In today's passage, John tells his first century readers that Jesus healed on the Sabbath because:
1. A man had been suffering for 38 years. vv 1-7
2. The Sabbath Traditions had distorted the Law's Intent. vv 8-13, 15
3. A man's spiritual state was at stake. v 14
The first thing John told his first century readers was that Jesus healed on the Sabbath because:
1. A man had been suffering for 38 years. vv 1-7
Explanation:
1 Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish festivals. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3 Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. [4] 5 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.”
v1 sometime later - a break in chronological sequence - a measurable amount of time - after healing the royal official's son
- Jewish festivals - one of the three pilgrimage festivals: Passover, Pentecost or Tabernacles
Passovers Jesus Attended:(1) 2:13, 23; (2) 6:4; (3) 11:55 & 12:1; - 2-3 years (?4?) 5:1 - 3-4 years
v2 There is (there was) - still is existence at the time written: B4 Jerusalem destruction AD 70
-near the Sheep Gate, a pool
Nehemiah 3:1 1 Eliashib the high priest and his fellow priests went to work and rebuilt the Sheep Gate. They dedicated it and set its doors in place, building as far as the Tower of the Hundred, which they dedicated, and as far as the Tower of Hananel.
v2 Bethesda (surrounded by five covered colonnades) - one of the Dead Sea Scrolls verifies this as name (Bethzatha, Bethsaida)
- excavations have located this in NW Corner of Old Jerusalem
- near present day St. Anne's Church (twin pools)
v3 disabled people: blind, lame, & paralyzed
v4 SOME LESS IMPORTANT MANUSCRIPTS: paralyzed-and they waited for the moving of the waters. From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had.
- later copyist inserted this to explain why people waited in large numbers by the pool
v5 invalid - unknown what was wrong
v6 Do you want to get well?
- naive question because" Who wouldn't want to get well?
- however, Jesus question gets at:
1. the man's will to get well (discouragement after 38 years of paralysis)
2. the man's willingness to give up the gains of being an invalid (could lose his only known means of income)
v7 when the water is stirred
- his reply: loss of independent determination (learned helplessness?)
- his efforts has proved futile and despairing (learned helplessness?)
- his focus is on the water's reported powers to cure
- not Jesus as his healer
Illustration:
The Pool of Bethesda is a pool of water in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem, on the path of the Beth Zeta Valley. The Gospel of John describes such a pool in Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. It is associated with healing. Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John’s Gospel for the existence of this pool. Scholars argued that the gospel was written later, probably by someone without first-hand knowledge of the city of Jerusalem, and that the ‘pool’ had only a metaphorical meaning, rather than historical, significance.
Then in the 19th century, archaeologists discovered the remains of a pool exactly matching the description in John’s Gospel, thus confirming the historical accuracy of John’s account.
The name of the pool is said to be derived from the Aramaic language beth hesda (בית חסדא), meaning either house of mercy or house of grace. In the closely related Syriac branch of this ancient language, the cognate term hesdo has two opposite meanings - grace and disgrace; this dual meaning may have been thought appropriate since the location was seen as a place of disgrace due to the presence of invalids, and a place of grace, due to the granting of healing
This archaeological discovery proved beyond a doubt that the description of this pool in the Gospel of John was not the creation of the Evangelist. It reflected an accurate and detailed knowledge of the site. The Gospel speaks of (a) the name of the pool as Bethesda; (b) its location near the Sheep Gate; (c) the fact that it has five porticos; with rushing water. All these details are corroborated through literary and archaeological evidence affirming the historical accuracy of the Johannine account.
http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Archeology/intro.html
http://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/firstcenturyjerusalem_pool_of_bethesda.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tower_Bethesda_Naval_Hospital.jpg
Bethesda, Nicaragua Mission Pictures
Learned Helplessness
http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/helplessness.html
In early 1965, Martin E. P. Seligman and his colleagues, while studying the relationship between fear and learning, accidentally discovered an unexpected phenomenon while doing experiments on dogs using Pavlovian (classical conditioning). As you may observe in yourselves or a dog, when you are presented with food, you have a tendency to salivate. Pavlov discovered that if a ringing bell or tone is repeatedly paired with this presentation of food, the dog salivates. Later, all you have to do is ring the bell and the dog salivates. However, in Seligman's experiment, instead of pairing the tone with food, he paired it with a harmless shock, restraining the dog in a hammock during the learning phase. The idea, then, was that after the dog learned this, the dog would feel fear on the presentation of a tone, and would then run away or do some other behavior.
