New Thoughts (06/12/09-06/19/09)
Let me say at the outset that the exchange we witness in this passage is played out on many levels. There is so much happening outside of the words, beneath the words, beyond the words. Much is left unsaid by both Jesus and the Pharisees, and yet, what is not said directly is yet implied.
I recall a book I read regarding the use Jesus made of the method of teaching by parable. In that book, one suggestion put forth was that Jesus used this method as a finely honed rhetorical weapon against His opposition. His words were designed to injure not His opponents, but their position. Watching His style, as we see it in this passage, it is easy to see how one could take His purpose to be just as this book had posited. His style may not have that legal logic displayed by Paul, but it is every bit as devastating.
One of the principle points being contended here is the matter of valid witness. Now, it is interesting that throughout the Gospels, we see God availing Himself of witnesses that the officials of Israel would hold to be of little to no value. The shepherds are sent as first witnesses to the birth of the King, yet a shepherd was not even called upon to testify in court. They were not reliable in the sight of their fellows. Women serve as witnesses at the cross and at the empty grave. Yet, women were not allowed to testify in court. He chooses a bunch of Galileans, even publicans, as His foremost students. Who would believe such as these?
Here, the issue that is being brought up against Jesus is the Mosaic code for evidence. The suggestion the Pharisees make is that what Jesus has just said is not trustworthy, because it is self-evidence. Of course, such a statement on their part is excessive. The mere fact of self-testimony is not proof of a lie, which certainly seems to be what they hope to imply. Whether they are accusing Jesus of lying, or simply casting doubt on His unconfirmed testimony is not clear, but even the minimum is an overreach. This is not, after all, a court of law. Jesus does not stand accused of anything. Is it not overreach to suppose that the rules of the court have application here?
Jesus, however, leaves that point aside and instead shows Himself well versed in the Law these men claim to represent. My, but I have to wonder where Jesus put the accent as He answered them! “Even in your law it has been written.” It strikes me that the “your” of that passage is the true focal point. Were it solely a question of Mosaic Law, God’s Law, I don’t think Jesus would speak of it thus. More likely, we would find either a reference to Moses, or simply a reference to the Law. But, it’s your law. It is not (at least at this point) the purely oral tradition. It is, perhaps, the written collection of what began as oral traditions. It is the rabbinical commentary, not the Law itself.
You see, the Law as Moses provided it speaks of this matter of two witnesses for one purpose only: in determining such cases as would result in the death sentence for the accused. The boundary is explicit in the first statement of the qualifications for useful evidence. The death sentence requires the evidence of two or three witnesses (Deut 17:6). The obvious but unstated qualifier here is that the evidence given separately must concur. The Law also expands upon this for cases of sin (Deut 19:15). I will note, though, what the penalty for sin invariably is. The wages of sin is death (Ro 6:23). To be accused of sin, then, is to be declared guilty of a crime punishable by death. This is where the Law puts in place these rules of evidence. Of course, there is also the point that these rules and their application are matters for a legal setting, a courtroom.
But, Jesus distinguishes that what is t issue here is the rabbinical tradition. Even in your law. You have called Me a liar because I speak of Myself, but that is insufficient cause for such a claim. The fact that I speak of Myself does not automatically make everything I may say false, any more than it would were you to do so. If I am speaking factually, the facts speak for themselves, whether they are about Me or about some other matter. That aside, I am not alone in My testimony, and even your law (however limited its basis may be) accepts that where there are multiple confirming testimonies, the fact is established. Even you, with your imperfect judgment must accept that if My words are confirmed by another, they would be accepted in the court of law as true.
As I said, much of what we witness in this passage is happening in undertones. The attacks are not always direct. Many of the slings and arrows cast back and forth are of a nature that the crowds observing the exchange might not have noticed. But, you can be sure the Pharisees caught it. You can be sure Jesus caught it.
There is plenty there for the crowds as well. “You people judge according to the flesh.” You question My reliability, yet your are limited by your own senses. How trustworthy is your judgment? You know, even if you had the two or three witnesses, how would you know whether they spoke truly, or had colluded to deceive you, knowing your rules? You wouldn’t know. The simple fact of the matter is that I am not testifying in any criminal case. I am not providing evidence for the judging of anyone. The rules of evidence do not apply.
But, even if they did, even if I were not simply presenting evidence, but actually weighing that evidence and seeking to determine the truth, I (unlike you) would arrive at the Truth. You see, I am not bound by your fleshly limitations. When I make judgment, I do so with the input of the Father who sent me. I seek His counsel and He imparts it. Would you care to make the same claim?
Understand this as well: What I have said of Myself? He has spoken His confirmation of it. He testifies in full accord with the testimony I have just declared. You have your two or three witnesses, gentlemen, whether you have legal cause to seek them or not. Your justice should be satisfied.
That is the essence of the first round in this battle. They, in spite of having no legal cause to pursue, seek to bring the rules of the courtroom into the court of the temple. Jesus, counters their attempt both by pointing out that it has no place here (I am not giving evidence in a criminal case), and that rules of evidence, in spite of their suspect basis, are satisfied anyway. Just as they failed to carry out anything legally in their dealings with the adulteress yesterday, what they are doing today is nothing particularly legal. It may not be illegal, but it is no legal proceeding, nor do they proceed with an eye to legality.
Having contemplated the tenor of this dispute somewhat, I want to look once again at the setting. John has made a point of letting us know where we are. We are in the treasury. Now, it would be tempting to wander off into a study of the structure of the temple, both as Herod had it constructed, and going back through its variations until we reach the tabernacle in the desert. However, what touches me at the moment is simply this: The temple in all its variations maintained a similar organization and that organization was organized around what amount to be divisions of purity. At the center was the ark, the place where God alone was sufficiently pure to reside, this being housed in the Holy of Holies, a place requiring such purity that only the High Priest could enter in, and that but once a year and only after very careful preparation. Even so, that one entered with the realization that he might not necessarily survive such a close encounter with his Maker.
Around this was the Holy Place, still beyond the reach of most men, reserved to the priests. Then we would have had the inner court, restricted to only the men of Israel who were, it was supposed, more pure than women. Then came the Court of the Women, or the Treasury, which was open to all Jews. Yet, here no Gentile would be allowed, however great his faith in the God of Israel. These could only draw so close as the Court of the Gentiles, the outermost reach of the Temple. Now, it would be tempting to say these divisions were merely along lines of perceived holiness. We know that God is no respecter of persons, that in Christ there are no divisions between gender, race, class or any such thing. Yet, it must be borne in mind that it is also God who dictated the initial layout of His temple, and it is that layout which carried forward even to Herod’s floorplan. He is the one who distinguished. He is the one who placed the limitations as to who could approach how closely. Like it or not, He is the one who set in place the privilege of the men above that of the women.
In doing so, I would also have to maintain that He did not violate His own principles. In doing so, He did not establish a division based on gender, nor on race, and certainly not on class. That does not mean God does not distinguish. It means His discernment is founded upon more important criteria. That criteria is and ever shall be holiness. Did He, then, establish that women were somehow inherently more sinful than man? That is one of those endless debates that one enters at his or her own risk, is it not? The modern preacher is careful to note Adam’s complicity in the original sin, as if this somehow mitigates the crime Eve committed against God. But, I note the Bible makes no such attempt. Try as one might to construe them otherwise, Paul’s instructions are sufficiently clear as to the bounds set for women in ministry. However much we try to bend the Word to modern sensibilities it is there in the text, and it is not merely a cultural accommodation. The cultural accommodation lies with us: seeking to make God fit into the modern perspective.
So, in that sense, it could be argued that yes, God is making a statement of some sort here. However, I think what is more fully established is the sense of order. There is an order to worship. There is an order to the impartation of God’s knowledge to God’s people. He has determined that He shall pass down His instruction through the high priest first, then through the priesthood. He has determined that these instructions shall pass first from priest to man and then, if the women have need of more instruction from man to woman, husband to wife. He has also determined that His word shall pass most directly to His own people, and they in turn shall pass it to the nations. All of that is reflected not only in the structure of His temple, but in the structure of Jesus’ ministry, and in the clear teaching of His apostles. It is not, then, so much a distinction and discrimination between those who would dare approach Him, but an orderly dispensation of His blessings upon those He would have approach Him.
