Trinity & Divinity, Part 3, John 8:12-59

This is adapted from a post about John 8:58 and its context. And at that point a difficulty appears. The context of John 8:58 is more than 80% of the 59-verse 8th chapter of John! This post ain't gonna be brief!

John 8:12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life." 13 So the Pharisees said to Him, "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true." 14 Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify 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. 15 "You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone. 16 "But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. 17 "Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. 18 "I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me." 19 So they were saying to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also."
Setting the scene, this passage begins an extended dispute about the nature of Jesus. On several levels, the skeptical Jewish leaders are unable and refuse to see beyond what they can see in front of them, i.e. very superficially. So, looking at things in this passage. Twice in these 7 verses Jesus used the phrase, “I am”. Innocuous in Greek, this would at least have been irritating to the ears of the Jewish religious leaders present, as “I Am” is the meaning of the Divine Name by which God identified Himself to the Jewish people. In the verses above and in those that follow, that irritation can be seen, and Jesus kept prodding that sore spot.

Who, but the Creator, can claim to be the “Light of the world”? The world is a creature; no creature can claim to be its light! Only the Creator can make such a claim.

It's easy to overlook, but in verses 16-19, in claiming to be a witness along with the Father and in verse 19 (notice that Jesus switches from “the Father” to “my Father”), Jesus is stating that He and the Father are peers, equals. In the Jewish Scriptures – in Isaiah 43-45, for instance – God repeatedly states that there is no God besides Himself, that He has no peers.

John 8:20 These words He spoke in the treasury, as He taught in the temple; and no one seized Him, because His hour had not yet come.
Why would it be remarkable that no one seized Jesus? Unless Jesus was claiming something of Himself – that He was God – for which such seizure would be an appropriate response?

John 8:21 Then He said again to them, "I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come." 22 So the Jews were saying, "Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
Jesus continues to irritate the Jewish religious leaders, on a couple of levels. Showing some of their irritation, they start to get snidely personal with Jesus, with more and worse to come. First, Jesus tells them they will die in their sins. Really? How can Jesus know this? Who but God has the authority to tell them that their sin offerings and such will mean nothing? Then there's Jesus' statement of where He is from. He isn't claiming to be from the Moon or Jupiter or some distant galaxy. Jesus is stating that He is not part of creation, but is the Creator! Note the word “Therefore” in Jesus statement and where/how He used it: He said that His knowledge that the Jewish leaders would die in their sins derives from His not being part of creation (i.e. not knowledge revealed to a creature such as a prophet).

John 8:25 So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning? 26 "I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world." 27 They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father. 28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things 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 spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.The religious leaders come to the point … the point toward which Jesus had been goading them: "Who are You?" Jesus has been controlling this argument, but they think they have Him! Here in these verses Jesus acknowledges what they can see – He is fully human – but then He uses that “I am” phrase, and even more blatantly. In verse 12, Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world“; in verse 18, Jesus said, "I am He who testifies about Myself”. So to speak, Jesus buffered His “I am” claim with “the light of the world” and “who testifies ...”. Not so verse 28! There Jesus makes a clear claim: “I am He” (in the Greek, “egw eimi”, “I am”).

The Father “taught”, “sent”, is “pleased” by Jesus – “the Word became flesh”, and thereby subjected Himself to human limitations. As a child, Jesus had to learn to speak, to walk, to read, etc., as any human. But did not cease being “the Word”; Philippians 2 says a bit more of this, including the other side of Jesus coming, that Jesus chose to come, to become human.

John 8:31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
“My word”? Not in the third person possessive, “God's” or “the Father's” word, but in the first person, “My”. That word is Jesus' word. And it is Jesus word that can set men free! No creature could say this! Only God can make such claims!

John 8:33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
A bit a racial pride here on the part of the religious leaders. Jesus points them to a deeper level; their slavery to sin. And claims that He, the Son, has the authority to set them free. Again, a claim no creature could make!

John 8:37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 "I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father." 39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. 41 "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."
Note one thing Jesus said that the Jewish leaders did not dispute: that they were seeking a pretext to kill Jesus. Why? Because Jesus had been claiming to be God! At this point the dispute about personal origins took a nasty turn. Jesus pointed out that the leaders' actions – seeking to kill Him – contradicted their claim to be Abraham's descendants. The leaders' response was, essentially, “At least we're not bastards, like you!” And then claimed God was their Father ...

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. 43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
Like I said above, Jesus was in control of this argument from the start. And Jesus was ready for their claim in verse 41. Who could make the claim – a serious claim, not lashing out in an insult – such as Jesus made in verse 44. And don't miss what Jesus says of Himself in verses 44-45; people speak from their nature; Jesus spoke the truth; therefore Jesus' nature is truth. Yet another claim only God can make!

John 8:46 "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God." 48 The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?" 49 Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. 50 "But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges. 51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."
Don't miss something Jesus stated: His words, spoken from His nature (per verse 45), are the words of God! And keeping Jesus' word will result in eternal life. More insults: calling Jesus a demon-possessed Samaritan (insinuating that Jesus was a demon-possessed half-breed bastard).

John 8:52 The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.' 53 "Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?" 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 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and 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 born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
Can a finite creature know, truly know God, the infinite Creator (verse 55)? How could Abraham, who died 18 or 19 centuries before Jesus' time, see Jesus “day”? Why would that be significant to Abraham? More to the point, the question Jesus responded to in verse 58, how could Jesus have seen Abraham? That Jesus had seen Abraham is obvious from Jesus response in verse 58. But that would be true of an angel, a creature. Jesus precludes that possibility with His 4th “I am” claim”. Two basic facts must be kept in mind: the Greek, “egw eimi”, means “I am”; Jesus, Who created human speech, language, and grammar, would know how to express exactly what He meant in proper grammar! And just to make the silly idea that Jesus would use improper grammar all the less tenable and all the more silly, John included how the Jewish leaders responded. They made moves to kill Jesus, right there in the temple! Those two facts could only mean that they understood Jesus to be claiming to be God! These Jewish leaders would not kill some one randomly or for ambiguous statements! They understood Jesus' clear claim to be God! Either Jesus was committing blasphemy, or Jesus was, indeed, God. Jesus words and the leaders' response leave no other alternative meaning (unless you think it all has no meaning, and think the appropriate response is, “Yes, I will have fries with my flamingo casserole.”).

Trinity & Divinity, Part 2 - John 1:1-4

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
In the beginning of time - a created thing - the Word already existed; the Word is eternal. The Word was with God in the beginning. The Word's nature is fully God (this translation reflects the Greek grammatical construction of that last clause).

John 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning.
Reiterates the Word being eternal.

John 1:3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.
The Word created everything, without exception.

John 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.
Life is part of the Word's nature, not something given to or created in the Word. This is only true of God.

In all likelihood, John was writing here to respond to and to differentiate the teachings of gnosticism from Christian teaching. Gnosticism held a dualistic view of spirit (= good) and matter (= evil). This set up for them a paradox ... how could God (= spirit = good) have created matter (= evil)? The solution was a hierarchical series of emanations descending from God which were progressively less perfectly good (or wise), until finally a sufficiently less than perfectly good (or wise) divine being was imagined that would create matter. John would have none of that! John made explicitly clear that the Word was there in the beginning (not some first-created being), that the Word was fully God, and that nothing was created without the Word having created it. John laid a clear wall, dividing Christianity from gnosticism (and other teachings that deny the Deity of the Word, Jesus).

Trinity & Divinity, Part 1

On a discussion forum I frequent, http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/, there is an extended discussion of the Christian teaching of the Trinity - the nature of God - and a couple of immediately related topics, the Divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Since this is something which is engaging my interest and time, why not adapt some of what I post there as blog posts? So, to start:

Here's my premise: the Bible teaches that there is one God; the New Testament of the Bible identifies three persons as being God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Since most persons calling themselves Christians who take the Bible seriously would agree that the Father is identified as God, I will skip showing that, though some passages I cite will include that fact.

Man's Nature as Seen in History

Utopian schemes – e.g. socialism, anarchism, anarcho-capitalism - ignore or deny that man is deeply flawed (or as Christians say it, sinful). This lesson was writ large in the blood of 10s of millions throughout the 20th century. Will we read, learn, and take it to heart?

Psalm 19: General Revelation and Special Revelation

Psalm 19 is fairly well known for its two sections. The first part is about how Creation reveals the existence and nature of God. This is referred to as "General Revelation". The second revels in the wisdom of God's Law. This is called Special Revelation, because God has revealed things not otherwise knowable. The two sections are generally considered separately, each for the point made in that section. But the two sections are part of a single, unified, composition.

This might seem odd, almost as if two disparate topics got spliced together, but I think God is trying to tell us something about both kinds of revelation. General Revelation, Creation, shows much about God - what kind of God could and would create something of the scale of the universe. But that isn't very clear or detailed. Special Revelation, God's word, is what General Revelation is not and cannot be - specific, clear, and detailed. But God gave mankind General Revelation, Creation, to enrich what His word tells us.

Quick (?) Thoughts on the Book of Job

As the title suggests, I've been reading in Job. I won't claim any profound discoveries. Job is a multi-person debate about why Job has lost almost everything. Readers are told what happened, but Job and his friends did not know. Job's three friends held to a simplistic doctrinaire view of God: God is just, therefore good people will not suffer. Consequently, they argued, Job must have sinned. Job asserted that he had not, and part way into the debate started to say that he wished he could assert his innocence before God, face to face. Near the end of the debate, a younger man interposed to chew on Job's other friends for their failure to show that Job had sinned, and on Job for not glorifying God as truly just. At that point, God interrupted the young man, to reprove Job for speaking far beyond his knowledge and understanding, and to reprove his friends for wrongly accusing Job.

Two sources of Job's suffering were things God specifically permitted Satan to do: take away everything Job had, things and family; take away Job's health. God's purposes for doing so are not explicitly explained. My speculation is that God used the whole process to fine-tune Job's relationship with Him and to teach Job that there are things relevant to his life that Job won't ever understand, and that that is OK. The third source of suffering, however, was not necessarily brought on by Satan. There is no mention of Satan stirring up either Job's wife or his friends.

All this should be instructive to the reader. And it's almost as if God anticipated the classic "problem of pain" and gave the Book of Job as His answer. First, life isn't simple, and no one is guaranteed a life of ease, not even "good" people. Second, one source of things we perceive as painful is God working in our lives. Third, some sources of pain are just sinful humans and/or a sin-corrupted natural world being what they are. This, also, God often allows. In all this, we usually will not "understand" why while it is happening (if ever). We simply must trust God and rely on Him in all things.

Gosnellian Ruminations

This is adapted from a discussion forum post I wrote this morning. It references this Wall Street Journal opinion article written by James Taranto: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578422883948238160.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion.

Learning what Kermit Gosnell did all but forces people to think on what Gosnell was doing. Gosnell killed babies who were right around the age where they could survive, with aid, outside of the uterus (the court will decide whether several of those he killed were, indeed, viable). That thinking process is a Pandora's box for some one who is vaguely Pro-"Choice". Not all abortionists do late-term abortions, but Gosnell was not alone, either. George Tiller and Leo Carhart also did/do late-term abortions. The whole "outlier" argument - whether regarding late-term abortions or abortuary filth is simply a hastily improvised falsehood to mollify the willfully ignorant.

As soon as the concept of viability comes under consideration, its arbitrariness becomes evident. First, the point of viability is not fixed, and has moved earlier and earlier as medical knowledge and capabilities have grown. If one thinks just a half step further, the question arises: does any transformative process happen when a baby becomes viable that takes it from non-human to human? The answer is, "No!", and that question leads, if the reasoner allows herself/himself to go "there", to the question of what makes something some one, a human being. This is the "there" to which Taranto (and, apparently, Simon and his wife) have come. Without articulating it to this degree of detail, they realized that, whether zygote or senescent adult, both are genetically a unique human being in different stages of the continuous process that, if not interrupted, starts at the point when the chromosomes from the egg and the sperm become a full set, and ends in old age when the body's vital functions break down to the point that the body can no longer sustain life.

Taranto stops, at least in this article, at this point. He points out that fully realizing and acknowledging all this is basically fatal to the Pro-"Choice" position - for those who value human life more than their hamburger (or tofu burger) or their kitty, at least. But he also labels as "monstrous" the implication of the full Pro-Life position, that women in the uncommon position of being pregnant from rape or incest would have to carry that child for nine months and then face the choice of keeping and raising that child or giving him/her up for adoption. I'm sure Taranto knows this, but it may come as a "surprise" to Pro-"Choice" people who advance those facts as an objection: Pro-Life people are quite aware of those potential pains (not every woman so situated is going to view that process and that choice as painful). Being human is fraught with choices in which all options are to one degree or another painful or entail the risk of pain. The rational approach is to choose the option(s) in which the pain or evil is least serious. The bottom line, using this reasoning, is that killing a human being who has done no wrong and poses almost no threat (including the long-term psychological consequences of that choice) is a far greater evil than nine months of an involuntary pregnancy and a keep-or-adopt-out choice (including the long-term psychological consequences of that process and choice).

Though Pro-Abortion and Pro-"Choice" people may deny or try to ignore it, the past 4 decades have shown that accepting the killing of an innocent and harmless human being as a "right" has done great harm to our society, and put our society onto a slippery slope that leads to killing infants and the aged when they become inconvenient. The US is pretty far down that slope!