Witnesses to Jesus' Claims
Notes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
Civilized cultures throughout history have maintained order by creating laws and then enforcing those laws through a court system. These systems of justice vary widely with varied results but with the same purpose: to discover the truth in any given matter. That assumes that a judge or jury will accept the facts; the truth is quite irrelevant to those who refuse to accept facts.
Jesus has not been hauled into court, but do not be fooled— He is nonetheless on trial. Religious authorities had found a man breaking their tradition, who in turn pointed an accusing finger at Jesus
But he answered them, “He who made me well was the one who said to me, ‘Pick up your pallet and walk.’ ”
Their initial confrontation with Jesus added to their list of alleged crimes they said He committed; Jesus immediately accepted responsibility for breaking with tradition (not the Law) and then, in addition to that, claimed to be equal with God.
But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
The dialogue here is summary in form rather than chronologically. This is seen through John’s use of the verbs in the Greek “imperfect” tense, demonstrating the passing of time and the ongoing, habitual, or iterative action: the officials were continually “seeking all the more to kill Him” because He was continually or repetitively “breaking the Sabbath,” “calling God His own Father,” and “making Himself equal with God.”
Jesus opens His defense by emphasizing a guiding principle of Jewish court procedure, rooted in the Law of Moses.
“On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.
“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
A defendant’s testimony is not seen as valid unless it is supported by either undisputed fact or reliable testimony from more than just one witness. Jewish courts accepted corroborating testimony from multiple witnesses as indisputable proof—truth that could not be denied. Jesus then calls His witnesses...
First Witness: God the Father, 5:32, 37-38.
First Witness: God the Father, 5:32, 37-38.
As John translated the Aramaic words of Jesus, he could have chosen either of two words from the Greek for “another,” the word allos or the word heteros. They are basically synonymous with a slight nuance. heteros means “another of a different sort”; the word John uses is allos, meaning “another of the same sort.” Jesus is referring to God the Father (see vs. 36-37).
Jesus here does not deny complete unity or oneness with the Father, but treats the Father’s testimony as independent. If His accusers objected, they would be admitting that He and the Father are one being. They did not object however, which means they had to receive the independent testimony of Almighty God into evidence.
The testimony given that Jesus refers to is more than nine centuries of prophecy, which He had filled precisely. Some of these details Jesus had no control over (humanly speaking) such as the manner, time, and place of His birth.
Manner - Isa 7:14
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
Time - Dan. 9:25
“So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
Place - Micah 5:2
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”
Of those who opposed Jesus, some were scribes, those men who dedicated their lives to preserving Scripture, and had quite naturally become experts in its interpretation and application. Pharisees dedicated their lives to meticulous obedience to the Law; they believed that moral purification would hasten the return of the Messiah. They were religious people; Unfortunately like most religious people, they preserved and transmitted truth on a daily basis, yet failed to live it themselves.
The second witness Jesus points to is...
Second Witness: John the Baptist, 5:33-35.
Second Witness: John the Baptist, 5:33-35.
John the Baptist had been sought out earlier by the religious leaders due to his widespread ministry which caused Jews to begin looking for the Messiah. Few doubted his status as a genuine prophet of God.
But John was just the lamp, not the light; the forerunner, not the Christ. He introduced the Messiah and then stepped aside. Jesus, though, was not the Messiah that Israel wanted. He came to establish a different kind of kingdom, not to raise an army, overthrow Rome, and give Israel a new golden age of power and prosperity. That will come later. He was the true Messiah — not the messiah fulfilling selfish expectations — who came to conquer hearts, transforming them from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh, which would then beat in perfect rhythm with the Law.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
“And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,
that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.
Jesus then introduces His third witness...
Third Witness: Jesus’ “signs,” 5:36.
Third Witness: Jesus’ “signs,” 5:36.
John was a powerful witness and an authentic voice for God, but he never performed miracles.
Many came to Him and were saying, “While John performed no sign, yet everything John said about this man was true.”
In contrast, Jesus performed many “signs,” John 3:2
this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
In fact , it was a dramatic miracle that sparked this current trial. These miracles do not establish Jesus’ deity by themselves; after all, other mere men have been the means by which God accomplished supernatural “works.” But miracles have long been accepted as God’s stamp of approval on the miracle-worker’s message. These signs of Jesus have authenticated His message: I am equal with the Father. They were also consistent with the character and plans of God.
Then Jesus points to the fourth witness...
Fourth Witness: The Scripture, 5:39-44.
Fourth Witness: The Scripture, 5:39-44.
The verb “to search” can be translated either as a command or as a statement.Here the NASB elects to render it as a statement, but in light of what is going on in the context, it may be better rendered as a command to “Go ahead, search the Scriptures!” There are two things to note in this challenge.
The first is that Jesus’ challenge anticipated the conclusion they would reach if they dared take the message of Scripture at face value. If they remained intellectually honest, the OT would lead them to the conclusion that Jesus is undoubtedly the Son of God.
Second, these Jewish religious practitioners sought the Scriptures to determine criteria by which they could merit their own salvation, rejecting the Word Himself, who promised to give them righteousness by grace, through belief. They very Scriptures they sought to obtain salvation were what testified about Jesus. But rather than read Scripture as a means of knowing God, they made the Law their God. These are strong accusations, but Jesus supported them by contrasting His motivation with theirs.
Jesus did not seek the approval of men, but only of God. The religious authorities, however, daily sacrificed their love of God for the admiration of others. How absurd it is, Jesus points out, when they are willing to accept teachers who made a name for themselves while rejecting the One who glorifies the Father.
The final witness Jesus calls upon is ...
Fifth Witness: Moses, 5:45-47.
Fifth Witness: Moses, 5:45-47.
Every Jew reveres Moses as the founding father of their faith and the greatest of all prophets, only to be surpassed by the “greater prophet,” the Messiah.
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.
“This is according to all that you asked of the Lord your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’
“The Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well.
‘I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
‘It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.
Yet it was the writings of Moses the religious authorities had twisted into a religion of works, perverting them to become their means of rejecting the Christ. The very reason they were confronting Jesus was the supposed violation of Moses’ Law.
What can the Law do? It can not be kept perfectly, therefore the Law can only indict, never justify. Moses Himself predicted the failure of the Israelite people and promised a Savior to lead them . . . if they would heed His words.
There are two basic reasons why the religious leaders refused to believe these witnesses to the truth of Jesus Christ, which He Himself gave:
Their unwillingness, seen in vs. 40-43, where they came with a foregone conclusion and refused facts that did not support their position.
Their pride, seen in vs. 43-44. They who achieve man-made righteousness would rather reject the truth of God’s grace than give up their glory.
The religious leaders were unwilling to believe.
Inability to believe is the result of a dull mind, something the disciples themselves struggled to overcome for much of Jesus’ ministry on earth. The Lord is remarkably patient with our weaknesses, just as He was with disciples.
Unwillingness to believe, on the other hand, is the result of pride; and pride invariably leads to destruction.
People like the religious leaders are alive and well today. As we move through our sojourn here on earth, we will discover people who are genuinely curious about Jesus and will ask questions, which may become an opportunity to lead them to faith in Him. But be aware that not every debate about spiritual matters is prompted by curiosity; more often than not, religious debate is merely the ruse of rebellion, to challenge the truth, not to understand and believe. They want to maintain their present course of living, and they seek to vindicate themselves. So how would you know that’s what is going on?
If they challenge you with a negative opinion about God, or some other theological concern, expecting you to talk them out of it.
If they present a theological conundrum that has no definite answer.
If they presume to judge the goodness of God by human standards, especially their own.
If they try to convince you that your faith is irrational or that God does not exist.
If they shift the conversation to another issue whenever you begin to make headway on the first.
If they become angry and belligerent or resort to name-calling.
If they want to compare qualifications or belittle yours.
In a debate with a rebel? politely end the conversation. You might even offer your reason for cutting it short. You cannot argue someone into the kingdom. If you must leave them with something, leave them with a testimony of your own experience, which few can truly refute.
A genuinely curious person listens rather than argues; questions rather than challenges; demonstrate receptiveness and humility, not argumentative and brashness. These will accept that some questions cannot be answered adequately and respect the occasional “I don’t know.” They also will respond to empathy positively; the rebellious are unaffected by compassion.
With the genuinely curious person, the conversation naturally flows into a presentation of the gospel. Not everyone acts upon the good news right away, but those who want to know the truth will at least hear it without a fight.