This much, I do not think, was disrupted when the veil was torn. Neither were the requirements for holiness that were established for nearness of approach to Him. The completion of the work of Christ did not suddenly restore chaos into the heavens, far from it! It restored the order of righteousness to perfection. Yes, we are now allowed even into that holiest place, because of our High Priest in heaven. But, it is not because distinctions are no longer made, it is because we have been made to satisfy the distinctions. Notice that even with that understood, Paul maintains the order of worship. It’s a separate issue. We may all enter in, and we may all serve. But, we are not all permitted to serve in equal capacity. Order remains.
This aside, in the moment of time we are observing here, all the distinctions and all the requirements were yet in place, and Jesus did nothing to change that in the course of His ministry. Oh, yes, He did seek to restore true order to the corruption that had become of the Court of the Gentiles. Yet, I think we must take note of the fact that this is not where we find Him teaching. Neither do we find Him teaching in that inner court where only the men could go. I suppose we could try and find cause for that in the fact that He had much of His material support from women. As Luke makes clear to us, many women traveled with His company, and some of these were women of means. Were Jesus a callous and calculating man of business, we might accept such a motive. However, this is truly the Son of God we are observing. I am quite certain His motive is quite the opposite, and that He consciously chose to keep Himself to that court where His message was most fully accessible to the children of God’s chosen nation. Man, woman or child, they were welcome to come here and sit around Him as He taught of their God.
Was He then cutting of the Gentiles? Not at all. In fact, His care for the Gentiles shows clearly in the fact that He would not suffer their portion of the Temple to be treated with such disregard as the officialdom of the temple had made it. That court had not been instituted as a means of bleeding the Gentiles of their funds. It has been instituted to draw all men unto God. He was not about to tolerate that its purpose be so corrupted. That is a lesson we need to remind ourselves of daily, as the Church finds itself tempted to become a corporation, a vendor, an entertainment industry. God’s not in it for the profit. He already owns all the profit in the world. He’s in it for the salvation of mankind, and really, nothing else matters.
What we can understand from Jesus’ own statements in the course of ministry is that He was mandated to approach God’s chosen people first, before His salvation could rightfully be given into the hands of the Gentiles. That same course is evident as Paul preaches, and in the general flow of Christianity first into Jerusalem, then spreading through Israel, and then onward into the nations. But Israel had right of first refusal, if you will. They would have the opportunity to take up the responsibility that came with their privilege as His chosen, and they would have one more chance to start working to that purpose for which they were chosen, to make Him known to the nations. What had come to be the common understanding of the meaning of that temple structure showed how far they had strayed from that purpose. God had become to them a thing to be horded away and protected, not a wealth to be shared until all were made wealthy.
So, Jesus comes to this place where all Israel can come and hear. The Gentiles will have to wait their turn. But, within the parameters of His assignment, He will make Himself as accessible as He can, even here in the Temple; especially here in the Temple. This is where we have been finding Him throughout the last chapter or so in John’s account, and we have been finding Him here at what is clearly the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. This has been noted, although in a fashion that leaves the experts debating about which specific day of that feast was intended. Whether because he is more or less journaling his memories, or whether because he is consciously targeting his words at a primarily Jewish audience, the points John gives us by which to give the setting for the message assume a Jewish familiarity with the life of the temple.
We find that John never explicitly calls this space the court of the women. Even here, where his identification of the location is at its most explicit, he refers to it as the treasury rather than the court of the women. Elsewhere, we are left to infer that this is where we have been. The presence of the woman caught in adultery could not have taken place any further into the temple grounds. The oblique reference to the lamp stands from the feast suggests that they were either in sight at the time, or had only recently been removed from that place. The association with the pouring out of the water libation from the Pool of Siloam, while not explicitly declared to have occurred in this court would be recognized as taking place there by anybody familiar with the ancient faith. Luke, had he been recording these same events, might have been more inclined to identify the court by its more official designation, but then, Luke was also an outsider to that faith and culture as well. Why it is John seems to skirt the court’s real name we cannot know. I don’t think we need assign it some misogynistic significance. At worst, we might accuse him of a certain cultural sensitivity.
It is, however, important to see that this is where Jesus has set Himself to teach: in this place where no member of God’s chosen nation is excluded. The message must go forth to them first and foremost, but within that commission, no distinction is made between man and woman of Israel. It is the fact of God’s choice that gives the precedence, not some misplaced pride of gender.
If I am to look at this symbolically, I might find it a bit more significant that John has chosen to point out to us that we are in the treasury. To state it plainly, here before us is the Treasure of God. Here is the One in Whom we are to store up all that is of worth, for in Him we have found all that is of worth! John, we ought recognize, was the most prophetically attuned of the Apostles. It was necessarily so after what he had experienced out there on Patmos. Matthew may have had an eye to the prophetic fulfillments that were so prevalent in the life and ministry of Jesus. But, John sees all the prophetic announcements. He sees the symbolic connections. He sees how much of what Jesus was communicating was done in ways that far exceeded the bounds of the words He was speaking.
Look, these men had been with Him for awhile. They had witnessed His teaching style. They could not help but notice after awhile that His lessons were seemingly spur of the moment, inspired on the spot by whatever was happening around Him. Was somebody planting seed? Why, there’s a parable in that to explain heaven to you. Was somebody fishing? Oh, my! There’s rich material to teach you of the kingdom! Is it tax day? Let Me explain to you how that reflects your Father in heaven. You know, it just didn’t seem to matter what was going on when He stopped to teach. EVERYTHING explained the Father when you were with Jesus!
John, however, might have begun to suspect that this wasn’t just coincidental, wasn’t even just evidence of the genius of Jesus the Teacher. This was God. This was Providence moving and arranging the footsteps of man as He prepared those works His Son was to do. It wasn’t Jesus availing Himself of the moment, nor was it Jesus scheming to give Himself an appearance of greater significance. This was no game of politics. He disdained the politics of the temple and the world equally, for He was above both in His own authority. He had no need to campaign for office. It was already His by birthright. No, what John seems to have recognized more than the others is that these moments were moments in which God was communicating not solely through the words of the Son, but through everything about the situation.
The libation from the Pool of Siloam had been set into the traditions of man by God to prepare His people to hear that announcement Jesus made in regard to the living water. Likewise, the business with the lampstands. That was never specified in the ordinance for the Feast of Tabernacles. It was something that came in later. But, it was something that came in under God’s guiding hand, accretion though it may be. This is not to say that God directly approved the change. It is to say that, as with all things in the life of faith, He would take the choices man had made and use them to further His good and perfect purposes. These lampstands would serve nicely to emphasize what He had scheduled His Son to say on this occasion.
Do you see? What was happening in the ministry of Jesus is what Paul tells us is happening in our own lives! God has set these things in place beforehand, prepared these good works for us to step into and accomplish! We don’t really need to sweat and labor with all sorts of programs and planning and committees to decide how we can best get God’s work done. We simply need to be attentive. We need to hear Him when He says, “now!” We need to be so fully tuned to the Spirit Who dwells within us that when we happen to stumble upon our purpose we know it, and we do it, and the doing of it just comes naturally to us. That’s what it means to walk in the Way, isn’t it?
During the preparatory phase of this study, I commented, “There are more ways to make a statement than bare words.” This is a lesson it seems the saints of God have to learn over and over again through the course of history. Indeed, it is such a fundamental lesson that we even have it embodied in aphorisms of worldly wisdom. “Actions speak louder than words.” How true that is! Any parent discovers the truth of it, if they did not know it at the outset. Every child proves it by their development. It seems, sometimes, that it is only in the pursuit of the mission of the Church that we forget. But, no, that’s clearly untrue.
