disciple of Jesus when they will no longer be able to work. We do not control when the night will come for us, but it will come. Time is limited." That certainty sharpens the daily focus of every "would be" disciple of Jesus wanting to engage in his works. Jesus said that relatively few would choose that focus.

Jesus immediately concluded this initial correction of the disciples’ misplaced judgements with an all-encompassing and definitive statement,

⁵ While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

In other words,

"This man may have been born blind, but don’t focus on that limitation. Look at me and the work the Father is about to do through me as the light of the world for this long-suffering blind man. This is the work of God that the Father has chosen for you to do also as lights to the world, just as he chose me to do his works".

The miracle

John then saw a new miracle on his journey with Jesus. He kept his record simple for maximum effect.

…I am the Light of the world. ⁶ After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes.

⁷ "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means "Sent"). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

The blind man: 1) went, 2) washed, 3) came home seeing. Three actions. John gives no more details. He doesn’t add any that would take the focus off Jesus demonstrating through the healed blind man that he was the Light of the world.

The power of the miracle was in the action of Jesus, his faith-testing command to the man, and the man’s unquestioning obedience.

Post-miracle interactions

The neighbours

⁸ His neighbours and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, "Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?" ⁹ Some claimed that he was.

Others said, "No, he only looks like him."

Eye witness accounts are never uniform and are often contradictory on key matters. Every legal trial specialist knows that well. This is a classic example. Sound law court processes are established for the jury and trial judge to sift out inaccurate and unqualified witnesses in order to arrive at the truth. Who is this now-seeing man? How reliable is his input?

The man

When the debate is about a person’s identity, significant weight must be given to the testimony of the person in question. Defence lawyers time the introduction of a crucial witnesses to bring the most influence to bear in defining the certain innocent identity of their charged client. Similarly, the healed blind man forcefully inserted himself into the debate to assert his true identity rather than leave it to a variety of opinions.

But he himself insisted^[3], "I am the man!"

With the man’s identity clarified, the mystified neighbours switched to wanting more explanation of this astounding miracle.

¹⁰ "How then were your eyes opened?" they asked.

¹¹ He replied, "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see."

The healed man gives a simple description of what happened leading up to the miracle. He speaks somewhat impartially about Jesus simply identifying him as "the man they call Jesus". Who is "they"? Had he heard the gossip about Jesus among strangers at the annual event and whispers of fear in the crowds warning not to be seen endorsing the man Jesus in any way? The policing Pharisees certainly would have arrested anyone calling Jesus any more than a man.

¹² "Where is this man?" they asked him.

"I don’t know," he said.

He had apparently not gone looking. He was possibly as perplexed as his neighbours but had not gone looking for Jesus. He would have been personally overwhelmed. How would you absorb a miracle like that? There would be no thinking space left to be wondering where your healer had gone.

Imagine the rapid processing in his mind seeking to connect the reality now coming through his combined physical senses …

"I have never seen what things look like. Now a voice has a face, and it changes shape around its mouth and eyes to match its familiar sound. Astounding!

I can see shapes I could only feel before, and colour is amazing! I want to see more!

I have no idea where the man is who put mud on my eyes. Keeping in touch with his movements is not my focus right now. My sight is too overwhelming and thrilling".

The neighbours were not satisfied. They wanted more explanation. The next most logical place to get answers was the religious experts. They hoped the study of the experts may have some answers.

¹³ They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind.

The Pharisees

Framework of operation

John’s opening comment about the interaction between the Pharisees and the man who had been blind has a sense of déjà vu to it. He prefaces the subsequent interaction with the Pharisees with the qualifying comment,

¹⁴ Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath.

John had been here before in his journey with Jesus. When on the Sabbath, Jesus healed the invalid, who had not walked for 38 years, the Pharisees showed no compassion to the invalid. They were quick to discount the miraculous healing as a work of God, because it was the result of Sabbath work. The lifelong physical trial of the invalid was of no consequence to them. Their driving motivation was their public control as guardians of the Laws of Moses. After that healing on the Sabbath, they began their attack on Jesus seeking to gather evidence to kill him, which had continued unabated up to the Festival of Tabernacles. Their response to this new healing was totally predictable. They instantly probed if any Sabbath work had been done to enable the miracle.

¹⁵ Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. "He put mud on my eyes," the man replied, "and I washed, and now I see."

¹⁶ Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath."

These quick-to-judge Pharisees could be seen as the one-dimensional, one-directional hardliners of the group. They were not servants ministering with compassion but rigid, hasty judges administering a rule book. From their one-dimensional framework of self-importance, they were blind to the grace of God being extended to alleviate a life-time of suffering. The rule book was quick and easy to apply from cold hearts.

"This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath."

Other Pharisees in the group, however, had sufficient life balance to be able to entertain a viable question,

"How can a sinner perform such signs?" So they were divided.

How could a sinner heal the sight of a person blind from birth? The answer to this question could not reside in a human domain of reality. The healed man was more advanced than these self-promoted religious experts in recognising that the dimension of his healing was beyond our familiar human domain of physical reality. He had already moved to a super-natural framework of reality for his personal explanation.

The blind man

Framework of understanding

Interrogation 1

¹⁷ Then they turned again to the blind man, "What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened."

The man replied, "He is a prophet."

In Jewish history and their scriptures, the Holy Spirit resided on prophets, priests and kings to be supernatural channels of God’s grace acting in the nation. The healed man knew this and had concluded that Jesus was not confined to physical dimensions and had to possess supernatural power. While he had moved to a supernatural framework of understanding in which the prophets operated, the Pharisees remained stuck in their physical world of unbelief not prepared to let go of their legal authority. Their method to control investigation of the truth to their satisfaction was interrogation of physical facts for as long as needed to detect and define any violations of their laws. Stuck in this physical framework of religious authority, they were ego-driven, power-hungry, insecure analyticals.

¹⁸ They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. ¹⁹ "Is this your son?" they asked. "Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?"

