food4thought

If you prefer your sermons live http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php.

On 16th April, in the run up to Easter, the Very Revd Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Alban’s gave a Lent Talk on Radio 4. In this broadcast he took the opportunity to launch a broadside against the doctrine of penal substitution. That may not be terminology with which we’re familiar but I hope that the concepts are anything but unfamiliar because it’s the name used to describe the way the death of Jesus Christ won our salvation.

We might be tempted to keep this issue at arms length. But we simply can’t do that because of our loyalty to Christ. This attack concerns Jesus’ work and if our husband or wife were being rubbished I assume we’d spring to their defence. But it also it concerns our forgiveness and it concerns the gospel that we preach.

We’ll say more about this as we work our way through but for now let me provide a working definition. The doctrine of penal substitution concerns the precise nature of what was happening to Jesus Christ on the cross and what his death accomplished. It suggests that Christ’s death was penal; in that in dying he incurred a penalty and that it was substitutionary; in that he did it for others. It has long been the orthodox understanding of the cross amongst evangelical or Bible believing Christians.

Jeffrey John, it would appear, doesn’t like penal substitution. And he said so, on national Radio, at an especially significant time of year when Christians were rejoicing in the saviour’s death and resurrection. At best it was insensitive at worst deliberately provocative. These are some of the things that the Dean said in his Lent Address,

Well, I don’t know about you, but even at the age of ten I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we’d say they were a monster. Well, I haven’t changed my mind since. That explanation of the cross just doesn’t work, though sadly it’s one that’s still all too often preached. It just doesn’t make sense to talk about a nice Jesus down here, placating the wrath of a nasty, angry Father God in heaven.

I know it’s hard to assimilate quotes when they’re read out but in essence Jeffrey John doesn’t like the gospel we preach at CCB. From the age of ten the Dean of St Albans has thought penal substitution was illogical, insane and makes God out to be a psychopath. What do we say to that? Well he clearly wasn’t an average ten year old!

As you might imagine, it’s all kicked off on the clerical terraces. The Bishop of Lewes, the Right Reverend Wallace Benn was quoted in the Daily Telegraph saying,

‘the truth that Jesus died as our sin-bearing substitute carrying the punishment for our sins on the cross is the glorious heart of the Gospel. It displays the love of God: Father, Son and Spirit, for us. To deny or vilify that is a tragic denial of the power and heart of the gospel. I hope Jeffery John will speedily reconsider and repent of his attack on apostolic Christianity’.

Well said Bishop! On the other side of the debate the Rev Giles Fraser the Vicar of Putney and regular commentator on all things ecclesiastical said,

‘What is the heart of salvation, punishment or love? Liberals, like myself, believe it is love’.

But is it that simple? Do nice cuddly liberals like John and Fraser believe that God is love and salvation and nasty angular evangelicals like Benn believe that God is only wrath and punishment? The liberals want us to believe that’s the case but it’s a misleading caricature of the evangelical understanding that’s unfair and unbiblical.

We may be tempted to wonder what on earth this has to do with us. We’ll readily admit that it’s all a bit unseemly when the clergy exchange differences of opinion and we’d prefer that they didn’t argue in front of the kids. But what’s it got to do with ordinary Christians like us. After all it’s Sunday morning – the one day of the week we don’t want to think too hard! Let me suggest that although it can all seem a little technical what’s spoken of here is acutely personal. The reason I say that is that if Jeffrey John is right God is still personally angry with us because of our sin. If he’s right that Jesus did not die as a substitute bearing the penalty for our sin in himself then God’s wrath is still out there. It’s still stored up and it’s hanging over us.

Very wonderfully the Right Reverend Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham took the Dean to task in an article that appeared in the Church of England Newspaper. In truth he took him to the cleaners. In both this article and the longer article online from which the summary was taken Tom Wright completely demolished Jeffery John’s attack of penal substitution. I don’t agree with everything that Tom Wright proposes but I’m right with him in his opposition to Jeffrey John’s views. He cited the following five observations; these are my take on Bishop Tom’s polite scholarly critique!

1. while Jeffrey John may have claimed to be echoing official reports from the Church of England on salvation he had either failed to read them, understand them or represent them accurately because both reports speak of God’s wrathful condemnation of sin through the provision of a substitute

2. while Jeffrey John attempted to interact with the biblical themes of God’s wrath, His sovereignty and the death of Christ he is guilty of gross misrepresentation of these massive biblical doctrines to such an extent that he trivialises them

3. while Jeffrey John tried to justify his argument from scripture his biblical interpretation is woefully simplistic, his treatment of the texts is scandalously selective and he employs the kind of exegetical sloppiness we’d be horrified by in our small group Bible studies

4. while Jeffrey John attempted to evaluate a central biblical doctrinal what he actually critiqued was a hopelessly inept and reductionistic caricature and therefore a misleading distortion of what evangelicals believe about the cross

5. while Jeffrey John understandably wanted to present a view of a God in which His love is paramount he fails to recognise that God cannot be loving if he is indifferent to wickedness among His creation, genuine loving forgiveness is predicated on justice

It’s fair to say that The Bishop of Durham demolishes the case made by the Dean of St Albans. And it’s not simply because he’s brighter but that he’s more biblical than the Dean. But I guess that’s an assertion that we need to establish from the Bible.

It’s taken us a long time to get there [and you may have wondered whether we ever would] but let’s look once again at the passage that was read to us earlier. And ask ourselves what the gospel of John adds to our understanding and perhaps especially what Jesus thought about his own death. I think that John teaches us two aspects concerning Jesus’ death.

1. Jesus died as a propitiatory sacrifice (1-11)

18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words [the words from the Upper Room discourse in John 13-17], he went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. 2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, for Jesus often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” 5 They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.” 9 This was to fulfil the word that he had spoken: “Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one.” 10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) 11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

The dominant idea in this section is that Jesus died in order to drink the cup of wrath that his Father had given to him. But note first of all that Jesus offered himself for arrest.

a. Jesus offered himself for arrest

In contrast to his disciples’ unwillingness to give him up Jesus knew that it was something that he had to do. Whilst Peter attacked the soldiers, even taking up arms and physically wounding one of them, Jesus willingly gave himself up to arrest. We could almost say that he initiated it. Whilst not wanting to ignore Judas’ role as the perpetrator of betrayal, Jesus is the one who twice in this encounter takes the initiative and offers himself to his captors. In both (6) and (8) Jesus identified himself as the one they’re after. He was in complete control of these momentous events and he gladly recognised his part in them. All that was implicated by this act of surrender wasn’t something foisted upon him by His Father. We see that when secondly, Jesus submitted to his father’s request.

b. Jesus submitted to his Father’s request

The events of that night led up to Jesus’ climactic statement in (11). He was resolutely determined to do what his Father had commanded him. Jesus told his disciples that he had to drink his Father’s cup. But this was not an invitation to a social function as though it was some sort of divine drinks party. The idea of drinking from a cup has both positive and negative connotations in the Old Testament. It all depends on what’s in the cup. And we know that, drinking chilled Sauvignon Blanc is a proposition I’m prepared to accept but drinking rat poison is another matter. Drinking from the cup could be pleasurable if it contained God’s blessing or His salvation. But drinking from the cup could be profoundly disturbing if it contained God’s wrath. And yet this is the drink Jesus was required to down until the last drop was exhausted.