Politicians, seemingly by their nature, try constantly to convince us otherwise, and we are too often taken in by words that have no relationship to their actions. But, then, we are all adept at that same game, aren’t we? One doesn’t go into a job interview with an eye to presenting the unvarnished truth in every respect. We have learned how to present our evidence in the best possible light, even if we do manage to avoid wandering into out and out untruth. Somehow, in the moment of interview, it doesn’t seem to occur to us that our interviewer is just as aware of that reality as we are. It’s all part of the game of living. We, who have become children in God’s household, are not entirely immune from that practice, but we surely keep ourselves closer to the purity and safety of truth if we are truly His. We must not misrepresent ourselves, for in doing so we know we are practicing theft. We rob the one we would sell a bill of goods in regards to our talents. We are not permitted to remain puffed up with pride, not even to get a job. No sir. We are called to be honest, a people of integrity. And, do you know what? Even in a world as corrupt as this, integrity will take you much farther than you might suppose. Integrity will catch the eye and ear of your interviewer far more than any inflation of the significance of your previous accomplishments. Integrity in owning up to any failures of yours that might lay in that record will speak volumes to a potential employer, for he knows full well that many would attempt to foist the blame onto their coworkers, or onto their previous employer, or onto whatever else might serve to shield them from the consequences. A man who will speak truly, even to his own detriment, is a man most any employer would want to have, other qualifications permitting. The employer who would not desire such an employee is an employer no Christian ought to be working for anyway.
[06/14/09] As I reread the passage this morning, something new occurred to me. I have been viewing this whole exchange as being connected with what Jesus had just declared in regard to the light. But, as I have noted already, the debate is happening on more than one level. I must admit that I keep confusing the context here, trying to remember which things had happened yesterday and which today. Looking back, though, that business with the adulteress had just happened, the Pharisees had just walked away. At least, we can posit such a brief span of time. Admittedly some translations suggest otherwise, but not based on the text. So, suppose these are the Pharisees who just walked away. They thought they had Jesus cornered, and found themselves embarrassed into departing.
What had caused them to do that? Like many others, I reach the conclusion that what Jesus wrote in the dust before them was a list of their own sins with names attached (Jn 8:1-11). Now, as they are trying to slip quietly away, something dawns on them: This stuff He had written, whether true or not, could not stand up in court. One witness! That’s not enough. If He really wanted to play that game, they could easily manage to turn the accusations back on Him for libeling their good names. With that in mind, consider what they say at the start of this passage. “You are bearing witness of Yourself.” No, that is not directly aimed at the things He has written there in the dirt. The last thing these men want to do is draw attention to the list. What they do want to do is discredit the Witness. “Your witness is not true.”
Now, that is very clearly an overstatement of the legal premise they are founding their argument on. This is the same one Jesus will shortly turn back on them: “Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true.” The way Jesus says this leads me to think He is not referring back to what Moses handed down, but rather looking to what the rabbis had since added. Moses applied this rule solely to matters worthy of capitol punishment. It would seem that tradition had broadened the application to cover every contested matter.
That said, the Mosaic law that lay at the root of this did not take the position that the testimony of one man alone was automatically untrue. It merely declared such testimony insufficient. It needed confirmation before the full force of the law was brought to bear on the issue. Taking the life of a man, even in the course of justice, is no light matter in the sight of God. Though that man be truly worthy of death, yet he is one created in God’s image. The whole thrust of the law, then, is to ensure that the judges who must make this determination did not do so lightly. Make sure of the matter. After all, to sentence a man wrongly when the price is so steep would be tantamount to murder itself.
Today, a people with no particular moral compass look at the issue of capitol punishment and suppose that even when the sentence is rightly declared those who would impose it remain murderers. These same folks will howl at the moral equivalencies others may posit in attacking different positions, but this is truly every bit as much a case of moral equivalency. On the one hand is a person who has taken life willingly and for unjust cause. Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that the facts in this case have been established not merely beyond all reasonable doubt, but truly beyond all doubt. There is no question as to whether the person committed these crimes. It is established, confirmed and even confessed to. By God’s own design, the penalty for such a case ought to be the forfeiture of life. By that person’s choices in action, he or she has sullied the glory inherent in the image of their creation. They have thereby sullied the glory of God, and that is not to be tolerated.
Respect for life, as much as this seems to offend people today, requires the sternest of penalties for those who do not respect life. It is for this cause that God has established the power of government. For those who would further argue that the errors made in cases involving the death sentence should lead us to abandon all consideration of that punishment, I say that you seek to correct the wrong problem. The problem lies not in the penalty given but in the relative, shall we say, lightness with which that penalty is applied. That is precisely what the Law of Moses was driving at. Don’t forget the seriousness of the penalty you consider. Make certain. Make very certain, for to err in judgment on such a matter is to risk being guilty of the same crime.
But come back to this scene we are watching played out. Let me continue to perceive the exchange from this new perspective. The Pharisees have launched this oblique attack on the credibility of this Jesus who just bested them. It is a highly defensive maneuver, trying to regain some ground after abandoning the field moments before. It’s one of those, “hey, wait a minute,” moments for them. The immediate response Jesus gives them seems to accept the face value of their defense. He simply points to the misapplication of the rule they are bringing up. My self testimony is not false just because you have not yet heard corroborative statements from others. For all that, we are not even at law, here.
He then returns upon them almost exactly the effect they sought to have on His testimony. “Of course, I know where I am from, what I am doing, what I have planned. Clearly, you do not. Yet, you see fit to pass judgment on the veracity of what I have said? Please! All you know is what you are able to see or hear for yourself. How is this ever going to be enough to determine what is true and what is not?” He’ll come back to that point.
But, first, there is this brief interjection: “I am not judging anyone.” There are a number of ways we might hear that. First, and connecting with what He has just said, this goes back to the point of misapplied law. “I am not presenting evidence in a court case. I am not offering evidence to support anybody’s conviction.” We might note an unspoken, “unlike what you were trying to do to that woman.”
Now, hear that point with the undertones of what He had written in the dirt. “I am not judging. I am not planning to bring these charges from dirt to lip.” You see, in this light, that He has understood the real target of their attack, and acknowledged it. You’re worried about that? But, you have already admitted to its veracity by your actions, and that is enough. That list has served its purpose already. I have no more need for it. I can see His feet discretely erasing that bit of evidence as He looks steadily at the faces of these Pharisees. He is in control of this whole exchange and He knows it. As He looks at them, as He speaks His piece, He knows that they know it, too. Oh, they won’t give up. But, as far as this encounter is concerned, it’s over before it begins.
Turning back to the flow of Jesus’ reply, I see He has come back to the thread He began with. I had thought that perhaps if I looked to the original language of this text I might find that we were looking at two different words here, between judge and judging, judge and judgment, but it is not so, not really. However, that one word does have its multiplicity of meanings. Primarily, it does appear to carry the sense of testifying against somebody, giving witness in support of the prosecution. Yet, the same word is applied to those who must weigh the evidence and seek to determine the truth when the testimonies are in conflict.
All this to say that when Jesus looks that them and says, “you people judge,” we are considering that issue of making a determination. When he then says, “I am not judging,” we are looking at the sense of offering condemning testimony. So, we must discern, as we look at the passage, whether He speaks of giving evidence or weighing evidence, and both are clearly used. Let me, then, try it this way: “You weigh the evidence within the limits of the flesh. But, I am not testifying against anybody. That said, when I do weigh the evidence in a matter, the conclusion I reach is True because I do not count on my senses and my wisdom alone, but I consult with He who sent Me.”
[06/15/09] There is another aspect of Jesus’ response here that I am sorely tempted to hear with certain undertones. However, I am not certain whether I would be justified in doing so, or whether what seems like veiled meaning to the English ear is really just standard Greek syntax. However, in the more literal translations such as Darby provides, verse 16 comes across as saying, “my judgment is true, because I am not alone.” There are a number of interesting aspects to that statement. First, I note that many other translations provide a qualifier to what is said here. The NASB for instance, adds the clause “in it,” thereby referring the companionship about to be noted back to the matter of judgment. The NET, which offers a similar treatment, offers only the fact that such a connection is ‘implied by the context’ to support the wording. As this translation is usually pretty thorough about noting where there are syntactical reasons for rewording, I can suppose that there is no such reason involved here, only the implications of context.
Of course, context is critical to properly understanding the text. This is true whether considering Scripture or any other communication, whether written or oral. When one is attempting to recognize Truth it is only that much more important. Yet, the context here can support there being more going on than the clear verbal exchange. These are adversaries, whether by choice or by necessity. Each party to this debate has knowledge of the other that can be construed as discrediting. Each party has in one way or another threatened to put that knowledge into play by the time this exchange is done. They are thus far being used only as feints, only to let the opposing party know what could result if matters are pushed too far.
