Americans love the idea of “plain speaking,” of not-beating-around-the-bush, of saying what you mean . . . if you Google the phrase “plain talk” you get all kinds of responses, as people invoke the aura of straight-forward communication for whatever project they’re pushing . . . you get “Plain talk on Ecology,” “Plain talk about spanking,” “Plain Talk about Child Immunization” . . . then there’s “Plain Talk on Investing,” “Plain talk on the genetic issue” – whatever thatis – and “Plain talk about Plain talk.” Ok, I made that last one up.
The point is, we all value straightforward speech, unadorned language, to-the-point communication . . . and it can be exploited, can’t it? The most obvious example are politicians . . . they know we fancy it and try to exploit it so that the “plainest talkers” – or those who can simulate it – are sometimes the ones who get elected, whether they have any ideas or not. Of course, the reality in political speech is usually the just the opposite, with artful obfuscation and devious run-arounds not only the rule but almost an emblem of honor.
So. Is that what we’re dealing with here? Do the religious authorities – or the Jews, as John calls them – really want Jesus to tell them plainly whether he’s the Messiah or not? Do they really want to be told yes or no, yay or nay, da or nein? Or could it be that they’re trying to set him up, to trap him and get him to say something that’ll get him in trouble, or even worse? You have to remember that when John says “the Jews,” he’s not referring to the Jewish people as a whole, but to their leadership, to the chief priests and scribes . . . and in those days – as well as today – you didn’t get to be in the hierarchy without playing the politics just a little bit . . .
John’s not going to tell us straight out, that’s not his style, and in the few lines just before our passage, he indicates it could go either way “the Jews,” he says – again referring to the leadership – “were divided because of Jesus’ words. Many were saying he has a demon and is out of his mind . . . others were saying “these are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” It seems that the religious authorities were not all of one mind, that some considered him a demon-possessed crackpot and other thought he might really besomebody, that he might have some merit.
One thing was certain: they were afraid of Jesus, either that he’d siphon off some of their power or—perhaps more realistically—that what they saw as his rabble-rousing ways would bring the Roman authorities down on them. After all, Caiaphas, the high priest that year, would later tell their high council that it’s “better to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.”
The setting of the story is rife with political overtones . . . it all takes place at the festival of the Dedication—Hanukkah, in Hebrew—which celebrates the Maccabean revolt, when the brothers Maccabeus retook the Temple from the Syrian King Antiochus Epiphanes by military force and rededicated it to the Hebrew God. And to top it off, Jesus is walking along Solomon’s portico, named after one of their greatest kings, second only to David, of course. So things royal and revolutionary are certainly on everybody’s minds, and when they ask Jesus to tell them plainly if he’s the Messiah, Jesus gives what seems to be a plain answer: “I have told you and you do not believe.” But . . . just when has he told them? Up until that point, the only person to whom Jesus has acknowledged it straight out has been the woman at the well. So perhaps he’s not given them as plain an answer as it seems. In fact, it’s not inwordsthat he has spoken but inworks: when Jesus says “I have told you,” he means with acts of healing, feeding, and restoration, “signs” that, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, clearly declare who he is. These signs testifyto him—and there’s that word we talked about several weeks ago, martyr, which by the time John was written had come to be associated with sacrificial death, and is this a little artful foreshadowing, reminding the congregation for which John wrote about what deed would ultimatelyshow who Jesus was?
Whatever the case, the word testifyis also a legal term, so Jesus is implying that the works he does in God’s name makes a case strong enough to stand up in courtabout who he is. His works are evidenceabout who he is. It reminds me of the time over in Matthew and Luke when John the Baptist’s disciples come up to him and ask him straight out “Are you the one who is to come?” Jesus says, “Tell John what you see and hear.” Talk’s cheap, he’s saying, it’s my actions that tell the tale.
Well. The folks asking Jesus to give them a plain answer have seen all the signs, they’ve seen all the evidence yet they stilldon’t know the answer, they still don’t believe, and why? Jesus says it’s because they don’t belong to his sheep, they aren’t members of hisflock. And here’s where it pays to have a sense of what has come just before this passage: it’s the shepherd discourse wherein Jesus declares himself the “good shepherd” who lays down his life for his sheep. The sheep follow him because they know his voice, because theyknow himjust as heknows them, just as God knows him and he knows God. It’s a profoundly relational metaphor, and not exactly a royal one, as would befit a messiah in the line of the house of David. It’s not exactly a king-and-subject relationship . . .
And it may be that that’s why they want him to tell them once and for all: we’ve heard all this gobbledygook about you being the shepherd and your flock knowing you and you knowing the flock, and so let’s cut the bull: areyou or are you notthe Messiah? And the answer Jesus gives them is that they cannot understand, they cannot believe, because they are not members of his flock. Jesus knowshis sheep and they know him, and here, knowing means much more than just an intellectual acknowledgement of a fact. It’s a deepknowing, a trustful-knowing. Sheep knowtheir shepherd and so will follow him.
Somebody asked Louis Armstrong to define the rhythm known as “swing,” and he famously replied, “If you have to ask, you’ll never know.” His point wasn’t to exclude anyone from understanding swing; rather, his point was that “asking about it” isn’t the path to understandingit. On the contrary, the way to understand swing is to hear it, to move with it, to get a feel for it. In the end, swing really isn’t something that can be explained; it has to be experienced. I think Jesus’ point in this story is similar. When it comes to his messiah-ship, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, there’s plenty of evidence on the table—his teaching and feeding and healing. But that’s just it: without those eyes and ears, no amount of evidence or argument will do.
And how does one acquire those eyes and ears, how does one become one of Jesus’ flock,so that they will know whether he is the Messiah or not? Well, just as would-be swing aficionados have to experience the music, so do would be believers: they have to listento Jesus, movewith him, get a feelfor what he is saying. They have to spend time with his word, live as he lived, followwhere he leads. And once they do that, once they’ve gained those eyes to see and ears to hear, they don’t have any problembelieving the evidence. Just look at Simon Peter, who’d tramped all over Palestine with the master: when Jesus asked him who does hesay that he is, he replied “You are the Messiah, the Son of God.” (He didn’t understand what that meant, but that’s another sermon.)
And what is engendered by all this tramping and following and living? What is it that his sheep acquirewhen they give themselves over to the Christ, that Jesus called eyes to see and ears to hear? Why, its nothing more than faith, nothing more than trust. And for those who don’t have it, no amount of evidence or argument will do. Claims have their counterclaims; signs have their skeptics. And after all, faith really isn’t a game of “evidence” in the first place. Wisdom and wonders can point us in helpful directions, but in the end everything comes down to this: a vital, profound sense of love and trust.
Well. Jesus gives his followers eternal life, and no one will snatch them out of his hand. Not the powers and principalities, or the governor or the emperor or anyone else. His sheep are safe in his hands. And his mandate, his remit, his power, if you will, is from God’s own self, and nobody can take thataway either. Jesus’ authority is from God, and everything he does is from God above. In these things, the Father and he are one.
And it’s tempting to read this, in English, at least, as an affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, aka that Jesus and the Father are one and the same entity. Alas, the Greek original doesn’t permit that; what Jesus is talking about is that in their actions, in their loveand regard for the sheep of their flock they are one. And nothing, nothingcan take that away. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment