John 1:29

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

According to Old Testament law, any issue was to be settled on the basis of witnesses. Two witnesses were required in any court case or legal matter.

John’s basic premise in writing this gospel is to show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Here he points to the first witness, who is John the Baptist. This was John’s purpose for being created, to be the first witness so to speak. The Baptist says in John 1:34: “I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.”

Later in the gospel, we will see other witnesses, such as signs and miracles as well as the testimony of the Old Testament, and even Jesus’ own testimony should be taken into consideration. John gives us many witnesses in making his case.

The Jews in Jesus’ day were not asked to believe blindly. They were not expected to just accept the things Jesus was saying just because he was saying them. God offered proof.

The Jews were expecting the Messiah, but they had a good case of cynicism and doubt. This was nothing wrong with their being skeptical. They had been deported and lost their nation 600 years earlier because they worshipped other gods. They had learned their lesson and were not about to make the same mistake again

Their doubting was not the problem. The problem was, they refused to believe even after seeing the evidence.

Many Jews did believe. It was the ruling party, the Pharisees, who were the religious experts of the day that refused to believe. Part of the reason they refused was that Jesus had not come from their ranks. Surely, the Messiah would come from the religious authorities of the day wouldn’t he? Like I wrote last week, Jesus didn’t fit into their preconceived notions.

Even when they saw the signs, they objected. After seeing Jesus cast out a demon, the Pharisees said Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the devil (Matt. 9:34).

Another interesting quote from the Pharisees, after Jesus had healed a blind man is in John 7:48, which says “Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? ⁴⁹ No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.”

Or as Paul would write some years later, the cross (Jesus) is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks.

So, what are we to make of this? On the one hand, we are asked to believe, but on the other, we see that we are not to be taken in by every wind of teaching.

Just like in most things, there is a balance between the two. We should demand proof, but when proof is given, then we should believe. The people who questioned Jesus were never criticized or judged, usually they were given evidence. Those that refused the evidence were judged.

When you hear a new teaching, or a new interpretation of some portion of the Bible, it is wise I think to have a degree of skepticism. We should look for evidence, just as the people did when Jesus walked the earth. There are many would-be prophets out there today who will tell you they have a word from God, and accuse you of doubting God if you doubt them.

We still have witnesses today. The chief one being the scriptures, and another would be the writings and teachings of people who have lived and had relationships with God over the past 2000 years. Another witness we have today is the inner witness of the Spirit. If something is from God, all the witnesses will line up behind the teaching. If they don’t, then perhaps the teaching is not from God. Just as it is in a court case, if the witnesses contradict each other something is amiss.

John (The Baptist) was the first witness; other witnesses were Jesus himself, the signs and wonders, the scriptures. They were all in agreement. I think this is a good standard to use today. What do you think?