As I have been saying, there’s much more to this conversation than the words, or than the sense of things that the casual listener might have caught in those words. So, I find it interesting at least that Jesus, the Word, chooses to phrase His response as He does. “If I do judge, I am not alone, but I and He who sent Me.” Do I read too much into that claim of “I am not alone”? Perhaps. I do find the claim interesting in its overtones, though. I am not alone in that case, or I am not alone then as I am not alone now? The NET may indeed be wise in advocating the contextual implications as to what He means by this.
That said, I am not alone in what I hear there, either. Consider, for instance, the translation offered by the Living Bible. “I am not judging you now; but if I were, it would be an absolutely correct judgment in every respect, for I have with me the Father who sent me.” What strikes me about that understanding of things is the closing, “I have with me the Father.” There is nothing there to limit that to solely the case of passing judgment or offering testimony. It is, in its way, a simple statement of fact. It is important to the matter at hand, but it is not limited to the matter at hand. I have Him with Me. Period. Whether I teach or whether I judge. Whether I work at my trade, or whether I enjoy the fellowship of family. I have Him with me.
That is the relationship Jesus has with the Father, even as He walks through earthly life in the flesh of man. That is the relationship I have with the Father, with Jesus, with the Holy Spirit even while I walk through this earthly life. That is the privilege that the Son purchased for us when we had no title to expect anything but death. It was in His hands to judge, even as He speaks of here. If any could testify to the true condition of our souls, it was He. And, had He done so, He and the Father would have testified as one, for they are One. But, instead, He has chosen the path He spoke to here: “I do not judge anyone.” Elsewhere, He is more specific. “I did not come to judge, but to save.” Where He could have offered testimony against every man ever born just as condemning as what He had written there in the dirt as regarded these Pharisees, instead He pursued mercy. Instead, He took pity upon us in the weakness of this flesh He shared, and determined to be strong where we were weak. He took upon Himself the punishment we had earned. He covered for us as no other could. Just as He was doing with these Pharisees, He has done with us. He let them know what He knew of their secret sins, made certain they knew that He knew; and then, He wiped out the record He Himself had written!
How have you reacted to this? The Pharisees knew relief, to be sure. But, they did not know thankfulness. They saw only that the apparent advantage in this duel had returned to themselves. They saw weakness in that mercy extended. What about you? When you learn that through Jesus, God has erased your record, as if all your crimes had been matters for the juvenile court and now you are an adult; how do you respond? Do you simply view it as great good fortune and return to your wicked ways, or do you realize the magnitude of what you have been pulled from and commit yourself to a new course?
Just look at the difference in response that we have in this chapter. There is that woman who faced certain and painful death for her sin. It was all but inescapable, and yet she found herself set at liberty. That very same situation faced the Pharisees, albeit in a less brutally public way. Thus far, their sins were not exposed for all to see, but they now knew how little there was keeping them from such exposure. They, too, experience unexpected mercy, as that record which was written in the dust is wiped away, rather than used against them. But, whereas that woman, we may surmise, experiences a change for the better, these simply commit themselves more fully to destruction.
The time will come when the Judge returns, and when He returns, it will no longer be to seek and save. Those who were to be saved will have been saved. He will have none left to seek for all have been found. In that day, the Judge must pass judgment. The records of each case will have been set down in full. What He has not caused to be removed from consideration in that moment shall be considered in full. Nor shall He be alone in the judgment He passes down. He and the Father. What He says goes, for the Father has put all authority in His hands, has assigned Him this office of Judge. He will be every bit as faithful in His filling of that office as He has always been in His office of Savior. Truly, this One, Who is both Savior and Judge, Whose judgments will brook no appeal, but Whose Salvation no power in heaven or hell can subvert, is One whom every soul in all the terrible history of man will face. Each one of us shall see one face or the other. Each one of us shall either see the Savior welcoming us home, or the Judge handing down the final verdict: “Depart from Me, I never knew you.” And in all of this, that closing part of Jesus’ words are wholly applicable. “I am one witness, and My Father is the other.” In that day, it will no longer matter whether you choose to confess to your sins. The united testimony of the Trinity (for where Father and Son are, there the Spirit is, also) has established the facts of the case to the satisfaction, “even of your own law.”
In light of that, how great a debt of thanks we owe to God! How marvelous is it that we, like that poor woman caught in her sins, have been caught, but released! How marvelous is it that we can, in spite of knowing ourselves rather better than we might like to, can yet look forward to that day with rejoicing! How marvelous that we, who have earned His greatest wrath and contempt and know it, can instead be certain of His loving welcome! How utterly, indescribably awesome to know that this same Jesus has looked upon me and said, “I do not judge you. I do not condemn you. I have made a place for you here in Our house.”
To the Pharisees, Jesus’ last word is, “If you knew Me, you would know My Father.” To us, there is no ‘if’ in that statement. “You know Me, so you know My Father. For, We are One.” That shall be the dividing line when all is said and done. Truly, there are only two kinds of people in the world: those who know Him and those who do not. Frost wrote of that fork in the road, from whence two paths departed and the choice must be made. He chose, and noted that the choice he had made had made ‘all the difference’. This is, whether he intended it to be so or not, a very apt picture of the crisis that comes upon a man who has encountered Jesus. The choice is presented, and a choice must be made. There can be no further delaying of the choosing. It is, “choose you this day.” And that choice will indeed make all the difference! Life? Or, death? Here, in the scenes John has shown us from this Feast of Tabernacles, the closing of the festal year for Israel, the consummation of all the types that made up the ritual calendar, we see two presentations of that choice, two choices made. But only one choice leads to life. For the others, that choice was just as final, to their eternal sorrow.
[06/16/09] As I continue observing the exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees, I do well to remember that Jesus did not speak in some fashion that would transmit the capitalization we see in most translations. Nor did the Pharisees. The translators capitalize any and all references to the Godhead out of reverence for God. In most translations, there is nothing implied beyond the effort to make clear whether a given reference is to the True God, or to someone or something else. Thus, we find Father capitalized here, whereas if I were speaking of my earthly father, I should have no reason to do so. Likewise, if I am writing in reference to you, I have no cause for capitalizing, whereas if I record a prayer in which I address God as ‘You,’ by all means, I ought do so.
With those as my guidelines, when I offer things from the perspective of the Pharisees, either in paraphrase, or simply in seeking to observe events as they would have understood them, I would not choose to capitalize any reference to Jesus, for they rejected Him as Messiah. Neither would I capitalize the references they make to Jesus’ father, for I sincerely doubt they are thinking of God in that moment. If they have any particular reference in mind, I expect it is Joseph.
Following along this whole line that this exchange is more involved than the bare words suggest, the response of the Pharisees in verse 19 is much more sinister than it might appear. Jesus, of course, has just noted that there is corroborating testimony for what He has testified, and that it is the Father Himself who offers it. Now, notice that carefully. It is not merely, “My father” who testifies. It is the Father. Further, it is the Father who sent Me. I don’t suppose the Pharisees missed that. If Jesus had been speaking of Joseph, that would certainly be a rather tortured way to refer to the man. Yet, their response, I would maintain, was not such as would recognize what He had said. Indeed, their whole intent is to rapidly turn attention away from such a claim, and to further discredit what Jesus has just said.
He has claimed this Father is with Him and is The Father. The implications are unmistakable. If they had not found Him claiming the office of Messiah before, then they certainly had heard the claim here. This, they cannot accept. Yet, they have a certain fear that perhaps it is true, so they dare not (at this point) move directly against Him so as to destroy Him. They are not irreligious, merely misguided. So, they seek the subtle discrediting in the minds of those who are listening. OK, Jesus. Produce your father for us that we might hear this testimony he can give in your support. Where is he? Hmm?
Let me state further that I have no doubt that these leaders in temple politics were fully informed of the stories surrounding Jesus’ conception. Small town life does not admit of the possibility that stories hadn’t been told of this Mary who went off to the big city and came back pregnant. I don’t care how secluded she kept herself. The arrival of that baby so near to the wedding: it didn’t take too many fingers to calculate the impossibility of the two events being directly connected as they ought to be. Joseph may have chosen to honor his engagement to this girl, though he had no reason to. But, I doubt this made him more honorable in the sight of the townsfolk. That they traveled to Bethlehem for the actual birth did not disguise what people supposed was the truth. In truth, the sojourn they had in Egypt to avoid Herod’s jealousy may have been as beneficial to them, in terms of getting out of that rumor-soaked environment for a time, letting memories fade.
