Another who Testifies/另有一位作见证

John 5: 31-47 约翰福音第5章：31-47节

One of the things on my mind lately is the subject of spiritual revival. I believe this is something all of us desire, and I have no doubt that we all wish for the best for the people and for the church, so we want things to be better. Yet, I think revivals are also a time for caution. Over the course of religious history, including church history, revivals were seldom smooth sailing. This was true during Jesus’ time, true during the Reformation and all the way till the not-so-recent Charismatic movements of the last century, it remained true. At the heart of this subject, is the question of authority. A revival would imply a change, whether it is a change in mentality, a change in behaviour or even a change in power and leadership. And so inevitably, we would ask: Why should we change? And then the follow-up question: Who are you to initiate this change? Whenever we talk about revival, it often ends up becoming a question of authority and legitimacy.

This is my main inquiry as I approach the passage today. To me, the Jewish religious leaders represented the status quo of doing things and the Jesus movement was like a new wave of spiritual revival sweeping across their lives. They already had a way of doing things, a way of understanding reality and religion, and a way of discerning between right and wrong. But when Jesus came along, for better or for worse, much of these was shaken and challenged. As with any revival, Jesus had to answer for himself. Who are you to initiate this change and break our existing rules? What is your authority? I think there is much we can learn in the entire interaction between the two sides. I also believe that was one of the objectives of the Gospel. John was using the arguments between the Jewish leaders and Jesus to deal with similar conflicts within his own church. We were given a hint into such possible conflicts in John's own context when we were looking at the letters of 2 John and 3 John. All the lengthy debates between the two sides found in John, allows us to distill what are the essential values in our faith that we must hold dear, and enables us to find the right justifications in our causes for change. [i]

First, we have to understand the position of the Jewish leaders. I must confess that I have much sympathy for them. They were doing their best based on their perspective on what is right. Imagine the situation when their country fell, first to the Assyrians, then to the Babylonians. The aftermath was humiliation, hardship and sorrow. The prophets were very clear on the lesson to be learnt. This harsh judgment was due to their idolatry and their disobedience of the laws of the covenant. So imagine what they would do when they were given a second chance. What would you do, if you learnt such a hard lesson and then had a second chance? Well, they got this second chance when they returned from the exile back into their land, when Ezra brought back the law, and Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem and purified the Temple. Naturally they put full emphasis on keeping the law and making sure that monotheism was strictly adhered to, nothing should be comparable to God, no more idols, no hero-worship or even veneration of any kind just to be safe. Over the next 3 centuries, this tradition of abiding by the law and refining their devotion to God got stronger and stronger. That would be the natural reaction and result based on all their troubled history and embattled self identity. When I put myself in their shoes, I would do the same thing. Was all the previous judgment for nothing? Of course not. Could we ever forget all the words of the Prophets about the laws of Moses? Of course not. The sacred laws of the covenant was something they would never dare to let go. And of all the laws, the Sabbath laws were especially scrutinized to the tiniest detail. Obeying them tightly was both a mark of reverence to God and allegiance to the covenant. Breaking a Sabbath law was more than just civil law-breaking, it was also considered an affront to God. This is their side of the story.

Yet when asked to answer for breaking the Sabbath law, 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” The result was inevitable: 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. Given an unbiased assessment, I believe the response of the Jewish leaders was rather justifiable. Jesus was directly challenging everything they treasured the most, both the law abiding and the God-honoring. But Jesus persisted. I believe he knew the resistance perfectly. But he persisted because this challenge was the right thing to do. It wasn't that he accidentally stumbled into a healing incident on a Sabbath. That was precisely the revival he was looking for. He did it intentionally to transform their understanding of Sabbath. The persistence itself was not wrong. The question is if he had the legitimacy to do so. If he wanted a change, if he wanted to challenge the status quo, what was the justification? Like I said earlier about every revival, in the end, it boils down to the final questions of such a challenge: Why the change? And What was the authorisation of such a change? Who are you to tell us that our old ways were wrong? We are ultimately left with the questions of authority and legitimacy.

