Audio download of this sermon available here http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

Some of us may have read of the collapse of Jonathan Edwards’ Christian faith. The ex-athlete turned TV presenter has been well known for his devout Christian convictions. But he‘s now resigned as a presenter of Songs of Praise citing long running doubts and uncertainties about his faith. He’s apparently no longer convinced of the existence of God. It is terribly sad. We ought to pray for him, his family and perhaps his friends as they seek to help him. It is commendable that he continues to go to church, the one place where he should expect to find help in his struggles.

Of course it’s not only high profile personalities who succumb to the temptation of doubt. None of us is immune to the pervading influence of unbelief. But one of the effects of passages such as the one we’ve had read to us is that we’re confronted with the irrationality of unbelief. Unbelief doesn’t make sense.

Some of us here might describe ourselves as unbelievers and others might describe ourselves as those who suffer from a pervading tendency to unbelief. John’s intent throughout his gospel is to convince us that the only sensible option is belief. He puts it this way,

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John is trying to persuade us to believe. Unbelief is not simply a first century phenomenon. It’s a persistent problem that can only be dealt by persuasion. John knew that he’d only do that with evidence. But he’s not doing that simply to win an argument. He’s offering us true life, spiritual and eternal life from God. A lot hangs on our response to his evidence.

His gospel divides neatly into two halves. In the first half the dominant idea is the descent of the son in the incarnation from the father’s presence. In the second half the dominant idea is the ascent of the son via the crucifixion to return to the father’s presence. Chapter 8 occurs in the first half of John’s gospel where the son’s descent from heaven to earth is surprisingly met by increasing and irrational opposition. The opposition is aroused by Jesus’ claim in (12)

12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Jesus claimed to be the light not only for Israel but the world. That’s an idea with a rich Old Testament heritage and it was commemorated in a graphic illustrative way in the feast of booths. It looked back and remembered God’s provision of guidance through the pillar of light to lead His people to life in the Promised Land. And it looked forward and anticipated the messianic servant promised in Isaiah who would be a light for the gentiles and bring salvation to the ends of the earth.

The historical context for these words is still the feast of booths. These words actually follow on directly from the exchange we looked at last week at the end of chapter 7. None of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of John’s gospel include the material in chapter 8:1-11. And so it’s overwhelmingly likely that this was not part of the original gospel even though it’s very likely that it occurred.

At the end of the first day of the feast of booths four huge golden lamps would be lit in the Temple. This would be accompanied by great rejoicing, singing and celebration. Music would continue throughout the festival on every night. The light from the temple area would shed its glow across Jerusalem. In this context Jesus spoke once again. He claimed to fulfil all that was commemorated in that ceremony. In his opinion he is the light to guide us and following him is the way out of the darkness of a directionless spiritual existence. He is the illumination that the world needs in its spiritual darkness. He can guide us to life.

But rather than an extended treatment of the light motif, what follows is a protracted dialogue between Jesus and his opponents. There’s so much ‘to and fro’ that it’s hard to follow the thread of the discussion.

Essentially it’s an argument over Jesus’ identity which is established by his origin and establishes his authority. In other words, if Jesus is the Son of God he’s been sent from the Father and he speaks with his father’s authority. That’s the position that Jesus argues. It won’t surprise us to learn that Jesus’ opponents, fronted by the Pharisees, had a different take on the man they saw before them. John doesn’t hide the controversy from us. It’s often said in parenting that we’re never to argue in front of the kids. John keeps it all out in the open because he wants us to take sides. As in any argument we need to ask who is talking sense. As the argument unfolds we’re invited to look on and consider the irrationality of unbelief as displayed by Jesus’ opponents. And so in this chapter we discover just how unreasonable opposition to Jesus is. We may find it uncomfortable.

1. Jesus’ opponents questioned the validity of his testimony (13-17)

Though Jesus claimed to offer all people the spiritual illumination we need his testimony was deemed unacceptable.

13 So the Pharisees said to him, “You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.”

Jesus’ opponents rebuked him on a point of detail. Technically his testimony was invalid since a self authenticating witness has no legal legitimacy. Simply put, any old idiot can claim to be the light of the world and the fact that any old idiot has claimed to be the light of the world doesn’t establish the truthfulness of that claim. But Jesus had a problem with that. The first part of their accusation is true, the second part not necessarily so.

14 Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

Technically they may be right but in reality only Jesus knew where he was from and where he was heading. The issue of understanding Jesus’ identity isn’t legal but moral. They were completely in the dark. When you’re in the dark you can’t see things clearly. And so they didn’t have a clue. And so who’s in the best position to be able to establish the truthfulness of his claim?

15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me.

Their assessments were worldly. They’d judged Jesus using human standards. And in their opinion he’d underperformed.

But, as Jesus was keen to point out, what matters most is not what we make of Jesus but what he makes of us. He judges no one in the way that his opponents judged him. But in partnership with His Father he will judge. And he’ll get it right.

17 In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. 18 I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”

In actuality the accusation of failing to meet the criteria of valid testimony was incorrect. The combination of Jesus’ witness and His father’s satisfied the legal demands for legitimate testimony. There’s more than enough evidence to point us towards a carefully reasoned conclusion. The problem, of course, is that many of us are unwilling to let the evidence take us in the direction it’s pointing.

We may think we sit in judgement on Jesus assuming that he has to impress us with his credentials but in reality Jesus will judge us. What do you suppose Jesus makes of our unbelief? Is he as persuaded by our professed desire to retain intellectual credibility or do you suppose he sees through to our stubborn refusal to accept we’re accountable?

2. Jesus’ opponents questioned the legitimacy of his parentage (19&20)

Though Jesus claimed God as his father his opponents cast doubt on the legitimacy of his parentage.

19 They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?”

I’m not at all convinced that (19) is an innocent enquiry about where his father has decided to enjoy his retirement. They’re digging up the events of the past and engaged in a bit of mud slinging. It’s as though they were saying, ‘if you’re going to bring up the subject of fathers then tell us where we can find your real father’. Unbelief had resorted to slander.

Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20 These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour [the time for his death] had not yet come.

Jesus warned that not knowing the identity of his Father is infinitely more significant than they ever could have imagined. He rebuked their igorance. They were ignorant of his identity and that of his father. If they had realised that they were talking with God’s Son then they could claim to know God as well. But they refused to accept that Jesus was God’s Son. In other words we cannot claim to know God unless we recognise Jesus as His Son.

It’d be like having a conversation with someone who claimed to know me but being completely unaware that I had two sons. The claim to know me at best would be superficial and at worst deceptive. No one can say they know me and refuse to accept that I have two sons.

It’s often claimed that different religions are different ways to get to know the same God. That is not only completely nonsensical, it was never Jesus’ take on matters. Though people write books on the subject He wrote off other religious systems in a sentence. Ignorance of his identity necessarily implies ignorance of his Father. If we do not understand, accept and believe that Jesus is the Son we cannot claim to know God the Father. The father is the father of the son, we cannot claim to know one without accepting the other.

3. Jesus’ opponents questioned the purpose of his death (21-24)

Though Jesus taught that he would return to his father via his sin bearing self sacrifice his opponents cannot perceive the true purpose of his death.

21 So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.”

Jesus mentioned that they had fundamentally different destinies.

On the one hand he would go away, returning to his father’s presence via the cross.

On the other they were unable to join him. Though they would continue the search for their messiah they would look in vain because he’d gone. And they’d die in this sinful state of unbelief. Joining Jesus in his father’s presence is not an automatic right for all people. Jesus was no Universalist. It’s not even the right of religious people. There’ll be lots of people who went to church on the outside looking in because for all their attendance at church meetings they failed to deal with their sin.

The response of his opponents is recorded in (22).

22 So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”

With a touch of irony John records that the opponents assumed that Jesus would give up his life in suicide but readers of the gospel will go on to discover that Jesus will give up his life in self sacrifice.

23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”

Jesus would not give up on them. Such was his love for his enemies that he continued to warn them and shake them out of their unbelief. We need to accept that our vantage point is not the best to assess the big issues. We need someone who comes into our world from outside.

The catalogue of misunderstanding would be comical if it wasn’t so serious. They completely failed to understand the purpose of Jesus’ death. They were this close to the Son of God, they heard some of the clearest explanations of the gospel and Jesus said they would take their sin to the grave unforgiven.

Imagine what it will be like to turn up before the presence of God still in possession of ours sins. Imagine that God says to us, ‘what are you doing with those? I sent my son to die for sin. Why are yours still unforgiven?’ What could we possibly say to God that wouldn’t sound unbelievably lame?

But we’re not without hope. There’s no need to turn up in the presence of God with our sins unforgiven. Look at the end of (24), on that ‘unless’ hangs our personal destiny. If we’re willing to believe we will not die in our sins. Though Jesus and his opponents had two different destinies it’s possible to share in his through one simple act, belief. Personal faith in the purpose of his death.

4. Jesus’ opponents questioned the nature of his identity (25-29)

Though Jesus has always claimed to be the Son of God his opponents refused to accept that conclusion.

25 So they said to him, “Who are you?”

If only this was an admission of defeat. If only they’d realised the stupidity of their unbelief and finally given in and opened their minds to the obvious. But this phrase is more akin to, ‘just who do you think that you are?’ or ‘who the hell are you?’

Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.

Jesus never changed his tune. From the outset he never claimed to be anything but the son.

26 I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.” 27 They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about the Father.

Jesus was not reluctant to speak, he had much to say in judgement of them but he was constrained only to speak that which the father had instructed him. Once again they failed to grasp the truth. But Jesus says that their unbelief is not terminal. There would come a time when the full disclosure of his identity would be provided.

28 So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man [Jesus’ characteristic description of himself], then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. 29 And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.” 30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him. [This faith was a fickle faith as (31) makes clear]

Jesus’ identity is supremely revealed by the cross. It is in his obedient and willing self sacrifice that we see the nature of God demonstrated with unparalleled splendour. If we want to get to grips with Jesus we need to get to grips with the cross.

Conclusion

Jesus’ testimony about himself taught three things

• His origin is divine, he has come from the father to accomplish his will
• His mission was to die, he gave himself in willing self sacrifice to forgive our sins
• His destiny is heaven, he returned to the father from where he shines his light to guide us to life

All three of these claims have been met with wilful misunderstanding inspired by unbelief. John has not hidden the controversy from us. Have you taken sides? Who gets your vote? Who do you find yourself compelled to believe? The Pharisees or Jesus. There comes a point at which we need to decide. For some of us that may be now.

Let me suggest that this passage suggests that the only sensible and rational response to the evidence is belief.

Audio download available here http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

There are some very stupid things written in cards for funerals. For example there’s one card that says ‘Those we love, never really leave us’. But that’s not true is it. They have left us and that’s why it hurts so much.

It’s true that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ transforms our experience of funerals, as we’ll see. But however firm our Christian faith may be, the loss of a close Christian friend produces a profound emotional shock. The death of a loved one raises questions about what has happened to them, whether they’re alright and whether we’ll see them again. And so it’s quite normal for us to be apprehensive about our Christian friends who have died.

The Apostle Paul wrote this letter to deal with just that issue. It wasn’t the principal reason he wrote. He wrote principally to defend his ministry and his absence from the young church he’d planted. But in writing Paul was able to respond to questions they’d send back to him through his envoy Timothy. One of those questions was, ‘what happens to those who die before the Lord comes?’

It appears as though this church was unprepared for this eventuality. That’s probably because they assumed that Jesus’ return was not only imminent but also immediate. They thought not only that Jesus would return but that he’d do so in their lifetime. Perhaps some of their Christian friends had died in the past year and they wondered what that meant for them. In response Paul taught that their future was not one without hope and he then explained what that hope is.

Though it may feel odd for us to turn to a letter written two thousand years ago to help us cope with the contemporary problem of someone’s imminent death we’re in exactly the same situation. Both the Thessalonian Christians of the first century and we, live between the two arrivals of Christ. We live after his first arrival associated with his life, death, resurrection and ascension and we live awaiting his return.

• Paul’s purpose in writing was to explain that the dead in Christ will return with the coming of the Lord.

• Paul’s aim in writing was to comfort a church unsettled by events surrounding the return of Christ.

Before Paul begins to deal with their questions he makes two preliminary points. Look at (13).

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.

a. We do not want you to be uninformed

Paul realised that there was something deeply unsatisfactory about ignorance in the church. Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is the source of many a problem. Rather than the kind of ‘folk sentiment’ and deceptive well wishing that characterises many funerals he feeds them with solid biblical teaching about events surrounding the Lord’s return. He knew that for the disciple of Jesus to cope with all that life throws at us we need understanding. That’s perhaps never more the case than in the situation where we feel powerless in the face of death.

b. We do not want you to grieve like the rest of men

Paul does not forbid grief altogether. It’s a natural response. It would be unnatural for us to mourn when we lose someone near to us. Whilst we want to remember that Christ’s death transforms the grieving process there’s still a grieving process. It’s just that we don’t need to grieve like everyone else does. The reason is that, as followers of a resurrected Lord, we have hope. Hope in biblical vocabulary is not wishful thinking it’s a certain outcome announced ahead of time. It’s this hope that Paul now expounds.

1. The dead in Christ are with him (14)

Look at (14).

14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

Paul used the word ‘sleep’ in (13), (14) & (15). But when talking about the same people in (16) he referred to them as the ‘dead in Christ’. He therefore used the word as a euphemism for ‘dead’.

The word ‘sleep’ is not intended to communicate the idea of unconsciousness beyond the grave. It’s not as though we’ll be unaware of what’s going on around us in heaven as we await the new creation and our resurrection bodies.

Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross and in his parable about Lazarus and the rich man suggest that what follows death is a conscious awareness of bliss or pain. In Philippians Paul said that to die would be better than living and it’s hard to imagine that he thought being unconsciously unaware was preferable to relationship with Christ.

So the word ‘sleep’ refers not to the soul, which is with Christ, but to the body which rests in the grave. And it’s such a good metaphor for death since

• it illustrates the stillness of the body
• it conveys a period of rest after labour
• it declares a temporary state of affairs

Sleep suggests that death is not permanent. Just as waking up follows sleep so too will resurrection follow death. But his point here is not about state of the dead in Christ but their location. They are with Christ. At the moment of our death we will immediately be with the Lord.

Though his body will lie in the grave and we will mourn his absence James will be with Christ. Our grief is not for James for he is going home. Our grief is for ourselves and for Sarah who must cope with his absence.

2. the dead in Christ won’t get left behind (15)

Look at (15).

15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Paul asserted that what he taught derived from an historical word from Christ. This probably means that at some stage of Jesus’ life he taught on this issue but that none of the gospel writers chose to record it. That’s not uncommon for Paul. He did it elsewhere for divorce and paying gospel workers.

Paul used the phrase ‘we who are alive’. This seems to suggest that Paul thought that he’d live to see Christ’s return but that’s unfair. It’s just Paul’s habit of identifying himself with the people about whom he is writing. In this case it’s those who happen to be alive when Jesus returns. It’s ridiculous to think that Paul knew he’d be alive when in a few verses he states that no one knows the time of Christ’s return.

But his point is that when Jesus returns to gather his people, Christians who’ve died won’t be at a disadvantage. They won’t get left behind. It’s not that Jesus will come to earth in all his glory and then have to turn round when he realises forgot to bring the dead with him. There’s no possibility that the dead in Christ will be separated from Christ when he returns or from those alive in Christ. There’s an unbreakable solidarity amongst God’s people.

Jesus is a very wonderful saviour. He will lose none of those whom the Father has given to him. He died for says like today and he won’t leave any of his people behind.

3. the dead in Christ will rise first (16)

As we read these verses we need to be wary of three errors.

• We need to be wary of cynical unbelief.

Though those with whom we rub shoulders on this crowded island are increasingly persuaded by a scientific naturalistic world view, the idea that this world is all that there is and life can be explained solely by science, we must resist the temptation to follow them in their folly. There’s more than enough evidence to convince even the most hardened sceptic that this world is not all that there is.