Let’s try and feel the emotional impact of what was going on. Imagine that all God’s righteous response to human wickedness had been compressed into the space above us. It hangs over us as a threat. Jesus came to remove every last drop of the Father’s anger, absorbing all of that as he took it into himself on the cross.

Jesus died to drink God’s wrath. Technically he died as a propitiatory sacrifice. Propitiation involves a sacrifice that turns aside the wrath of God. In drinking the cup of his Father’s wrath Jesus knew that his death was propitiatory because it averted the wrath of his Father against human rebellion. Propitiation takes sin and wrath very seriously. It says that human sin deserves divine punishment. Moral wrong cannot simply be brushed under the carpet as though it didn’t matter. It matters and it makes God angry because He is implacably opposed to immorality and wickedness in whatever form it comes. But in the death of His Son God had not simply forgiven sin and forgotten about punishment. He’d forgiven sin and stored up his righteous anger against sin. But at the cross the fury of all that stored up wrath was unleashed against Himself in the person of His Son. But God is more than simply wrathful. In his wrath he loves. The motivation for Jesus’ self sacrifice wasn’t simply anger, it was love. God did this because He loves us passionately. Divine passion sent Jesus to the cross as he willingly accepted the responsibility to endure divine punishment for sin. Divine indifference would have meant he’d walked away.

2. Jesus died as a substitutionary sacrifice (12-27)

12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. 13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people. 15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple [John’s enigmatic way of describing himself]. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, 16 but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in. 17 The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” 18 Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. 19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” 22 When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?” 24 Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. 25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” 26 One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” 27 Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.

The dominant idea in this section is that Jesus died on behalf of his people. But note first that Jesus died abandoned by his disciples.

a. Jesus died abandoned by his disciples

John draws attention to Jesus’ abandonment by surrounding his interrogation by the High Priest with the accounts of Peter’s three fold failure to acknowledge his association with Jesus. And so Jesus went to his death alone. Even his closest friends failed to support him in his hour of need. Strikingly he had to stand alone because what he was doing he was doing for others. Secondly, Jesus died on behalf of his disciples.

b. Jesus died on behalf of his disciples

The key comment in this section is the annotation by John in (14). It’s an editorial insertion that’s not essential to the unfolding narrative and so it sticks out like a sore thumb. What is it doing there? It’s making a point. Caiaphas inadvertently provided the commentary for the events John narrates. When Caiaphas said these words he meant that ‘for the sake of the ongoing peaceful coexistence of the Jewish nation with their Roman oppressors it would make sense to eliminate the one who threatens the status quo’. He had no idea that he spoke wiser than he knew. Jesus would die as one man for the nation. He would die as a substitute. He took the place of others. But not in the way that Caiaphas imagines he would. It ought to be us required to drink from the cup of God’s wrath. But it wasn’t. Jesus stood alone, in our place.

The idea of substitution is one with which we’re familiar, though we’d rarely call it that. If one of the Mums is feeding her child she might speak to her husband and say ‘love can you come and do this for me, Jemima’s vomited Farley’s Rusk down my new Fat Face top’. The husband then steps in and takes her place. Of course the difference between that substitution and Jesus’ is that this substitution usually has to be requested and Jesus like the ever attentive husband does what’s needed without even being asked!

Conclusion

As we close, let me suggest that there are four quick implications

a. we need to defend penal substitution

It appears as though in the Christian scene the doctrine of the penal substitution of Jesus Christ is becoming fair game. It won’t just be characters like the Dean of St Alban’s who try to attack it. Well known Christian leaders like Steve Chalke have opposed it describing it as ‘cosmic child abuse’. I’ve written a brief critique of his views and that’s available online. Rather surprisingly the Bishop of Durham, the same man who destroyed Jeffrey John’s views has also criticised a recent book called Pierced for our Transgressions by Mike Ovey, the Principal elect of Oak Hill Theological College, co-written with Steve Jeffrey and Andrew Sach, two of his students which defends the view of penal substitution I’ve outlined here. We need to be clear what we think the Bible is teaching on this issue if we’re not going to be thrown into confusion by the ensuing debate. This will run and run.

b. we need to believe penal substitution

It’s not enough to say that others’ views are wrong and that ours is the correct understanding of the biblical material. We need to believe it, with our whole being for we have no hope without it.

c. we need to rejoice in penal substitution

But more than that, we need to rejoice in penal substitution. There is no threat of God’s wrath hanging over us. Why should there be. Jesus died as a substitutionary propitiatory sacrifice. He stood in our stead to remove every last drop of God’s righteous anger.

d. we need to preach penal substitution

It’s not enough to believe it passionately ourselves. We need to make it known for there is no other way to be rescued from the threat of God’s righteous indignation against us than through faith in the death of his Son. Others will be lost without this.

If you prefer your sermons live http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php.

A friend at theological college had an over developed sensitivity to false teaching. He could smell heresy not only from the other side of the theological spectrum, he could smell it from the other side of the room. One day in chapel he heard some praying for the recently departed and assumed that the speaker was guilty of the Roman Catholic idea, that’s nowhere supported in the Bible, of praying for the dead. Deciding that he had to act he shouted from the balcony, ‘it’s too late!’ Only to discover from friends around him that the person praying was referring to those who’d recently left the college not this world!

There’s a certain element of risk in letting others hear what we pray. Who knows what soemone will shout out! On the night before he died Jesus assembled his best friends and took the risk. What he said is recorded for us in John 17.

Jesus’ habit of praying is frequently mentioned by the gospel writers. But only rarely is the content of the prayer given and when it is it’s usually short and pithy. The occasions when Jesus prayed at length are noted but he usually prayed alone. But this is a prayer that was intended to be heard by those in the immediate vicinity and subsequently by those throughout the ages. Whilst Jesus was primarily intending to address his Father and make requests of Him he knew that he should do so in the hearing of his disciples. But why did Jesus want them to be eavesdropping? What is it about this prayer that merits it’s inclusion in the gospel above the others? Why have we got this here?

John locates this prayer on the eve of Jesus’ death at the end of chapters 13-16, or what’s known as the Upper Room Discourse. It’s a wonderfully crafted prayer and there are three clear sections.

• In (1-5) Jesus prayed for himself and the immediate future.
• In (6-19) Jesus prayed for his disciples and the near future.
• In (20-26) Jesus prayed for the church and the more distant future.

Within those sections it’s possible to identify the burden of the prayer and the reason for it. We’ll think about the implication of the prayer at the very end.

1. Jesus prayed for the completion of his ministry (1-5)

17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

In these verses Jesus prayed for himself.

The burden of his prayer is that he’d complete the mission his Father had sent him to accomplish

In (1) Jesus acknowledged that ‘the hour had come’, it was time for him to fulfil the task His Father had given him. It was time for him to complete his ministry. His Father had given him authority over all people (2). As the Son his task was to give knowledge of the Father to those whom God had chosen. This is the essence of eternal life (3), not everlasting life but knowledge of the everlasting God. To know this God is to have eternal life. There is eternal life in no one else. There’s a danger that we pass too quickly over Jesus’ words in (3). Only Jesus, the Son sent by the Father can reveal the only true God to us. He’s not saying that there aren’t alternative gods. But he is saying that none of them can bring us eternal life because none of them can introduce us to the everlasting God. At the end of his life Jesus had got to the brink of accomplishing all that was required by his Father (4). At this point he requested he be returned to his Father’s presence and his pre-existent glory (5). Jesus had a job to do and he asked his Father to help him complete it.