But, small town memories don’t fade. With their return came a return of the stories. Even with Joseph’s death, even with the many sons he left behind aside from Jesus, the stories would remain. Oh, they would not be so crude as to speak of it when Jesus or Mary were about. I doubt they would speak of it when His brothers and sisters were about, either. But, to the stranger? To the Pharisee asking questions about this Jesus? Well, now, that’s a different story! You know, it’s kind of satisfying to be able to tell these important city folk something they don’t know for a change. Makes a person feel proud.
As I noted when looking at the opening section of this chapter, I think this opposition research, if you will, played into their idea of bringing the adulteress before Him. Had He proclaimed her guilt, do you doubt for a minute that they would have been bringing up the subject of His own mother, asking Him how He could justly refuse to condemn her as well. Was He not, after all, living evidence of her obvious guilt?
That same supposed knowledge of His past is playing into this new line of attack. C’mon, Jesus, show us this father of yours. Did they know Joseph was dead? Probably not. That was not a matter that would concern them. The stories and suspicions around His birth, these were worth knowing. The current status of those involved (apart from Jesus)? These would be of no use in discrediting the man. So, when we hear them asking Jesus, “Where is your father” it is not on the supposition that Joseph is dead and cannot possibly offer the testimony Jesus suggests he can. After all, if that were the point, they would simply note that problem. “But, he’s dead, Jesus. How can he possibly testify on your behalf? Are you, perhaps, a necromancer that you would conjure him up before us to give this testimony? Of course, that would condemn you in itself, now, wouldn’t it.”
No, they are more interested in gaining the opportunity to point out the illegitimacy of His birth. Had Joseph stepped forward, I have little doubt that the first question he would have been called upon to answer is whether he was the biological father of Jesus, or only his father in legal terms. I have no doubt that these men would have done their utmost to make political hay of the questions around that birth. How, they would ask, can you people expect to hear God speak through one whose very birth is so clearly unholy? With an upbringing such as this, you would prefer his teaching to what the Church has always taught? Sad, benighted people! And, you know, many in that crowd would have heard that argument and walked away from salvation.
But, Jesus, fully aware of the hearts of men, particularly of these men, will not be so easily deflected by their attempts to mislead. You neither know Me nor My Father. Let me emphasize once again that the connection Jesus has made between Himself, His Father and the Father are utterly purposeful, and they have not been lost on these Pharisees. As such, the sting of that “You don’t know My Father,” is every bit as much a slap in the face to these men as if He had said it more plainly: “You don’t know God.” If you did, you would know Me. If you knew Me, rather than the rumors you have given heed to, you would know Him as well.
This raises yet another aspect of that last response Jesus gives. For, if they are indeed seeking an avenue by which to discredit Him by the rumors about His birth, then they have failed to serve as faithful judges over Israel, have they not? For, they have accepted unreliable testimony. They have chosen to receive gossip as admissible evidence, while they reject the testimony Jesus has spoken out of hand, though He is direct witness to what He has testified to. They have revealed their own corruption by this line of attack, and, as He did with their attempted entrapment in the case of the adulteress, He has left them with no room to doubt that their corruption would be fully and clearly exposed to the people if they chose to push this issue any further. “You mention My mother, friend; you bring up those rumors! Please! I invite it. Let us clear the air on that matter right now. And in doing so, you know that your own reputations will be shredded, your power to lead destroyed from beneath you. Is that what you want?”
Listen: I know we like to think of Jesus as this meek and mild mannered gentleman, and there’s probably good call to see Him that way in His dealings with us. But, the Lord is a Warrior! He is swift vengeance upon His enemies. He is as ruthless in dealing with the progeny of the devil as He is compassionate in caring for His own. He was not called to go down without a fight. It is simply that He no more fought against flesh and blood than we are called to do. No. His battles were more severe, and they were transpiring in higher places. These Pharisees, for all they were prompted both by pride and by the devil, were never a match for Him and never could be.
But, Jesus, the compassionate one, was not going to tolerate their attacks on Him taking a toll on His family, either. Jesus was ever a man of honor. More so than any who came before or after, He was obedient to honor His parents. He had to be. His whole mission was to uphold and fulfill the Law in perfection, and that Law laid down this requirement. It did not call for vengeance to be taken upon those who would slight the good name of His parents. It did not call for violence and bloodshed. It called for honor. In His handling of this affair, I have to say, He honored His parents with consummate skill.
One thing I could wonder about this encounter is what emotions were evident in Jesus as He spoke. Was there anger in His voice, as He considered what these men sought to insinuate? Was there offense, that these blind leaders would seek to misguide the people by discrediting Him? Or, was there that same compassion that would lead Him to weep over Jerusalem’s fate when all hope of her salvation had been thrown away by her own hand? It is surely tempting to hear anger in this; to hear Him all but spitting these counter-arguments at those who harassed Him. But, that’s my fleshly way. That’s not the Jesus I know. He may not have been such a milk toast as we foolishly think His meekness must make Him. He was hardly defenseless. But, even when called to such verbal jousting as this; even when He must pronounce the prophetic woes upon these Pharisees, it was not done with any sense of glee. It was done with a true feeling of woe for them, a compassionate desire that it could have been otherwise, knowing the extent of the ramifications that would accompany their error.
Having considered the many undertones present in this exchange, I would be dishonest were I not to recognize some apparent issues with what is recorded here. There are at least two points where Jesus seems to speak contrary to what He has previously said. The first of these concerns comparison with things Jesus spoke when confronted about His healing on the Sabbath (Jn 5:17-47). As part of what He speaks on that occasion, we find this: “If I [alone] bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true” (Jn 5:31). On that occasion, as with this, the point is followed by notice there is Another who corroborates the evidence. I place ‘alone’ in braces because, so far as I can determine, there is nothing about the original text which would require the inclusion of the word. It may be implied, particularly given an understanding of the broader scope of the whole story of Jesus, but it is not really there in the text.
In fact, how you understand this particular comment Jesus is making rather depends on whether you hear that ‘alone’ in His response or not. Let me remove it, and I hear this: “If I bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, whose testimony about Me is true.” Let’s understand, first of all, that here we are looking not at an issue of truth versus lies. We are talking about admissible evidence as would be presented in a court case. Jesus stands accused (if not necessarily before any real court) of violating God’s Law by healing on the Sabbath. He is, therefore, mounting something of a legal defense for His actions. Thus, the issue is not veracity, but admissibility.
Coming back to the issue in John 8:13-20, the Pharisees certainly appear to be on a mission to discredit Jesus. He has not done anything on this occasion which could require a defense of Himself. There is not issue of legal failure, and therefore no call for a legal defense. When they, therefore, make this charge against Him, saying, that His witness is “not true” because He is speaking of Himself, it is the same wording, but I would maintain a much different meaning.
It occurs to me that they may very well have been trying to use His own words on that earlier occasion against Him. They are, after all, intent on tripping Him up, on somehow or another making Him appear a fraud or worse. If this is indeed the case, we might expect them to remind Him that He has said so Himself. On the other hand, such implications for their choosing this line of reasoning fits comfortably with Jesus’ later point about what is written, “even in your law”.
It may not suffice, I should note, to posit that on the one hand Jesus is speaking to admissibility of evidence and on the other of veracity. There is clearly a certain sense of legal proceeding even in this current scene, although there is no crime to proceed over. That has been, it seems to me, a bit of what Jesus is pointing out behind the words. Yes, there are rules covering the admissibility of evidence in a court case, particularly a case involving the possibility of a death sentence. Yet, we are not in any such case, so why bring up these rules? At the same time, the particular point Jesus is making on the two occasions appear to differ slightly.
On that former occasion, He does appear to address the admissibility factor, noting that the court of opinion is not required to weigh the matter on His testimony. There are others. These accusers have already heard from John. Yet, Jesus says, He has better than that. He has the evidence of works, works clearly of a piece with the Father’s purposes. More than that, He says, the Father Himself has borne witness, given testimony. But, “you have never once heard His voice, never once seen Him” (Jn 5:37). Never. It’s not just about this matter. The Truth of Him has always evaded you and always will.
