In John 9 Jesus heals a man who had been born blind. A discussion arises as to whether this newly sighted man was the man who been born blind or was just someone who looked like him. So his neighbors and those who often saw him begging brought him to the Pharisees. There is division among them because the miracle was performed on the Sabbath. Some saying that a man of God would not perform miracles on the Sabbath. Others saying that if he were not from God, he could not perform such miracles.
Those not wanting to believe launch a full investigation, trying to disprove the man's healing. (It seems that instead of doing everything they can to disprove it, good leaders would be celebrating with the man.) They start with the man himself, he praises Jesus, but they still did not believe. They bring in the man's parents next. They identify the man as their son and state that he had indeed been born blind, but as for how he came to see they did not know. (They were afraid to say more out of fear.) The parents responded that the man was of age and that he could speak for himself. So they went back to the man and asked him the same questions all over again. The man was not afraid like his parents had been and speaks up for Jesus, finally asking them if they wanted to be Jesus' disciples too. In the end he gets kicked out of the synagogue.
Jesus finds the man later and they talk. Jesus comments that "the blind will see and those who see would become blind." The discussion that they have is overheard by a group of Pharisees, who ask Jesus if he was saying that they were blind. The discussion that follows their question, "What? Are we blind too?" is recorded in chapter 10. We often look at this passage, as it is about Jesus, the Good Shepherd. I had never really looked at it in this context however. Jesus is having this discussion with a group of Pharisees because of their treatment of the man born blind that he had healed.
So chapter 10 is aimed at the Pharisees, the supposed shepherds of the people, and compares them to the Good Shepherd, himself. The Pharisees don't come out of this comparison looking very good. Jesus calls them thieves and robbers, or at best hired hands, who care nothing for the sheep. The evidence was right there. Their treatment of the man born blind and his family shows that they cared nothing about Israel's sheep that they were supposed to be shepherding. They did not celebrate the man's great victory and kicked him out of the temple for his own rejoicing. Meanwhile his family lived in fear that they would be kicked out as well.
On the other side, Jesus is the Good Shepherd who not only cares for the sheep but has a relationship with them and lays his life down for them. I'm going to take a moment to throw a little Greek at you. According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament this word translated "good," Καλός (kalos) can mean according to context "beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable; a. Beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent. b. good, excellent in its nature and characteristics, and therefore well-adapted to its ends." Jesus is so much better than good. In today's vernacular, we might call him, "The awesome shepherd."
So one side are bad shepherds who are in reality thieves, robbers and hirelings vs. the Good Shepherd, for whom the word "good" is really underselling it. In this comparison, the Pharisees come out on the short end, like they always do. Great evidence of Jesus as the better shepherd was all there in chapter 9. In the end it was he who had the relationship with the sheep of Israel and later it would be him that lays down his life for them (and us.) We can be grateful for the Καλός shepherd who can be all of those things mentioned above. And the ongoing battle of the Bad Shepherds vs. the Good Shepherd the Good Shepherd wins again.
Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment