Bibliology: Divine Revelation

In the previous lesson, I quickly discussed that there are two major kinds of revelation concerning God. The previous lesson was concerned with General Revelation which consisted of examining the evidence found in nature to show that God exists and is verified by Scripture. I also stated that General Revelation is shown unto all people at all times. Divine Revelation, sometimes called Special Revelation, is defined as the Word of God communicated to specific people through various modes in order to express the nature of God, the will of God, and/or the works of God. “Special Revelation is redemptive revelation. It publishes the good tidings that the holy and merciful God promises salvation as a divine gift to man who cannot save himself and that he has now fulfilled that promise in the gift of His Son in whom all men are called to believe.”1 General Revelation was only able to communicate that God exists and that we are guilty of breaking His laws and therefore deserve His condemnation (Rom. 1:18-20). General Revelation does not explain how is to be rescued from God’s wrath. Divine Revelation picks up where General Revelation left off. Most importantly, but not only, it explains how one is to be reconciled to God.

There are some commonalities that occur every time when God speaks that should be pointed out. All of these commonalities will be examined further in later lessons because they can also be said of Scripture. 1) God’s Word is truth. Every time that God speaks to man, He speaks truth. Every message that He gives is consistent with any and all messages that He has given at any and all times. 2) God’s Word is authoritative. Multiple examples can be shown that when a person failed to be obedient to special instructions consequences soon followed. 3) God’s Word is understood. Examples can be shown of when God gave instructions and the recipient was able to follow through as prescribed. God’s words are not beyond the comprehensibility of man. 

A false understanding of Divine Revelation tries to separate the message from the historical event surrounding the revelation given. “Eighteenth century rationalism revived the notion of pre-Christian Greek idealism that historical facts are necessarily relative and never absolute, and that revelation consequently is to be divorced from historical actualities and identified with ideas alone.”2 Men who are convinced of such rationalism have made statements such as, “In the Bible, God’s self-revelation is personal rather than propositional. That is to say, ultimately revelation is in relationship, ‘confrontation,’ communion, rather than by the communication of facts.”3 Such men would examine an event like Moses parting the Red Sea and claim that the event may not be 100% fact but the point still remains; God was working in the redemption of the Israelites from the Egyptians. The problem that arises from such rationalism is that the message loses its power when it is divorced from historical facts. God was not just with the Israelites but He was supernaturally overseeing Israel’s exodus. God made a promise to Abraham that his children would inherit a land and God made sure that no man would interfere with that plan. God also had Moses part the Red Sea to demonstrate to both Israel and Egypt that He is God and beside Him there is no one else.

Scripture tells of multiple modes of Divine Revelation that God has used to communicate to man. However, it is assumed that not every occurrence of Divine Revelation is recorded in Scripture. For example, Scripture never explains how king Melchizedek had a knowledge of God when he lived before the books of Moses were written (Gen. 14:18). There were even numerous miracles that Christ performed that are not recorded in Scripture (John 21:25). The following are different modes by which God communicated His word unto man.

Prophets and Apostles

God spoke to men known as prophets who were then in turn to speak the message they received from God. Prophets are found in both the Old and New Testaments. They knew that received the Word of God and their carried authority (Deut. 18:18-20; 1 Sam. 10:10-11; 2 Sam. 23:2; Jer. 1:9). Their messages would vary. It is unknown how many of their messages are not recorded. There is mention of a group of prophets but nothing is said about who they are or what their message is (2 Kings 2:5). 

The apostles had a similar function to the prophets but they also were eye-witnesses of the resurrected Jesus Christ (Acts 1:21-22). They were also responsible for building the church (Eph. 2:20). Like the prophets, only a few apostles wrote anything down.

Decrees

“A decree of God is a word of God that causes something to happen.”4 The best example of a decree is when created the heavens and the earth just by simply speaking them into existence (Gen. 1:3; Ps. 33:6). Another example would be when Christ commanded the wind and the waves to be still. He spoke and creation obeyed (Mark 4:39-40).

Visions and Dreams

God used dreams to communicate to men (Num. 12:6). They could be experienced by believers and unbelievers (Dan. 2:1, 28-45). These were sometimes filled with imagery (e.g. Gen. 37:5-10). Other times these dreams contained a message communicated clearly (e.g. Matt. 1:20-24; 2:13). 

Visions are very similar to dreams with the exception that the recipient is awake and able to make some participation (e.g. Ezek. 11:24; Dan. 8:16-17, 26; Acts 11:5-10). 

Angels

God also uses angels to communicate His word unto people (Dan. 9:21-27; Luke 1:11-12, 19, 26-38). The word “angel” actually means messenger.

Audible Voice

There are times when God speaks to people directly without the use of any vehicle of communication (e.g. dreams, prophets). This was the case when God gave the Law to Moses (Exod. 20:1-2; cf. Num. 12:6-8). God also spoke directly when He called Samuel (1 Sam. 3:4-14). This also occurred three times during Christ’s earthly ministry (Matt. 3:16-17; 17:5; John 12:28). 

Urim and Thummim

This mode of communication may see odd to us today but God used two stones called Urim and Thummin by the hand of a high priest. They were placed inside of the breastplate worn by the high priest. Most speculate that they were used to determine God’s will in the form of an answer to a yes or no question. For example, Joshua would inquire by the priest if he should overthrow such-and-such a place. The priest would then reach inside the pouch pull out one of stones which would then correspond with a negative or positive answer; something akin to casting lots. However, the Bible never gives instructions on how they are to be used. We only see references to the stones that show an understanding that they were used to determine the will of God (Exod. 28:30; Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 28:6; Ezra 2:63). 

Jesus Christ and Theophanies

Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:1, 14, 18; cf. 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). Jesus made it clear that His words and the words of God are of equal value and that Jesus displayed an exact representation of the Father (John 14:9-11).

A theophany is a visible manifestation of God (Isa. 6:1-4; cf. Rev. 5:5-13). In the Old Testament, there appearances of the angel of the Lord. These appearance are really Jesus Christ before His incarnation. “Clearly the Angle of Yahweh is a self-manifestation of Yahweh, for He speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and claims to exercise the prerogatives of God (Gen. 16:7-14; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; 31:11-13; Exod. 3:2; Judg. 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-22; 13:3-22; 2 Sam. 24:16; Zech. 1:12; 3:1; 12:8).”5

Scripture

The last mode of Divine Revelation is Scripture. I have mentioned how all of these modes of revelation are communicating the Word of God. Scripture is the Word of God put down in written form (Exod. 17:14; Jer. 30:2). The Bible contains records of the other methods of revelation, but Scripture itself is a mode of Divine Revelation. The commonalities that were mentioned earlier can be said of Scripture. 

The rest of the unit will focus on what the Bible says about itself.

________________

1. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 945-8. 

2. Ibid.

3. C.F.D. Moule, “Revelation,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1976), 4:55; quoted in Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 74. 

4. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 48. 

5. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 275-6.

Bibliology: General Revelation

Introduction 

A rough definition of revelation is content that explains something that was unknown. The word is usually used within the context of theology signifying something being made known about God’s character, works, or decrees. General Revelation is the first of two major categories of revelation. The second category of revelation is Divine Revelation. General Revelation is defined as “That disclosure to all persons at all times and places by which one comes to know that God is, and what He is like. General revelation mediates the conviction that God exists and that He is self-sufficient, transcendent, imminent, eternal, powerful, wise, good, and righteous. General, or natural, revelation maybe divided into two categories: (1) internal, the innate sense of beauty and consciousness, and (2) external, nature and providential history.”1

These two forms of General Revelation can be used to form a branch of theology known as Natural Theology. Natural Theology is a set of proofs used to demonstrate the existence of God using evidence from General Revelation. “The traditional proofs for the existence of God that have been constructed by Christian philosophers at various points in history are in fact attempts to analyze the evidence, especially the evidence from nature, in extremely carefully and logically precise ways, in order to persuade people that it is not rational to reject the idea of God’s existence. If it is true that sin causes people to think irrationally, then these proofs are attempts to cause people to think rationally or correctly about the evidence for God's existence, in spite of the irrational tendency caused by sin.”2

A lot of criticism falls on these proofs that try to demonstrate the existence of God. The main reason people argue is that these proofs are not expressly given in Scripture. Another is that the Bible never tries to demonstrate that God exists. The Bible starts with the assumption that God exists from the beginning, “In the beginning God created” (Gen. 1:1). While these criticisms make a good point it should be noted that the Bible does verify these proofs that are used by alluding to them. Of course the Bible will not give these arguments the same name as we would today. One should also notice that these arguments were even used by the Apostle Paul on three separate occasions. Lastly, God gave us a mind so that we could use to glorify God. Man is not an animal with only brutish needs. Man was created in the Image of God and is meant to use his faculties that God has given him through the Image of God (i.e. reason). 