• We need to be wary of fanciful speculation.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on personal eschatology, there’s lots of important details that Paul has omitted. We must resist the temptation to fill in the blanks with our own ideas that have little to do with what the Bible teaches.

• We need to be wary of over simplification.

Some people have a way of reading the Bible which pays no attention to its literary form. They read it in a wooden literalistic way and inevitably end up drawing conclusions that have little to do with the author’s intended meaning. With those provisos ringing in our ears we can turn our attention to the four things that Paul asserts.

a. The Lord Jesus will return

16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.

Christians anticipate a personal visitation of our Lord. Accompanying Jesus’ return will be a universal, authoritative, divine proclamation heralded by a command, an angelic voice and a fanfare. Presumably this will announce the end of this earth and summon the dead to resurrection. These three noises are meant to indicate the overwhelming, irresistible nature of the summons.

b. Those dead in Christ will be resurrected

And the dead in Christ will rise first.

Paul has already told us that Jesus will bring the dead in Christ with him. But now he tells us in what form they’ll come. They’ll be clothed in immortality, wearing their resurrection bodies. It doesn’t say that here. All it says is that they will be resurrected. But in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul fills in some of the blanks.

c. Those alive in Christ will be raptured

17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

The English word ‘caught’ here is the Greek word ‘harpazo’ from which is derived the Latin word ‘rapere’. It could be translated ‘raptured’. The point is that it implies suddenness, as though someone had been snatched. When Jesus returns we who are alive will be snatched away to join him and the rest of his people. The clouds and the air are probably meant to be understood symbolically rather than literally. The clouds symbolising the presence of God and the air stressing that this meeting will transcend space. This will be unlike anything that we’ve ever experienced before.

d. There will be a massive reunion

17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

The momentary encounter with the Lord will lead to an everlasting relationship. We will be separated from James for a while but it’s only a temporary interruption in our relationship. It’s not permanent. One day we’ll catch up and we’ll have all eternity to do it.

Concluding Implications

Let me summarise what Paul is saying. Despite the death of close Christian friends we have no reason to feel that their cause is hopeless and that they’re lost forever. On the contrary, they’ll be hanging on the back of Christ’s coat tails when he returns in glory.

Paul’s aim in writing was neither to confront them with their own mortality, nor to answer academic questions about precisely what happens at the end of time. Look at (18).

18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Paul’s concern was to strengthen them in their grief and comfort them in their suffering. He anticipated that we’d encourage one another with these words. Our words are supposed to be encouraging. But what’s so encouraging?

1. There is an existence beyond the grave.

Death is not the last word. This life is not all that there is. Our existence in the New Creation will be one big reunion. We’ll be reunited with Christ and it’ll be like meeting a pen friend for the first time. We know him only by faith now through his word to us but one day we’ll be able to put the Bible aside for he will speak to us in person. But we’ll also be reunited with departed friends and there’ll be a whole load of catching up to do.

2. Our future rests on Christ’s past.

What happens to us in the future is tied to events in Jesus’ past. Christ has died and risen, he has paid the price for sin and triumphed over death, if we are united to him by faith we share in these events. Our future resurrection to life in the new creation is unavoidable. Just as we cannot change history neither can we change what will happen to us in the future.

3. The gospel transforms grief

That’s why Christians shouldn’t grieve like those who have no hope. We’ll grieve of course because we’re human and it would be unusual for us not to express the pain of parting and the severance of relationships in emotionally appropriate ways. But we have a hope that ought to transform our grief. Unlike the non-Christian funeral we have it on God’s word that we’ll see our Christian friend again and we know that we’re not lost forever.

Apparently, according to http://www.blogthings.com/howrareisyourpersonalityquiz/ 

my personality type is very rare. After extensive research it has concluded that I’m, and I quote, ‘optimistic, curious, enthusiastic, and open’.

I’m reliably informed that,

‘Only about 4% of all people have your personality, including 3% of all women and 5% of all men’. 

You have no idea how relieved I am to discover I have more in common with men than with women…

The experts tell me that, 

‘You are Extroverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Perceiving’.

Go figure! Who’d have thought it!

Still think this one is better

http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2006/12/18/theological-worldview-quiz/