The man’s physical explanation of gaining sight was insufficient for them. His parents would certainly confirm the presence and extent of any birth defects they had to manage in raising him. Nevertheless, how did the Pharisees expect that his parents would have any idea how a blind son could suddenly and miraculously see? They were clutching for anything that would discount this act of Jesus being miraculous, because it would thwart their objective to kill him, if it became widely known. The Pharisees had to discredit the healing swiftly. They were anti-ophthalmologists!

²⁰ "We know he is our son," the parents answered, "and we know he was born blind. ²¹ But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself."

They quickly flicked the focus of the Pharisees back to their son. John adds his interpretation of their reason for doing so. Fear!

²² His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. ²³ That was why his parents said, "He is of age^[4]; ask him."

The Pharisees had certainly been effective in their campaign to prevent the popularity of Jesus spreading using fear of rejection and isolation.

Interrogation 2

²⁴ A second time they summoned the man who had been blind.

They began by placing a religious straight-jacket on the man as a ground rule for their meeting. It was comprised of: 1) a sound spiritual principle, joined with 2) a false claim.

1. "Give glory to God by telling the truth," they said.

2. "We know this man is a sinner."

The now-seeing man had no concern about the first component of their ground rule. The second he dismissed as a fabricated claim and turned it into a challenge.

²⁵ He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"

No one could take that reality from him – no academic, opthalmological or theological argument could stand against it without sounding foolish. They had to find a flaw in his claim to discredit his belief that he was healed the moment he washed in the Pool of Siloam. So they questioned again.

²⁶ Then they asked him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"

Where zero faith confronts the miraculous, it only has analytical argument to fall back on. It has to search for conflicting facts and then discredit the witness. Therefore, the healed man went on the offensive now aware that he held all the cards in this interrogation game.

²⁷ He answered, "I have told you already and you did not listen.

The healed blind man gave a forceful assessment of the Pharisees behaviour and switched to their method of interrogation of not waiting for an answer before attacking their motivation rhetorically. He now adopted a dominant stance with them.

Why do you want to hear it again?

Do you want to become his disciples too?^[5]

The healed man, possibly with a tone of sarcasm, used a grammatical construction that signalled the expectation of a negative answer, e.g., "You don’t wish to become his disciples also do you?" (In no way did they!) His comment hit at the heart of what drove the Pharisees’ aggression towards Jesus and his followers, i.e.,

1. refusal to surrender full control of their choices to Jesus, who consistently put this either/or choice before his listeners at all levels of society, and still does;
2. refusal to let go of pride and admit one’s need of forgiveness and cleansing from sin (this would be an inconceivable ‘coming out’ for these supposed examples of religious virtue and knowledge.)

The power of these two drivers under the Pharisees questioning of the blind man was instantly apparent in their excessive, uncontrolled, self-justifying reaction:

²⁸ Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from."

They became instant revilers spuing scorn upon the blind man to silence and humiliate him. They mocked the man for becoming a disciple of an unknown stranger and placarded their pedigree in contrast by boasting to be disciples of Moses. Disciple of Jesus or Moses? Disciple of Jesus or another guru? Disciple of Jesus or your own belief system? Ruled by Jesus or your pride? Jesus is the decision point for every person, that will never go away.

The man did not cower to their attack because his healing was dramatic, authentic and undeniable to him. He was living his miracle. He knew its source had to be divine. He turned the attack on their flawed boast.

³⁰ The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes!"

We could add, "You are in hypocritical denial of what you have studied about the works of God." The healed man now added how he had been taught God works, which he would have learned from their prior teaching:

³¹ We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. ³² Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. ³³ If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."

Yes, nothing!

³⁴ To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out.

When pride-constructed, physically-based belief systems encounter any definitive spiritual cause and its effects, they have nowhere to go except to aggressive closures, e.g., slander, isolation, imprisonment, and death. The history of the spiritual followers of Jesus is full of martyrs, who have set aside their social standing and comforts to be made an outcast.

The care of Jesus

John does not end his record of the healing of the blind man at the crisis point of him being cast out of the synagogue. He had experienced and witnessed multiple expressions of the compassion of Jesus early in journeying with him. He had listened to Jesus consistently focus his message to individuals and groups on his gift of eternal life. Accordingly, John chose to complete his record of this dramatic physical miracle with a pericope of Jesus looking for the man, in order to ignite a trusting relationship with him.

³⁵ Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

³⁶ "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."

³⁷ Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."

³⁸ Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshipped him.

This is a touching pericope showing the care of Jesus for the healed man, who had chosen, under the pressure of interrogation, to take the stance of a disciple of Jesus by putting his social acceptance at risk to defend the authentic character of Jesus. John does not say where Jesus found him but indicates that Jesus made a concerted effort to do so when told of the Pharisees’ judgemental actions against him.

It is instructive how Jesus related to the rejected healed man. He did not take an empathetic approach to sooth the man’s hurt. He took a faith path to restoration.

…he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

Jesus demonstrated the stance his disciple should take to restore the hurting, confused and rejected in our society. Seek to guide them to hope-filled belief found only in Jesus. The greatest obstacle to a belief in Jesus that can restore purpose in life is ignorance.

³⁶ "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."

The blind man was a classic example of being sought out by Jesus, yet potentially being ignorant of him nearby. This is true for many today.

Jesus initiated deliberate contact with the man. He was destined to be used by Jesus as an example and confirmation that he is the light of the world. The miracle of healing the blind man’s sight was seen by the disciples, his neighbours and then the Pharisees.

Jesus more than touched him. He put mud on the man’s eyes using his own spittle. Contact with the man could not have been closer touching the most critical part of his disabled body. Yet the man still did not comprehend the full identity of Jesus. He did not see him. He reasoned that he must be a prophet from God but had not comprehended his full identity as the Son of Man.

Jesus wanted to do more that bring physical sight to the man to enable his eyes to process physical light. His aim was to bring the light of his spirit to the man to enlighten his dead spirit to process life. The man, although healed physically, was still blind spiritually. Jesus was near him but not seen by him. The healed man still needed to see the full identity of Jesus, in order to believe in him and receive the sight that sees God and his workings. That is true for every person.