The reason for his prayer was that he’d bring glory to his Father

The idea of glorification carries the meaning of ‘bringing great honour to’, ‘treating as majestic’ or ‘exalting’. The completion of his ministry was the immediate aim but that had a greater ultimate aim; the glorification of his father. Though Jesus asked that he would be glorified through the completion of his ministry this was no request for self promotion. He knew that his own glorification would result in glory for his Father as he completed his ministry and people came to know his Father.

We’re used to the idea of using spotlights to illuminate and draw attention to important buildings. If you ever drive down the A3 at night and you can’t miss the Cathedral when you get to Guildford. It’s that sort of idea here.

The Son wants the Father to draw attention to the Son so that he can draw attention to his Father so that people might appreciate Him.

2. Jesus prayed for the protection of his disciples (6-19)

6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. In these verses Jesus prayed for his disciples.

He identified them in (6-10) as he described them from two complementary perspectives. First, they were those given to him out of the world by his Father. God predestined them to belong to Jesus. We’re never far from divine election in John’s gospel. All who are given by the Father to the Son share a great privilege. But the benefit from the gift accrues not to the recipient but to the gift itself.

We can get very excited by gifts. I somehow managed to hit the nail on the head for Rosslyn’s last birthday and gave her a bay tree. But she received the benefit, the bay tree was fairly unmoved by the whole experience! God’s gift of a people to His Son doesn’t really benefit him. It benefits the gift. It’s like adoption. The benefit is primarily for those who are given to new parents. This just means we don’t get arrogant and start thinking that we’re just the thing Jesus was hoping for!

Secondly, the disciples were those who received the Son’s words, who believed in his heavenly origin and his divine mission. The disciples may not have yet enjoyed massive comprehension and yet possessed a profound faith but Jesus felt able to say with certainty that they knew that he came from God and they believed in him. Though we struggle to maintain those two apparently contradictory ideas, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, they sit happily in God’s mind and therefore we find them side by side throughout His word. Neither undermines the other. It is simultaneously true to say that God’s sovereignty never acts in such a way to diminish human decision making neither does human decision making function in such a way to threaten God’s sovereignty. That it is true is undeniable but how that is true is perplexing.

Jesus’ concern in this section was the disciples who joined him on that night. Strictly speaking he was not praying for his disciples spread throughout the ages. That’s in his mind in the next section. That’s not to say that we’re immune from the implications of his concerns but we just need to remember that we’re not in his cross hairs at this point.

Having identified his disciples in (6-10) Jesus now prayed for them in (11-19).

The burden of his prayer is that the Father would protect them

This idea is repeated. In (11) Jesus asked that his disciples would be kept from disunity. In (12) Jesus asked that the Father would keep them in the light of his forthcoming departure as he had kept them during his time on earth. And in (15) Jesus asked that they would be kept from the devil. This was a prayer for protection.

They needed protection because of the opposition of the world and the devil who stood behind it. Just as Jesus was sent into a hostile world to declare God’s word so they would be sent with the same purpose. They were to continue his ministry and though we’re tempted to think that he would be absent from them in person that is not the case since he had already promised them his Spirit. Nevertheless empowered though they were they still needed the Lord’s protection from all that threatened their task.

The reason for his prayer was that they’d be sanctified, or set apart for the truth

The notion of sanctification that Jesus speaks of here is not primarily personal holiness. Though of course please don’t hear me to say that it’s unimportant. The essence of sanctification is separation; it means to be set apart. But the separation that Jesus speaks of here is not separation in being but separation in function. The distinct role of disciples as those God had set apart for his purposes is the dominant idea. These disciples had been set apart from the world in order to serve the world in mission as Jesus had. They were to separate from the world but with a view not to being isolated from the world but to win the world.

It’s like the Special Forces. I’ve got a new DVD box set on its way, fished fresh from the Amazon. It’s called the Unit and it’s all about s group of men set apart for a purpose, to implement the Government’s will. It’s like that here though I’m anticipating that the execution of the Government’s will and the content of that will won’t be exactly parallel with the apostolic mission!

3. Jesus prayed for the unity of his followers (20-26)

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

In these verses Jesus prayed for his church.

The burden of his prayer is for unity

Three times Jesus expressed his concern that the church be characterised by oneness or unity. The unity Jesus wished for his followers is the same unity as that enjoyed by the Father and the Son. It’s a unity of purpose. In other words Jesus wants his church to be characterised by shared purpose from agreement in the truth. Jesus does not have in mind here the eradication of denominations. He does not envisage structural unity but theological unity. And that’s far harder to accomplish. Sadly it doesn’t seem to difficult to find people who want to amalgamate anyone who wants to call themselves Christian but it’s good deal harder to get these same people to agree to the Bible’s teaching. The hope of unity within our own Anglican Denomination is a pie dream. Loads of effort is going into keeping everyone in the communion but none is going into persuading people to reach an agreement on the Bible’s teaching. We can call it unity is we all own the same name but no one, especially the world, is convinced.

The reason for his prayer was that the world might believe

This is expressed in (21) and in (23). There’s something profoundly persuasive about the unity shared by all true followers of Jesus Christ. Division and fragmentation is the way of the world but unity, deep agreement in belief and purpose is powerfully significant for a watching world. Take this church. We come from different countries, we come from different backgrounds, we’re very different people and yet Jesus’ prayer has been answered in the four years of our existence. We have known a wonderful unity, and long may it be so. There’s widespread agreement in the truth and so there’s enjoyment of unity of purpose, we’re all going in the same direction. Like a tandem. And we share that unity with other Christians. Most notably, though not exclusively, the other Co-Mission Initiative churches with whom we are aligned. But that unity is shared with other local churches and there will be times when it’s appropriate and desirable to express our unity. But we get it at dinner parties or in social settings when we meet another Christian and whilst it’s not always like we’ve been best friends for ever there’s a kinship and a bond that’s established straight away.

Conclusion

At the moment of his death Jesus’ thoughts are not primarily on his own personal suffering but on the salvation of the world. This is a prayer dominated by evangelistic thinking. We’re listening in on Jesus’ prayer and we’re wondering what to do with it. It’s at this point where the rubber hits the road.

The purpose of this prayer is not primarily that we should pray as Jesus did, though of course we should. He prayed to his Father, he prayed about his concerns and he prayed in line with the scriptures. There’ll be lessons to learn from the way in which he prayed. But that’s not the primary purpose of this prayer.

The purpose of this prayer is not primarily that we should take up the concerns for which Jesus prayed in our own lives, though of course we should. You can’t hear the Son of God ask his Father for unity and conclude that it’s unimportant. But that’s not the primary purpose of this prayer.

The purpose of this prayer is that God’s missionary concern should be shared by those that belong to him. Have you noticed that every section is dominated by evangelistic intent?

In the first section Jesus prayed for God’s glory. But that could not be conceived apart from the Son giving eternal life to those whom God had chosen. The Father cannot be glorified apart from the Son’s ministry of giving eternal life to his people. Jesus continues that ministry through his Spirit and the words he caused to be written by his disciples.

In the second section Jesus prayed for the disciples’ sanctification. But that sanctification was not an end in itself. They were set apart for the express purpose of taking the truth of the gospel to the world. Separation from the world was never meant to be isolation from the world. It served instead to identify who we are and who the world is in order to clarify the nature of our mission, so that we might reach them with the gospel.

