Or, Using God's Gifts to Get God's Glory
Scripture: John 7:14-24
Date: August 5, 2012
Speaker: Sean Higgins
How can it be that we often use our greatest assets for the worst aims? How can it be that we often hate what we need the most? How can it be that some of the most highly educated are often some of the most thoughtless fools? How can it be that we would ever use God’s gifts to get God’s glory, for ourselves?
These are the types of questions that surface in John 7:14-24. The Jews ask questions about and to Jesus because they think that He’s unbelievable. Jesus asks questions to the Jews because they don’t believe. How can it be that both sides are so far apart, standing in front of each other?
It was time for the Feast of Booths (John 7:2). Jesus’ unbelieving brothers advised Jesus that He should take advantage of the crowd and go show off His great works to the world (7:3-5). Jesus told them that He would take a different approach (7:6-9). The people were already muttering about Him (7:10-13). Halfway through the feast, Jesus went up to Jerusalem, to the Temple, and starting in verse 14 is the reaction of unbelief.
There are four rounds of questions, with the questions themselves found in verse 15, 19, 20, and 23. Each question makes a statement more than seeking an answer. How can it be?
The reaction to Jesus couldn’t have said more about their unbelieving fear.
About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching. The Jews therefore marveled, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?” (John 7:14–15, ESV)
Jesus’ brothers told Jesus that He should go make a big to-do at the feast, that He should go do some wonder working and impress the people. But Jesus didn’t go up with the crowds. He waited until about the middle of the feast . He did go, though. If He really wanted anonymity, He shouldn’t have gone at all and He also should not have opened His mouth. Instead, He was going to get glory God’s way, not the world’s way. So He began teaching . Here again He did differently than His brothers advised. It still got attention.
I think it’s fascinating that John doesn’t tell us anything about what Jesus taught. We could surmise from other accounts of the types of things Jesus said as well as the tone of authority with which He spoke. But nothing is mentioned here about His message or His manner. Why? Because it didn’t matter. They already hated Him.
The world hates Jesus because He exposes their deeds as evil (7:7). Darkness hates light, whether green fluorescent or orange incandescent. Jesus is a threat.
When John writes that The Jews therefore marveled , he’s not describing “marveling” like “Wow!” They are not impressed, they’re irritated. Their question is not giving Jesus credit, it’s expressing their censure. It’s also a cover.
They asked, How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied? There are different ways to understand that question, but everything in the context points toward sour attack not surprised admiration. They are not offering a compliment. They are not saying, “He’s so smart and He hasn’t even been to school. He must be a genius!” They’re saying, “Good job knowing the alphabet.” The word “learning” is γράμματα meaning, “letters.” What they’re really saying is, “How can it be that anyone would be so stupid to listen to this guy?” What they’re really really saying is, “How can we shut him down before we lose control?”
So they make a point about Jesus, about this one , and couch it in religious terms. He’s not worth listening to. He doesn’t have our stamp of approval.
Jesus didn’t need their approval or blessing. In fact, the reason that the Jews couldn’t believe Jesus is that they didn’t have His blessing.
So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood. Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?” (John 7:16–20, ESV)
This is a debate the Jews should not have entered. For all their religious education, for all their study and learning and tradition, for all the sources they could cite, none of them could claim that God was the direct source of their teaching.
Jesus answered, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” Jesus loved to talk about “the sending one,” His Father. His Father sent Him on this incarnate mission. He did the works of the One who sent Him. He taught the words of the One who sent Him. He never claimed independent prerogative from His Father.
Because the Jews were so ignorant, they didn’t realize how offensive this really was. Jesus turns rationalistic religion on its head. He’s explaining why they didn’t know Him, because they didn’t want God’s will.
They claimed just the opposite. They were angry with Jesus for breaking God’s will, that is, for breaking the Sabbath and blasphemy laws. Jesus turns it around and says that they don’t even want God’s will and, because they don’t want it, they can’t know it.
Consider what this verse is not saying. It is not saying: “If anyone wants to do God’s will, he should listen to Me explain it.” It’s not that because it’s already after the fact. It’s also not saying: “If anyone knows my teaching, he will want God’s will.” Their problem isn’t a knowledge problem. Their problem is a will problem, a want problem, a desire problem.
We might say that they bought the wrong box of cereal and got the wrong decoder ring or, they were trying to take the temperature with a wind sock or, they couldn’t learn anything because they kept trying to pass out tests. They were not in position to see or seek God’s glory. You can’t see under the couch if you’re standing up looking down. You shouldn’t act like you know everything that is, or isn’t underneath the couch. According to Jesus, knowledge depends on submission, on getting down on the floor.
