We have seen that the fundamental error right from the beginning in the Garden of Eden was the failure to resist the temptation “You shall be as God.” So, ever after that man’s independence from God—consequently, all that is good and right—has led to every kind of self-destructive passion. So, before considering the life of the Lord Jesus I want to state the evidence of this core issue. Consider the conversation from the high council of leaders of the Jewish nation.
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
John 11:47–48.
This declaration is astonishing evidence of the spirit of independence (“You shall be as God”). What arrogant presumption: “our place” and “our nation! Who did they think gave them their “place” and whose nation was it anyway? Where was the sense that they are servants of the “Most High?” So, again we see that the failure of Eden prevails through all their history and, as we will consider here, this leads to the most horrible unrighteousness the world has ever seen.
The prophets foretold the manner, time, and place of the coming Messiah. Angels heralded Him. Shepherds worshiped and magi from a far country visited with gifts. Yet, it was not long before the human heart was revealed in the brutal killing of children by Herod. It is remarkable that the Pharisees were the ones who gave Herod the place to focus his malicious action, yet there is no indication the coming of the promised Messiah moved their hearts. At the appointed time Jesus of Nazareth came to John the Baptist for his official introduction to the nation. John claimed authority as the “one crying in the wilderness” as prophesied by Isaiah (Jn. 1:23; Isa. 40:3) and later testified, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn. 1:29)
The four gospels give us the divinely inspired record of the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus. Here we only need to be reminded of the consistent, implacable resistance shown by the officials of the nation to the overwhelming evidence given by the Lord Jesus of the credentials to His position of the Messiah of which the prophets spoke.
The synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, document the teaching and works of the Lord Jesus in an historical landscape. We see the Lord Jesus among sinners saying, “the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Lk. 19:10; Lk. 15:2; etc.) We see Him feeding the hungry and healing all manner of disabilities. In all the various trials of life, He is the teacher, comforter, and healer. Frequently, we read “He had compassion.” (Matt. 9:36, 14:14, 15:32, 20:34) In John’s gospel, we have some of the most profound teaching. Whether in His teaching or in his acts of compassion we see opposition. In John 3 He speaks sternly to a leader in Israel, Nicodemus, saying “You must be born again.” In John 4 He speaks invitingly to a despised Samaritan woman, “Give me a drink” to entice her to ask for the “water of life.” In John 5 He heals a paralytic and incurs the anger of the proud, self-righteous Pharisees because He offended their religious pride by healing on the Sabbath. In John 6 He feeds a multitude. In all this, we see a pattern of compassion and grace. I wonder how in our own legalistic thinking we might also object to the pure compassion of the Lord. We might also be offended by His “fraternization” with a grossly immoral Samaritan woman while we selfishly accept the “loaves and fishes.” (Chp 6) Then, in somewhat of a climax in chapter 8, the Lord Jesus exposed the Jewish leaders’ legalistic hypocrisy in condemning the woman caught in adultery. It is remarkable that John 7:53– 8:11 is omitted in some manuscripts and some teachers defend this omission. This bears a sad and solemn witness to the failure to perceive the true nature of God who “is not wishing that any should perish.” (2 Pet. 3:9)1
Finally, we read of the deliberations of the council quoted above from John 11 which quickly led to the crucifixion of the One who was truly the Son of God, the One of whom God Himself from heaven had said “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matt. 3:17) The nation cried for His blood and the Gentile governor, responsible for maintaining justice, declared him innocent yet handed him over to be crucified—so much for man’s pretense of both religious pride and justice. Mankind cannot have two Gods. By following Satan’s lie, mankind must make a god of himself which necessarily puts him in opposition to the God of “grace and truth.”
The following quotation from a 19th-century Bible scholar sums up Israel’s history well.