External Proofs

The following three arguments or proofs are broader categories of arguments that are used to demonstrate the existence of God using evidence from nature. Both the believer and the unbeliever observe the same facts of nature (e.g., gravity, motion, complexity of life, etc.) but yet come to different conclusions. The point of all of these arguments is that if one were to observe and deduce correctly from these facts of nature, then the denial of God’s existence becomes absurd. 

The verification for these arguments comes from Psalm 19:1-6. All of nature shows forth His handiwork (v. 1). Every man upon the earth has seen His handiwork (vv. 2-4). There is beauty in His handiwork (vv. 5-6).

Cosmological Argument

“The cosmological argument is a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a Sufficient Reason or a First Cause of the the existence of the cosmos.”3 In short, something or Someone must have caused the universe to come in to existence. You can not get something from nothing.

The cosmological argument has been broken down further into three basic types. 1) The kalam cosmological argument which, “Aims to show that universe had a beginning at some finite past and, since something cannot come out of nothing, must therefore have transcendent cause, which brought the universe into being.”4 2) The Thomist cosmological argument “named for the medieval philosophical theologian Thomas Aquinas, seeks a cause that is first, not in the temporal sense, but in the sense of rank.”5 Thomas did this in his “five ways:” motion, efficient cause, contingency, gradation of value, and unintelligent object move in ways that have a purpose.6 And finally, 3) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz used an argument based upon contingency, like one Thomas Aquinas’ five ways but Leibniz did it without Aristotelian metaphysics. Leibniz wrote, “The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?”7

Teleological Argument

The teleological argument is the most popular of the three. The teleological argument states that because there is an design in the universe, there must have been an ultimate Designer. Its popularity has increased over the recent years to due advances from Christian scientists being outspoken in their field. These Christian Scientists have paved the way for the Intelligent Design movement which is an alternative theory for the origin of species as opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution. 

The teleological argument was first made popular by William Paley in his book titled, Natural Theology, which he presented the example of a watch that was found in the middle of the field. A watch has parts that move and parts that signify something. The purpose of a watch is to keep track of time. By examining a watch, one would agree that a watch was designed for that purpose. Therefore because the watch was designed, there must have been a designer of the watch. It is absurd to think that the watch came into existence in the middle of field for the express purpose that it should keep track of time by mere chance.

Today, many scientists in the field of biology are helping to further demonstrate the point of the teleological argument. Michael Behe, an associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, helped with his discussion on irreducibly complex systems. 

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.8

Behe then goes to give multiply examples. The most intriguing is the body’s ability to have blood clot when in need. 

The thought of the teleological argument can be seen in Scripture. There is the allusion to it in Psalm 94:9-10. The ear was designed to hear, therefore the designer had that end in mind when He made the ear. Paul told the people of Lystra that, “He left not himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). God designed the earth to support life. All of the systems on earth depend each other. Man depends on his crops for food. The crops depend on the rain to grow. 

Ontological Argument

Of the three external proofs, this is the most ill received and the most philosophical. The ontological argument is based upon the study of ontology, that is the study of the nature of being. The ontological argument was originally conceived by Anselm. The point of his argument is that one can prove God exists because the nature of God’s being–self evident and necessary. “Anselm argued that once a person truly understands the notion of a greatest conceivable being, then he will see that such being must exist, since if it did not, it would not be the greatest conceivable being.”9

The criticism for the this argument has been that just because one can conceive of the greatest possible being, does not mean that greatest possible being actually exists. There is a difference between conception and the real world. We can think of many things, but those do not necessarily exist. 

The response to the above criticism is that part of the definition of the greatest possible being is that his existence is necessary in all possible worlds. If there were a possibility that the greatest possible being could not exist, then he would not be the greatest possible being. His existence is necessary in every possible world and therefore is necessary in the real world and really does exist.10

There is a different argument for the existence that I would label as an ontological argument because it argues from the uniqueness of the being of mankind. It is also known as the anthropological argument. Man is very different from the rest of creation on earth. Only man philosophizes. Only man creates and appreciates different mediums of art (e.g. music, paintings, etc.). You will never see cheetah sit down argue about different theories of justice. There is something that is truly unique the being of man. This is of course due to the Image of God that man bares. The question then becomes, “How can man, a moral, intelligent, and living being, be explained apart from a moral, intelligent, and living God?”11 The creation of man therefore necessitates a Creator that had all of these same qualities at the very least.