In the third section Jesus prayed for the churches unity. But that unity wasn’t a static goal for which Jesus prayed. Jesus had in mind a progressive unity that continued to incorporate new people into as they witnessed the unity enjoyed by the church and became believers themselves.

If there’s one thing to be learnt from this prayer it’s this. Jesus’ life was fundamentally shaped by evangelistic concerns. He prayed it audibly so that ours might be as well.

We cannot hear our Lord pray and think that our money, our time, our energy, our prayers, our homes can remain unaffected by the one thing he prayed for the night before he died.

If you prefer your sermons live! http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

• What would I have to do or who would I have to be to persuade you to use a year’s wages to manufacture a very public display of homage in my honour?
• What would I have to do or who would I have to be to make you travel up to the centre of town, wave your arms around in reckless abandon and sing your heart out in adoration of my accomplishments?
• What would I have to do or who would I have to be to make you seek me out when every respectable civil and religious authority has earmarked me as a dangerous insurrectionist?

Unless I’m manipulatively persuasive or you’re unbelievably stupid I take it, that I’d have to be Jesus. At least that’s what happened when people met him two thousand years ago. He must have been something to make ordinary people like you and me act in such a way. He was and he is. John wants to persuade us of that so that we might follow him.

John remains steadfastly determined in his enterprise to convince his readers that such extraordinary acts are entirely consistent with the discovery that Jesus is the Christ, the long promised saviour king of the Old Testament sent from God to bring eternal spiritual life to all who turn from their indifference and rebellion towards God and seek instead a life of following him in obedient trust. He doesn’t put it in so many words. He selects his words with more care and craftsmanship but that’s the gist of what he said he was trying to accomplish with his literary work, known as the gospel. You’ll find that in chapter 20:30&31.

By the time we’ve got to chapter 12 we’re in the second half of his book. Having spoken of Jesus’ descent from heaven as the Son sent to reveal the Father, John now speaks of Jesus’ ascent to heaven to return to the Father’s glory. Chapter 12 makes it clear that this ascent to heaven is accomplished via the cross upon which Jesus is lifted up in crucifixion. And so it’s a chapter dominated by his imminent death. John makes that obvious when he reminds us that the events he narrates occur at the time of the Feast of Passover, an event at which the sacrificial offering of a substitute for sin was central. John records for us three incidents which at one level appear pretty straightforward. I’ve put those on the sheet.

• Mary anointed Jesus with perfume.
• Jerusalem welcomed Jesus as her king.
• Gentiles approached Jesus for interview.

But as we dig a little deeper we’ll discover that there’s more to those incidents than first meets the eye.

1. Mary anointed Jesus with perfume (1-11)

John records an incident in which Mary, the hostess of a dinner party given in Jesus’ honour well and truly lets her hair down!

12:1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. 3 Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

Mary’s act is the central event of this scene. As Jesus and the others reclined on the floor resting on their side, she reached for the jar of perfume, poured it over Jesus and began massaging it into his feet using her hair. Motivated perhaps by her profound sense of gratitude at Jesus’ resurrection of her brother Lazarus, this act demonstrated at least the following three characteristics.

a. It was a premeditated act. This wasn’t an impulsive whim but a carefully planned display of very public affection.

b. It was daring act. It was outrageously risqué because women didn’t normally unloose their hair in public. It flirted with territory of romantic gestures.

c. It was a sacrificial act. The quantity of perfume expended in this expression of love amounted to a year’s wages. She clearly loved Jesus very much. There were some who found the whole incident distasteful and expressed their disapproval.

4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7 Jesus said, “Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. 8 For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.” 9 When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.

Judas’ objection was a distraction. He didn’t give ‘two hoots’ for the poor. He was merely concerned about lining his own pockets. Jesus was justifiably dismissive of Judas’ claims. Not because he cared little for the poor but because he cared little for the hypocrisy of Judas’ accusation. Instead Jesus commended Mary’s action not because he thinks that wasteful extravagant shows of devotion trump generous and sacrificial provision for the poor. But because he realised that her actions were entirely in keeping with his imminent departure and her anointing was symbolic of his preparation for his sacrificial death. Jesus was saying that since the poor are always with us there will be no shortage of opportunities to provide for them but this is the last chance for Mary to be lavish in her affection towards him.

But lest we pass over Mary’s act too quickly in our eagerness to escape its uncomfortable implications, it’s worth asking the question whether this is something we could ever imagine ourselves doing. Perhaps some of us can remember a time when our affection for Jesus was so strong that this would not have seemed unlikely and perhaps things have cooled off in the intervening period. Of course, most blokes would rather run a mile than publicly express affection for another man. We might occasionally feel a hug was appropriate but it’d have to be accompanied with a hearty back slap just in case anyone thought we’d gone soft! But on the whole we’re uncomfortable with public displays of affection. I became a Christian at University and grew up in an environment dominated by delightful Christian women who had no such inhibitions about expressing their affection for Jesus. I was a rugby playing naval engineer so you can imagine what I thought about that! It may well be more straightforward for the girls to think about what it means to love Jesus. Matters of the heart are not quite as perplexing for people who are comfortable expressing their emotions. But what does it look like for a man to express affection for Jesus Christ? Our affection for a mate might be expressed in carefully chosen words or a lavish act of devotion but not usually. This is in no way meant to be a complete answer but let me suggest that the following four things are worth thinking about.

a. We include those we love in our plans.

They become an integral part of what we’re planning to do. And so if Jesus plays no part in our future plans it’s hard to imagine that we have real affection for him. And so in our decision making we’ll factor in his plans and take into account the things he desires.

b. We seek their advice.

I ask my friends what they think, not all the time but on the important issues of life. It’s to imagine that we have real affection for Jesus if his opinion is irrelevant to us. And so we’ll seek his wisdom and guidance on the matters in hand. How we spend our time, our money and our energies will be governed by what he thinks.

c. We enjoy their company.

I go to the pub with, share meals with and watch sport with my friends. I enjoy their company and so I seek their companionship. It’s hard to imagine that we have real affection for Jesus if his company is not something that we seek. And so we’ll cultivate habits that provide the opportunity to be in his presence. We’ll plan into our schedule regular and frequent times to be with him as we read his word and talk with him in prayer.

d. We do the things that delight them.

This is perhaps most obvious in a romantic relationship. It’s true that in chapter 15 Jesus will go on to establish that love for him will issue in obedience. But affection for Jesus is not less than that but it’s more than simply doing what he says. And so we’ll obey him.

At one level this was a lavish expression of heartfelt devotion but Jesus understood it as an act of preparation for his death. Jesus willingly accepted her act of devotion and he willingly accepted the death it anticipated.

2. Jerusalem welcomed Jesus as king (12-19)

John records an incident in which Jerusalem got up on their feet in homage to her all conquering king as he arrived on a donkey!

12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! [literally give salvation now] Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” 14 And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, 15 “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!” 16 His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about him and had been done to him. 17 The crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to bear witness. 18 The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

It’s not a completely unfamiliar concept. In the Winter of 2003 the roads of central London were full of people waving the flag of St George as they welcomed the triumphant return of the England World Cup Winning team to the capital. I was there. And how we sang. Swing Low Sweet Chariot never seemed do appropriate. Three generations of the Perkins family and thousands of others expressed our adulation for a team who had exalted themselves above all other rivals.