They prided themselves on their knowledge and teaching of the law. But they had no desire for it. Jesus tells them that desire determines discernment, not that discernment determines desire. An un-submissive heart pumps blood to an ignorant head, that is, an ignorant head does not make the heart un-submissive. Sentences can be memorized, repeated, and wielded but they cannot be internalized, believed, or obeyed without supernatural work.
The Jews were convinced that Jesus was false, they were desperate to prove it so that they could have the glory of being true. But using truth to get glory for self is false.
Jesus isn’t contrasting hypothetical glory-seeking speakers. He’s contrasting Himself with them. They may have been to school, learned the right language, collected all the right quotes, but they were heaping up footnotes for their own glory. Referring to others is another way of expressing personal authority. They spoke God’s law as a means of self-exaltation; each one was [seeking] his own glory . Their own glory was bound in their speaking. Jesus did the opposite and spoke for the glory of another.
Teaching the Bible, and listening to teachers, is tricky. It’s easy to do it for selfish gain, to quote verses to keep control, to spout theology to look good. It requires discernment to know and discernment requires desire.
The Jews did not have that desire and Jesus proves it with a question.
They were the supposed law experts, right? They were the ones who made sure the law was followed, right? According to them, Jesus was teaching as a non-expert and Jesus was violating their application of the law. He exposes the heart of the problem.
”How can it be that you law lovers hate the law so much? How can you experts ignore it so conveniently?” They knew complex rules about the Sabbath and yet they couldn’t even see their simple violation of the murder command. They were holding the weapon of the law with the business end pointed at themselves.
The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?” (John 7:20, ESV)
John leaves identifications of the audience vague throughout the chapter and here too. It could be that the crowd is filled with naive pilgrims in town to attend the conference who have no idea about how angry the authorities are. Perhaps there may have been some who were innocently perplexed. But first, jumping to demon possession doesn’t seem like a conclusion of curiosity. Second, Jesus responds like they are all hostile.
Instead, I think this is another cover. It’s a lie. It’s false. They act as the authority to call who crazy, just as they acted as the authority on who gets to talk. If Jesus has a demon, we don’t have to listen to Him even more than we didn’t have to listen to Him because He didn’t get His M.Div from Jerusalem Seminary.
Jesus just keeps going.
Jesus answered them, “I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:21–24, ESV)
The one work must be the healing of the paralyzed man on the Sabbath in 5:1-18, summarized as making “a man’s whole body well” (verse 23). The crowd marveled , yes, in that they were extremely disturbed that Jesus would do this, they were not admiring Him.
In verses 22 and 23, Jesus makes an argument from the lesser to the greater. The Jews already acknowledged that sometimes different laws may conflict. In this case, the law required circumcision on the 8th day and the law required no work on the Sabbath. The rabbis had already worked through the priority of circumcision. It was more important to give the blessing of circumcision (one time) than not to work that way on that particular Sabbath.
Jesus’ point is that the blessing of circumcision was not as great as the blessing of making a whole man’s body well.
So far, that makes sense, but it doesn’t solve the problem. It’s not apples and apples. Moses commanded the Sabbath and Moses commanded 8th day circumcision. Moses did not command whole body healing, ever, let alone under a circumstance where such a healing might be required on a Sabbath.
Jesus’ argument goes deeper than that, the streams of thought intersect further underground.
Put it together with the first part of the conversation. In order to keep control and get glory, they used the law to justify breaking the law (murder) and missed the point of the law (to love mercy).
The problem was not the conflict of laws but the a conflict of interests. What was the point of the law? Love God and love your neighbor. Their anger demonstrated that they had neither. They were angry about the supposed broken law because they were using the law for self-glory purposes, not worshipping God purposes. They could not be happy for the healed man because they loved their control more than they loved him. The law was given to God’s people for their good, they were using the law against people.
The conferring of a benefit means so much to Moses that he will not let even the Sabbath stand in the way; the conferring of a benefit means so little to the Jews that they misuse the Sabbath and force it to stand in the way. (Lenski, 554)
Jesus didn’t threaten their Sabbaths, He threatened their souls.
Jesus finishes with Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment . They were on the surface, fussing about letters, and missing the whole point.
Most of us are Christians, so we don’t need to beat ourselves like everyone is a Pharisees. But if these religious people model unbelieving, then wouldn’t the opposite be found in believing ones?
How can it be?