Paul makes reference to the anthropological argument in his sermon to those at Athens. “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of you own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone, graven by man’s device” (Acts 17:28-29). Because man has the qualities of love, reason, etc., God, who created man, must also possess these qualities as well or even better. 

Internal Proofs

Paul wrote, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them” (Rom. 1:19). Many have taken this to mean that there is an innate sense of God within man. “That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead.”12 This may be the case. I understand what Paul wrote to mean that man knows that God exists but is willing to deny God’s existence so man can keep his immorality (Rom. 1:32).

C.S. Lewis talked of another internal proof for God using the “Law of Nature.” “This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it.”13 The idea is that all mankind has a sense of morality that is built into him. His secondary point was that we choose to not obey the Law of Nature. This lead him to the proposition that, “In the Moral Law somebody or something from beyond the material universe was actually getting at us.” He concludes with, “It is after you have realized that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power–it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know are sick, you will listen to the doctor.”14

This is parallel to what Paul writes in Romans talking about the gentiles, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things” (Rom. 2:1-2). Man knows the law of God and continues to disobey them. 

Effects of General Revelation

Paul states it clearly, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:20-21). Every man, in every place, at every time has seen the invisible things of God. But the vast majority of mankind has rejected God. This rejection of God condemns man. 

As for these proofs that are made from the evidence of God’s existence in nature and in ourselves, they are useful. To what degree of use is subject to debate. Some state that the arguments are solid enough to show that unbelief in God is logically unsound. Others say that these arguments are only enough to show that theism has a high probability of being correct. Most are not willing to say that they demonstrate with absolute certainty that God exists.

Limitations of General Revelation

One of the limitations of these arguments is that they can only convince a person that monotheism is a correct worldview. There are still multiple religions that prescribe faith in only one God/god. Islam is a monotheistic faith. The kalām cosmological argument was originally used by muslims. Even though the arguments are convincing, they do not completely give us the God described in the Bible. 

Another limitation is that a man will never be argued into believing the Christian faith. The Bible clearly states that a man coming to know salvation through Jesus Christ is a work of God (John 1:12-13). A person repenting of their sins requires the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5).

The last limitation with general revelation is that it is not enough. In order for a person to know the God of the Bible, the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, he must have the Bible. There is so much that general revelation does not explain about God. General revelation may show there is a God has written the “Law of Nature” that we have broken, but it does not explain how can be saved from the wrath of God for breaking His laws.

___________________

1. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 944. 

2. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 143. 

3. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 465. 

4. Ibid. The kalam cosmological argument was originally used by Muslims and then adopted for the Christian faith. This argument has been popularized by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1979.   

5. Ibid. Thomas Aquinas summarized the “five ways” in his book Summa Theologica.

6. Peter Kreeft, ed., Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Edited and Explained for Beginners (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1990), 61-9.

7. Moreland and Craig, 466. 

8. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1996), 39.

9. Moreland and Craig, 496. 

10. This demonstration of God being necessary in every possible world comes from Alvin Plantinga. 

11. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 35. 

12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:3:1.

13. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2002), 15.

14. Ibid, 33-5.

Introduction to Systematic Theology: Sunday School Lesson for Dec. 28, 2014

What Is Theology?

Ryrie breaks down theology according to its etymology to show that, “The word ‘theology,’ from θεός (theos), meaning God and λογός (logos) meaning rational expression, means the rational interpretation of religious faith.”1 Therefore, theology, in a broad sense, is anything dealing with a system of religious belief. This definition would include everyone’s belief systems, even that of an atheist. However for our purposes, theology has a much more narrow definition. Theology is anything that is said about God and His work from Scripture. Reasons for this will be explained as we study the Bibliology section.

The Woman Caught in Adultery

This Sermon was preached from John 7:53-8:11

Many probably noticed that I skipped this passage this morning. This is because this section of Scripture requires some special attention with a longer than usual preface. Therefore, I thought it would be best to reserve this discussion for the evening service. 

John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original text. John the apostle did not write this little narrative. In order to explain this, I have to introduce you to what is known as textual criticism. Textual criticism is not looking at the Bible to decide if we like it or not but it is a science that examines handwritten copies of the Bible to determine the words the author originally wrote. Remember, the original words that were written were inspired (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). No where in Scripture does it say that God re-inspires the copies nor does He move the scribes. He providentially preserves His Word (Ps. 12:6-7). We do this because we do not have the original manuscript, or autograph, that the author wrote. We do not have the original letter that was sent to the Philippians and was penned by Paul. We instead have copies of that letter. Textual criticism finds the original words by comparing and contrasting copies of manuscripts. Some manuscripts carry more weight than others because they are thought to be closer to the original. Some factors that would allow a manuscript to be more authoritative would be percentage of agreement with other manuscripts, the date it was written, the location from which it came, the extent of text, and the weight of authority of the manuscript that it was copied from. I say all of this to help you understand why I say that the story of the woman caught in adultery is not a part of the Bible. This narrative is not found in the oldest and most trusted manuscripts. The text in most manuscripts jumps from 7:52 to 8:12. Hart explains the textual evidence as follows.

The external manuscript evidence is strongly in favor of the omission of the episode. Virtually all Alexandrian manuscripts, considered by the majority of scholars to be the oldest and least corrupt manuscripts, omit it, and virtually all Byzantine manuscripts, viewed by the majority of scholars as much later and generally more corrupt, include it. But even when they include it, the episode “floats around” in various locations in the various manuscripts. This indicates great doubt about its inclusion even among the manuscripts that include it. 1

D. A. Carson and Moo give more details.

These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek minuscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian, and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church fathers omit this narrative; in commenting on John they pass from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli (†), indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it at 7:53-8:11, some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and others variously after John 7:44, or 7:36, or 21:25. The diversity of placement confirms (though it cannot establish) the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the substance of the narrative is authentic––a position plausible enough––it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: it includes numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John but are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular. 2

All of the commentaries that I own in print are in agreement with the quotations above. Two of the commentaries even move the exposition to an appendix. A good Bible will have notations about this discussion in the margin. 

Another evidence that confirms that the narrative was not part of the original include the immediate context. The Gospel of John flows very smoothly in continuing the thought of the author if the reader were to skip these verses. Some may object by saying that Jesus casting no stone was a way of leading into the discussion about how Jesus did not come to judge (John 8:15) and that verse 7:53 indicates that the feast was over because they left their makeshift homes. It was tradition during the feast to dwell in booths. The continuing theme in this section of John has been Jesus defending His identity as the Son of God and Messiah. This episode is similar to the test scenes found in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mat. 19:3). 

Unfortunately there is no definite answer for how these verses made it into the Bible. “Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story it authentic.” 3 Perhaps the story was kept alive due to oral tradition and was inserted into the Bible at its present location because it was a good fit. There is nothing conclusive on the matter. 

Commentary

Although the story is most likely not original to the text, there is something that can be learned. Hence, it is worthwhile to examine the story.

7:53. As mentioned previously, it was tradition to stay in booths for the weak of the Feast of Tabernacles, hence the reason for the name. This was to help Israel remember the 40 years Israel spent in the wilderness. The indication from the verse would be that they left the booths and went home. 

8:1-2. It was customary for Jesus to spend the night outside the city. Luke 21:37 talks about Him going the mount of the Olives to stay the night. Also as was His custom, He returns to the temple to teach. 

3-5. The Pharisees brought a woman and set her before a crowd. The reason for doing this was because the woman was an adulterous. However, she was not being accused of being an adulterous, but she was caught in the very act of adultery. Something should set off warning bells though. It takes two to tango and there is only a woman being charged with adultery. Where is the man? Like the Pharisees said, according to the Old Testament Law, an adulteress is supposed to be sentenced to death. But it is supposed to be both the male and the female that are supposed to be sentenced to death (Lev. 20:10). Also, if the Pharisees caught the woman in the act of adultery, there would be no need to bring the woman before Jesus. They would already have sufficient evidence to pronounce judgement upon the man and the woman. The implications of the scenario is that the woman is most definitely guilty of adultery.

