Skip to main content

Dever: Jesus in John's Gospel




They plotted to take his life (11:53, 57). They harassed his disciples (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). They even sought to kill Lazarus after Jesus raised him from the dead (12:10-11)! Finally, of course, Jesus was betrayed, arrested, bound, deserted, denied, interrogated, struck, flogged, mocked, crowned with thorns, made the center of what amounted to a lynching, and was crucified, causing him to suffocate to death. Mildly previewing the response many had to Jesus, John introduces his book by writing, “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (1:11).

As I have reflected on this Gospel, one thing is so obvious it is easy to miss. If you want to know who Jesus is, consider one indisputable clue: the strength of the opposition Jesus received when he talked about who he is. The fate that every historian agrees befell Jesus and the fate that every local church remembers in the practice of the Lord’s Supper—violent rejection and crucifixion—suggests that something was going on that we would not expect surrounding a Galilean layman who had “no power base,” as Meier argues, nor surrounding one who was merely a pedestrian, itinerate sage. He was making some kind of claim that proved inflammatory among the people of his day and, no doubt, does the same within our own culture’s pluralistic belief in the equality of all religions. In short, the ire that accrues around Jesus in John’s Gospel appears to result from how he described his relationship with God: he presented himself as the unique Son of God.


Dever, M. (2005). The message of the new testament: promises kept. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

  There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ.  On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion.  The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin.  The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place w...

Boice: “... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. ”

  Adam had been appointed by God to be the representative of the race so that if he stood, we too would stand, and if he fell, we would fall with him. Adam did fall, as we know.  So death passed upon everyone. “But isn’t that terribly unfair?” someone protests. “Isn’t it cruel for God to act in this fashion?” ... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated.  Besides, it was the only way it would later be possible for God to save us once we had sinned. In other words, federalism is actually a proof of God’s grace, which is the point the passage comes to (vv. 15 ff.). It was gracious to Adam first of all. Why? Because it was a deterrent to his sin. God must have explained to Adam that he was to represent his posterity. That might have restrained him from sinning. A father who might be tempted to steal his employer’s funds (and would if only he himself were involved), might well decide not to do it if he kne...

Repackaging the gospel? It's more like obscuring the gospel!

Preface : I recognize this post may make me unpopular with some, but I think it is an important issue to blog about here.  I’ve had time to reflect on this video and in my opinion, I think what is in this video raises some questions.  This gentleman featured below is slotted to speak at the SBC's 2020 Pastors' Conference and it prompted me to think more about this illustration.  I want to note that I don't know him and I have no personal issue with him.   I assume he is a brother in the LORD.  Having said that, I see some significant issues here that relate to this type of preaching being clear on the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, it appears to be obscuring it in my observation. Concern:  Should the SBC or churches, in general, be in the habit of holding this up as a  good and healthy example?  Let's think about it some together.  (Watch this clip below here first.) Context:  The clip was posted to stand on its own a...