Many brush by Jesus today and still do not see him clearly. Childhood boredom with drab religious rituals continue to mask the identity of the Jesus of history and the eternal love that he offers. When he is not seen, he cannot give sight and his all-embracing, renewing life of love.

³⁶ "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."

Jesus the Son of Man and Son of God had been in full view and up close reaching out to the healed man. Yet he remained unknown and unseen by the man. Now was the time to reveal his identity to him. Now the man was ready to believe the impossible. The Creator of all had come looking for him and was standing before him. Staggering!

³⁷ Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."

This would no doubt have been a seminal moment for the man, a moment that stunned, a moment far greater than mere disability relief and beyond both expectation and comprehension. Imagine right now having the Creator of the Universe standing before you offering his love and free gift of an eternal life with him in a way that he opens your eyes to see Him. He has come looking for you. What would you do?

³⁸ Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshipped him.

The lesson

For the man

The man immediately adopted a worshipping spirit of full belief, which has the ability to discern the boundary between spiritual and physical reality, truth and deception.

³⁹ Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

He knew, when he declared his trust in Jesus as the Son of Man, that he had suddenly been ushered by Jesus into both physical and spiritual sight. He could see all that was around him physically and now the identity of the Son of Man spiritually. His spirit leaped into life. He saw the heart of Jesus, who reached out to heal him, and the hearts of the Pharisees, who threw him out of the synagogue with a burst of religious anger and defensiveness. Suddenly, he could see that he had gained spiritual sight, and they had become blind. They could not see the undeniable miraculous work of God by Jesus in the healing of his physical sight. The healed man could see that the stated purpose of Jesus coming into the world was now happening, and he was privileged to be included in it.

³⁹ Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

Losing sight of spiritual realities operating now that will extend forever is possibly the greatest of all human tragedies. It is critical for each person to ask, "Have I lost sight?" This is so critical that we should not leave the assessment with ourselves but also shared with a wise person in our circle of acquaintances, who claims to see Jesus.

For the Pharisees

⁴⁰ Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"

⁴¹ Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Jesus completed his explanation of the cause of the man being blind from birth with a warning to every religious person feeling secure in their self-developed or borrowed religion.

…now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Our proud-full efforts of being a good person, family member, community member, or even church member can never remove our sin and future judgement by Jesus as the Son of Man. We may engage in work and social activities that build a reputation of someone who sees, but remain in the blindness of hidden guilt. The moment we claim that we can see how to live our life honourably according to our ‘religion’, and how others should, our guilt remains. Our ‘religion’ can never remove it. Only Jesus can declare us as "Not guilty" the moment he forgives our sin, when we place our trust in him for having personally paid the full penalty for it by remaining on the Roman Cross until completed. "It is finished!"

Every person needs his declaration of "forgiven" over their entire life, both the hidden and the seen, not just parts. Then his light enlightens our spiritual sight forever. Every person needs Jesus! The man was born blind from birth for this message to continue to give spiritual sight to those who hear it today. Do you see?

I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.

(John 8:12)

---

1. Today the site, at latitude 32° 44′ 30" N and longitude 35° 19′ 30" E in the Galilee, is a small set of ruins on a hilltop near the Arab village of Mashhad five kilometres north of Nazareth and one kilometre from Kafr Kanna. The supposed tomb of Jonah is still pointed out by locals. ↩︎

2. He was in motion after healing a paralytic when he called Matthew to leave his work and follow (Matthew 9:9). Shortly after, he moved on to resurrect the synagogue leader’s daughter and on the way healed a woman with an issue of blood (9:18-26). Later leaving Jericho he healed two blind men who called out to him as he passed by (20:30-34). Post-resurrection he did the same on a lakeside beach miraculously filling a fishing net with a school of fish, and in the case of chatting with two men leaving their time in Jerusalem as they walked along the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-34). ↩︎

3. John uses εἶπεν (eipen) which occurs over 1,000 times in the NT, often in the case where the authority of the speaker and importance of his words is emphasized, e.g., it is often used to introduce the teachings and sayings of Jesus. Its use here by John seeks to convey the assertiveness and clarity of the blind man’s interjection in the comments of the public. ↩︎

4. ἡλικία ((hay-lik-ee’-ah) meaning maturity in years, which was obvious from his statement to be blind 38 years ↩︎

5. μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς θέλετε αὐτοῦ μαθηταὶ γενέσθαι? You don’t wish to become his disciples also do you?" ↩︎

• Dispute over Jesus’ claims of self
  • Giver of life
  • Authentic witness
  • True spiritual identity

¹ …but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

² At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. ³ The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group ⁴ and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵ In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" ⁶ They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. ⁷ When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." ⁸ Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

⁹ At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. ¹⁰ Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

¹¹ "No one, sir, " she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you, " Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

This is a very moving account of legalism with no heart abusing a defenceless and isolated soul in an attempt to trap Jesus into responding with grace when the Law required death.

The religious authorities had seen many occasions of Jesus extending grace to a wide variety of people in need and anticipated that he would do so with the victim they dragged into the Temple to stand before him and many devout witnesses. The authorities had already encountered him having no respect for their Sabbath laws by commanding the invalid at the Pool of Silom to pick up his camp bed and walk. His self-defence had resulted in their decision to kill him.

For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

They were still on the hunt for an authoritative and unquestionably legal reason to kill him that would receive the full support of religious Jews. They had caught this woman committing adultery. Who gave them the tip off? What reward did they receive from the authorities for turning her in? What about her male accomplice? Was she a victim of his rape attack or did she seduce him? Irrespective of the context of their catch, the authorities had caught her in the very act of adultery.^[1] There could be no clearer breaking of the Law. The religious hunters showed their eagerness to use her as a trap to catch Jesus by interrupting his teaching session and forcibly making her stand in the centre of the Temple attendees to be interrogated and charged. The practice of the day was to make the accused stand up in the centre of the interrogators. This could be both daunting and humiliating. The actions of the accusers against the woman had the hallmarks of an eager criminal investigation. Guilty as charged! What would Jesus do?