Next, they put the conditioned dog into a shuttlebox, which consists of a low fence dividing the box into two compartments. The dog can easily see over the fence, and jump over if it wishes. So they rang the bell. Surprisingly, nothing happened! (They were expecting the dog to jump over the fence.) Then, they decided to shock the conditioned dog, and again nothing happened! The dog just pathetically laid there! Hey, what's going! When they put a normal dog into the shuttlebox, who never experienced inescapable shock, the dog, as expected, immediately jumped over the fence to the other side. Apparently, what the conditioned dog learned in the hammock, was that trying to escape from the shocks is futile. This dog learned to be helpless! This result was opposite to that predicted by B.F. Skinner's behaviorism, which argued that the dog must have been given a positive reward (like a yummy dog biscuit) to just lie there. (In order to salvage their position, they even went so far as to suggest that the cessation of pain acted as the reward for the dog to sit, but this was not a very good argument. One could alternately argue that when the shock went on while the dog was sitting, it was being punished for sitting. Reminds me of that old joke, "Q: Why did the man pound his thumb with a hammer? A: Because it felt so good to stop.) These observations started a scientific revolution resulting in the displacement of behaviorism by cognitive psychology. What you are thinking, determines your behavior (not only the visible rewards or punishments).
The theory of learned helplessness was then extended to human behavior, providing a model for explaining depression, a state characterized by a lack of affect and feeling. Depressed people became that way because they learned to be helpless. Depressed people learned that whatever they did, is futile. During the course of their lives, depressed people apparently learned that they have no control.
Learned helplessness explained a lot of things, but then researchers began to find exceptions, of people who did not get depressed, even after many bad life experiences. Seligman discovered that a depressed person thought about the bad event in more pessimistic ways than a nondepressed person. He called this thinking, "explanatory style," borrowing ideas from attribution theory.
For example, lets say you fail a math exam. How do you explain why? You could think: 1) I am stupid. 2) I'm not good in math. 3) I was unlucky, it was Friday the 13th. 4) The math teacher is prejudiced. 5) The math teacher grades hard. 6) I was feeling ill that day. 7) The math teacher gave an especially hard test this time. 8) I didn't have time to study. 9) The teacher grades on a curve. Seligman found that these explanations could be rated along three dimensions: personalization: internal vs. external, pervasiveness: specific vs. universal, and permanence: temporary vs. permanent. He found that the most pessimistic explanatory style is correlated with the most depression: The statement "I am stupid" is classified as internal (use of I), universal, and permanent. This response conveys a sense of discouragement, hopelessness, and despair. On the other hand, a more optimistic person would blame someone or something else, such as "The math teacher gave an especially hard test this time." The most optimistic explanatory style is external, specific and temporary. Conversely, for a good event, the explanatory style reverses. For example, for a perfect score on the math exam, the depressive would say: "I was lucky that day," discounting his intelligence. The optimist would say something much more encouraging, such as "I am smart." We often learn explanatory styles from our parents...
Seligman suggests in his book "Learned Optimism" that one can overcome depression by learning new explanatory styles. This is the basis of cognitive therapy. In such therapies, the counselor challenges the client's beliefs and explanations of life's events. If you feel depressed because you failed that last exam, then dispute the explanation, and learn or search for a more optimistic one according to the above criteria. Or read a few jokes. The whole self-help movement is based on the optimistic belief that we can change ourselves for the better.
Application:
So by way of application, John presents to us this morning a man who has been suffering a long time - for 38 years. That's nearly 4 decades!
John presents us with a man who although he is at the door of the hospital of his day he is helpless to get inside to receive care.
John presents us with a man whose will to get better is being called into question by Jesus.
We are being presented with a man who has learned that he is helpless - there is no one to carry him into the healing waters when they are stirred, there is no one to carry him through the clinic or hospital doors to get help.
We are presented with a man who is apparently has learned that there is nothing he can do that makes a difference with respect to his situation. 38 years of the same thing and he is in despair and not only without help but without hope.
Such that when Jesus comes to him, when Hope and Help are staring him in the face, he can't recognize it and focuses on his and others inabilities rather than who Jesus is and his ability.
What have we been suffering with for a long long time?
What have we learned that no matter what we try to do about it it doesn't make any difference?
What have we learned to be helpless about?
What have we given up hope about ever getting over, ever getting well, ever getting through?
Are we like the dog that having previously been shocked won't move and just lies there when it could do something about its present situation?
Is it some deep emotional pain from the past? having been physically, emotionally or sexually abused? some physical pain from the present?, is it depression, anxiety, alcoholism, or substance abuse? Is it being unable to forgive someone or being unable to forgive our self?
