João 5
Leon Morris · Citado em PreceptAustin
João 5
Morris has an interesting comment on troubled the water - This verse is omitted in certain manuscripts, along with the last part of John 5:3. Because of what seems to be the unlikelihood of this cyclic miracle, most modern versions have omitted it. The problem is, however, that John 5:7 (which is in all the manuscripts) makes no sense without it. Furthermore, the great majority of the manuscripts do include all these verses. Whether the miracle seems reasonable or not to our scientific minds, it is probable that it was recorded by John in his original text and was later deleted in some manuscripts because of the skepticism of the copyists. There is nothing impossible about the miracle no matter how unusual it seems. Perhaps God, in view of the long absence of a prophetic voice in Israel, elected to maintain this continuing witness to His grace and power in Jerusalem as a sort of perpetual Messianic promise to be repeated regularly until Christ would come (ED: I LIKE DR MORRIS BUT HE IS DEFINITELY SPECULATING IN THE LAST PORTION OF HIS COMMENT). (Borrow The Defender's Study Bible) J.
João 5
Morris on krabattos - The word is κράβαττος (also spelled κράββατος; in א it is usually κράβακτος). It is apparently Macedonian in origin and denotes a campbed, a pallet (cf. Latin grabatus). Moffatt and NIV translate it “mat.” MM speaks of it as “the poor man’s bed or mattress.” It is a late word. Dods comments, “He was commanded to take up his bed that he might recognise that the cure was permanent.” (The Gospel according to John - BORROW)
João 5
Morris - made well - This is the third of the great creation miracles described by John. A man hopelessly crippled for thirty-eight years (John 5:5) who suddenly had perfectly sound limbs can be explained only in terms of the creative power of God Himself. It should have been a mighty testimony to the Jewish leaders of His deity but instead they complained because He did it on the Sabbath (ED: THERE IS A TOUCH OF IRONY HERE FOR WHEN JESUS CREATED IN Ge 2:1-3 WE SEE HE RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY, THE SABBATH, BUT HERE HE "CREATES" ON THE SEVENTH DAY! J
João 5
Morris - worketh hitherto. In answer to the charge that He had broken the Sabbath by healing the crippled man at Bethesda on that day, Jesus noted that both He and His Father had been working continuously, the inference being that They had been doing this all through history. This fact in no way contradicted the revelation that "on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made" (Genesis 2:2). God rested from His work of creation, for it was complete, and the weekly Sabbath ("rest") day was ordained to commemorate that fact. He then began His work of conserving what He had created. Thus, He is now "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:16; 2 Peter 3:7). In addition, when sin entered God's "very good" creation (Genesis 1:31), God also entered on His long work of redeeming His cursed and disintegrating creation (Romans 8:20-23). It was perfectly proper, therefore, for the Lord Jesus to "do good" (Luke 6:9+) on the Sabbath day. It should be emphasized, however, that God's ongoing work of conservation and redemption in no way suggests that He was also continuing His primeval work of creation, as modern theistic evolutionists argue. The Bible is clear that God's creative "works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Hebrews 4:3). (Borrow The Defender's Study Bible) NET Note - “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” What is the significance of Jesus’ claim? A preliminary understanding can be obtained from John 5:18, noting the Jewish authorities’ response and the author’s comment. They sought to kill Jesus, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God. This must be seen in the context of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment (Exod 20:11) it is explained that “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth … and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Philo, based on the LXX translation of Exod 20:11, denied outright that God had ever ceased his creative activity. And when Rabban Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ben Azariah, and R. Akiba were in Rome, ca. A.D. 95, they gave as a rebuttal to sectarian arguments evidence that God might do as he willed in the world without breaking the Sabbath because the entire world was his private residence. So even the rabbis realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath: Divine providence remained active on the Sabbath, otherwise, all nature and life would cease to exist. As regards men, divine activity was visible in two ways: Men were born and men died on the Sabbath. Since only God could give life and only God could deal with the fate of the dead in judgment, this meant God was active on the Sabbath. This seems to be the background for Jesus’ words in 5:17. He justified his work of healing on the Sabbath by reminding the Jewish authorities that they admitted God worked on the Sabbath. This explains the violence of the reaction. The Sabbath privilege was peculiar to God, and no one was equal to God. In claiming the right to work even as his Father worked, Jesus was claiming a divine prerogative. He was literally making himself equal to God, as 5:18 goes on to state explicitly for the benefit of the reader who might not have made the connection. Working (Accomplish, Do, Perform, Produce) (2038) ergazomai from ergon = work) means to engage in an activity involving considerable expenditure of effort. To work effectively. The NT uses ergazomai in a literal (to do manual labor) and figurative (especially spiritual - see below) sense. To labor, do work. Ergazomai speaks of "an action as something that stands in contrast to inactivity or talk." (Richards) Ergazomai "emphasizes the process of an action, carrying with this the ideas of continuity and repetition. It means “to labor, to be active, to perform,” with the idea of continued exertion being included." Ergazomai is often used to describe work in a spiritual sense, implying supernatural work, work that God does, work that God (His Spirit indwelling believers) energizes in and through His children, work that lasts for all eternity! (Jn 5:17, 6:27, 9:4) Of godly sorrow which "works out" or accomplishes repentance (2Cor 7:10). Other spiritual work (1Cor 16:10, Heb 11:33). Ergazomai refers to "spiritual work" by men in a vain attempt to merit favor with God (Ro 4:4-5). James Smith - Handfuls of Purpose - I AND MY FATHER John 5:17–43 The Gospel of John is the “Holy of Holies” in the tabernacle of the New Testament. John could no more invent the things taught in this book than he could make a ladder that would reach unto Heaven. John’s Gospel is the Gospel of “the Father and the Son,” or the Son’s relationship to the Father. With the exception of Matthew 11:27, this great theme is almost never touched by the other evangelists. This is “holy ground.” Let us approach it, as it were, with humble and unshod feet. From Christ’s own lips we learn that— I. He was Loved by the Father. “The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things that Himself doeth” (Jn 5:20). One of the proofs of this love is that He “sheweth Him all things that Himself doeth.” The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand (John 3:35). It is the manner of our gracious God to manifest His love by giving (John 3:16). II. He was Sent by the Father. “The Father Himself hath sent Me” (Jn 5:37). Christ, as the Son, “proceeded forth, and came from God,” but not of Himself, as independent of the Father’s desire and purpose (chap. 8:42). “When the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son” (Gal. 4:4, R.V.). What a comfort this thought must have been to Him “in sorrow’s lone hour.” All Christ’s servants are so sent (John 17:18). III. He Came in His Father’s Name. “I am come in My Father’s Name” (Jn 5:43). He came as the Father’s representative among men, and because of this “they received Him not.” Men whose lives are opposed to God are always ready to receive those who come in their own name (Acts 5:36, 37). To come in His Father’s Name implied that He also came in His Father’s nature (John 14:10). IV. He Seeks to do the Will of His Father. “I can of myself do nothing … I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent Me” (Jn 5:30). His own will was so entirely submitted to the will of His Father that He could, or would, do nothing in the strength of it. His whole delight was to do the will of God, because His law was within His heart (Ps. 40:7, 8). His meat, the strength of His life, was to do the will of Him that sent Him (chap. 4:34). With Him it was, “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt,” at any cost (Mt. 26:39). V. He Followeth His Father’s Example. “My Father worketh even until now, and I work. The Son can do … what He seeth the Father doing” (Jn 5:17–19, R.V.). The Father knows no Sabbath in seeking the salvation of the lost, neither does the Son (Jn 5:16). The eyes of the Son, as a servant, were continually towards the Father, as His Master. The Father was Christ’s example, even as Christ is ours. VI. He Possesses the Father’s Prerogative of Life. “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself” (Jn 5:26). The Father, who hath the life in Himself that is entirely independent of all circumstances, hath bequeathed the like inheritance to the Son, so the Son could say, “As I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me” (John 6:57). Christ, our Life. VII. He Quickeneth whom the Father Will. “As the Father raiseth up the dead … even so the Son quickeneth whom He will” (Jn 5:21). Christ is “the resurrection and the life.” All that the Father hath given Him, through faith in His Name, are made alive from the dead. Neither the Father nor the Son will be disappointed with the final results of the great redemption. VIII. He Judgeth in the Father’s Stead. “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (Jn 5:22). He hath given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man (Jn 5:27) Because Christ condescended to take upon Him “the likeness of man,” God hath appointed Him the Judge of all mankind (Acts 10:42). Either in grace or in judgment every knee shall bow in the Name of Jesus (Phil. 2:10). All the affairs of the kingdom of grace have been delegated to Him who gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6; Acts 17:30). IX. He Claims Equality with the Father. “All may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father (Jn 5:23, R.V.). He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also (John 15:23). I and My Father are one. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father (1 John 2:23). The life, the character, and work of Jesus Christ were so vitally connected with the life, the character, and work of the Father that, in the estimation of both, they were one. Kiss the Son, and you will find your soul’s refuge in the bosom of the Father. John 5:18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. BGT John 5:18 διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεὸν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ. KJV John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. NET John 5:18 For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God. CSB John 5:18 This is why the Jews began trying all the more to kill Him: Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. ESV John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. NIV John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. NLT John 5:18 So the Jewish leaders tried all the harder to find a way to kill him. For he not only broke the Sabbath, he called God his Father, thereby making himself equal with God. NRS John 5:18 For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God. the Jews: Jn 7:19 breaking: Jn 7:22,23 Mt 12:5 God His own Father: Jn 5:23, Jn 8:54,58, Jn 10:30,33 14:9,23 Zec 13:7 Php 2:6 Rev 21:22,23 Rev 22:1,3 John 5 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: See notes above on Ex 31:12-17+ and Nu 15:32-36+ which explain why the Jews might seek to kill Jesus. John 8:58-59+ Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 Therefore (CRITICAL TERM OF CONCLUSION) they picked up stones to throw at Him (WHY? THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE HAD SAID - "I AM GOD"!), but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. John 10:30-38+ “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp. Philippians 2:6-7+ Who (JESUS), although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality (isos) with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself ("kenosis"), taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. SABBATH BREAKER CLAIMS DEITY For this reason therefore - A "double" term of conclusion. Why? What conclusion? The Jews were seeking (zeteo) all the more to kill (apokteino) Him - NLT = "tried all the harder to find a way to kill him" Seeking is in the imperfect tense picturing this as occurring again and again. Their crusade against Jesus had begun! The bloodhounds were unleashed! In Jn 5:16 we see the Jewish authorities were persecuting Jesus, but now we see that their hatred grew to the point of seeking to murder Him. They could not refute His miracles, so they sought to kill the Miracle Worker. A T Robertson on were seeking (zeteo) - Imperfect active of zeteo, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (auton apokteinai, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in John 7:1, 19, 25; John 8:37, 40. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. (John 5 Commentary) Because - Term of explanation. What is John explaining? How does he explain their evil desire to kill God? Two reasons. He not only was breaking (luo) the Sabbath (sabbaton) - The Jewish leaders held Jesus guilty of breaking their ridiculous rules and regulations regarding the Sabbath, but He was not breaking God's commandment regarding the Sabbath. In the opinion of the Jews, this would have been enough to kill Jesus for they undoubtedly would refer to the Law of Moses which said "you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people." (Ex 31:14+) A T Robertson on was breaking (luo) - Imperfect active of luo. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. Luo means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of luo in this sense like luein ta penthē (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but His defense had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. (John 5 Commentary) But - But is a term of contrast. Why a contrast in this passage? It was one thing to break the Sabbath of God (as the legalistic Jews interpreted the Sabbath) BUT it was quite another thing for Him to say He was God! And it is notable that Jesus says nothing else about the Sabbath in His lengthy discourse, but gives profound insights into His relationship to His Father. And remember that He is addressing the Jewish leaders and the truth that He will tell them will harden their resolve even more to kill Him. Had they received this incredible discourse as "gospel truth," they would have been saved, so it is as if Jesus is showing grace and mercy to give them a chance. Sadly, they would have none of it, and from here on to the end of His life the die was cast that He must die on the cross! Also was calling God His own Father (pater), making Himself equal (isos) with God - Jesus was not calling Him "our Father," but "My Father," and the Jews knew exactly what He meant! Jesus did not stutter when He made this claim of deity. How often I hear skeptics say that Jesus never claimed He was God. Clearly they have never read His words, for He repeatedly claimed to be God. Their ignorance will not be bliss in eternity future! One clear proof of His claim is the response from the Jews seeking to kill Him. The Jewish leaders knew exactly Who Jesus was claiming to be and thus accused Him of blasphemy, an offense punishable by death. Even Jesus' use of the title "Son of God" indicated that He was stating He was equal with God. This recalls John's purpose - "Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31) John MacArthur sums up some of the NT evidence that Jesus was God - Jesus assumed the prerogatives of deity. He claimed to have control over people’s eternal destinies (Jn 8:24; cf. Luke 12:8–9; John 5:22, 27–29), to have authority over the divinely ordained institution of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), to have the power to answer prayer (John 14:13–14; cf. Acts 7:59; 9:10–17), and to have the right to receive worship, faith, and obedience due to God alone (Matt. 21:16; John 14:1; cf. John 5:23). He also assumed the right to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–11)—something that, as His shocked opponents correctly understood, only God can do (v. 7). Jesus also called God’s angels (Gen. 28:12; Luke 12:8–9; 15:10; John 1:51) His angels (Matt. 13:41; 24:30–31); God’s elect (Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:33) His elect (Matt. 24:30–31); and God’s kingdom (Matt. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; John 3:3) His kingdom (Matt. 13:41; 16:28; cf. Luke 1:33; 2 Tim. 4:1). (See Making Himself Equal with God) MacArthur in another source writes "Those who would deny that Jesus claimed to be God must deny the historical accuracy and truthfulness of the gospel records and thereby establish themselves as superior sources of truth. They are saying they know more about what was true two thousand years ago than the inspired eyewitnesses. Such skepticism is unwarranted, however, since the New Testament is by far the most well-attested document of the ancient world (cf. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? - see pdf). Skeptics are also hard-pressed to explain why Jesus’ monotheistic Jewish followers would have embraced His deity so early in church history apart from His own claims. (ED: AND I WOULD ADD WHAT THE MONOTHEISTIC JEWISH ANTAGONISTS WOULD SEEK TO KILL HIM - THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS CLAIMING!) William L Craig adds "Within twenty years of the crucifixion a full-blown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnate existed. How does one explain this worship by monotheistic Jews of one of their countrymen as God incarnate, apart from the claims of Jesus Himself?… If Jesus never made any such claims, then the belief of the earliest Christians in this regard becomes inexplicable." (Borrow Apologetics: An Introduction). Blum - To make oneself "equal with God" was a claim of arrogant independence. In the Talmud four persons were branded as haughty because they made themselves equal to God: pagan rulers Hiram, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and the Jewish King Joash. Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of His claim to equality with the Father -- John 5:19-47 A T Robertson on making Himself equal (isos) with God - Isos is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means equal. In Phil. 2:6 Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ isa theōi, "equal to God" (plural isa, attributes of God).....Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in John 10:33; John 19:7. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for Him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what He does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (John 5:19-47). (John 5 Commentary) (Bolding added) J
João 5
Morris on another - Jesus does not name that Other who bears witness, but it is plain enough that he is referring to the Father; the suggestion that John the Baptist is in mind (accepted, i.e., by Marsh [p. 268]) is negated by v. 34. Jesus’ consciousness of mission and of his relationship to the Father does not rest simply on his own convictions. The Father bears witness to him. The witness of the Father may not be acceptable to the Jews; it may not even be recognized by them. But it is enough for Jesus. He knows that this witness is “true.” His word order puts emphasis on “true.” For him it is important that there is a witness apart from himself. His ministry does not arise from any human volition. And the witness is such that he can rely on it. “I know that his testimony … is true.” It is the witness of the Father and nothing else that brings conviction to him. (The Gospel according to John - BORROW) J Michaels Ramsey - “Another” testifies on his behalf, Jesus claims, fulfilling the ancient requirement of two witnesses (compare 8:18). The reader knows that he can only mean “the One who sent me” (vv. 24, 30), the One he has repeatedly called “Father” (see vv. 17–23). His accusers do not know this, but he will shortly make it explicit (see v. 37). Nothing has been said so far about the Father’s “testimony” for Jesus, but now in a single verse we hear, almost redundantly, of “the One testifying about me,” and of “the testimony he testifies about me.” (Borrow The Gospel of John) R C H Lenski favors another as referring to the Father - Not for one moment does Jesus ask the Jews to accept his own lone testimony in his own behalf. Then, indeed, they might appeal to the common legal rule stated. On the contrary, Jesus has the greatest and most competent witness imaginable. When he adds, “and I know that the witness is true,” etc., the word “true” must be taken in the same sense as in v. 31: “true” legally, so as beyond question to stand as true in any court of law. What Jesus says is that he is offering the Jews a witness of whom he knows that he is legally and in every other way competent. What the Jews will say to this witness and his mighty testimony, whether they, too, will accept it as legally competent Jesus does not here intimate. (Borrow The interpretation of St. john's gospel) Wycliffe Bible Commentary - Another bears witness, even the Father. Unfortunately the Jews do not recognize the Father's witness (cf. Jn 7:28; 8:19), and so are incapacitated for recognizing the support it brings to Jesus' claims (Jn 5:32). (See The Wycliffe Bible Commentary - no restrictions on NT) Pulpit Commentary - It is a mistake, with Ewald, De Wette, and many others, to suppose that this refers to the testimony of John the Baptist. By Augustine, Hengstenberg, Luthardt, Godet, Meyer, etc., it has been perceived that the "other" (allos) refers to the Father. Jesus expressly declines to receive John's testimony as his justification or sufficient vindication, and he contrasts it with the higher confirmation which in three distinct ways is already and continuously vouchsafed to him. The present tense, μαρτυρεῖ, is in striking contrast to the testimony of John already silenced by imprisonment or death. The methods of this testimony are subsequently analyzed and described. A T