There’s something of that about this incident. The song they sang was Psalm 118. The reason they sang was that the Messiah had arrived. Israel’s long awaited king had arrived at his capital city no doubt to take up his rightful place on the throne. At the time no one seems to have taken much notice of the mode of transport. However, it was clear that Jesus had given considerable thought to his choice of travel. There was something deliberate about choosing a donkey. If Jesus had arrived on a war horse it would have sent Jerusalem into a frenzied state of insurrectionist fervour. But he came on a donkey. It fulfilled Zechariah’s prophecy. In Zechariah 9 God promised that one day he would send his rescuing king. It’s easy to see why people got excited about the imminent arrival of the Messiah. There are three features from Zechariah’s promises that contributed to the sense of expectation.

• The arrival of the king would bring the end of war.
• The arrival of the king would bring peace to the nations as he extended his world wide reign.
• The arrival of the king would release prisoners on the basis of the blood of God’s covenant.

Jesus would disappoint the political aspirations of those who welcomed him so enthusiastically. He deliberately sought to dampen the crowds’ expectations. But not because he couldn’t deliver what he promised. The good news that this humble, gentle sacrificial king brought to Zion concerned not the re-establishment of the pale shadow of a worldly theocracy but the permanent establishment of an everlasting kingdom in which Jesus would rule eternally for the benefit of his people.

At one level this was an act of adulation as Jerusalem welcomed the king to his capital city. But Jesus understood it as a superficial action that betrayed the absence of understanding of the true nature of his Messiahship. Imagine how they might have reacted if they’d really understood!

3. Gentiles approached Jesus for interview (20-36)

John records an incident in which representatives of the Gentile world sought out Jesus for a one on one.

20 Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. 21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” 22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.

The arrival of these individuals seems to have acted like a trigger for Jesus. But the teaching that Jesus subsequently gave was not directed at them. They seem to have slipped off into the distance. Nevertheless it provided the occasion for Jesus to teach his disciples and the crowd about his death. Jesus taught five key ideas.

a. The death of Jesus results in a resurrection harvest (23&24).

23 And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

Jesus likened his death and burial to the life cycle of a seed. In nature the death and burial of a seed in the earth is the necessary prelude to resurrection as the new plant bearing further seeds comes to life. The harvest of many seeds depends upon the death of just one seed. In the same way the death and burial of Jesus will be the prelude to a resurrection that bears much fruit. The arrival of the Gentiles anticipated this future harvest.

b. The death of Jesus provides a model of self sacrifice (25&26)

25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honour him.

Jesus explained that his death was not simply substitutionary, it’s also exemplary. Notice that to hate one’s life (25) is explained in (26) as to serve Christ. In other words, love for self is displaced not by self loathing but by love for Christ. It’s this sort of behaviour that God thinks highly of. So the principle of self sacrifice that lay at the heart of his ministry ought also to characterise those who profess to follow after him. Self sacrifice is a non negotiable for those of us who wish to benefit from Christ’s.

c. The death of Jesus fulfils the purpose of his Father (27&28)

27 “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”

Without in any sense minimising the anguish evident in Jesus’ prayer there is nevertheless steely determination to fulfil the purpose for which he came. Though the hour of his death would be unspeakably horrific it would also be the time when he would bring glory to his Father. The Father spoke from heaven and reassured his Son that he has glorified his name in and through His Son’s ministry and that He will further glorify it through his impending crucifixion.

d. The death of Jesus reveals the glory of God (29-33)

29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, “An angel has spoken to him.” 30 Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not mine. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

Notice that the Father is glorified in the death of His Son in three ways. 

• Through the judgement of the world as God’s verdict on rebellion against him is graphically expressed in the bloodied corpse of His crucified Son.
• Through the conquest of Satan as his power evaporated when the sentence of hell for which he labours was poured out on our substitute.
• Through the ingathering of the nations as people from all backgrounds are drawn to faith in him. His point is not that all without exception come to Christ but that all without distinction can belong to him.

e. The death of Jesus means the departure of the light (34-36)

34 So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up [in death by crucifixion]? Who is this Son of Man?” 35 So Jesus said to them, “The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.

Jesus’ enigmatic response to the crowd’s question about the death of the Messiah is really a warning to pay attention to him whilst they had the opportunity. He then acted out his warning by exiting stage left.

At one level the approach of the Gentiles to Jesus is the initial act at the beginning of a life of following Jesus. But Jesus understood it as a trigger for the announcement that the hour of his death had come and amplified

Conclusion

Jesus is central in every passage. As readers of these episodes we are challenged to identify ourselves in terms of those we read about. What do we learn from each of the three main characters that interact with Jesus?

From Mary we learn that at the heart of genuine discipleship is a personal heartfelt affection for Jesus.

From Jerusalem we learn that at the heart of discipleship lies the willing adoration and acceptance of his kingship.

From the Greeks we learn that at the heart of genuine discipleship is the determination to seek Jesus out in earnest so that we might follow him.

So let’s pray that we adore Jesus like Mary, we honour Jesus like Jerusalem and we seek Jesus like the Gentiles.

For an audio recording search http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

I went to the opticians a couple of weeks ago for an eye test. I’d noticed a slow deterioration in my eyesight, especially at night. I guess I knew it was bad when the Balham High Road started to look like a dual carriageway. As it happens my sight is easily dealt with. But I needed to recognise my blindness if anything useful was going to be done to correct it.

Though it’s a terrible thing to lack physical sight it’s nothing compared to being blind to spiritual realities. John records for us this morning an account dominated by the theme of blindness and sight. At one level we’re dealing with physical blindness but at a deeper and more profound level we’re dealing with spiritual blindness. As we work our way through it we’ll need to ask who we most identify with. Do we see ourselves in the Pharisees or in the miraculously healed man? We need to ask whether our spiritual sight is more akin to the Pharisees or the blind man. Are we as blind as a bat? Or have we got 20-20 vision?

This is a piece of John’s sustained attempt to persuade us to follow Christ so that we might share his eternal life. Contextual At the end of chapter 8 we were left wondering how anybody could ever see spiritual realities as they really are.

• Jesus’ opponents thought that as Abraham’s descendants they were free but Jesus taught that they were enslaved to sin.
• Jesus’ opponents thought that they could claim Abraham and God as their father but Jesus taught that they belonged to the devil.
• Jesus’ opponents thought that they were talking to someone who’d got too big for his boots but Jesus taught that they were speaking with the eternal God in human flesh.

Chapter 9 explains how we can see spiritual realities as they really are. Let’s re-enact this story from the perspective of a bystander and make some editorial comments as we go through.

1. The miraculous sign: Jesus gave physical sight to the man born blind (1-12)

They were just out for a stroll when it happened. Jesus saw him first. The sad pitiable figure of a man sat on the ground and leant against the wall. Eyes closed, white stick in hand and a begging bowl placed in front. But his disciples spoke first. ‘Rabbi’ they called him. ‘Whose fault is it that this man’s blind, his or his parents?’ Sure they waited until they were out of earshot by oh the insensitivity of their question. It had nothing to do with compassion but everything to do with curiosity. He didn’t let on but Jesus must have despaired. In the disciples’ world the man with congenital blindness presented a theological riddle to be solved than a pastoral situation to be handled. You could see where they were coming from. The link between sin and suffering was well established in biblical thinking. The disciples remembered that human sin was the reason that human suffering occurred. In general they were right. But in this specific situation they were wrong. Jesus couldn’t let them go on thinking that there was a one to one correspondence between someone’s suffering and the wickedness which must have contributed to it. He wouldn’t let them draw conclusions about ungodliness from circumstances. Jesus responded by saying three things.

