Skip to main content

Jesus Speaks About His Death (John 8:21-30)

Jesus knows that he is speaking to his most hostile audience. This is why he doesn't speak directly and obviously right here. Most of the time, Jesus doesn't say, "you will die in your sin." In this case, Jesus must have an insight into the hearts of the people he's talking to.

Jesus mentions again that he is not from the earth, but that he has come from heaven. This of course sounds absurd to the hearers, but Jesus tells the truth, even if it is in a strange way. Jesus is again speaking about his special relationship to the Father. Jesus always does and says what is pleasing to the Father.
Jesus mentions being "lifted up," and this reminds us of his conversation with Nicodemus in chapter 3. Jesus will be lifted up on the cross to die. He will rise again, and ascend into heaven. That's why his questioners here won't be able to find him. Remember also that "Son of Man" comes from the prophecy of Daniel. It's a divine title. Jesus is not hiding anything, but we have to be able to hear and see in a spiritual way.

There must have been a gift of grace for some of the people, because it says that many believed, when Jesus said these things. It's the same for us: if God is giving us the grace to believe these unique spiritual sayings from Jesus, we have an opportunity to fully receive what he is saying. Even if other people think we are crazy, people thought Jesus was crazy as well.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un