They made her stand before the group ⁴ and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery."

Now they had a clear legal case to trap him. They did not need the Guards to drag her forcibly to the Temple. They were so confident in their catch to trap Jesus that they dragged the "seducer" themselves, no doubt eagerly, into the centre of the Temple teaching.

⁵ In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"

John adds the editorial comment,

⁶ They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

Their motivation was not lost on John. It was clearly obvious what they were attempting to do. He notes that their focus and interest was not the woman. It was Jesus, whom the attendees at the Feast of Tabernacles had been fearful to support publicly, because of the search the authorities had launched for him from Day 1 of the Festival. Nevertheless, the Temple Guards had disobeyed the authorities and backed off arresting him. The only weapon left for them at that point was instant derision and self-righteous posturing, i.e., until they caught the woman in adultery.

⁵ In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.

There has been much theorising about what Jesus wrote that was so pertinent to the situation. The point is, however, that Jesus responded how he always engaged in his interaction with people. He chose his terms of response and always maintained control of his interactions. He never let Satan work through a person or situation to control him no matter how dominating and persistent their behaviour. In this case,

⁷ When they kept on questioning him,

He remained silent…but then,

he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

⁸ Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

The silence of Jesus before this command and immediately after it drew maximum effect. Hovering over him with a torrent of questions seeking to trap him was not getting a response, but then he stopped writing on the ground and stood to speak. They probably thought that they had finally achieved a breakthrough and Jesus would either condemn the woman or incriminate himself extending forgiveness. No doubt everyone hung on his words. When he finally spoke, he switched the focus from his and the woman’s sin to their sin.

Each of the accusers would have been aware of their many sins hidden under their cloak of self-righteousness. The question was, as it is for all of us self-righteously engaged in judging another, whether or not we will be honest about the presence of our own sin.

⁹ At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

The response of the accusers now facing the search light of judgment turned on them was reflective and individualistic. Each was confronted with having to be honest about their own sin. They each arrived at a decision separately as the timing of their responses indicates,

…those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first…

Why the older ones first? Only a person in their latter years can answer that question with lived understanding. Age leaves behind it a path of relationship failures, wounds from others, wounds we have given others and self-inflicted emotional wounds. We become increasingly aware of our imperfections seen in the trail of our sins. We know by hard experience that we are not without sin. This is a broader and deeper reality than we had in younger years when pride drove our external image building and our obsession with image comparisons. Then we gave little thought to our self-justified judgements about ourselves and others. In old age, however, the awareness of a trail of sins increasingly deadens joy and becomes an unshakeable mountain. The older ones carried this engrained consciousness that required little self-reflection. They left first, one at a time.

…only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

All the accusers had gone. Those Jesus was teaching, when interrupted by the religious authorities in for his kill, were likely still there to witness the conclusion of this staged trial.

¹⁰ Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

He had stood to question the accusers. Now he stood again and asked two questions still focused on the behaviour of the woman’s accusers. They were simple clarification questions that reinforced the obvious to the woman and the onlookers from the class being taught by Jesus when interrupted by the religious leaders in for his kill. The answer was obvious.

¹¹ "No one, sir," she said.

The response by Jesus to her was instant unexpected grace coupled with a command to change.

"Then neither do I condemn you, " Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

His response to sin is no different today. Any church or leader who teaches differently and promotes instant grace coupled with empathy for the seeker’s struggle against their sin with no urgency for repentance is a false teacher.

Dispute over Jesus’ claims of self

John now switches his focus from the woman back to the Pharisees, who were continuing to challenge the legitimacy of Jesus. John covers their continuing interaction in lengthy detail, because of its significance in Jesus bringing to a head his claim of pre-existent, eternal deity, viz.,

⁵⁸ "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am!"

This claim is simple and forceful, a clear statement from Jewish history, using the father of Judaism as a reference point, and unmistakable in its claim of personal identity. Jesus claims to be the eternal I AM, the Creator of all, which far exceeds being a miracle-worker restoring the sight of a blind man.

The religious leaders and devout Jews present had no alternative than to execute him on the spot for this greatest of blasphemies of identifying himself as the I AM of their national formation through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. Consequently, John took time to detail this milestone interaction, as follows:

Giver of life

¹² When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Jesus begins this interaction chosen by him with one of his many "I am" statements, φῶς εἰμι^[2] Those listening would have immediately connected this claim of identity with God’s only name "Yahweh" meaning "he who always was, is and forever will be". Jesus claims to be the light of the world (i.e., all humanity and not just a privileged few). He was not just any light increasing one’s sight in understanding a topic under consideration. His claim was to be the eternal life giver. He is the light of life.

None of the Pharisees could make such a claim. Their only option was to discredit him before those present.

¹³ The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."

Authentic witness

The challenge by the Pharisees based on their law ignorantly trapped them immediately in exposing the contrast between Jesus as divine and authentic and them as religious technicians and oppressors.

¹⁴ Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

The test for every person claiming to be an authentic witness of God today is the same as the test Jesus applied to himself here.

…my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going.

Unless I confidently know these aspects about my eternal journey with Jesus, I will not be an authentic witness and distract from his nature. Do I know for certain where I came from and where I am going or am I still uncertain about who I am and the journey I am on?

True spiritual identity

Jesus continued…

¹⁵ You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. ¹⁶ But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. ¹⁷ In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. ¹⁸ I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

Jesus now uses the Law

---

1. The adjective used by the accusers is ἐπαυτοφώρῳ (epautophóró) meaning "caught in the very act". ↩︎

2. εἰμι (eimi) is the basic Greek word for being (i.e. to be) without explicit limits. He therefore claims to be the timeless being of light, life, resurrection, way, truth, good shepherding, bread, true vine. ↩︎

The Festival of Tabernacles

• The aftermath hiatus
• Watershed
• Well-meaning advice
• Divine time
• Crowd readiness
  • Temperature
  • Timing
• Glory and truth
• Hypocrisy and Law
• Identity confusion
  • People of Jerusalem
  • Chief priests and Pharisees
  • People of Jerusalem (cont’d)
• Considered acceptance
• Arrogant rejection

The aftermath hiatus

¹ After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.