First, Jesus told them that this man had been born in this miserable condition for just this day. God was about to perform a miraculous work in him. As you would imagine we were on tenterhooks to see what would happen next.

Secondly, God’s works had to be done in the day because they couldn’t be done at night. When we first heard that we thought it was a comment about economic productivity being harmed by daylight saving. But Jesus’ point was that no matter how strong the opposition of those in spiritual darkness he had to go on doing what his father had sent him to do.

Thirdly, he repeated a claim he’d made at the Feast of Tabernacles. It was wonderful when we first heard it but now it was beginning to make even more sense. He was the light that the darkened world needed. Without him shining his light we’d remain in spiritual darkness.

And then out of left field he acted out an elaborate ritual. Few of us doubted that he could have healed the man with a word. But what he did was so unexpected. Jesus spat on the ground and mixed up the dust to make a mud pack. He then rubbed it on the man’s eyes. Perhaps it was for the man’s benefit; perhaps it was for ours. No one was really sure. Some said it reminded them of God’s first creative act making humanity out of the dust of the ground. They may have been right. As we were arguing Jesus sent him packing. He told him he needed to wash it off in the Siloam pool. He left and we hung around discussing what had happened. Eventually the man came back claiming that he’d been blind but could now see. Most of us who’d been there since the start knew exactly what was going on. But a crowd had joined us and they hadn’t a clue. Opinion was divided. Some wondered out loud whether this was the man who used to beg. Some were absolutely convinced. Others said the likeness was uncanny but it couldn’t be him. Blind men don’t get healed. And all the time the man kept on saying it was him. He was a persuasive bloke and most of the opposition caved in. Out of desperation they asked him how it had happened. And he told them just what we’d seen. A man called Jesus had given him sight. This was too fantastic for most to contemplate. They needed more evidence. They wanted to find the healer but he hadn’t a clue where Jesus was to be found.

At this stage we need only note that in (5) Jesus claims to be the one who can bring illumination to a dark world and in (6) he performs a sign to illustrate the claim. As with all of the seven signs in John’s gospel they point to something significant. If we don’t beyond the sign to the thing it’s signifying we’ve missed the point. That’d be like registering that there’s a road sign that says hazard and then changing nothing about the way we’re driving. Many of us perhaps have been looking at Christian things for quite some time and we need to appreciate their significance. We’re not dealing with a road sign we’re about to deal with what the road sign signifies. Let’s get back to the story. It’s enthralling isn’t it?

2. The Pharisees interrogation: The Pharisees were blinded by unbelief (13-34)

What followed was an interrogation instigated by the religious authorities. I don’t think the crowd had intended it to happen. They just wanted some answers and the Pharisees seemed the obvious candidates to ask. They were the religious experts after all. If I’m honest I’d expected more.

a. They interrogated the man born blind (13-17)

The first thing they did was interrogate the ex-blind man. But they couldn’t seem to get beyond the fact that it was Saturday. Apparently miracles are fine, except on a Saturday! Look I know there are lots of Sabbath requirements laid down in God’s law but I wasn’t aware that Jesus had broken any. But it was a real hang up for them. As far as they were concerned he’d failed to uphold God’s law on three counts.

First, healing was forbidden unless it was a life or death situation. Jesus they argued could’ve waited till the Sunday before performing the miraculous work. Bear with me, they get worse.

Secondly, Jesus in kneading the dust with spit had performed a work.

Thirdly, there was a growing rabbinic feeling that anointing eyes was out of bounds as well. I wanted to shout at them that Jesus was doing on the Sabbath exactly what the Sabbath signified. The healing and wholeness that Jesus brought to this poor bloke was the healing and wholeness God promised in His eternal rest. But I’d have been ridiculed or locked up, neither of which I fancied.

What was becoming blatantly obvious was that the Pharisees themselves were divided. Some said there was no chance that God could have sanctioned a notorious law breaker. But others pointed out that sinners don’t normally harness the power of God to do miraculous works. The real issue was their failure to be able to explain what was indisputable. Several of us started to think that they may not have all the answers. They couldn’t decide and so in exasperation they asked the man. He thought Jesus had to be a prophetic messenger from God at the very least. Implication Notice that already we’ve been told about what happened three times. John wanted his readers to know that there’s no debate, the miracle happened and it happened just as it’s written. If we’re not convinced about that, we may try and take refuge from the truth in the Pharisees’ attempt to discredit the veracity of the account.

b. They interrogated the parents (18-23)

In my opinion the Pharisees were getting desperate. They were clutching at straws and I think they knew it. They sent for the man’s parents. We guessed that the Pharisees were pinning their hopes on the fact that this man had deceived them about his blindness. They weren’t happy, the parents. I don’t mean that they weren’t happy their son had been healed. They weren’t happy about being hauled up in front of the clergy. I don’t blame them. It’s not like they were neutral. Word had got round that any Jew convinced that this man Jesus was the Christ would be out on their ear before you could say ‘promised saviour king from the Old Testament’. The Pharisees didn’t get what they wanted from the parents. They played it with a pretty straight bat. He’d been born blind alright; he’d not made that bit up. But there was no chance they were going to fall into the trap of attributing the miracle to Jesus. They avoided having to give their opinion but stitched their son up in the process. Implication There’s a deliberate contrast between the reticence of the parents and the faithful testimony of the man born blind. Notice how we’re told that twice. They are not the example that we’re to follow. It’s gutless. We’ll come back to that at the end.

c. They interrogated the man born blind (24-34)

By this stage it was getting embarrassing. They just needed to admit that they were wrong, shut up and get over it. But on they went. They dragged the man back once again. But the mood had changed. Gone was the pretence of open enquiry. They were accusatory. They may as well have said, ‘you lying toe rag tell us the truth, this can’t have happened as you said because we’re completely unprepared to admit that this guy is anything but a sinner’. But we were dealing with consummate political operators and so even though we all knew they were thinking that there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that they were going to say it. They just pursued the same line of enquiry. You had to admire their determination. But we couldn’t help but feel that they’d met their match in this wisecracking new convert. What had he got to lose! He didn’t care if he got kicked out of the religious social scene, he could see! You should have seen their faces when in mock innocence he asked whether their thirst for knowledge was driven by a desire to become Jesus’ disciples! The Pharisees hurled abuse at him and sent him packing.

The religious authorities are the people we’d expect to turn to on religious matters. We’d expect them to get it right. But they don’t always. They may be in positions of authority and they may make pronouncements but they’re not infallible guides. In Jesus’ day it was quite the opposite. If in doubt take the opposite view to the Pharisees and we can’t go far wrong!

