Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew over purification. And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.”John answered, “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.”
John mentions a debate between John the Baptist’s disciples and a Jew but, apparently, only as an introduction to the question of John’s vs. Jesus’ baptisms.
Before we move forward, we should consider John’s use of the label, “Jew”. When we see the term “Jew” in the Gospels, it is usually not a reference to the Jewish people, as a whole. It is a reference to the leaders of the nation of Israel who were trained in Jewish theology, who held positions of religious leadership, and who also served as the political leadership. In the sixties, rebellious youths bandied about the term, the Establishment. It was a pejorative term that implied that those in power were using it for their own benefit, rather than in service of the people. John the Baptist is a Jew, as are his disciples, as are Jesus’, and as is Jesus himself. Almost all the good characters in the Gospels—the foundational characters of Christianity—are Jews. So, while the literal translation of “Jew” in these passages is correct, we must recognize in the context the need to translate the term as “the representative of the Establishment,” or something along those lines. The Jewish Establishment was at loggerheads with Jesus.
In Judaism, conformity to the Law and to Tradition lead to a religion built on legalism. This is normal human behavior, actually. All humans are legalists. All humans will formulate ethical codes, consciously or unconsciously, and expect others to conform to them. Liberal ethicists today say, “We must address environmental threats by attaining carbon zero. We must end racism by establishing economic equity. We must allow all people the freedom to determine their own sexual identity.” Conservatives insist that capitalism is the engine of societal prosperity, they believe we are all safer when there are more guns in the hands of more people, they believe (or say they believe) in minimal government, on strict law enforcement, and on the right of the unborn to life. The world is a-rumble with red-faced arguments about who is to blame and what is the right solution to each and every problem. It is the nature of the world to be simultaneously ever-certain and often-mistaken. It is good that all of us have this innate desire to be righteous. The problem is that righteousness has many counterfeits. Most systems of righteousness end up being manufactured ideologies that “grant permission” for people to behave the way they want to behave. And so, while all lay claim to righteousness, most of our claims are false.
In Israel the Establishment promoted the narrative that conformity to the regulations was what pleased God. The result was service to the letter of the Law rather than sincere concern for the Spirit of the Law. More fundamentally the result was that the Giver of the Law was being marginalize and forgotten in Israel. This was Jesus’ point when he pointed out to the religious leaders that if they had any sense of who God was, they would have recognized who he (Jesus) was.
Within this rather lifeless call to regulatory conformity, traditions and case law kept piling on, as is the tendency in the legal business. Not too surprisingly, the evolving regulations also had a tendency to favor the Establishment, at the expense of the general population. In short, the government (the Jews) were corrupt.
But all this is merely background to the passage we are looking at. The focus of the passage is a different sort of conflict. John’s disciples come to him full of anxiety and, perhaps, a concern about an injustice being perpetrated by Jesus—the very person that John had previously proclaimed to be the Son of God. The Son of God seemed to be stealing John’s spotlight!
Unlike his disciples, John is undisturbed. He first points out that whatever fame or glory or power any of us may possess, such things are gifts from God. If we trust God, we enjoy the gifts he gives us when he gives them to us, knowing that he does so for good reason and, should he take away some or all of those gifts, we know that he also does this for good reason. God is in control of the course of history; we need not trouble ourselves when it becomes clear that we are not. In fact, if we have any sense, we will rejoice that he is the one in charge.
Then John gets more specific, confirming what he had said before. Jesus is the bridegroom. The glorious events that are about to take place are for Jesus and his Bride, while John is merely the friend of the groom. John is filled with joy that the groom has come. John knows that the groom must take center stage while he, John, withdraws to the sideline. “This is how it ought to be,” John says.
What John is saying is the very crucial thing that each one of us must come to say and believe: “I am not God”. It is a difficult decision to make, to admit that we are not in charge, to admit that we do not know enough and cannot know enough to be God. It is difficult to admit that we do not have enough power and cannot have enough power to be God. And it is difficult to admit that we are not good enough and cannot be good enough to be God. We must, if we have any sense at all, look to God and say, “You are the Lord. I am so thankful that you are good and powerful, and that you actually care about me. Please, be God. Do what you must do. Don’t let me get in your way and, if it pleases you, let me serve you in some way.”
John did not lead a pleasant life, and his life ended rather horribly, but he put his life in the hands of the one who triumphed over death. John understood that the plot of human history would be affected in only the smallest of ways by himself. In contrast, he recognized that Jesus was The Hope of the world.
Recent Comments