And have we lost hope that anyone will help us into the pool - our Bethesda, our place of healing - our clinic, our hospital, our church?
Or, that if they do it will make any difference?
And do we miss Jesus staring us face to face asking us about our will to get well?
Do we have the will to get better? to get well? to be cured? to be healed?
Will we allow Jesus to cure us, to heal us?
Or is it more comfortable to hold on to the known?
Is it more comfortable to hold on to our learned helplessness?
What do we have to give up in order to receive what Jesus has for us?
Are we willing to give this up?
Are we willing to jump over the wall, the barrier that keeps us helpless, that keeps us prisoner?
And discover no matter what may have contributed to our learning we are helpless - with Jesus in our lives we are never helpless because He has Liberated us from all things.
With Jesus in our lives we move way beyond optimistic thinking (as good as this is) to "HOPE" which is light years beyond!
Transition:
Let's move on to another thing John told his first century readers about why Jesus healed on the Sabbath.
John told his first century readers that Jesus healed on the Sabbath because:
2. The Sabbath Traditions had distorted the Law's intent. vv 8-13, 15
Explanation:
8 Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.”
9 At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.
The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, 10 and so the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.”
11 But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’ ”
12 So they asked him, “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?”
13 The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there.
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.”) 15 The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well.
v8 Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.
- Jesus selects the person most needy (38 years)
- healing not requested
- doesn't presuppose an expression of faith
1. he didn't even know who Jesus was
2. not limited by a person's lack of faith
- asked to do the impossible
- Jesus supplies the will & the power
- the man responds
Outcome of the Miracle (Two-fold):
1. Paralytic healed (address in a few minutes)
2. Controversy breaks out (address now):
- direct conflict with the religious authorities
- traditions more rigid than the Law was
v9b The day on which this took place was the Sabbath
Other examples of Jesus' showdowns over the Sabbath occur in:
- Matthew 12:1-12 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
HE DETERMINES THE SABBATH RULES!
9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
LAWFUL TO DO GOOD, NOT LAWFUL TO KEEP THE LAW!
- Others: Mark 2:23-3:6; Luke 6:1-6, 13:10-16, 14:1-6 &
- John 9:14 14 Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath.
v 10 the law forbids you to carry your mat
- not the Law of Moses
- their traditional interpretation of it prohibited carrying loads of any kind on the Sabbath
- John 5:16 16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
EXAMPLE OF THE LAW'S INTENT:
- Nehemiah 13:15-22 15 In those days I saw people in Judah treading winepresses on the Sabbath and bringing in grain and loading it on donkeys, together with wine, grapes, figs and all other kinds of loads. And they were bringing all this into Jerusalem on the Sabbath. Therefore I warned them against selling food on that day. 16 People from Tyre who lived in Jerusalem were bringing in fish and all kinds of merchandise and selling them in Jerusalem on the Sabbath to the people of Judah. 17 I rebuked the nobles of Judah and said to them, “What is this wicked thing you are doing—desecrating the Sabbath day? 18 Didn’t your ancestors do the same things, so that our God brought all this calamity on us and on this city? Now you are stirring up more wrath against Israel by desecrating the Sabbath.”
19 When evening shadows fell on the gates of Jerusalem before the Sabbath, I ordered the doors to be shut and not opened until the Sabbath was over. I stationed some of my own men at the gates so that no load could be brought in on the Sabbath day. 20 Once or twice the merchants and sellers of all kinds of goods spent the night outside Jerusalem. 21 But I warned them and said, “Why do you spend the night by the wall? If you do this again, I will arrest you.” From that time on they no longer came on the Sabbath. 22 Then I commanded the Levites to purify themselves and go and guard the gates in order to keep the Sabbath day holy.
Remember me for this also, my God, and show mercy to me according to your great love.
-Luke 11:36 46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
v11 The man who made me well said...
- little gratitude for being made well
- takes no responsibility for his Sabbath action
v12 Who is "this fellow"
- Jews contrasting the authority of the Law of God (which they considered prohibited carrying one's mat on the Sabbath)
- with Jesus authority (which they considered to be that of a mere man) which was permitting it
- man unlikely to be ignorant of their reasons for wanting to know who told him this
v13 man... had no idea who it was... for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd
- John indicated 4 times Jesus quietly withdrew from scenes of controversy:
1. John 5:13
2. John 8:59
3. John 10:39
4. John 12:36
- John: Jesus immune to danger until the hour of his passion: 7:30 & 8:20
v15 Goes and tells the Jews it was Jesus who made him well
- encounter with Jesus doesn't appear to have change the man
- however, he did confess Jesus as his healer
Illustration: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
Another distortion of the original law's intent can be seen in the modern day issue of:
Separation of Church and State – In the Constitution
An honored principle of American law is the “separation of church and state.” Americans differ sharply as to what the country’s founding fathers intended when this principle was incorporated into American law and what the principle should mean in practice today. These disputes stem from differing views about fundamental truth and the importance of belief.
The words “separation of church and state” are not expressly in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, there are just three references to the relationship between religion and government in the Constitution. The first, in Article VI, section 3, says that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to hold public office. The second two constitutional references to religion are found in the First Amendment. The first, known as the Establishment Clause, provides that the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The second, known as the Free Exercise Clause, provides that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Separation of Church and State – An Interpretation of the First Amendment
The well-known phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” is actually a reference to a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson to describe the function of the First Amendment in a letter in 1802. The phrase did not become part of U.S. jurisprudence until more than 75 years later when the U.S. Supreme Court stated that it was an “almost” authoritative explanation of the First Amendment (but then nevertheless interfered with a Mormon’s free exercise of his religion since it included polygamy). Since 1947, the courts have frequently used the phrase in deciding First Amendment cases.
At minimum, the separation of church and state means that the U.S. is not a theocracy, as is the case in some Middle Eastern countries. Americans do not believe that the country’s leader rules by divine right or has divine powers. It also means that the church and the government are separate institutions and neither directs the internal affairs of the other. The government is not involved in choosing church leaders and these leaders do not serve in government in their role as church leaders (although they may be elected or appointed to government positions in their capacity as ordinary citizens), as is true in England. In addition, in 1947 with the case of Everson v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court began to hold that the separation of church and state means that there should be virtually no contact between religious ideas and government activity.
Separation of Church and State – The Controversy Today
While the Supreme Court’s current position on the separation of church and state protects those of minority faiths or no faith, it often leaves those of majority faiths feeling that their free exercise of religion is being infringed. It is also deeply troubling to those who believe that faith is necessary, or at least conducive, to moral and lawful living. The Court’s position has also become increasingly controversial as the role of government has expanded through the years. Because the government is involved in many aspects of community life today, from maintaining the public school system to administering many social benefits, preserving a strict wall between state and any religious idea pushes religion to the margins of public life. Many Americans believe this is a result the Country’s founding fathers never intended.
Separation of Church and State – Differing Interpretations
There are two main schools of thought as to how the courts should interpret the minimal references to religion in the Constitution and apply them today.
• Original understanding or intent. Some Americans believe the courts should make every attempt to discern what the original drafters of the Constitution and First Amendment intended at the time of drafting and apply this intent to today’s circumstances. They argue that this is the law of the land enacted by the people through legal procedure and can be altered only by Constitutional amendment. This view tends to favor a greater level of government accommodation toward religion since it is undisputed that government at the time the Constitution and First Amendment were adopted both recognized and respected religious belief and made many allowances for the religious nature of Americans, including public prayer and Bible reading.
• Moral understanding or intent. Others argue that the Constitution reflects certain principles of general morality which courts must translate as best as possible into current reality, adapting as necessary.
Application:
So in this section John presents to us a man who doesn't know the one who heals him.
John presents to us a man who doesn't have the power and will to be healed.
He presents to us the most needy man among a multitude of needy.
He presents to us Jesus going to this man, searching him out, finding him.
Not a man coming up to Jesus asking or begging for help (like the royal official from Capernaum did)
So what does this mean for us?
Is John telling us that amongst all of those in need we too must go and search out the most needy amongst them rather than waiting for them to come to us?
Is John telling us that there are others that like this man lack even the will and the power to get well and that like Jesus we need to provide the will and the power for them to get well?
Do some lack even the will and the power to come, to seek help or to keep their appointments?
And if so, what is the source of the will and the power we are to provide them - our own?
Or is it the will and the power Jesus provides?
Is Jesus the source of the will and power we need to bring to others in order to overcome their sense of despair, their sense of hopelessness, their sense of learned helplessness, their sense that no matter what they do it won't matter, it won't make any difference?
Where will we find the most needy?
Do we need to search them out in the shelters, on the streets, rejected from other places they've been for care?
And is John also telling us that we can't let the barriers that are created because of our traditional way of working with people stand in the way of doing the right thing by them?
Is he telling us that we can't let financial barriers stand in the way of our helping those who need help?
Is he telling us that we can't let traditional models of care that some people can't (and won't) be fit into keep them from getting the help that they need?
Is he telling us that we can't let traditional ways of doing things, especially when they are set up for our comfort, our benefit and not for helping those in need, stand in the way of doing what is right?
Jewish tradition distorted common sense and compassion out of the Law of Moses.
US tradition has distorted religious common sense out of the US Constitution.
Medical, Insurance, Hospital & Clinic Traditions have distorted common sense and compassion out of the health care delivery systems.
Are we going to operate with common sense and compassion or with tradition?
Transition:
There was one more thing John told his first century readers about why Jesus healed on the Sabbath.
John told them that Jesus healed on the Sabbath because:
3. A man's spiritual state was at stake. v14
Explanation:
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.”
-Matthew 9:5-6 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”
v9a At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.
-cured: physically cured
- cured: Merriam Webster Definition:
1. a: to restore to HEALTH, soundness, or normality b: to bring about recovery from
v14 Jesus "found" him
- implies His interest in him
- concern for his spiritual state as well as his physical condition
v14 "Stop sinning" or something worse
- presupposes his sin was responsible for his condition
- eternal consequences of sin > any physical ailment could be
- John 8:11 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
- John 9:2-3 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Illustration:
By way of illustration, let's look at another healing that addresses both the physical and spiritual aspects of those involved:
-Luke 17:11-19
11-13It happened that as he made his way toward Jerusalem, he crossed over the border between Samaria and Galilee. As he entered a village, ten men, all lepers, met him. They kept their distance but raised their voices, calling out, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!"
14-16Taking a good look at them, he said, "Go, show yourselves to the priests."
They went, and while still on their way, became clean. One of them, when he realized that he was healed, turned around and came back, shouting his gratitude, glorifying God. He kneeled at Jesus' feet, so grateful. He couldn't thank him enough—and he was a Samaritan.
17-19Jesus said, "Were not ten healed? Where are the nine? Can none be found to come back and give glory to God except this outsider?" Then he said to him, "Get up. On your way. Your faith has healed and saved you."
NIV cleansed & well; NASB cleansed & well; NLT cleanse & healed; KJV cleansed & whole; ASV cleansed & whole
Application:
What is John telling us in this final section?
In the first and second sections of today's passage we learn of Jesus searching out the most needy man at the pools of Bethesda.
We learn of his despair after being an invalid for 38 years and his helplessness with respect to even getting a chance at healing in the waters when they were stirred.
We learned of Jesus questioning the man's will to get well, his will to give up what he needed to in order to receive what he had to offer him.
And we learn of Jesus supplying both the will to get well as well as the power to get well as the man responds to the impossible command of Jesus to "get up take up your mat and walk."
And this all occurs to a man who didn't ask for it and who didn't even know who Jesus was.
And now in the final portion of our passage for today we have Jesus finding the man once again.
Jesus goes looking for him again after he has been cured of whatever it was that was making him an invalid for 38 years.
He goes looking for him and finding him connects his being well with his spiritual health telling him to stop sinning or something worse will happen to him.
John seems to be telling us that taking care of someone's physical needs, their psychological needs isn't enough.
Jesus didn't leave it at this.
He found the man again and related his physical health to his spiritual health - something we are being challenged to do as well.
Based on our review of other verses he doesn't seem to be saying that every physical or psychological illness is due to some sin we have committed - although it is possible for sins we commit to have physical or psychological consequences.
Instead, a review of this and other verses on this topic seem to indicate that spiritual healing is of greater importance than physical healing, or to be cured physically, from the perspective of eternity - due to the eternal consequences of not being spiritually healed.
Do we agree with this?
Like Jesus will we return to this subject with people whose physical and emotional needs we come into contact with?
Will we go out of our way to find them and talk with them about the eternal consequences of sin and the importance of dealing with this alongside whatever else they are suffering from?
Will we go out of our way to find others and bring them the Good News of who Jesus is so like the invalid at the pool they too will come to know him as their healer - their Savior?
Transition:
In today's passage, John tells his first century readers that Jesus healed on the Sabbath because:
1. A man had been suffering for 38 years. vv 1-7
2. The Sabbath traditions had distorted the Law's Intent. vv 8-13, 15
3. A man's spiritual state was at stake. v 14
Conclusion:
In this passage, John tells us today that Jesus heals on the Sabbath because:
1. Many people have been suffering for many years.
2. Our Religious Traditions have distorted the Gospel's Intent.
3. Many people's spiritual state is at stake.
As we head into the week ahead:
1. Will we find those in the greatest need?
2. Will we break whatever traditions get in the way of common sense and compassion in caring for them?
3. Will we address their spiritual need for a Savior that forgives their Sin?
In the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment