Christ Confounds Corruption!

Several years ago, when I was teaching some students about the gospel, one person (a chaplain’s son) to whom I was speaking replied that the discussion was really just a question of “propaganda.”

Everything, he reckoned, was corrupted by propaganda.

Several years earlier, when James Boice was speaking to someone about the gospel, the person to whom he was speaking, replied that the discussion was merely a question of “semantics.”

Boice says that he suspected that his skeptic had just recently learned the word semantics, because of the way he used it several times in the course of their discussion.

In each case Boice’s skeptic was suggesting that there is no such thing as truth, that all ideas are relative,

and that a person may therefore call himself a Christian while at the same time believing anything he wishes to believe.

His reason was his feeling that language cannot be pressed to the point of a precise definition.

And sometimes we should acknowledge, that it is sometimes hard for us to precisely define spiritual realities in human words.

BUT Biblical theology is the art & science of defining more precisely what certain words mean and do not mean in God’s Word which is recorded for us in human language.

Thus, we don’t just sympathize with people’s language/learning difficulties;

we also have deny that our sympathy with people’s difficulties in hearing Christ’s claims gives them a valid excuse for failing to grapple with the demands of God made in Holy Scripture or for refusing to alter one’s life accordingly.

The young man that James Boice was witnessing to, would not accept this, however.

He continued to use “semantics” as an excuse for failing to respect the claims of Jesus Christ…in Scripture.

In particular, he blamed God for his problem, for he was suggesting that things would be very different had God only expressed Himself more clearly!

To this person, and to all who think that God has not been clear enough in His revelation, the verses in John’s Gospel to which we have come should be highly confronting...

Last week we saw that we could outline our passage along these lines:

The Cultural Context vv.22-23

The Crooked Con-Job v.24

The Confounding Counter vv.25-27

The Constant which Comforts vv.28-30

The Conspiracy of Coercion v.31 etc. etc.

The Cover-Up Confronted vv.32-39

The Cultural Context

The Cultural Context

At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; (10:22)

it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. (10:23)

Their feast was a reminder of how, in recent history, they had used military power to overcome the Gk. invaders who had polluted their land and their Jerusalem temple… AND ALSO

“The thoughtful reader of the Gospel understands that time and temperature notations in John are reflections of the spiritual condition of the persons in the stories (cf. 3:2; 13:30; 18:18; 20:1, 19; 21:3–4)” (Gerald L. Borchert, , The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002] pp.337–38).

(Gerald L. Borchert, , The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002] pp.337–38).

The Crooked Con-Job

The Crooked Con-Job v.24

“The Jews” then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” (10:24)

"The Jews" was John' way of referring to Jewish people, in leading positions, especially in Judea at that time…John says they were regularly hostile to Jesus. Here John even says that they surrounded Jesus.

The hostile Jews accosted the Lord (the verb weakly translated gathered around literally means “to surround,” or “to encircle” [cf. ; ; ]). John MacArthur Jnr

And this has happened before! Do you recall ?

J.B. Phillips translates "The Jews closed in on Him." which certainly suggests that they had no friendly intentions towards Jesus.

By surrounding Him “they apparently thought that they could compel Jesus to give them the answer they were looking for”. [Leon Morris]

We could translate the challenge which they put to Him like this:

"How long are you going to keep us in suspense?"

and it’s not easy to find an easy alternative wording in English.

But it’s by no means certain that they just meant “suspense”.

The words John records literally mean "How long do you lift up our soul?" The usual translation takes that to mean that Jesus' teaching was such that his hearers' "soul" was disturbed, raised from its resting place so to speak....

It’s this that suggests to us to translate "how long will you keep us in suspense?" And that may be correct as a basic way of understanding them.

And if that’s the case, at least they were being somewhat honest in confessing their ignorance. But people are not always like that.

There is a story, I like, about a wife who asked her husband:

"What makes the stock market go up and down?" she said.

There was a thoughtful silence, then he replied,

"There are several factors like inflationary pressures, fiscal instability and, of course, political pressures and national imbalance."

The wife thought about his answer for a moment.

Then she said: "If you don't know, why don't you just say so?!"

Unlike the man in that story, the Jews may have been honestly admitting that they did not know what Jesus' teaching meant.

But their words should probably be understood in a heavier way.

To "lift the soul " can mean that the soul is set adrift, so to speak.

The words can mean that the hearers felt that Jesus was upsetting their cherished beliefs… and he should be more plain and accountable...

Keep in mind that their word for "soul" also means "life," and their question might amount to "Why are you taking our life away?"

This approach is supported by the fact that nobody doubted that Jesus was talking about death when he used the same verb together with the same noun just back in verses 17-18 (where "it" refers to "life" in v. 17).

gether with a reference to the same noun no farther away than verse 18 (where "it" refers to "life" in v. 17). In that passage Jesus was referring to his life being taken away, and it is quite possible that the Jews have a similar meaning here. A little later Caiaphas was to say that if they left Jesus alone they would be destroyed; the Romans would come and take away their place and their nation (l I :48). The Jews may have had a dim perception that Jesus' teaching meant the end of things as they knew them. To accept and act on his teaching, they may have thought. would be to put an end to Judaism as they knew it.

In that passage Jesus was referring to His life being taken away, and it’s quite likely that the Jews have a similar meaning in mind here.

Just a little later on, John writes that Caiaphas says that if they simply leave Jesus alone they would all be destroyed: that the Romans would come and “take away” their place and their nation.

John 11:48 NASB95

“If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

Do you see what I mean(?) The Jewish hierarchy perceived that Jesus’

teaching meant the end of things as they knew them

To accept and act on Jesus’ teaching, they may have thought, would be to put an end to Judaism as they knew it… to take away their very way of life...

So they may well be asking: "Is this what You are trying to do?"

It’s quite probable that they also want Jesus to be clear on His program.

We know that because their supplementary demand is easier to understand:

"If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

But, tho’ it was an easier question to understand, it was not an easy question to actually answer, ∵ Ǝ were different ideas of what "the Christ" meant.

To follow the thought of the last paragraph for a moment, Jesus has just been envisaging followers from outside the fold of Judaism in v.16, and He’d earlier raised the possibility that his Jewish hearers might die in their sins in 8:21,24

Does this mean, they might ask, that You being the Christ means Ǝ’ll no difference between Jew and Gentile when we stand before God?

…and that Gentiles(!) must be brought into Your new flock?

…that some Jews will die in their sins and therefore be excluded!?!?

What sort of (Jewish) Messiah are you?!?!

Most Jews of this day did not think that the Messiah would treat the Gentiles with favour ...and judge the Jews in this kind of tough way!

They usually saw the Messiah as a strongly Jewish-favouring deliverer.

In fact, many (if not most) Jews thought that Messiah would be a warrior who would raise an army and drive the Romans right out of their land by violence.

Had not their Maccabean warriors done just that to a very mighty conqueror? Weren’t they, at that very time, just then, commemorating such victory in their Feast of the Dedication?

So, I think that their approach against Jesus here is to practise intimidation assisted by false criticism of Jesus’ communication agenda.

This time it’s intimidation assisted by false criticism of Jesus’ communication ability.

They demanded of Him,

“How long will You keep us upended?

If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

By asking Jesus if He was the Messiah, the Jewish leaders would certainly be asking an important question; indeed, it is the most significant question anyone can ask (cf. ).

But given all the revelations they had seen and heard from Him, and their outright hostility to Jesus over the course of those revelations, their real motive in bringing their demands in v.24 was highly suspicious.

Far from being an honest request for clarification, their inquiry was actually just another attempt to trap Jesus with a view to getting rid of Him.

Because He was the greatest threat to their power and prestige, they were desperately looking for a way to discredit Him and dispose of Him altogether.

They were unsettled by the miraculous signs He performed ();

they were tired of the divisions He caused (), even within their own ranks (cf. );

they were fearful of the revolt He might spark against Rome, which would jeopardize their privileged political status ();

they were angered by His public rebuke of their hypocrisy ();

and they were outraged by His unapologetic tho’ somewhat veiled claims to be equal with God (; ; ).

And notice this about the verb at the end of :

the verb translated plainly can also be translated “publicly,” or “openly”; that’s the best sense it has in , , ; ; .

SO … Therefore, the Jewish authorities’ actual motivation & strategy was to pressure to Jesus, in order to make Jesus declare publicly that He was the Messiah in some kind of popular public sense…

...and the real reason why they were doing so, was so that they would gain a better pretext, a less thwart-able, justifiable rationale for having Him arrested before the people got too carried away by His influence...

[John F. MacArthur Comm]

THE CONFOUNDING COUNTER (WHICH THEY NEEDED)

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me… vv.25-27

My Works Bear Witness, says Jesus, They Testify, About Me

Yes, there were very different ideas of messiah-ship in circulation, so obviously the question the Jews asked was not a simple thing to answer.

question the Jews asked was not a simple thing to answer.

They asked Jesus to answer & clearly they wanted a simple "Yes" or "No."

answer "plainly"; clearly they wanted a straight "Yes" or "No." But

But because the meaning of "Messiah" was understood in so many different ways it was impossible to give the yes/no answer they were demanding.

because the meaning of "Messiah" was understood in so many dif-

ferent ways it was impossible to give the short, clear answer they

But even so, Jesus' reply in v.25 must have completely surprised & confounded them:

looked for. Even so, Jesus' reply must have been completely unex-

"I told you" (v.25) ...but John has not recorded any plain statement that Jesus has made to the Jewish hierarchy on this subject. John has informed us that Jesus told the woman of Samaria that he was the Messiah ().

pected: "I told you" (v. 25). John has not recorded any plain statement

that Jesus has made to the Jews on this subject. He has informed us

that Jesus told the woman of Samaria that he was the Messiah (4:26).

And again, although that term is not used, we might well think that it was the meaning of what He’d just said to the man born blind ().

24 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

And right from the beginning, at least some of His followers had recognized that He was the Messiah ().

the meaning of what he said to the man born blind (9:35—38). From the

beginning, at least some of his followers had recognized that he was

But John has not told us of any occasion when Jesus has used the word messiah or Christ of Himself when he was talking to the Jerusalem-hierarchy-Jews as a body.

the Messiah (l :41 ). But John has not told us of any occasion when Jesus

has used the word of himself when he was talking to the Jews generally.

BUT in v.23 Jesus insists that his teaching has been plain enough.

After all, there was a group of people around him who followed him as the Messiah.

there was a group of people around him who followed him as the

They were in no doubt about it, and the Jewish leaders had access to the same teaching as they did.

Messiah. They were in no doubt about it, and the Jews had access to the

If the Jewish leaders had really wanted to know whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, they had before them the evidence that would have told them.

same teaching as they did. If they had really wanted to know whether

or not Jesus was the Messiah, they had before them the kind of teach-

ing that would have told them.

So Jesus blasts them:

I’ve already told you plainly who I am (cf. ; ,,);

He had spent the last three years doing so ...cumulatively.

Not only that, the works that He did in the Father’s name also demonstrated that He was the Messiah; the Son of God; God in human flesh (cf. , ; ; ; ; ; ; ).

The Lord’s twice-repeated declaration, you do not believe, indicates that the real problem was not due to any ambiguity in His revealing of the truth, but rather to their spiritual blindness.

They lacked understanding, not because they lacked information, but because they lacked repentance and faith.

Their unbelief was not due to insufficient exposure to the truth, but due to their hatred of the truth and their love of sin and lies ().

Jesus taught that anyone who willingly seeks the truth will find it (),

but Jesus refused to commit Himself to those who willfully rejected the truth.

Had He given them again the plain answer they were demanding, they would not have believed Him anyway (cf. 8:43; ; ).

[Cf. John F. MacArthur Comm]

So don’t feel sorry for these Jewish leaders because they weren’t Jesus’ sheep, as if that were somebody else’s fault: NO!

From the perspective of human responsibility, these hostile Jewish leaders did not believe but that’s because they had deliberately rejected the truth!

Yes, from the standpoint of divine sovereignty, they did not believe because they were not of the Lord’s sheep, which were given Him by the Father (; ; ,,).

A full understanding of exactly how those two realities, human responsibility and divine sovereignty, work together lies beyond human comprehension;

but there is no difficulty with them in the mind of God.

It’s significant that the Bible does not attempt to harmonize one thing at the expense of contradicting the other, nor does it ever apologize for the logical tension between the two ideas.

For example, speaking of Judas Iscariot’s treachery, Jesus said in , “The Son of Man is going [to be betrayed] as it has been determined.”

In other words, Judas’s betrayal of Christ was in accord with God’s eternal purpose.

But then Jesus added, “Woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

That Judas’s betrayal was part of God’s plan did not relieve him of the responsibility for his crime.

Moreover...

In Peter said that Jesus was “delivered over [to the cross] by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.”

Yet Peter also charged Israel with responsibility for having “nailed [Jesus] to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”

God’s sovereignty never excuses human sin.

For a fuller discussion of the interplay of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, see the exposition of 6:35–40 in chapter 20 of MacArthur’s volume on . [John F. MacArthur Comm]

[John F. MacArthur Comm]

Final quote to comment upon:

Repeating what He said in His discourse on the Good Shepherd (see the exposition of vv. 3–5 in the previous chapter of this volume), Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” The elect follow Christ’s call to salvation…

[John F. MacArthur Comm]