On this occasion, though, He is more intent on drawing attention to the limits of their judgment, perception and knowledge. I suppose we might note a certain attack on their familiarity with the Law they claim to uphold as well. We are not talking about admissible evidence any more. We are talking about accuracy and truthfulness of statement. “Even if I were giving testimony about Myself, it would not change the veracity of what I have said.” Who could know better than He? Surely He knows Himself better than these men who would later confess, “We don’t even know where He is from” (Jn 9:29)! This whole exchange is about the relative cluelessness of the Pharisees. You proud men, so sure you are fit to tell everybody else how to live: You don’t know much at all. You have never once heard God, for all you claim to represent Him. You never will see Him, for you refuse to open your eyes and ears to His truth. You’re too busy making it up as you go along.
Now, this turns me to the other seeming contradiction. Previously, as He spoke on a similar theme of righteous judgment versus judging by appearances, the crowds had been of mixed opinion as to what to make of Him. They were clearly aware that the Temple officials were planning to rid themselves of this Man, yet they could not help but notice that He was there – teaching – and those officials were doing nothing to stop Him. Did they know more than they were letting on (Jn 7:24-26). Over against that possibility, they held up the point that they knew were Jesus had come from, and the popular notion of the day was that no man would know where Messiah came from. Didn’t that discount Him as candidate for that office?
It is into this debate about His person that Jesus speaks what seems contradictory to our present passage. “Yes, you know where I am from. You know Me. As such, you should be aware that I have not come here on My own initiative. I was sent here. And, He who sent Me is true. You know Me, but you don’t know Him. I, of course, do know Him, because I have come from Him. He sent Me” (Jn 7:28-29). And on that occasion, as on this one, who He meant by “He who sent Me” was not lost on those who heard Him, as much as the modern deconstructionists of faith seek to claim otherwise. Look at the result, and it is clear they understood exactly what He meant: “They were seeking therefore to seize Him” (Jn 7:30).
That aside, we see Him tell the crowds that yes, they know Him, and they know somewhat of His roots, that He is come out of Galilee, from Nazareth. Yet, their knowledge of Him is, it must be admitted, limited in scope, and founded mostly on hearsay, even if that hearsay is accurate. What He says on this occasion gives us no grammatical underpinning to claim a different meaning. When He says on the previous occasion that they know, and on this occasion that they do not know, it is the same sort of knowing He speaks of.
Now, I should like us to note where that previous line of reasoning led: You know Me, but you don’t know Him who sent Me. Here, the conclusion is not so very different. You don’t know My Father. Of course, He also says that they don’t know Him. Therein lies the apparent conflict. Yet, the nature of those He is speaking to is very different. Previously, He had spoken to the crowds at large, to a people who had at least observed Him to some degree, had at least come and heard what He was teaching. Their knowledge might be limited, but they had at the very least proven themselves curious enough to learn both from Him and about Him.
Contrast that to the Pharisees. They have closed their ears to His teaching, cannot be bothered to observe His ministering. They send representatives to do that sort of field work. They trust to their network of informants to learn of this one’s past. And again, I would have to say that for the most part it has been done in the way of opposition research, not an attempt to actually arrive at the truth of the matter. It’s all about seeking advantage, finding ways to reduce His power that theirs might be maintained.
Consider as well the nature of the discussion here. They have attempted to cast doubts on the veracity of what Jesus says, which would in turn spread doubt as to the truth of what He teaches. To counter this, Jesus is doing much the same, although with more integrity. “You think yourselves fit to simply pronounce My evidence lies? Based on what? Have you ever come to Nazareth? Have you ever been to any of those occasions on which I have ministered, that you have first hand knowledge that would counter what I say? No! But, while My evidence might not be admissible in court without corroboration, it remains quite true.”
They again show the superficiality of their supposed knowledge when the seek to attack Jesus on the basis of His father. Maybe they know His father is dead. Maybe they don’t. What is clear is that whatever they think they know of His birth and the circumstances that surrounded it, they know nothing of the Truth of that event. In fact, remember that previous encounter. They may not have accepted what Jesus was saying when He spoke of His Father and the Father in such synonymous terms. But, it wasn’t the first time He had done so, and it wasn’t the first time these Pharisees had heard Him do so. It was there in that prior encounter. “My Father, the Father, sent Me.” They knew what He was saying. They knew what He was saying here. But, they were hoping to discredit what He was saying by this opportunity to abuse Him about His questionable parentage. Wasn’t this what they’d hoped to bring up when they dragged that adulteress before Him? Hadn’t He played into their hands with this claim?
No. They had played into His with their response. And, Jesus, Judge of the whole earth and Advocate of the redeemed, our most consummate Lawyer, having written the Law He defends, shows just how lacking these Pharisees are in judicial authority. If authority represents Authority, then surely those who bear the authority must know the Authority! And, you gentlemen do not. You know Him even less than you know Me. Oh, you know about Me. You know what you have heard, or at least you think you know that much. You rather hope it’s true, don’t you? Then you need not bother yourselves with Me, and the implications of Who I Am! But, you don’t really know Me. You don’t know what I teach, what I believe, Who I AM. If you did, you would know My Father, as well, for I represent Him faithfully. I AM Him. If you really knew Him, you’d know that I AM. If you really knew Me, you’d know that I AM. And yes, before you break out in a fever of blasphemy charges, Behold! The Lords your God, We are One.
Is there a contradiction, then? Not really. In fact, the greater contradiction might be found in their own later confession: “We don’t even know where He is from” (Jn 9:29). But, but, weren’t they all fully convinced that He was from Nazareth? Hadn’t they long since identified His parents, sought to use His lineage as grounds to discredit Him? Had further news come to light, then, that caused them to wonder if maybe they didn’t know as much about Him as they thought? Had they heard about Bethlehem? About the sojourn in Egypt? Had somebody reminded them about those Magi who had passed through about the time He would have been born? What? What has caused them to conclude that they don’t know as much about Him as they thought? We cannot know, any more than they really know Him. Any more than these men knew Truth. Honestly, I think if we were to look more fully at that later passage (and we shall in time) we would find that their admission of ignorance as regards Him is nothing but one more attempt to play down His credentials.
Just look at that verse. Oh, yes, we know God spoke to Moses. That’s settled. But, what do we know of this man? I mean, sure, God could be speaking to Him. He’s spoken to men before, after all. That can’t be denied. But, this one? Who knows him? We can’t even be certain of his upbringing. And, you wish us to believe he’s hearing from God directly? Oh, it’s a most disingenuous argument, to be sure. But, the intent is ever to discredit, to cast doubt. How is His story any less doubtful than Moses’ own? The man grew up in the house of Israel’s great enemy, after all! He had been who knows where for how many years before he comes wandering back into Egypt making all sorts of claims? And of him, they’re certain? But, this one they have difficulty accepting? Don’t they see the parallels? How many accepted Moses when he showed up? Not many. The only reason they have confidence in him (and even that may be overstating the case) is because history has borne out the truth of the man. Had they been in the slave pits of Egypt when Moses came talking about escape, they would have been the first to send him packing.
Of course, this confrontation is not yet over. Looking nearer to the end of it, I hear Jesus speaking that which makes clear that He is not contradicting Himself at all on this occasion. “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing” (Jn 8:54-55). In other words, if that was all there was to it, such testimony would be as worthless as these Pharisees have tried to claim. Absolutely untrustworthy. But! “It is My Father who glorifies Me, not Me. And, you know Who I mean. My Father, that one of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ Yet you don’t even know Him, not after all these years. But, I know Him. Were I to say otherwise, I should have to lie, and that I shall not do, for I do know Him, and furthermore, I keep His commandments.” How can you hear that without hearing the challenge in it: “Any of you care to make that claim? Any of you want to stand up here and say that you have truly and fully kept His commandments? I didn’t think so.”
Oh, but what a claim He has made there. For all those who keep insisting that Jesus did not think of Himself as God, sorry, folks. “My Father, you know: the one you claim is your God!” Nobody could miss it that time. There could be no pretending He hadn’t claimed what He did, there could be no trying to make it about earthly parentage any more. The time for purposeful misunderstanding just came to an end. That’s who I am talking about. That’s who I AM. Choose.
This brings us around to matters of salvation. I will touch on this but briefly, but I noticed that the NET, in considering verse 15, reaches a conclusion that I cannot wholly stand with. The focus of the note in question is on what Jesus means, when He says that He does not judge anyone. As they note, quite correctly, Jesus most assuredly does and did make judgments concerning any number of individuals. It can even be said that He is making judgments as regards these Pharisees just then. The conclusion the NET comes to is that He didn’t judge in the same way they did. Their practice was to condemn. His is to save. So far so good.