This is where John's unique presentation of his Gospel really helps us. We've mentioned a couple of times in this sermon series on John that he had creatively structured his Gospel like a legal trial. Jesus had taken the stand and was cross-examined by the Jewish prosecutors. We should be thankful. It is out of such fierce interrogations that the truth of the matter can be laid bare and made to stand on its own. It starts with “Why are you doing this?” and it leads on to “Who are you?” and finally the crux of the matter: “What allows you to do this?” Simply put, what were the legal justifications that could possibly warrant the breaking of the Sabbath rules? In response, Jesus started off by stating the obvious: It was no use for him to justify himself, legally that's useless. “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.” I can say I'm Batman, but that doesn't make it real nor true, it is a meaningless claim by itself. But then he says, 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true. Jesus said his authority and legitimacy came from the the testimony of “another”. Who was this “another” that he was talking about?

When Jesus went on to talk about John the Baptist, we might be thinking that this “another” refers to the Baptist. We know earlier from John 3 that the Baptist is one of the key witnesses of Jesus. But in this case, the Baptist was only used as a comparison because he was considered by many to be a credible witness. Jesus goes on to say that 36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John.” Contrasted with the human testimony of the Baptist (which is already in Jesus' favor), Jesus had the divine testimony of God. The testimony of God the Father was the “another” that Jesus was truly relying on. If you were already inclined to believe the witness of John the Baptist, then logically you should trust the weightier testimony of God even more. God the Father was the “another” witness that would back up the authority of Jesus. But what does it mean to have God the Father testifying for you? This testimony is expressed in 3 ways. One, the works that Jesus had done and those he would do in the future would show that he was sent by God. Two, God himself testifies personally and internally. Three, the words from the Scriptures testifying about Jesus. Since this is the main supporting argument from Jesus about his witness, let us examine each of these claims.

One, what does it mean that the works of Jesus showed that he has the support of God?
John 5: 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

What Jesus meant here was that what he did, this “work”, was the work of the Father. And the work that he did could not be done without the Father. Specifically, this work refers to life-giving and judging. We can understand the life-giving and judging work of God. There is the life-giving in Creation and the judgment in the last days. But in what way was the work of Jesus also life-giving and judging? How was his work also the work of the Father? This healing on the Sabbath isn't any ordinary healing. Verse 5 informs us, this is “One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?” 7 “Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.” This man might not be literally dead. But for the past 38 years, he had been an invalid. And not the kind who was positive about life or hopeful for better days or even simply in acceptance of his condition. His answer to Jesus felt like resignition to his fate, yet not without the hint of compaint and resentment. It feels like “what can I do, nobody wants to help, others always get there first.” Is this really living? But Jesus' healing had given him a new lease in life. If you believe, then walk. Not only that, in verse 14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” Here it is revealed that his sickness is related to sin. So Jesus' healing may have seemed physical, but truly, it was psychological and spiritual. The healing was both life-giving and offering forgiveness in judgment. This is what makes this particular healing a work that can only be accomplished with the endorsement of the Father. And because Jesus could work like this, it was clear evidence of the Father working through him. This is how the works of Jesus displayed the testimony of God.

The second way the Father's testimonial of Jesus was expressed was through the internal witness in the hearts of men. “The testimony of God would then consist in the self-authentitcating quality of His truth, a truth immediately recognizable to those who believe.” (Anchor Commentary, p 228) If you have God in your hearts, when you encounter Jesus, you will feel and hear and sense that it is the truth. This was evidently displayed when we observe the reactions of people like the Baptist, his disciples Peter and Andrew, Philip and Nathanael, Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, when they first encountered Jesus. They accepted Jesus because of God stirring in their hearts.

