It is generally agreed by commentators that believing in Jesus as the Son of God plays a large role in the message of the gospel according to St John (Jn 1.12; 1.50; etc; Jn 20.31).
Interestingly however, on at least three occasions, believing in Jesus is held up to question in the gospel account. The first one I'd wager is not often preached on although its jarring note is consonant with some of what has already happened.
It's the passage found in Jn 2.23-25 : a number believed 'in His name' when they saw the signs that Jesus did. Nothing wrong with that; after all, the whole point of the gospel account is said to be a record of the signs, 'that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God' (Jn 20.31).
And yet, Jesus does not commit himself to these disciples in John 2 'because he knew all men and had no need that anyone testify of man, for he knew what was in man' (Jn 2.24f). What is going on here?
Other observers also have found that Jesus' non-committal behaviour grabs their attention and have proposed various interpretations. We don't like to think of Jesus being non-committal do we?
These believers (Jn 2) have trusted in Jesus but He does not entrust himself to them. I think I can only say that Jesus saw something lacking in their faith.
We see this lack again in the feeding of the five thousand story (Jn 6.1-14). The people who ate the bread and fish also testified that Jesus was 'truly the Prophet who is to come into the world' (Jn 6.14). But they wanted to make him king so he eludes them. Later he questions their faith and they can ask for a sign even though these are the same people who had been fed by Jesus (Jn 6.26)!
In John chapter 8, which opens with the woman taken in adultery (in the KJV) and leads to a sharp disagreement with the Pharisees (Jn 8.13-18). Than at v. 30 the text says, 'As He spoke these words [with the offended Jews], many believed in Him'. Jesus addresses some important words to them (Jn 8.31-32) about the attribute of true disciples (abiding or continuing in Jesus' Word).
However, now a question arises as to the identification of the 'They' at the beginning of verse 33; are these Jesus' new believers or are they the Pharisees?
I think the rest of the chapter is a disagreement Jesus had with those 'who believed' as set out in v. 30f. (I appreciate this interpretation is contrary to all of the classic commentator's views on the passage which causes me to concede that I may be wrong.) I would argue this position on two grounds:
Verse 31 says, Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him etc; verse 33, they answered him, 'We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage'. It seems at least to me that the 'they' is more naturally understood grammatically as the same group. Second, it's not as if such disagreement or ambivalence between 'believers' and Jesus had not happened before or after this. (Even after Jesus' resurrection with the resurrected Christ standing before the apostolic band, St Matthew records, 'some doubted' (Matt 28.16f). Admittedly, this doesn't occur in John's account.)
The fact that these hearers in John 8 are not abiding in Christ's Word is evidence that their belief is apparently on the surface. They had believed but that alone is not sufficient to argue that these 'believers' would not have disputed with Jesus as to their ancestry.
It seems that they resented the fact that called that they could be themselves in bondage. 'We like all the things you've been saying Jesus but we don't like to be said to have been in bondage. This implies that we are not Abraham's children.' Interesting that this chapter finishes with a climactic discussion on the topic of Abraham (Jn 8.52-59) and concludes with Jesus saying, 'before Abraham was, I AM' (v. 58).
However, should I be wrong about Jesus' interlocutors from verse 33 and onwards, the point remains that believing in Jesus means, at least in part, acceptance and obedience to His Word and continuance in His teaching. These are absolutely essential to true belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
Interestingly however, on at least three occasions, believing in Jesus is held up to question in the gospel account. The first one I'd wager is not often preached on although its jarring note is consonant with some of what has already happened.
It's the passage found in Jn 2.23-25 : a number believed 'in His name' when they saw the signs that Jesus did. Nothing wrong with that; after all, the whole point of the gospel account is said to be a record of the signs, 'that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God' (Jn 20.31).
And yet, Jesus does not commit himself to these disciples in John 2 'because he knew all men and had no need that anyone testify of man, for he knew what was in man' (Jn 2.24f). What is going on here?
Other observers also have found that Jesus' non-committal behaviour grabs their attention and have proposed various interpretations. We don't like to think of Jesus being non-committal do we?
These believers (Jn 2) have trusted in Jesus but He does not entrust himself to them. I think I can only say that Jesus saw something lacking in their faith.
We see this lack again in the feeding of the five thousand story (Jn 6.1-14). The people who ate the bread and fish also testified that Jesus was 'truly the Prophet who is to come into the world' (Jn 6.14). But they wanted to make him king so he eludes them. Later he questions their faith and they can ask for a sign even though these are the same people who had been fed by Jesus (Jn 6.26)!
In John chapter 8, which opens with the woman taken in adultery (in the KJV) and leads to a sharp disagreement with the Pharisees (Jn 8.13-18). Than at v. 30 the text says, 'As He spoke these words [with the offended Jews], many believed in Him'. Jesus addresses some important words to them (Jn 8.31-32) about the attribute of true disciples (abiding or continuing in Jesus' Word).
However, now a question arises as to the identification of the 'They' at the beginning of verse 33; are these Jesus' new believers or are they the Pharisees?
I think the rest of the chapter is a disagreement Jesus had with those 'who believed' as set out in v. 30f. (I appreciate this interpretation is contrary to all of the classic commentator's views on the passage which causes me to concede that I may be wrong.) I would argue this position on two grounds:
Verse 31 says, Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him etc; verse 33, they answered him, 'We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage'. It seems at least to me that the 'they' is more naturally understood grammatically as the same group. Second, it's not as if such disagreement or ambivalence between 'believers' and Jesus had not happened before or after this. (Even after Jesus' resurrection with the resurrected Christ standing before the apostolic band, St Matthew records, 'some doubted' (Matt 28.16f). Admittedly, this doesn't occur in John's account.)
The fact that these hearers in John 8 are not abiding in Christ's Word is evidence that their belief is apparently on the surface. They had believed but that alone is not sufficient to argue that these 'believers' would not have disputed with Jesus as to their ancestry.
It seems that they resented the fact that called that they could be themselves in bondage. 'We like all the things you've been saying Jesus but we don't like to be said to have been in bondage. This implies that we are not Abraham's children.' Interesting that this chapter finishes with a climactic discussion on the topic of Abraham (Jn 8.52-59) and concludes with Jesus saying, 'before Abraham was, I AM' (v. 58).
However, should I be wrong about Jesus' interlocutors from verse 33 and onwards, the point remains that believing in Jesus means, at least in part, acceptance and obedience to His Word and continuance in His teaching. These are absolutely essential to true belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
Comments