3. The spiritual significance: Jesus gives spiritual sight to those born blind (35-41)

In the same way that Jesus had initiated the miracle in the first place he then sought out the man. I still don’t know his name. Jesus asked him whether he really trusted the Son of Man. The man knew that the Son of Man was God’s appointed judge he just didn’t know where to find him. Jesus filled in the missing pieces for him. Jesus put in context what had unravelled before our eyes. We were all overwhelmed by an emotionally charged day and still pretty confused. On the one hand, a man born physically blind had been enabled to see. Spiritually he’d gained a fair deal of insight as well. But on the other hand a group of guys we all thought had perfect theological vision were shown to be blind. Jesus said that it’d always be like that. Though it wasn’t his prime purpose, division would always be the effect of his coming. Those who know that they’re blind seek help and he’d cure them. That’s the blind man. But those who think they see won’t seek help and they’ll stay blind. That’s the Pharisees. And they didn’t like that one bit. So they pressed him. Jesus told them that if they were blind in the sense of being blind and crying out for sight they wouldn’t be guilty of rejecting his revelatory illumination. But because they claimed to be satisfied with the pathetic limitations of their own inadequate spiritual perception they were as guilty as sin. You could have cut the atmosphere with a knife!

The one big lesson from this event is that Jesus is the one who can give spiritual sight to people who are spiritually blind.

We are all born unable to see and appreciate spiritual realities. We’re in the dark about God, Jesus, the Bible, heaven and hell, forgiveness and so on. It’s a completely level playing field. Even if we were fortunate enough to be raised in a Christian home we were all born spiritually blind. And so every single one of us needs Jesus to perform a miracle in our lives so that we can see.

We need to be grateful if he has performed this miracle. All of life’s problems in their manifold complexity need to be seen in the light of the fact that a whole new spiritual world has opened up to us because Jesus has opened our eyes. Before Jesus gave us sight spiritual realities were something we were unable to appreciate. But that’s not the case now. Imagine how it must feel to have been born blind and been enabled to see. Imagine having sight for the first time ever. Imagine that and we’re getting close to realising how wonderful it is to become a follower of Jesus Christ.

We need to pray if he hasn’t yet performed this miracle. For ourselves, if we still can’t see what others say they can see. For others, if we’re frustrated that they can’t appreciate the spiritual realities that are as plain as the nose on our face. Our desire to help people come to faith in Jesus Christ is completely dependent on God’s miraculous work. Is conversion something that you pray for? We have to work hard to keep it on the agenda in our prayer triplet and I take it we’re not alone.

Conclusion

As we close four quick lessons from each of the major actors in this drama.

From Jesus we learn that he is the one who can cure our spiritual blindness. We’ve done that.

From the man born blind we learn that spiritual clarity and conviction grow as our exposure to Jesus increases. At the start of the account he couldn’t have told you very much about the man called Jesus except that he’d changed his life. By the end of the account he knew that Jesus was the eternal Son of Man invested with God’s authority to judge and he fell prostrate before him in obedient worship. It goes like that in the Christian life. The more we hang around Jesus, the more we appreciate and the more we’ll want to worship him.

From the parents we learn that we mustn’t be gutless witnesses and pass up the opportunities to testify to Jesus Christ’s amazing work in our lives. We’ve all done it. We’ve let the opportunity go. There was a chance to say something and we didn’t. The first few times we feel guilty. It’s like we’ve let the side down. We have. But after a while we get practiced at justifying our cowardly act. There’ll be chances this week at the office with colleagues or in the café with other Mums to bear witness to Jesus’ miraculous work. We need to take them. What’s the worst they can do? Like the Pharisees, cast us out of their social circle. It’s unlikely but is that really so bad? I’m not sure I want to be in a group that responds to people like that anyway. More than likely we’ll be thought of as quirky and that’s not a massive burden to bear is it?!

From the Pharisees we learn that blindness is something beyond our ability to deal with. We can wave our hands in front of their eyes but if they’re blind, they can’t see. We need Jesus to open their eyes. So many of our friends are like that. Spiritually they can’t see what’s in front of their eyes. And it does our heads in. Things that we can now see with perfect clarity are not even a messy haze of indistinct shapes. This is a blindness that’s more terrible than a permanent sight defect. If you can’t see the relevance of Christ so that he doesn’t really matter to you then I’d prefer to lose both my eyes than be as blind as you.

So how’s your vision? Blind as a bat or 20-20.

For an audio download of this talk go to http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

From time to time I find myself watching ‘Never Mind the Buzzcocks’, the TV music quiz. I know, I know, I need to get out more and it’s not the most wholesome viewing at times. But one of the rounds involves the contestants trying to identify the real band member from a line up of five similar looking people. It’s harder than it sounds. They don’t pick current stars. The production company go for ageing ‘has beens’ or faceless one hit wonders. BUt it’s really an exercise in trying to distinguish the authentic from the fake.

Jesus does just that in (31). In (30) John told us that many had believed in Jesus. But now Jesus began to sift the authentic from the fake. It’s as though Jesus puts everyone into a huge sieve and as he speaks he shakes us up and one by one the people who disagree fall through so that only those who are his remain. I know that’s not the way a sieve works but you get the picture! That happened as he mentioned three things that the world finds unacceptable. Only those who hold to Jesus’ teaching and are genuinely his disciples will agree with what he said.

• If we find ourselves in agreement with what Jesus says then we’re very likely one of his disciples.
• If we find ourselves taking issue with what Jesus says we’re very likely not one of his disciples.

It may be that he has exposed our phoney faith.

We’re continuing our year long enterprise, called the John Project, of trying to learn deeply from one big book of the Bible. John is a brilliant book for us because it exposes us to Jesus so that we might exercise faith, or trust, in him. That’s crucial whether we’d already describe ourselves as one of his followers or that’s a decision we’re still in the process of making.

• In chapter 7 we came to events centred on the Feast of Booths or Tabernacles.
• Chapter 8 continues the heated debate provoked by Jesus’ claim to be the light for the world.

In looking at this passage we’re trying to analyse an argument, which can be difficult. Sometimes it’s hard to follow the thread because the speaker keeps changing. But in this case it’s made easier since the argument occurs between two parties. It’s between Jesus and his opponents. The three issues at stake in this argument are liberty, paternity and authority.

• Liberty concerns whether they were free,
• Paternity concerns who was their father and
• Authority concerns who they were talking to Let’s take those in turn.

1. They were unwilling to accept that they were slaves to sin (31-36)

The argument started on the subject of liberty. The issue was freedom. Jesus’ opponents were convinced that they were free because they were descendants of Abraham. Jesus thought otherwise. Let’s pick it up in (31).

31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Jesus explained that genuine believers hold to his teaching. Authentic faith perseveres in believing and obeying what Jesus taught. The benefit of belief is that Jesus’ followers enjoy not enslavement but freedom. That freedom comes through knowing the truth. The truth is the truth as it’s revealed by Jesus. It’s the gospel that concerns him. And knowing the gospel will set us free.

a. In response they claimed never to have been enslaved

33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”

It was incomprehensible to them that Israelites, God’s historic people, should need freedom. They had a very selective memory of Israel’s history. It’s hard to think of a major world empire that hadn’t enslaved this nation at some stage! But the point is that, as Abraham’s descendants and God’s favoured nation, they considered themselves automatically exempt from trouble. In their opinion, they had no need for the freedom Jesus offered. It becomes clear that in their unwillingness to hold to Jesus’ teaching these disciples demonstrate that they are anything but genuine.

b. So Jesus then made it clear what type of slavery he had in mind

34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.