The note continues, by pointing out that Jesus did most assuredly bring judgment in that His very presence forced people to choose. In this, too, I am right with the author. Absolutely! The first crisis of faith is that moment when one is faced with the reality of Jesus, and a choice must be made in that moment. Now, here is where my perspective begins to veer off a bit: “As they responded, so they were judged []. One’s response to Jesus determines one’s eternal destiny.” John 3:19-21 is noted as supporting this conclusion, so we ought look at that briefly. There, we read that the judgment is that light came into the world, but men preferred their darkness because of their evil deeds. They who did evil hated the light and refused to come near it lest their deeds be exposed. Those whose practices pursued truth, on the other hand, come to the light gladly in order that their deeds may be shown to have been done in God.
So, yes, there is note of a judgment, and there is something by way of discussing each man’s response to the coming of Jesus. However, let us back up just a few verses. God did not send Jesus to judge but to save (Jn 3:17). We know this full well, and rejoice in that knowledge. Notice what comes next, though: “He who believes in Him is not judged. He who does not believe has already been judged for that unbelief” (Jn 3:18).
The point is this: It sounds really good to say that it is my response to Jesus that has determined my eternal destiny. Puffs me up right nice, that does. It is pleasing to my ego to think that “as I responded, so I was judged.” But, that is not how it is. Indeed, if we take in the full scope of that passage in John 3, we are all but forced to recognize that this isn’t how it is. If we begin to bring in Paul’s writings, the case against any such conclusion is that much stronger. The truth of the matter is quite the other way around. “As I was judged, so I responded.” The truth of the matter is more properly stated thus: “One’s eternal destiny, being determined by Jesus, determines one’s response to Jesus.”
You know, that doesn’t sound nearly so inspiring. It doesn’t stroke my ego nearly so well. But, the assurance to be found in the truth of the matter is so much better! It all comes down to this: My choices are transitory in nature. My preferences, my dedication to one matter or another, these things change over time. What used to have my undivided attention as a youth barely matters to me now. What used to seem important when I was younger, I see was relatively frivolous as I reach maturity. If it’s about my choice, you see, then it’s subject to change. But, the great Good News is this: While we were yet enemies, He chose. Because He chose, we are not judged. That’s what was said back there in John 3:18. What followed, regarding the response of men to the light, that’s the result of the judgment Jesus has already rendered. It is in the nature of His judgments that the form of the punishment so fully reflects and fills out the very things that led to His judgment.
Oh, we can say, I suppose, that these evil ones have made their choice, and that God has left them to it. Yes, there is something to that. We, then, ought to be the more thankful that God chose not to leave us to our choices, else we would be in that same, hopeless way. But, He did not so choose. He chose to display His mercy to us. Whom He had predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, He called, and calling, He justified. Having justified, He also glorified. What can we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? If He did not even spare His own Son in His efforts to save us, what is there that He will not do to see us saved? Who can judge the one He has declared just? What charge could they bring that He has not already set full to any penalty that might have been rightly due? He died to put paid to that. Yes, and He was raised to take His place at God’s right hand, where now He intercedes for us. And what do you suppose could be done to render God deaf to His pleas? With all that, what possible cause have you for fear? (Ro 8:29-35).
Security lies not in thinking highly of the response I have had to Jesus. Security lies in knowing that I made that response because of Jesus, and that the response, having its root in Him, is not subject to change. Oh, He may well let me wander from time to time, if I be so foolish. Yet, He is not going to allow me to remain lost to Himself. He has not lost a one, yet, of those the Father gave Him, and He’s not going to start now on my account. No. He will continue to speak to me until sense is restored, repentance is stirred, and forgiveness can flow. He waits but just cause to forgive, and repentance provides that cause. Truly, it could be said that His forgiveness has been waiting to flow out on the brother who strayed. It is, as it were, held behind the dam of justice, waiting only that moment of repentance to open the floodgates and pour out into the life of that one He has chosen, that one that the Father has committed to His keeping. Oh, how can we not know Whom we have believed in, and be certain above all things that He is able to keep us until the day of His returning (2Ti 1:12)!
That brings me to what may be my final point. Faith requires knowledge. I do not speak of the moment of faith’s being planted in us, but I do speak of that faith which is vital, that faith which having been planted grows in the life of a believer. That growth: it is fertilized by knowledge. That knowledge comes in part from experience, but only in part. It comes from seeking to know the truth of Him Who has saved me. This is a part of what it means to work out your own salvation. You, if you are counted amongst the called, have truly been saved. The price of your redemption has been paid in full. Yet, this is not a call for passivity. We are called to active participation in the process. We are called to put in such effort as we are able. We are called to walk as worthy of what has been done for us, all the while knowing that the only way we can walk worthy is if He is walking in us, with us, and for us.
Even this matter of knowing Him is beyond us except He work with us in our efforts. If He is not here with me in these times of study, then these times are but a waste. I am simply chasing my own thoughts to no good purpose. Truth be told, a fair amount of what I write likely falls into that category. But, there are those times when He is so clearly here with me, so clearly making Himself known to me. There are those times, as there are times between husband and wife, when conversation leads to something new being revealed one to the other. Though they’ve lived so long together, there is still so much one can come to know about the other, so much that remains private until the one possessed of the memories chooses to share. We know, as well, that such sharing in a marital relationship deepens the bonds of love. There is something about that joy of discovery, that joy of being entrusted with knowledge of another’s deepest thoughts and feelings.
It is much the same with the God who instituted marriage as a great boon to mankind. Our relationship with Him is along the same lines. There is, of course, the distinct difference that He already knows our deepest secrets. Yet, there remains the joy that comes when we are ready to reveal to Him what He already knows, of trusting Him with another piece of ourselves. There is that joy, as well, that comes as we discover yet another marvelous truth about our God, our Father, our Friend and Savior.
There are also some of the same dangers in how we approach the relationship. In marriage, many a problem arises because one partner has held in mind a fantasized, perfected image of who they think their partner to be. I’m not just talking of those childish dreams of ‘the one I shall marry’. I’m talking about how one views the one they are married to. Even here, there are many who are looking to some perfect image of matrimony and either waiting impatiently for their partner to do their part, or fooling themselves into thinking their partner already has.
We have this aversion mechanism when it comes to regret. The greater the consequences of our choice, the more we will do all that’s in our power to find no cause to regret what we have chosen. It matters not how miserable our experiences have become since choosing. We will do our utmost to put the best possible face on it, even to the point of becoming delusional. All this because we just don’t want people to think poorly of us for our choices, however poor the choices have been.
Somebody who’s just changed jobs, for instance, is highly unlikely to be critical of the new job, no matter how mismanaged he may discover the place to be. It may be the worst of sweat shops, but he’ll sing its praises, because nobody wants to be an idiot. Nobody wants to have to say, “Boy, that was the dumbest thing I ever did.” How much more with marriage? Stuck with an abusive, ungodly partner, yet the urge is there to carry on. The urge is there to insist that everything is wonderful, hide away the pain, make it look good.
I bring this up, because we have a tendency to take that same approach with God. We learn something of Him that doesn’t necessarily fit with our idealized sense of what the perfect God should be. What? He takes credit for calamity? Not the God I came to! He’s Love, all Love and nothing but Love! He couldn’t hurt a fly, He’s so gentle and kind and cuddly. We get this way with many of the more difficult aspects of the faith we have come to. Come to the questions that surround matters of predestination and free will, and you’ll see it all around you. The idea of predestination is so uncomfortable to a free born citizen of this world! What sort of God would insist on our becoming His? Well, I could as easily ask what sort of god would not? The point is, too much of our belief system is built up not on the Truth that God has revealed about Himself, but on what we really wish He was like.