For Israel the possession of the land was originally to be won from the Canaanites, and much of it slipped shortly out of their hands after being thus won. Philistines and Amorites pushed back Dan into the mountains; Hazor became after Joshua’s time the seat of the kingdom of another Jabin; Reuben lost his cities to Moab. After David and Solomon, the broken kingdom began gradually to yield piecemeal to its foes, until first Assyria and then Babylon carried the whole people captive. After the return, but a fragment of the land was repossessed. The Assyrian captives did not return at all. Samaria was schismatic and hostile. Galilee remained characteristically “Galilee of the Gentiles.” Then at last came One who would have gathered them, and they would not, and they bought Aceldama with the price of their Lord’s betrayal. Again they were scattered, and the whole world has been to them since, according to the terms of their dread purchase, “a burial-ground for strangers.” Thus the possession of the land has been for Israel more plainly than for any other people, a question of mastery, but in which the fear of Jehovah was ever the real condition. Did they fear Him, their fear was upon their enemies. When finally their heart turns to the Lord, and the veil upon it is removed, then the word will be fulfilled, “I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor” — of self-judgment — “for a door of hope” (Hosea 2:15).
F W Grant, Numerical Bible: Psalms. Note on Ps. 25.
From the events in the world today it appears that the “times of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:25) is coming to a close and the time for God to once again take up His people Israel is approaching. Yet, there is a time of trial for Israel and the world which will more than ever before in the history of this world manifest the terrible consequence of man seeking to make himself his own god.
Endnotes
1. One only needs to seriously consider the contention recorded in Acts 15 to understand why the “earliest manuscripts” might lack this passage. Looking at the passage itself in the context of the rest of the gospel should provide proof enough for its authenticity.
Discover more from Patterns of Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is my pushback on the comments for John 7:53-8:11. The author implies the noted disagreement within old manuscripts is evidence of deliberate omissions. I think this misunderstands the transfer of New Testament Scripture through manuscripts. We have no original autographs, and must rely on the preservation of later copies, sometimes in fragments, for translation work. By God’s grace these are remarkably consistent down through time, and this portion in John is one of only a few (another being Mark 16:9-20) that are difficult because they do not appear in all old manuscripts, and sometimes move around in the ones that do contain them! Here is a typical translation note for this passage (ESV): “Some manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11; others add the passage here or after 7:36 or after 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text.” The scholars I have reviewed note this range of behavior is NOT typical in New Testament manuscripts, so when it DOES happen, it suggests the contested portion entered the manuscript record after the original writing and subsequent copyists then wrestled with source disagreements. Now, John 7:53-8:11 does accurately capture the character of the Lord Jesus when compared to other Scriptures, and John 21:25 indicates the Lord’s earthly work far exceeded what John recorded. So, this could be a true story about the Lord’s earthly work but not an inspired story contained in John’s original account. Given the limits of human knowledge here, why become dogmatic – dare I say with irony, even legal – about the necessity of the passage? Is anything unique revealed in it about the person and work of the Lord Jesus that is not equally revealed in other, similar passages?
I stand by my comment. The most reliable expositor the Christian world has produced is F. W. Grant. He writes
The first section, then, shows us sovereign grace in action, God Himself the only hiding-place of the convicted and condemned, and freedom therefore by the truth. Here where divine grace is so fully displayed, the history of the text is a lamentable illustration of how little that grace is realized by Christians themselves. We have but to take up indeed the writings of some of the earliest “fathers,” to discover how soon the glory of its light became dimmed in the professing Church, — how soon the Judaism which combatted the apostle Paul from the beginning had overgrown or displaced the gospel which he preached. We may wonder indeed that it could venture to mutilate Scripture itself in such a manner as the MSS. and versions show has been done in this case; but this is what Augustine, as is well known, in a day little later than the earliest copies, charges against “some of little, or rather enemies to the true faith.” We can, in fact, easily understand the motive which would lead to the omission of such a story as is here before us: who could imagine any bold enough to insert it where he did not find it? or the manufacture of so exquisite a piece of forgery as this would be? Indeed, few if any would venture to go quite so far as this. They speak of it rather as of some apostolic tradition, some fragment of true history, not perfectly preserved. They bow it out, in short, regretfully, but in no wise does this compensate for the greatness of the loss.
For further comment see:
Grant, F. W., The Numerical Bible: The Gospels. (Loizeaux Brothers, 1897) 532-533.