After spending four-and-a-half chapters of telling the world who he is, Jesus now says
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.He tells us that we have heard John [the Baptsist]'s testimony, but then continues
Not that I accept such human testimony...So we can't take Jesus' word, and we can't take John the Baptist's word. Is there some evidence that Jesus would have us accept? Of course there is, and John has been showing it to us all along--the water into wine, the knowledge of the Samaritan Woman's life, the healing of the man at the pool. Jesus' works are the testimony we should believe. And we should believe the word of the Father "who sent me," except that we can't hear it because we don't believe Jesus ("him whom he has sent"). Do I detect another circle here?
Yet within these circles are kernels of truth. And using these kernels, Jesus is building a case for himself.
So imagine my surprise, after having written that last senctence, to pick up Burridge's commentary and find him talking about Jewish trial procedures. He concludes
So, who is on trial here? Is it Jesus, who must call these witnesses to prove his claim--or his questioners who refuse to recognize and accept the evidence God gives them? We need to find a judge to decide this, which takes us into the final section. (p. 83)As I reread today's passage, I find myself wondering whether we need a legal judge or a debate judge. Is Jesus appealing to the law or to logic? The criteria for judging is different for each category. Or perhaps we need one of each, because some of us will believe the legal argument and others the logic argument. Jesus never stints in providing multiple ways for us to understand what he is telling us.
Peace,
Jeffri
No comments:
Post a Comment