Jesus was in hiatus wandering around in Galilee.^[1] John does not describe this time having any purposeful activity such as teaching in the synagogues or healing the sick. Jesus had just precipitated a watershed in his relationship with a pursuing crowd and religious leaders on the hunt, just as he will in his relationship with every person attracted to him. As a result, his popularity vapourised in many, the crowd shrank and the leaders intensified their determination to kill him, which had begun with the healing of the invalid at the Pool of Siloam (John 5:18) Few remained to follow him, who he tested to assess their relationship durability. How much did these mounting rejections wound the emotions of Jesus and create a necessary hiatus for Jesus to process and refocus, or did his love for his Father, and the certainty of his Father’s enduring love, enable him to keep his heart focused on listening to what his Father wanted from him in the present as necessary preparation for the spiritual challenges he would soon face attending the Feast of Tabernacles?

Watershed

Relationships often reach a watershed in order to grow. When the watershed is avoided by one or both parties, the relationship begins to stagnate and loose its life. God is well-aware of that with us. History is full of those who started well in seeking to know God and then faded^[2], even some shifting to strong opposition after hitting a watershed in their understanding of his requirements for a wholesome relationship.

In a relationship watershed, one or both parties seek to clarify with honesty the structural underpinnings of the relationship that have developed to that point, and how they will shape it in the future. For example, we seek to clarify how committed we are to our relationship partner when hearing their wants from us and the degree of their commitment. Am I in this relationship for something specific that I want and think it might deliver it to me? Will it do so in fact? What is the limit placed on my time of investment in the relationship to find out? What are the behavioural boundaries beyond which I will not go? Similarly, what about my trial partner? Honest discussion on such topics enables each party to visualise the future value, shape and sustainability of the relationship. It is particularly essential when the requirements are high, as they are with Jesus. With his mounting popularity, it was essential for him to clarify the shape of the relationship that he sought with any seeker of him, in order for both to test its likely durability.

Therefore, Jesus brought his relationship with the masses and religious leaders to a watershed. He had come to give life to each person’s spirit by union with his Spirit, and showed himself to be well aware of obstacles that block and deplete that life-giving union with him. Accordingly, he had just described the nature of the relationship he required with each person in the starkest terms of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (John 6:53). The majority of hopeful followers failed to grasp the critical spiritual truth expressed in this physical metaphor. They found the stark terms of eating his flesh and drinking his blood confusing yet knew this imagery showed that his expectation of the level of intimacy he wanted was too high and difficult, even to gain eternal life. It was too costly to most in the crowd. They had reached their watershed and left. The religious authorities saw the exodus and became even more embolden to kill him.

With minimal reflection, we can easily detect if our relationship with God as revealed in Jesus has reached a watershed. We join the crowd having reached our watershed or remain committed to continuing the work of God as defined by Jesus – continuously trusting him in every circumstance and relationship that we encounter^[3].

Well-meaning advice

² But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles^[4] was near, ³ Jesus’ brothers said to him, "Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. ⁴ No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world."

Families often have ready advice for a family member in relationship problems. Their love is genuine. Their natural desire is to protect, but often their advice is tainted by their own values or unresolved issues being projected onto the family member. The younger brothers of Jesus exposed their wants and personal investment in the popularity of their older brother increasing to the point of dismissing his safety reasons for staying in Galilee. Their wants came first. Go to Jerusalem to be seen.

"Show yourself to the world" drives the money-making efforts of many.

Was this the hidden motive driving the advice now given by the brothers of Jesus? Were they oblivious of the threats on his life by the religious authorities and prepared to surrender their brother to satisfy their physical wants?

Physical currency and physical image dominate the thoughts of most people. We see it to the extreme in modern media. The more extensive the image-visibility of an organisation, group or individual becomes, the greater the potential of idolisation and wealth generation. Money is the world’s currency used by Satan to control, damage and enslave a person to their projected image, pride and habits.

Jesus lived by a different currency. His life was spiritually driven and focused. He aimed to act in unity with his Father’s will at every moment. His Father was building a spiritual kingdom using spiritual means. The voice of his Son did not need to be heard in the streets. (Isaiah 42:2). Jesus carried the commission of his Father to win the spiritual warfare against Satan, who held each dead spirit captive to his wishes. Were his brothers still oblivious to this mission of Jesus and the spiritual warfare mounting against him by the religious power structure in Jerusalem? John notes,

⁵ For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

This is amazing given all the exposure to his mission that had been relayed to them by their parents, Mary and Joseph, and by senior members of the Jewish community such as Simeon and Ann the prophetess, who they met at the Temple (Luke 2:25-38). Nevertheless, John’s assessment is that the younger brothers of Jesus had not yet come to trust his claims of deity, even in the face of the multiple miraculous acts they saw him doing continuously. They remained focused on his physical, image-building actions as a miracle worker and failed to embrace his teaching on the spiritual reason behind them. They saw the joyous tone of the Feast of Tabernacles as an ideal opportunity to popularise his image and fame as a miracle-worker. There could not be a more conducive gathering to do that. Their focus on fame, however, ignored the spiritual purpose of his miracles, that he had previously stated clearly,

"For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me… For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." (5:36, 7:40)

The spiritual purpose driving the miracles of Jesus was to buildthe belief in him (trust) that is essential for our salvation. That is why his Father sent him. The joyous atmosphere of the Feast would have been a distraction and dismissed the quiet self-reflection needed to consider the spiritual identity of Jesus as the Son of God and his claims to give eternal life. His brothers had missed that point. So too can we. Light-hearted celebrations do not foster the sober, balanced and honest self-examination needed to see spiritual reality. The chances of focusing on spiritual reality are virtually non-existent after three glasses of beer with mates.