The slavery Jesus had in mind was a spiritual enslavement to sinful rebellion against God demonstrated in a refusal to let Him direct what we think and what we do. I think there are two ideas here. The fact that we sin identifies our slavery. If we sin we’re slaves and so we need to be freed. But also the practice of sin enslaves us. Our habitual devotion to sin reinforces our habitual devotion to sin! We can’t break free from our sinful habits.

c. But Jesus as the Son promised to set slaves free

35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Unlike a son a slave has no permanent place in the family. Jesus, as the true Son of God the Father, can liberate slaves. The freedom that he brings is both a freedom from sin’s penalty and sin’s practice. Belief in the gospel releases us from sin’s penalty, which is God’s judgement so we have nothing to fear from God’s accounting. And belief in the gospel frees us from sin’s practice so that sin isn’t the only lifestyle available to us. Of course both aspects of the promise are completely fulfilled in the New Creation. We’re not completely free from sin’s presence at this stage since we still have a sinful nature. But we do enjoy the ability to say no to sin at this stage.

Jesus’ analysis, not only of his opponents but of us all, is that we’re enslaved to sin. At one stage we were addicted to rebellion against him. For some of us that is an addiction that’s been overcome by the gospel. For others of us it’s a destructive addiction that we need to face up to and be freed from. If we’re prepared to stop for a moment we know that to be true. When was the last time you had a sin free day? You haven’t have you? We can’t stop sinning. And like everything that we practice we get better and better at it. We know that practice makes perfect. The more we do something the better we get and the more automatic it becomes.

Jonny Wilkinson, possibly the world’s finest ever rugby kicker has a metronomic approach because it’s a well rehearsed routine forged on the practice ground. I used to do the same thing. I had a bag of 10 rugby balls and would go out for hours on end. Then I got a life. Or was it a wife. Perhaps they were the same thing for me!

Sin has become a habit and we’re very skilled at it. Jesus promised to liberate us from this simply through belief in his gospel.

2. They were unwilling to accept that they were children of the devil (37-47)

The argument now moved onto the subject of paternity. The issue at stake was who their father was. They were convinced they belonged to Abraham and God. Jesus thought otherwise. Let’s pick it up in (37)

a. Where they claimed Abraham was their father

37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.”

Jesus addressed the issue of their spiritual heritage because they tied their freedom to their descent from Abraham. He was happy to accept that they shared Abraham’s blood but not his faith. He hinted that their paternity was to be located elsewhere. Jesus’ opponents protested that Abraham was their father. But Jesus contested that their behaviour was diametrically opposed to how Abraham behaved. He believed God’s word, they were rejecting it. And so they must have had another father.

b. They then claimed God was their father

[41] They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.

Jesus’ opponents alluded to the irregularities surrounding Jesus’ birth and then claimed God as their father. But if they really were God’s children then they’d love His Son because it’d be like loving one of the family. They couldn’t understand what Jesus said but not because he was a poor communicator but because they would not hear his word. It was a wilful rejection of his voice as an authority on these issues.

c. And so Jesus claimed the devil was their father

44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

Jesus argued that they belonged to the devil. Can you imagine that scene? I’m amazed they didn’t pick up stones to throw at him at this point! Jesus said that the evidence for their demonic heritage was that their shared the devil’s ambitions. Like father like son. First, he was a murderer and like him they wanted to deprive people of life by killing the Son. Secondly, he was a liar and like him they wanted to distort the truth by denying the Jesus’ identity as the Son.

Competitiveness is the issue in our family at the moment. Everything is something to be won. Whether it’s finishing breakfast cereal, draughts or night time milk everything is a race. When he doesn’t win we get strops, tears and major tantrums. Those of you who know our family well know that this is a trait that he’s learnt from his father. Poor bloke he can’t help but take after his father!

Jesus explained that there are only two fathers in the world. There’s God and the devil. We either belong to one or the other. Let me ask you who your father is. If God is our father are we showing the family likeness? Do we look like our father? But if the devil is our father, are we comfortable with that? We’re deprived of the spiritual life that the Son alone can give us. We’ve distorted the truth about who he is. Jesus says that your life is characterised by death and deceit. Is that an existence you’re prepared to accept?

3. They were unwilling to accept they were talking with God (48-59)

The argument now moved on to the subject of authority. Jesus’ opponents thought he was a demon possessed, self deluded, foreigner. Jesus thought otherwise. Let’s pick it up in (48)

48 The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”

They’d clearly failed with the theological argument and so they resorted to abuse.

a. Jesus honoured his father

49 Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honour my Father, and you dishonour me. 50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”

But Jesus’ behaviour though was not the result of demon possession but a determination to obey his father who had sent him to reveal the truth. By refusing to respond appropriately to this revealed truth they had failed to honour the Son and the Father who sent him. They, like us will be judged for that. Nevertheless, Jesus offered them life through his word. This is the freedom that he was walking about earlier. Belief in his gospel word brings freedom from sin’s penalty, which is death.

52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”

With some degree of logic Jesus’ opponents pointed out that both Abraham and the prophets had obeyed God’s word and nevertheless had died. They concluded that for Jesus to claim that his word was capable of providing resurrection life was so utterly preposterous that only demonic possession could account for such self deluded nonsense!

b. But Jesus refuted the accusation of self promotion

54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word.

There was substance to Jesus’ claims. They weren’t merely empty rhetoric. He really is the Son of the Father. For him to deny that would be to deceive people and he could not do that. This wasn’t a case of Jesus talking himself up.

c. Then with breathtaking audacity Jesus claimed pre-existence

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Abraham received the gospel promise of the future Kingdom of God. He joyfully anticipated the time in which those promises would be fulfilled. Jesus said that he looked forward to the day of his arrival. Jesus’ opponents pointed out the obvious fact that there was a discrepancy in age. Jesus’ answer is incredible, ‘before Abraham was, I am’. His point was not that he was Abraham’s contemporary but that he was Abraham’s God. The words ‘I am’ are the words God used to reveal himself to Moses in Exodus and Jesus now takes them to his lips. He was fully aware of what he is claiming. Though it may not be immediately clear to us what Jesus meant, his opponents got the gist. They thought it was blasphemous and prepared to kill him.

I went with a couple of atheistic friends this week to a debate between a Christian and an atheist about the existence of God. The Christian case, in my opinion, was compelling and unanswered. The single strongest strand of evidence for God’s existence is the evidence provided by Jesus of Nazareth. But just as in Jesus’ exchange with his opponents they weren’t persuaded.

They came face to face with God and denied it. But Jesus didn’t stop being God simply because they didn’t agree. It is objectively true that he is God regardless of our subjective opinions.

Conclusion

There were three issues over which Jesus and his opponents differed. They are three issues that reveal whether we’re a true disciple of Jesus and hold to his teaching or whether we’re not.

• Jesus’ opponents thought that as Abraham’s descendants they were free but Jesus taught that they were enslaved to sin.

• Jesus’ opponents thought that they could claim Abraham and God as their father but Jesus taught that they belonged to the devil.

• Jesus’ opponents thought that they were talking to someone who’d got too big for his boots but Jesus taught that they were speaking with the eternal God in human flesh.

They’re not minor points of disagreement. As a result of their discussion there was no common ground. Why is that? There are hints throughout the passage.

• 37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you
• 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
• 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

How will it be possible for these people to have their minds changed? For the answer to that conundrum we’ll need to come back to hear John 9 and the description of Jesus’ sight giving ministry.

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.