João 5
Morris - just as they misunderstood the Scriptures in general, so they perverted the writings of Moses in particular. “The law of Moses is not a religion of salvation, it is the categorical imperative of God by which men are accused and exposed as sinners” (E C Hoskyns The Fourth gospel - borrow). Had they really paid heed to Moses they would have been convicted of their sin and eager to recognize the Savior. If they had really believed (notice the change from “set your hope” of the previous verse) what Moses said they would have believed what Jesus said, too. Moses’ writings were prophetic. They pointed forward to Christ (cf. Jn 1:45). Therefore those who rejected the Christ did not really believe what Moses had written. And if these people who professed to be Moses’ disciples, who honored Moses’ writings as sacred Scripture, who gave an almost superstitious reverence to the letter of the law, if these people did not really believe the things that Moses had written and which were the constant objects of their study, then how could they possibly believe the words, the spoken words of Jesus? (The Gospel according to John - BORROW) It is interesting that John records no answer or rebuttal from the Jewish leaders. One thing is certain as subsequent events proved -- they knew what He had said about them and they begin seething inside! Abraham in the cool side of Sheol said to the rich man on the hot side of Sheol "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead." (Luke 16:31+) Swindoll applies this last section with some very practical thoughts - Despite this (THE WITNESSES JESUS PRESENTED) and other irrefutable evidence proving Jesus’ deity, the Pharisees remained intractable. Jesus gave two reasons for this. (1) They simply didn’t want to believe in Him. They had already determined how they wanted the world to be, so they received only those facts that supported their worldview. (2) They preferred their pride. Their self-importance blinded them to anything that didn’t place them in control of their own destinies. Be on the lookout for such people as you move through life! Some are genuinely curious about Jesus Christ, and their questions can become an opportunity to lead them to faith in Him (1 Peter 3:15). But don’t be fooled. Not every debate about spiritual matters is prompted by curiosity; more often than not, religious debate is merely the ruse of the rebellious. Just as people did with Jesus, some will seek you out for no other purpose than to challenge the truth rather than to understand and believe. It’s part of a clever game they play with themselves. Their purpose for debating a believer is to pretend they have good reason to remain on their present course; if the Christian cannot refute their objections or offer a compelling reason to believe in Christ, they don’t feel obligated to submit control of their lives to anyone else. In reality, they cannot tolerate your firm belief that God, not humanity, controls the destiny of the universe. By the end of the debate, the Christian feels exhausted and the rebel feels vindicated … for a while. Soon, he or she compulsively engages another unwary believer, driven by the same need as a boy whistling past the graveyard. Here are a few ways to know when a rebel wants to play “convert-me-if-you-can.” • The person challenges you with a negative opinion about God, or some other theological concern, and then expects you to talk him or her out of it. (God doesn’t care about people or He would end all suffering.) • The person presents a philosophical conundrum that has no definite answer. (What about the Pygmies who were never told about God?) • The person presumes to judge the goodness of God by human standards, especially his or her own. (I can’t believe in a God who would send someone to hell.) • The person tries to convince you that your faith is irrational or that God does not exist. • The person shifts the conversation to another issue whenever you begin making headway on the first. • The person becomes angry and belligerent or resorts to name-calling. • The person wants to compare qualifications or casts doubt on yours. If you suspect you’re in a debate with a rebel, politely end the conversation. You might even offer your reason for cutting it short. The temptation to continue can be enticing, but trust me on this; never once have I seen someone argued into the kingdom. At best, you can argue to a stalemate because, with a rebel, the challenge is not the intellect; it’s the will. If you must leave him or her with something, then let it be a testimony of your own experience. Few people can refute that. By contrast, genuinely curious people listen rather than argue. They question rather than challenge. They are receptive and humble, not argumentative and brash. They accept that some questions cannot be answered adequately and they respect the occasional “I don’t know.” They respond positively to empathy, while rebels are unaffected by compassion. And, best of all, with genuinely curious people, the conversation naturally flows into a presentation of the gospel. Not everyone acts upon the good news right away, but those who want to know the truth will at least hear it without a fight. No conversation should feel exhausting. Refuse to participate in one that does. (Borrow Insights on John)