This raises the question for each person considering Jesus,

"Do I want to understand his claims of spiritual identity, the purpose of his life and the nature of the relationship he wants with me, or do I want to restrict my observations of him to the assessing physical matters such as the historical evidence for his life? "

Each person deserves to give themselves an honest answer to this question. His brothers had no doubt that their older brother existed physically and was a spectacular miracle-worker, but they had not allowed his relationship requirements to touch them.

Another useful question to test our intentions is: Do I consider the continual work of trusting in Jesus too demanding, which he defined as doing the work God requires? Consequently, have I chosen to divert my efforts to less confronting and more appealing works of recognition to enhance my image in society?

Divine time

Jesus operated on his Father’s timing, which was revealed to him by God’s Spirit each moment and governed by the prophecy given to Isaiah (42:1-4)^[5].

⁶ Therefore Jesus told them, "My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. ⁷ The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil".

God’s timing was not determined by popularity but by the spiritual readiness of the individuals he wanted to bring to faith in Jesus and become temples of his living Spirit. Consequently, Jesus often instructed some, who were miraculously healed by him, not to broadcast what he had done, e.g., the healed leper (Matthew 8:4), the healed two blind men (9:30), the healings of a large crowd (12:16), his transfiguration before Peter, James and John (17:9) etc. The recipients of these targeted miracles were ready to entrust their lives to him. The social grapevine was not. It was driven by prejudice, judgement and self-interest, as it still is. In Jerusalem, the ever-present, visible religious power structure would use the social grapevine to turn these targeted miracles of Jesus into weapons of attack on the integrity of the healed recipients and intensify their relentless attack on Jesus.

In this case, Jesus was clear.

⁸  You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.

In other words, "My time has not yet reached its full capacity^[6]. It has not yet reached the point of completion to usher in God’s next act of revealing my purpose to the world." Jesus only did what the Spirit of his Father was directing him to do at each moment. In this case, it was to stay put for the moment. He did not need to know why.

The same principle applies to anyone wanting a spiritually productive relationship with God. Timing governs spiritual usefulness – a time to weep, a time to mourn, a time to laugh, a time to instruct, a time to remain silent. I have often been insensitive to timing by not listening to the Spirit on how to engage in conversation in the moment. God’s spiritual work cannot be forced onto a heart of stone.

⁹ After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. ¹⁰ However, after his brothers had gone up^[7] to the festival, he went up also, not publicly, but in secret.

Had Jesus deliberately tricked his brothers about his intention not to go up to the Feast? If Jesus did only what his Father instructed at any moment, then what he told his brothers was the information he had at that moment. Shortly after, he was told to go up, and it was not for him to question why. His Father knew what he wanted to achieve. He knew the crowd readiness for him to act. What did Jesus find on arrival?

Crowd readiness

Temperature

¹¹ Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, "Where is he?"

The leaders

From the outset, John highlights the fear-saturated environment Jesus found in Jerusalem, as anticipated, that was fuelled by the intent of the religious power structure to kill him. The word John uses to describe their current state indicates that the authorities were actively searching for Jesus among the crowds^[8].

The crowd

¹³ But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the leaders.12Among the crowds there was widespread whispering^[9] about him.

The response of the crowd was to go underground. John describes their temperature as widespread secretive and subdued discontent against the threats hanging over them from the leaders. Nevertheless, it was a crowd divided in opinion about Jesus, as any crowd would be today.

Some said, "He is a good man." Others replied, "No, he deceives the people."

Some credited Jesus with intrinsic goodness, just as we use the word today to describe a good man i.e., someone we would like to have by our side bringing balance and protection when under the microscope of our social setting.

The negative critics considered Jesus was leading people astray. In the Greco-Roman world of the time, the concept of being led astray was often associated with false philosophies and teachings that deviate from accepted truth. We have examples today of popularised philosophies or teachings seeking to bend the cultural opinion to endorse individual or group behaviour that has been seen as unacceptable in the past, such as sexual roles, educational practices etc.

Timing

¹⁴ Not until halfway through the festival did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach.

Initial frivolities and scattered attention spans would have toned down by mid-week. It was time for Jesus to begin to teach. By now, those of the Jews who had gone to the Temple could recognise significant, scholarly wisdom. Their response to the teaching of Jesus shows this to be the case.

¹⁵ The Jews there were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having been taught?"

In other words, "Who is this man? What is the source of his learning?" These religious Jews were beginning to grapple with his identity. Jesus stepped into their question given that these worshippers had begun to ask the right questions. The timing to answer their questions and confront them with his identity was now!

¹⁶ Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.

This begs the question, "Well then, who sent you?"

This question remains today. Some investigate it seriously. Others do so flippantly with no interest in the answer. Jesus immediately makes it clear that,

¹⁷ Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Even though some seemed ready to consider the identity and authority of Jesus, he made it clear from the outset that gaining an understanding of the source of his advanced learning will not result from any kind of intellectual assessment and debate, but only by the moral choice to submit one’s will to the will of God. Jesus promises that as soon as that choice is made, revelation of the source of his wisdom will happen.

This spiritual reality remains true today. We will never understand the divine identity of Jesus and his mission on earth without first submitting our will to the will of God, whatever that may be at any particular time in our life. This statement of Jesus is simply another way of saying that the work of God, if we want to do it, is to trust him continually, which we will only do when our will is surrendered to him. Submission of our will and trust work together. Remove one, then the other disappears. Our personal question therefore becomes, "Have I settled the matter that I will surrender my will to God to the extent that I will trust him in all aspects of my life?" This is doing the work of God. It manifests in the trust of my life to Jesus^[10]. All other efforts to arrive at a conclusion about the identity and purpose of Jesus will be wasted time and energy until that matter is resolved.