The third way the Father testifies for Jesus was through the Scriptures, meaning the Jewish Testament. Simply put, Jesus fulfilled many of God’s promises in a typological way. Over the years, we have surveyed many of these fulfillments whenever we go through the different Gospels and through the sermons spoken by the various characters found in Acts. But more specifically to today’s passage, when we studied the laws in Deuteronomy in great detail last year, we learnt that life-giving was the key element of the Mosaic laws. So when Jesus performed a life-giving act, and to us who identify him as the source of life itself, Jesus is therefore the fulfillment of the Laws. This is how the Scriptures testify about him.

In my earlier sermon I spoke of the validity of John the Baptist's witness. Today, I expound on the strength of the testimony of “another”, God the Father who testifies for Jesus. With the advantage of hindsight, especially after Jesus was vindicated in his resurrection, looking back and re-reading the gospel, the witnessing voice of the Father was evident in everything Jesus did or said. This was the authority that Jesus had to answer to the Jewish leaders. Why should they change their ways and accept the revival of Jesus? Simply because he has the testimony of God. God the Father is his witness.

I have one main reflection on this matter. How could the Jewish leaders have missed the testimony of God? I think this is the saddest part of the whole story, and a poignant warning to the focus of our faith. These people were God believers, yet they did not have “the love of God in their hearts”. They “study the Scriptures diligently”, yet they missed the message on how to gain eternal life. They claimed to be followers of Moses, yet they could not hear nor feel God. How could such faithful believers go so far off from the center of faith? Jesus gave us a clue when he mentioned how they “accept glory from one another”. It is fine to be fervent in your faith. The quest to be law-abiding and God honoring starts off with the best of intentions. But as with all religious practices, the form of the practice often gains priority over the content of the practice over time. We focus more on doing it better and better rather than remembering why we are doing it. Eventually, it is the seeking of the glory of a practice well done, rather than seeking the glory of God for a practice well-intentioned. I believe that was the case with the Jewish Sabbath rules. The laws were given to be life-giving. They could have had a weekly re-focusing of their lives to God and also a time for all workers to rest. But eventually it became all about rules keeping, to the extent that they were obsessed with who could do it better and become more praise-worthy. The intention of Sabbath was lost and they missed out on the life-giving Jesus and his life-giving act of healing. This is the reason why we need timely spiritual revivals whenever our practices become mere formality. Revivals are annoying because they challenge the status quo and re-examine our habits. But a faith practice that is unexamined can lose its focus over time. I have good news for us. God always watches over his church and he will speak whenever a revival is necessary. Do you feel God speaking to us? If so, let us heed the testimony of God and work to transform the church hand-in-hand. And may Jubilee continue to manifest the light of Jesus Christ.

Endnote
[i] But before we can look at the situation clearly, we need to recalibrate our interpretive lens. Else, we might end up taking sides too fast and over-simplify the underlying issue. We might have this image of Jesus who is the Prince of Peace and friend of sinners, and the Pharisees who are equated with hypocrisy. So when we look at a meek Jesus with a halo on one side and evil scheming Jewish leaders on the other, we might think presumptuosly, “Isn’t it obvious that Jesus is right and they are wrong?” But there is the other side of Jesus. He is the one who like to reply questions infuriatingly with his own questions. I get very annoyed when faced with this type of responses. Why can't you just answer the question directly? He is the one whose parables, such as the Good Samaritan, were sometimes intentionally insulting to his opponents. He has no care for honorifics nor regard nor consideration for people with status. He doesn’t not bend over backwards with any requests for signs and wonders. Ask him to do, he purposely don't do, ask him to stop then he purposely do it in your face. In fact, I would even say that he is being difficult towards them most of the time. In our story today, when they question him about the healing on the Sabbath, there wasn’t any appeal for their kind understanding. Or perhaps to reconcile by stating his reasons to break the rules, “Unfortunately, I’m only free to heal today, and he’s so poor thing, I was overwhelmed with compassion and act impulsively” etc. Instead, Jesus was defensive and basically said something along the line of, “If God can do it, why I cannot?” Not exactly easy for anybody to step away from such a challenge. Imagine if you are questioning a younger person over some out-of-line behavior, how would you feel if you get a retort, “Senior Pastor also did this before, why can't I?” Would you not have reacted strongly?