Skip to main content

Jesus Calls Witnesses in His Own Defense (John 5:30-47)

 Jesus says he does nothing on his own authority, but judges according to what he hears from the Father. What's interesting about that is that Jesus has plenty of authority. Yet even here, we see him submitting to the will of the Father. Jesus is also subtly reminding people that the law given to Moses said that a witness's testimony was only valid when backed up by two or three witnesses.

Therefore, Jesus calls John the Baptist in his own defense, and he also says the Father bears witness to the truth of who he is, and what he is doing. He says John the Baptist's witness would otherwise not be good enough, because John is just a man, but Jesus knows that many of the people respect John the Baptist.

Also, Jesus says the works that he is doing bear witness to the truth of who he is. Basically Jesus sees himself as the one who was sent by the Father. He goes on to say that his opponents do not love the Father, because they do not believe Jesus, whom the Father has sent.

Then we have to wonder what Jesus is saying about the Scriptures in verse 39. Is it wrong to know the Scriptures? Is it wrong to read them as much as possible? No; what Jesus is saying is that if you know the Scriptures backwards and forwards, but you don't know Him, you're wasting your time at best. Let's come to Jesus to receive all that he intends to give.

Jesus is frustrated with the leaders, because they will praise one another, before they praise the Father for sending His Son. They see their identity as those who obey Moses, but Jesus says they are not obeying Moses, because Moses wrote about Him. This is really an astonishing claim, because Moses is believed traditionally to only have written most of the first five books of the Bible. God was trying to tell us about His Son more than 3000 years ago!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...