It is also unusual that the Pharisees are even bothering with such a transgression. Adultery was common enough that carrying out the death penalty for each case would have been difficult. It was more of a common practice for the husband to divorce the erring wife. 4

6. Now their intentions are made clear. They did these in order to trap Jesus. The Pharisees presented a question to Jesus where there was supposed to be no right answer. He could not say no, or set her free, because the Old Testament Law was very clear on the matter. Yet if Jesus were to say that the woman should be stoned then He would have circumvented the authority of the Roman government. Only the Roman government was allowed to pass the death penalty for crime but events of stoning were something out the Roman government’s control; they were seen as riots. 

No one knows what it was that Jesus wrote in the dirt. There are many theories. “Some suggested that He wrote the sins of the accusers. Others propose that He wrote the words of Exodus 23:1, ‘Do not be a false witness.’” 5 Another theory is that Jesus first wrote down what He was going to say. This was customary of a Roman judge. He would write down the sentence first and read aloud the official record. 6

7. The Pharisees pressed the issue further. They were sure that they had Jesus in a no-win situation. Jesus’ answer is very direct as well. The answer given so to avoid the wrong answer. He decided to instead address the fact that none of these men were without sin. Of course, though, this places Jesus as the only person qualified to cast a stone upon this woman. 

Something that seems strange to me is that if the Pharisees were witnesses of the woman committing adultery, then they would have been the first ones to cast a stone (Deut. 17:6-7). Perhaps this is because the punishment for adultery is death but Leviticus 20:10 does not make clear the method. The whole point though is to try to get Jesus to say the wrong answer. 

8. Jesus then after giving His answer continues to write something in the dirt.

9-10. The men left while Jesus was writing on the ground. The men realized that this situation was not going to work out well for anyone. Even if Jesus did say that she should be stoned, the men would have to put an end to a woman’s life. The men started to be convicted about starting the whole scene. The eldest men probably left first because they were the wisest and realized how grotesque the scene really was. Soon all the men left and only Jesus and the woman was left. Them being left alone carried the connotation of them being abandoned. The men realized it was better to abandon the case. 

Perhaps the woman’s answer to Jesus’ question confirms that the whole scene was a set up. No one really condemned her. 

11. Jesus does not condone her sin by that He does not condemn her. This is cleared up by the fact that Jesus tells her to go and sin no more. One would certainly hope that this woman would understand the amount of grace that she just received if truly was caught as an adulteress.

Endnotes

1. John F. Hart, “John,” in The Moody Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary on the Whole Bible by the Faculty of Moody Bible Institute, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1630.

2. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, eds., An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 273-4.

3. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1971), 883.

4. Ibid, 887n19. 

5. Edwin A. Blum, “John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, vol. 2, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 1983), 347.

6. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 888n22.

I Am the Light of the World

This sermon was preached from John 8:12-30.



John 8:12 comes on the heels of 7:52. The setting is same as it was for the previous chapter. Therefore, Jesus is still speaking to the Pharisees during the last day of the feast of tabernacles. He is still confronting the same people as He was in the previous chapter.

A lot of the themes that will be seen in this section should feel familiar to us. Back in John 5:18-47 there repetitions of the words judge, judgment, and witness. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus. The scene played out very much like a court room. The Pharisees and Sadducees were trying to determine if they should have Jesus executed for committing claims of blasphemy. This chapter will play out in much the same way.

Let us not forget either why this gospel was written, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31). This discourse is recorded to help reinforce this idea.

12. Jesus’ claim of equivalency to light is a claim to deity. This is another one of the famous “I am” statements in the Gospel of John. The first was seen in John 4:26 (in the Greek) and the second one was seen in John 6:35 (“I am the bread of life”). There multiple times in this sermon and the of the chapter that we will see the “I am” reference again, though, sometimes only in the Greek. This claim of being the light should also be familiar to the reader because it was also mentioned in the prologue (John 1:9). Light is typically used to metaphorically illustrate God’s holiness and righteousness (cf. John 3:19-21).

Jesus could also be using one of the daily ritual practices used during the feast of tabernacles. He did this before in 7:37 when the priest would have been pouring out the water into the basin.

A major feature of the Feast of Tabernacles was the lighting of giant lamps in the women’s court in the temple. The wicks were made from the priests’ worn-out garments. The light illuminated the temple area and the people gather to sing praises and dance. The light reminded the Jewish people of how God was with them in their wanderings in the wilderness in a pillar of cloud which turned to fire at night (Num. 9:15-23). 1 

Thus when the people were in the one of the most crowded courts of the temple and the lamp stand was there, Jesus used the lamps to illustrate who He is.

Jesus makes the promise that all that follow Him will not walk/live in darkness. They will no longer stumble. They will be able to see the correct place to set their feet. This is a metaphor to explain that those who believe in Jesus will understand the ways of righteousness and will make the effort to avoid sin. No one like to be in the darkness. You can not see where you are going in the dark. You’re afraid that you will stumble, fall into a pit or be attacked by a robber. Jesus equates unbelief to walking in darkness. You will eventually hurt yourself because you cannot see even though you don’t want to get hurt. No one enjoys stubbing their toe. Sin is no different. We may think that we are ok but really we only stubbing our toe or falling into a pit.

13. This is where we start to see a court room scene again. The Pharisees decide to challenge Jesus’ claim that He is the light of the world. Jesus stands alone in His claim, at least that is what the Pharisees think. In a court of law if only one individual claims that something happened but everyone else denies the event and the evidence correlates with the majority, then everyone accuse the lone person’s testimony to be false. This would make the lone witness a liar.

14. Jesus clarifies His claim. Just because He is the only one that is making these claims does not make His testimony false. There is no valid witness that contradicts what Jesus is saying. Not only this, Jesus makes it very clear that His testimony is true – that what He is saying is the truth. There is an emphasis going on in the Greek between that of Jesus’ “myself” and “ye.” Jesus is trying to point out that do not know Him. They can not point out that what Jesus is saying is false because they have no grounds to do so. Just like so many teens say when they are deflecting criticism, “You don’t know me.”

15-16. These two verses seem a little confusing. Jesus was pointing out that these men were only judging Him according to what they see, not according to what Jesus is saying.

The second half of this verse seems to contradict what Jesus said back in John 5:22 and 30. Jesus is talking about the reason as to why He is was on the earth during the first advent. When Jesus does judge, it will be at the last day. Jesus even points out that the judgement will be according to the ways of God, as opposed to the ways of man. God’s judgement is far more superior because of His omniscience and His holiness. This means that all deeds, whether hidden or open, will be brought into judgement. This is something that should scare everyone.

17-18. Jesus points to the law to remind the Pharisees that there needs to be two witnesses before any can come to a verdict to decide a matter (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). One witness could be stating a case that a person is guilty and should receive the death penalty. However, if one witness was good enough to convict, then there would be numerous false witnesses that accuse someone of a false crime in order to be rid of their enemy. Two or three witnesses were necessary in order to find out the truth of a matter.

I feel that it might be possible that Jesus was also pointing out a Rabbinic law. I say this because Jesus says, “your law,” instead of “the law.” 2 Perhaps He was talking about their oral tradition of interpretation concerning the law. This would be interesting if this is the case because Jesus is appealing to Rabbinic tradition rather than the law. Perhaps this could be seen as a parallel to the same kind of appeal that He made concerning circumcision on the sabbath (John 7:22-23).
Jesus points to two witnesses – Himself and His Father. Again, like He has done so many times before, Jesus states that the Father sent Him. We see an “I am,” in the Greek. It is the same construction that we have seen in the previous “I am” statements. The Greek literally reads, “I am the witnesses for/concerning Myself.” 3

19. Because Jesus appealed to His Father, the Pharisees think that they should be able to hear the testimony that His Father would give. The Pharisees were probably thinking that Jesus would start to talk about a normal person. Instead they received a very unexpected statement from Jesus. Jesus tells them that do not know Him or His Father. Which is why these Pharisees were really not able to speak as a judge in the matter. This of course would have upset the Pharisees a lot if they understood Jesus correctly. Jesus points out that they would have known the Father if they had known Him. This is true because of the unity within the Godhead. If they had believed Jesus’ message they would have known the Father that sent Him.

20. The author gives a location as to where this whole discussion was taking place, “in the treasury.”

It is most unlikely that Jesus taught in the actual treasure chamber, so the expression will mean that part of the Temple precincts into which people came to cast their offerings into the chests (cf. Mark 12:41, 43; Luke 21:1). This was part of the of the court of women. There were thirteen trumpets-shaped collection boxes there, each with its inscription showing the use to which its contents would be put (the inscriptions are quoted in the Mishnah, Shek. 6:5). 4 

This allows us very easily to imagine Jesus standing in the temple court and pointing to the candle lights and saying, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Both the light stands and the treasury boxes would be located in the court of women.

As mentioned before, no one was able to seize Jesus because His time was not yet come (cf. John 7:8, 30, 32, 44). Remember, they were looking to take hold of Jesus because they were looking to kill Him (John 7:1, 25).

21. From this point forward, you will see Jesus try to emphasize the difference between Himself and the Pharisees. He very much trying to point out just how deep the divide is between them. Jesus will talk about the contrasts between Himself and the Pharisees.

This verse is very reminiscent of John 7:33-36. This time, though, He points out that they will die in their sins. They will want a messiah at the worst of times to deliver them from Roman rule but they will instead die in their sins because they missed the Messiah that saved them from their sins.

22. This time, the Pharisees understood that Jesus was talking about death. But they were thinking that He would kill Himself; which is something to be looked down upon with extreme hostility. 5 The assumed answer to the question was “no.”

23. The difference between Jesus and the Pharisees could not have been made any more clear. Their origins are from completely different locations. The pharisees are from the earth and are temporal. Jesus is not from the world but from heaven and is eternal. Jesus could be using the word “world” in two senses. He could mean a physical world or earth, or He could mean from the human race. The point is simple. Jesus is not like the Pharisees.

24. Jesus explains why He said previously, “Ye shall seek me, and die in your sins.” The reason why this would happen is because they do not believe that, “I am.” This is the same construction in the Greek that we saw previously in verses 12 and 18, “ἐγώ εἰμι” (“he” is not there in the Greek). However, this claim is a little different. Hart explains this further.

The phrase ἐγώ εἰμι is probably not a reference to Exodus 3:14 because the LXX translates the phrase “I am has sent me” with the Greek ὁ ὤν rather than using ἐγώ εἰμι. More likely it is taken from the LXX’s consistent usage of ἐγώ εἰμι as the translation of ani hu (“I am He”), a phrase used for God’s self disclosure in Isaiah (cf. Isa. 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12). For example in Isaiah 43:10, the Lord says, “So that you may known and believe Me, and understand that I am He (ani hu).” Jesus applied the words of the God’s self identification in the Old Testament to Himself. 6

Jesus is clearly identifying Himself as God and that failing to believe in Him as such will result in one dying in his sins.

25. Unfortunately, the Pharisees do not understand the claims that Jesus is making concerning His identity. They still only think Him to be a normal person.

The verse is rather difficult to translate. Overall, Jesus is saying that He has been telling them the same message all along. It’s not clear whether He is referring to the beginning of this conversation or from the beginning of His ministry. The latter is more likely considering this was discussed in John 5:24.

26-27. Jesus continues with His message. There could have been a lot more that He could have said and judged about the Pharisees. However, Jesus at this time was more concerned with with the will of the Father. He had a specific message that He needed to give to the world and that message came from the Father.

The ironic thing about this is that the Pharisees think that they are acting as a judge but they do not realize that they are standing before the Ultimate Judge. Jesus will judge these men at the last day.

28-29. Jesus did not come down on His first advent so that He could become popular. Yes, He did accept worship as God from those who believed on Him but overall, Jesus’ goal was to have the Father be glorified. Every action and word of Jesus was to glorify God. All of it was ordained by God. Even the most agonizing hours that Jesus would experience was ordained by God.

“Lifted up,” is a reference to His crucifixion (cf. John 3:14). It will be when He is “lifted up” that He will glorify God the most. This will be something something that will please God the Father, not because He takes joy in seeing His Son suffer, but because it allow to redeem His elect. By the Son’s sacrifice, God will be glorified. It will display His righteousness (Rom. 3:25-26).

30. This is the choice for every person. You must believe so that you will not die.

Endnotes

1. Edwin A. Blum, “John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, vol. 2, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 1983), 303.

2. Blum, “John,” 304.

3. ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ; cf. Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (John 6:35).

4. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1971), 444.

5. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 446n34. “Thus Josephus says, ‘But as for those who have laid mad hands upon themselves, the darker regions of the nether world receive their souls’ (Bell. iii, 375).”

6. John F. Hart, “John,” in The Moody Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary on the Whole Bible by the Faculty of Moody Bible Institute, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1632.

If Any Man Thirst

This sermon was preached from John 7:31-52 on October 5, 2014 for the evening service.

My Hour Is Not Yet Come

This sermon was preached from John 7:1-30 on October 5, 2014 for the morning service.