Johnny Skeptic

In the NIV, John 5:14 says "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." Readers, how do you interpret that Scripture? Matthew 5:44-45 say "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Is this not a contradiction?

dzim77

Where do you see the contradiction exactly?


In John 5... Jesus is showing a concern for the man's soul, not just his physical well-being. His primary concern is not to cure the man's lameness but to 'heal his soul'. Jesus is more concerned for the man's 'sin-problem' than for his inability to walk. It seems that he sees the 'sin problem' as a problem that is much more serious and will result in more dire consequences than being physically crippled.

We can see this in everyday life. I've meet many handicapped people who are full of joy and 'free' in their hearts. On the other hand I've met many physically healthy people who are 'crippled' emotionaly and spiritually by bitterness, anger, lust, selfishness, etc... I think there's a lot of wisdom in these words of Jesus.

Johnny Skeptic

Well, John 5:5-8 say "One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 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? '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.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.' At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. The day on which this took place was a Sabbath." The verses refers to a physical healing. What do you mean by "more dire consequences"? If you claim that a Christian can lose his salvation, you will have the "once saved, always saved" crowd to deal with. At the very least, the verses are ambiguous, just like many other Scriptures. A good example is the two different versions of the death of Judas. What kind of God would inspire the writing of a book in ways that create numerous controversies regarding interpretation, even among Christians? Some Christians believe that homosexuals will go to hell. Some fundamentalist Christians believe that liberal Christians will go to hell.

dzim77

"More dire consequences" could mean spiritual and emotional 'crippling' which is a result of delving into a life of sin... as I explained in my original post. It could *possibly* mean eternal consequences as well.


I am not claiming that at all. I don't think this text has anything to do with 'losing salvation'. We have no indication that the healed man has been saved, we only know that he was physically healed. (By the way I don't believe that it is possible to 'lose salvation'.)

Perhaps Jesus' statements are a bit ambiguous while taken in isolation from the rest of the book of John. Perhaps it requires an understanding the context of the book of John... but you asked for an interpretation and I gave one that is very valid.



I'm a bit confused. You started the thread by asking about the interpretation of John 5 and if it contradicted Matthew 5. Now you are mentioning the death of Judas and homosexuality. What is the question exactly?

dongiovanni1976x

1. The Jews are told by God to follow all his Laws.
2. One of the laws says that it is wrong to carry your mat on the Sabbath.
3. However Jesus tells the cured man to do so and the cured man carries his mat- hence breaking the law.
4. When he is informed that he is breaking the Law he appeals to Jesus, implying a greater authority than the law itself.
5. The cured man feels justified in this implication because he believes first hand that Jesus’ authority rests on his ability to heal- a sign from God etc.

Perhaps Jesus warned the man of more dire consequences as a way to suggest that the man’s physical condition was brought upon him by his spiritual condition of sin. (?) In the same sense that some believe in the gospel of prosperity (?)

What exactly is the contradiction that you see…I am having trouble with it…

John Kesler

I think that John 5:14's view that misfortune is the result of sin is contradicted by other passages, also attributed to Jesus.

Did Jesus believe that misfortune is because of sin?

Yes:

No:

It's understandable why conflicting points of view emerged about the relationship of sin to misfortune. Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5 claims that Yahweh is "a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject [him]," while the book of Job depicts the title character as one who suffered much misfortune despite being "blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1).

dongiovanni1976x

Makes sense. One is implied and the other is direct but I see a conflict. Thanks for the clarification.

dzim77

John, thanks for stating your position clearly and citing specific passages

First off, I would propose an error in your postion. You are basing the supposed contradiction on the following question:

"Did Jesus believe that misfortune is because of sin?"

Based on this question which you have proposed, Jesus can answer only 'yes' or 'no' according to the way you interpret his words. There is no allowance here for other possibilities or nuance because of the way you proposed and then answered your own question (by interpreting Jesus words to mean 'yes' or 'no').

Let's look at the passages you cited.

First of all, this passage does not intend to answer the question, "Did Jesus believe that misfortune is because of sin?" So an attempt to draw a conclusion to that question from this passage is a bit unfair. Also, I proposed an interpretation to this passage (above) that suggests that Jesus was not necessarily linking specific sins (unlawful actions) with misfortune.

I'm not sure why you put this one in the 'YES' category? Here we see Jesus forgives the man's sins. But the man is not healed at that point. Next Jesus heals the man's handicap. Two seperate acts of Jesus. This would indicate that his handicap was NOT a result of specific sins he or his parents commited. (although the Pharisees held this to be the case).

*incidentely this passage also points to the conclusion that Jesus thought he was God.

This passage reveals another possible reason for suffering... that God may be glorified through it.

In this passage Jesus points out bad things do not necessarily happen to people because they are 'worse sinners'. He also points out that all are sinners and because of this, are headed to some sort of consequences. He seems to be referring to a 'spiritual death' as the ultimate consequence. Because he indicates that those who repent will not face these consequences (of course those who repent will still die physically one day, but Jesus seems to indicate that they wil not 'perish' in some way).

So, you can see that these passages are not in contradiction.

Instead of 'misfortune', it might be better to refer to these events as 'suffering'. A fuller theology of suffering would state something similar to the following:

1. Suffering serves to reveal our sinfulness and need for a savior (luke 13:1-5)
2. Suffering serves to purify,humble, and increase the faith of those who believe (Paul's thorn, Job, etc..)
3. Suffering should be viewed as an opportunity to trust in God and bring glory to him (John 9:1-3)
<edit>4. Suffering can be a result of sin

etc....

hatsoff

No, why would you think so?

Her pinkness saves

well the contradiction i think he sees is:

first pasage: sinning will cause something worse to happen to you.
second passage: good/bad things happen to you regardless of your sin[sin isn't the cause].