But where we insist on an image of Him as He isn’t, we cannot possibly have a true faith. If our faith is in a god who is love and nothing else, then we have not yet come to the True God. If, on the other hand, we put our faith in a god who will ever and always wreak vengeance against whomever we are currently offended by, we are equally far from the True God. If we have convinced ourselves that this god we serve is all about caring for our material wants and needs; making us healthy and wealthy and wise in the ways of the world, we have most assuredly come to something other than the True God. All of those misconceptions we have about Him are as much as idolatry on our part. They are, at best, evidence that we have not sought to know this One Who called us. They are, at worst, a determined refusal to believe what He says about Himself, which is to say, that by our insistence on false conceptions of God, we are forced to call Him a liar. To the degree that we reject what He says of Himself, whatever excuses and careful religious trappings we wrap that rejection in, we have elected to worship an idol. We have elected to trade the Truth for a lie that is a bit more comfortable.
To counter these tendencies, God has been so kind as to reveal Himself most thoroughly in His Word to man. He has not sought to airbrush His image. He has not revealed Himself solely in such ways as will lead us to be comfortable with Him. Indeed, in many ways, He reveals Himself as a less than loveable God. While we do not serve Him in cringing fear, we surely must come to grips with the fact that the fear of the Lord is more than just reverence for Him. Yes, His love for us is unchanging. But, so is His wrath towards sin. Yes, He is merciful to forgive. He is also just to punish. He is all that He has told us He is. We are not permitted to make selections from the menu of godly attributes and decide which ones we choose to assign to Him. He is all that!
If my faith is to be true and vital, then I must accept Him as He is. I must seek to know Him as He is. I must do what I can to cast off whatever misconceptions I may have, that I may come to a deeper, more thorough knowledge of the One I love.
Look, we’ve got a whole movement out there convinced that just saying they believe something is sufficient to make it so. They may or may not have some verse here or there to support their claim. If they do have one, they may or may not have looked to see if it was anything that could reasonably be applied to themselves. It really doesn’t matter to them. What matters is, “I believe.” And they are convinced that this is enough. Believing is Truth. But, that’s just as horrible and evil as those who operate on the principle that a lie that is repeated loudly enough and often enough will eventually be accepted as the truth. It is the exact same principle either way, and we must recognize that and destroy that evil tendency from our ways, if we are to truly serve the God of Truth.
Believing I am going to be healed in no way forces God’s hand. It does not somehow mystically require Him to heal me. For all that, I’m sorry, but my unbelief is equally powerless to stay His hand. If He is omnipotent, who do I think I am that I might overpower Him? Who am I kidding? If He is omniscient and all-wise, how is it that I think myself fit to advise Him of a better plan? No. My calling is to walk humbly with Him, not to be His counselor and advisor. My calling is to seek to know Him, to make His ways, His character and His purpose the subject of my study. My calling is to do all that is in my power to make myself well-suited and available to Him, that as He chooses, He may give me a roll in His pursuits.
Let me turn this around, just a bit. If I have such a true and vital faith as grows from His seed under the watering of sound study of His Word and is fertilized by availing myself of the teaching of sound ministers, then certain things must follow. If my belief is truly in the True God, it cannot help but impact my life. It cannot help but change the way I think, the way I speak. I cannot help but make progress in my efforts to walk consistently in the Way. All of those several fruits that are noted in the Scriptures as being the outgrowth of salvation will be present. It won’t be some. Like the attributes of God, the attributes of the godly are not a menu to select from. They are the combined definition of the godly man.
You know, Jesus declared that His followers would be known by their fruits (Mt 7:16-20). Words can deceive. Puffed up presentations of purported knowledge that is really nothing but fancy can deceive. But, the fruits! These speak far more than works, far stronger than numbers. What are these fruits? Well, there is, of course, the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). It’s worth noting that it is fruit singular not fruits plural. No choosing! The fruit is all of these or it is absent: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Either all of these are operating in you, or the fruit is absent. Joy by itself is insufficient. Self-control that lacks love is empty. Patience that is always accompanied by bitterness, or patience that is the sly practice of the one laying in wait to trap the unwary, is no evidence of the Spirit, clearly.
But, there are other fruits as well. There is the fruit of the light (Eph 5:9), as we saw in the last study. Here, we are told of goodness, righteousness and truth. And look! Righteousness, that fruit that manifests the Light in us, has an unexpected source. It grows in disciple (Heb 12:11). That fruit of righteousness which is counted as the fruit of the Light in us, cannot grow except with discipline! I see as well that their as a fruit to be associated with the lips of the faithful: They speak a continual sacrifice of praise to God, giving thanks to Him in all things (Heb 13:15-16). And don’t fail to notice that such evidence of the godly life is joined to action: The same who offers that continual praise also makes certain not to neglect doing good and to share as God provides, for this too is a pleasing sacrifice unto God.
We might also take note of James 3:17, as regards the fruit of faith, for we who have joined ourselves to the True God are blessed to know His wisdom imparted, and how are we assured of this? His Wisdom is first and foremost pure. But, then, it is also peaceable, gentle, reasonable, merciful, unwavering and truthful (free of all hypocrisy). Yes, and James, in telling us this, makes certain to note that this same Wisdom is ‘full of good fruits’. Indeed! Notice that all these things he has attributed to God’s Wisdom are of a piece with the fruit of the Spirit. Is He not, after all, the Wisdom sent from above to produce those fruits in us?
So, as He goes about His work in us, we are bound to find ourselves walking differently, thinking differently, relating differently. No, we don’t find ourselves perfected in some sudden overnight flash. It is not the work of a moment, not as we perceive. It is the work of a lifetime. It is a molding of character bit by bit. It is a gentle filing away of the things that make us rough, the things that yet mar the image we were created to bear. The marvelous thing is that the closer He brings us to that image, the more we find ourselves not only desiring to help the process along, but actually capable of helping. We are made more full and active participants in our own process of purification. We are strengthened to take up our daily cross, to bear up with the discipline, to learn from it rather than resent it.
As we make progress under the tutelage of the True God, of the God who is Truth, we surely have a duty to speak truthfully in our witness of Him. What we tell others about this incredible God of ours must be truthful. Sugar-coated gods will melt under scrutiny and leave those we have witnessed to further from Him than ever. Further, as servants of the True God, our lives must be lived in a manner consistent with what we would testify of Him. No, not to perfection, which is beyond us until He perfects us. Yet, consistency is not found in perfection, necessarily. Consistency is also to be found in how we handle our failures. When we fail to live up to the standards we claim to have in Him, how do we deal with it? When our failures are quite public, is our owning up to those failures equally public, or do we seek to hide away our mistakes? That hiding, that attempt to look better than reality, is what will be seen as the true hypocrisy. To err is, after all, human. To own up to the error approaches the divine. To forgive the error in others is the humble recognition of the self.
Let the testimony of our lives, then, be as accurate a reflection of this God we have come to know as we can make them. And, know that in trying to do so, all things are made possible to us as we are with Him in what we do. Jesus was able to say to His disciples, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father. I have shown Him to you consistently. There’s no good reason for you to ask Me to show Him to you as if you’d never seen” (Jn 14:9). His call to us, as we are made temples of Him, as we are indwelt by Him, is to live in such a way that the same can be said of our lives. “If you have seen me, you have seen Jesus. I have shown Him to you all along.” Oh, I know. It’s an idealized and idyllic view of life. But, it is the ideal. It is what has been purposed for us who are numbered amongst the called.
Though we stumble, yet let us get back on our feet and continue to walk the Way He has shown us, to speak the Truth He has told us, to do the things He has created us to do. Let us be diligent to note those good works He has prepared for us to do, and be instant in doing them. Let us be ever more attuned to the Holy Spirit’s guiding and speaking and prompting, that the consistency we desire may become a reality. Let our faith be firmly founded in the Truth of God, not some toy we play with, but the very power of Truth. It is Truth that renders our faith powerful. Faith misplaced has no power at all.
Jesus, our blessed Savior, has shown us the Father in Himself. He has also given us to know that the Father, His Father, is also our Father. He has made us to be of His family, joined to Him and to our Father by bonds which cannot be severed. Understand this, and understand the absolute security of His love for you. Earthly parents may disown. Earthly spouses may divorce. But, God is not a man, not earthly, that He should so change and renege on His word. That’s one of the benefits of being omniscient, after all: knowing all, there is no reason to speak a word that may require later retraction. There is no reason to enter into a relationship that must later be severed. Especially, when one is likewise omnipotent to be certain that the outcome shall be as He has purposed. Your salvation, my salvation, these are matters settled in His purpose, backed by His power, and fashioned in His knowledge. What, then, shall we fear? Dad’s got it under control!