Jesus himself had resolved the matter of surrendering his will totally to the Father by choosing to come to earth, take on a limited human body, come under the authority of imperfect parents, and accept their tutelage and daily plans until the time had come for him to begin the public ministry of salvation designed by his Father.

Glory and truth

¹⁸ Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.

Jesus now claims to have resisted any glory he might have gained for himself through his amazing miracles and enlightening teaching, but instead he directed all glory to his Father, His speech was governed by that singular objective. As a consequence, it contained no exaggerations or lies to detract from demonstrating the glory of his Father as his mission. No personal self-seeking pride could be promoted in his speech thereby embellishing it in any way. His claims could therefore be trusted to be truth.

Nothing false! This means that I do not have the option to fault Jesus as a proven man of truth in any attempt to protect my chosen life-style and entrench my self-glorifying pride worshiping the gods it has established. Many senselessly attempt to do so, subtly or blatantly^[11].

Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth…

Note the definitive nature of this claim. This spiritual process applies to anyone who wants to become a person seeing and speaking truth clearly. In every situation, I must commit to foster the glory of the authority I represent, in order to prevent my subtle pride distorting the truth to enhance my own glory. Every person continually faces this challenge in their personal development. It is easy to spot distorted boasting in others while missing our own delusions about self. It is easy for my pride to project unknowingly my own distortions of truth onto others. A commitment to seek the glory of God as my life goal exposes the deceitfulness of any delay tactics, diversions and excuses I might use to avoid submitting my will to Him in full trust in each situation.

Hypocrisy and Law

It was time for Jesus to turn the focus of this public interaction upon the motives of his listeners. Was there anything false in them? Yes there was.

¹⁹ Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"

The crowd could give only one response to being accused by Jesus of breaking the law: 1) Ignore the accusation. 2) Immediately deflect the searchlight back onto Jesus to dodge the light being shone on their motives. 3) Give him the worst label possible to dismiss any authenticity. 4) Act innocent and request specific evidence for the charge.

²⁰ "You are demon-possessed," the crowd answered. "Who is trying to kill you?"

Jesus did not let the crowd control the interaction with him. He ignored their accusation and their open question as a technique to dodge his questioning of their motive to kill him. He avoided their attempted deflection and persisted in questioning their motives.

²¹ Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all amazed. ²² Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. ²³ Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?

Jesus had already confronted the hypocrisy of the religious leaders about their use of the Law in their attempt to control an invalid of 38 years at the pool of Siloam, who Jesus had healed on the Sabbath and commanded to pick up his camp bed and walk. Their definition of work on the Sabbath forbade it. On another occasion, Jesus had gone into a synagogue on the Sabbath, where control by the religious class was the greatest, and healed a man’s shrivelled hand, in order to confront their hypocrisy using of the Law as a weapon of authority rather than a framework of mercy. (Matthew 12:9-13) Now he tackles their hypocrisy again in their inconsistent use of the Law. He questions motives to expose their religious hypocrisy.

²³ Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?

Why? Such inconsistency exists with every person who wishes to apply a rule book, developed by themselves, or borrowed from a religion, to govern their social interactions. We all have a rule book front of mind, or submerged in the subconscious. No person is capable of applying their rule book consistently from their bent, flawed soul, even the Rulebook given by God to Moses to govern the behaviours of a new nation. That is why love must guide law and override it where necessary. To act in love, however, requires dispensing with religious posturing and control.

²⁴ Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly."

Correct judgement goes beyond physical observations to spiritual sight. The majority of our instant judgements in our physical world through our five physical senses, reinforced by pride, are based on "mere appearances". Jesus commanded the crowd to stop physical judgements that result in error. God’s instruction to Samuel, when sent to choose and anoint the first king of Israel from among Jesse’s sons, explained how he focuses his assessment of a person:

The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart. (Samuel 16:7)

Therefore, in essence Jesus is commanding, "Stop instant assessments of people through your five senses based solely on physical impressions. Catch yourself in the act of swelling your pride and switch your focus to listen to the Spirit’s assessment of their spirit. Then your assessment will be upright and not unjust. Then spiritual sight and love will govern your observations and understanding".

Identity confusion

People of Jerusalem

²⁵ At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, "Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? ²⁶ Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Messiah? ²⁷ But we know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from."

Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Messiah? When the Messiah comes will he perform more signs than this man? Confusion!

The word certainly had spread through the attendees to the Festival that the Jewish leaders were hunting for a man claiming to be the Messiah. Here he was, however, teaching in the Temple and without restraint. Jesus could not have been in a more confronting location to teach the religious adherents. He was teaching in the Pharisees’ domain of authority without a single word coming from them to silence or remove him. Why?

Chief priests and Pharisees

³² The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering^[12] such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him.

As soon as the Pharisees heard the smouldering, subdued, discontent of the Festival crowd questioning their authority and intentions, they acted swiftly to remove Jesus from the scene. They wanted him out of the Temple and silenced as a teacher and were prepared to use force to do so. They commissioned his forceful arrest using the temple guards, who stood a while among the Temple attendees listening to the interaction of Jesus with them.

People of Jerusalem (cont’d)

As Jesus continued teaching the Temple attendees, he revealed that his time with them would be brief and come to an end, even though they would try to extend it.

³³ Jesus said, "I am with you for only a short time, and then I am going to the one who sent me. ³⁴ You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come."

His descriptions of future location raised more questions. They focused on the ‘where?’ and ‘what?’ and missed the primary purpose of their time with Jesus coming to an end, viz., "I am going to the one who sent me".

³⁵ The Jews said to one another, "Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?

³⁶ What did he mean when he said, ‘You will look for me, but you will not find me, ‘ and ‘Where I am, you cannot come’?"

Jesus from the outset of his ministry had identified himself as sent by the Father (e.g., John 5:18, 5:23-24, 5:30, 5:37, 6:39, 7:16)^[13]. Now the reason for his sending by his Father was coming to an end. If the worshippers in the Temple had grasped this fact, their questions of his future location would not have arisen. He was soon to return to the Father in heaven who had sent him. The temple guards listening to these responses of the people were no doubt identifying with the questioning and wondering what he was claiming. He was going home.

Later, Jesus ascended in full view of the apostles to the Father, who had sent him. That is where he remains with his Father today and one day will return again as the global King and not as the suffering servant. This eternal, heavenly identity of Jesus continues to be missed by many who limit his identity to being a teacher restricted to a short period of history, who started a new Jewish religion through his teachings and time-restricted life example. Because they ignore, or dismiss, his eternal divine identity and purpose for being sent to earth, they place him in the same mythical basket as all other would-be religious leaders, from which to select a teaching to answer a current need.

In our day, we need to remember that upon his departure from the Mount of Olives, the attending angels made clear to his apostles that Jesus would return in the same manner as they had just witnessed him leave.

¹⁰ They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. ¹¹ "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1:10)

The signs given for his return suggest that the desire of the crowd at the Feast of Tabernacles to hold onto Jesus will one day be fulfilled in us.

² But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. ³ All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

Considered acceptance

⁴⁵ Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, "Why didn’t you bring him in?"

Clearly, the time taken by the temple guards to listen to Jesus before forcibly arresting him had a profound effect on them, to the extent that they were prepared to disobey the command of their authorities and leave Jesus free to keep on teaching in the Temple.

⁴⁶ "No one ever spoke the way this man does, " the guards replied.

They were emphatic in their description of Jesus to the Pharisees. John highlights this by using the word οὐδέποτε (oudepote), which was a composite adverb formed by joining oude (meaning "not even") together with pote (meaning "at any time" or "ever"). It was used in the New Testament to emphasize the impossibility of a situation or action ever occurring. In other words, the effect of the teaching of Jesus on the guards was to be struck by his outstanding uniqueness that stood above any other teacher they had heard, including the Pharisees wanting to silence him.

Arrogant rejection

The response of the Pharisees showed their true colours. They derided the guards, presented themselves as the arbiters of truth and mocked the Temple attendees as being ignorant and under a curse.

⁴⁷ "You mean he has deceived you also?" the Pharisees retorted.

⁴⁸ "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him?

⁴⁹ No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them."

Such reaction showed how elitist and arrogant these city Pharisees were. They looked down on country dwellers visiting Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles and considered them ignorant, even including Pharisees from the country, such as Nicodemus from Galilee. The equivalent today would be a city-based lawyer in a multi-national law firm deriding a lawyer in a country town servicing sheep farmers.

⁵⁰ Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, ⁵¹ "Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?"

Nicodemus challenged his colleagues actions based on the Law itself. The only response they could give to such a challenge was to challenge his knowledge of the Scriptures.

⁵² They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee."

The irony was that it was their own knowledge that was flawed, and they didn’t seem to know it. Arrogance is blind to truth and distorts history. The prophet Jonah came from Galilee.^{[14] 53} Then they all went home…but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

---

1. John uses the Greek imperfect indicative tense of peri-pateó (περιπατέω) from the Greek words "peri" (around) and "pateó" (to walk). This tense was used for actions that are in progress or incomplete. It conveys that Jesus was spending undefined time walking around in the region of Galilee. ↩︎

2. Moses was well-aware of the danger of the memory of a vivid, life- changing reality fading, or being distorted into corrupt worship. (Deuteronomy 4:7-20)…"Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them." ↩︎

3. John 6:29 ↩︎

4. The Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot in Hebrew) lasted for 7 days. It was one of the three major pilgrimage festivals at the time of Jesus alongside Passover and the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot). It began on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Tishrei, which usually occurs in late September to late October. It was a feast of joy that began and ended with Sabbath rest. Over 8 days, people would live in temporary shelters (tabernacles) to commemorate the Israelites’ journey in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. It was a time for giving thanks and remembering God’s provision and protection. (Leviticus 23:33-44) ↩︎

5. "Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
   the one I love, in whom I delight;
   I will put my Spirit on him,
   and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
   He will not quarrel or cry out;
   no one will hear his voice in the streets.
   A bruised reed he will not break,
   and a smouldering wick he will not snuff out,
   till he has brought justice through to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope." ↩︎

6. Jesus uses πληρόω (play-ro’-o) meaning "To fill, to make full, to complete" to describe the timings in his life. ↩︎

7. John uses ἀναβαίνω (anabainó) meaning "to go up, ascend, mount" most likely because it was an uphill treck from Galilee to Jerusalem. ↩︎

8. John uses zητέω (dzay-teh’-o) meaning "to search for, strive after, seek". It is often used in the New Testament for seeking God and His kingdom as a priority over worldly pursuits. It implies effort and focus. In this case, it is used in the pursuit of evil and opposition to God’s Messiah, who was a threat to the leaders’ control. The leaders were on the hunt, not simply casually surveying the crowd from a distance. ↩︎

9. Γογγυσμός (phonetically gong-goos-MOS) is used for more private and often subversive forms of dissent, e.g., the Israelites complaints wandering in the desert. The leaders in this case had created such fear among the devout attendees at the Feast about any association with Jesus, discussion about him was carefully hidden. ↩︎

10. Jesus: "The work of God is this: to believe continuously in the one he has sent." (John 6:28-29) ↩︎

11. e.g., Mohammed’s denials of the claims of Jesus about himself: "Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! " (Quran, Sura An-Nisa 4:171) And by this distortion, millions today are diverted from salvation in Jesus. ↩︎

12. Γογγύζω, Phonetic Spelling:(gong-good’-zo), an onomatopoetic term imitating the sound of cooing doves; to murmur or mutter (grumble) about leadership with muffled undertones, e.g., the frequent grumbling of the Israelites against Moses and Aaron during 40 years spent in the wilderness. ↩︎

13. John 5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God…, the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. ³⁷ And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.

    John 6:38 I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. ↩︎

14. The prophet Jonah, son of Amittai, who was sent to Ninevah to prophesy its destruction, came from Gath-hepher, a town in northern Galilee. (Joshua 19:13; 2 Kings 14:25) ↩︎