John’s narrative in chapter nine is a clear case of oversimplification. The disciples asked a question about the correspondence between sin and suffering. Their answer was partially correct, but they failed to see the complexity of the issue; to put it simply, they had an oversimplified theology. Here is a rule: if you can fit your theology in a bumper sticker, it’s wrong.
Oversimplification that originated with the disciples or by those who taught them? Those who teach must be careful to communicate the depth of the Scriptures while maintaining the clear teachings on specific subjects.
My central concern is really with issues pertaining with sins and those directly related to John 9. Of course, one can stamp “Jesus is Lord” in a bumper sticker, but that’s not enough. How is Jesus’ Lordship going to be authoritative in my life?
The oversimplification originated in the disciples, but certainly they imbibed an incomplete theology of sin. Jesus corrects that.
The solution (or at least one them) is to think multi-perspectivally. Jesus is priest, but prophet, and king. He is the greater Joshua, but also the greater Jacob. In teaching, he supersedes Moses, because he has the revelation of God; indeed He has become the very Revelation of God.
Mr. Wilson,
This is from my sermon this coming Sunday (an excerpt):
“Their problem was one of oversimplification. This is a clear and direct application for us. Don’t build your theology on one verse. Ask the question: “What do the Scriptures say about this?” The Scriptures condemn anger, but it also says that there is a time for righteous anger. Be very cautious about how you use the Bible to defend your actions. ”
BTW, is this Anthony?