Is the Jesus of Suburbia the Jesus of Nazareth? (Jeremiah 17:9)

I want to start off with a story you might have heard of, or some form of it, for multiple versions of it exist on the internet. A five-year-old girl was having one of those trouble-filled days with her mother. It seemed they spent the day arguing back and forth. No matter what the mother asked her to do, the young girl would always stomp her foot and scream loudly, “NO!” Finally, the mom had enough. "Jane, go sit in the corner, right now! Your time does not start until you sit in that chair, and don’t you dare stand up until I tell you to!" The little girl, fists clenched, stomped over to the small, wooden chair in the corner and plopped down in it. Arms crossed, she looked back at her mother with the dirtiest look and said, "Mom, I am sitting down on the outside, but I am standing up on the inside!"

Parents here probably can relate to this story, for they might have had similar experiences disciplining their children. Other people, parents or not, might be able to relate if they are willing to admit they were that child! Of course, I couldn’t think of any time I was that child (although if you asked my parents, they could probably tell you). Being the good big brother I am, though, I could think of a time my little sister did. It was Halloween 2001. At my sister’s elementary school on Halloween, the kids would have this Halloween parade, where the kids would dress up in their Halloween costumes and march around the school. Family would come in to watch the parade. For some reason unknown to me, my sister, that year, wanted to be Cleopatra for Halloween, perhaps because the Cleopatra costume came with makeup. For whatever reasons my mom had (I’m pretty sure they were good ones), she instructed my sister not to put on the makeup. I remember at that breakfast my mom told my sister over and over again not to put on the makeup on, and my sister said over and over again she would not. That afternoon, my mom invited to come along to the elementary school’s Halloween parade, since my middle school had the day off. We waited patiently for the fourth graders. When my sister came around the corner…well, let’s just say she looked as good as a nine-year-old putting on makeup for the first time could look.

What drives a person to act this way? Some simply credit it to immaturity. After all, the examples I just gave you all were of children. But let’s be honest. We’ve seen adults act like this, too, perhaps at work. How can even mature adults act like this? I bet the prophet Jeremiah wondered the same thing, for God provides an answer to the question in Jeremiah 17:9.

Please turn in your Bibles to Jeremiah 17:9. While you’re turning there, I am going to put the verse in context. Remember, I’m big into context. Personally, I believe that so many bad interpretations of the Bible and bad theologies started as a Bible verse taken out of context. We, in our western minds, like dissecting things (like that frog in 6^th grade). We like breaking things down and analyzing each piece. There’s some good to that, but to borrow from a metaphor I hear commonly at my seminary, we sometimes spend so much time staring at the tree, we forgot that we’re standing in a forest, with other trees around us, and we forget how that tree is a part of the forest. Before we break down and analyze Jeremiah 17:9, I want to put Jeremiah 17:9 in 3 contexts: the far context, the near context and the immediate context. First, we’ll look at the far context. How does Jeremiah 17:9 contribute to the whole Bible? Second, we’ll look at the near context. How does Jeremiah 17:9 contribute to the book of Jeremiah? Third, we’ll look at the immediate context. How does Jeremiah 17:9 contribute Jeremiah 17?

In the far context of the whole Bible, Jeremiah 17:9 will help Bible readers better understand humanity’s struggle with rebellion towards their God. The Bible has clearly established that God is holy, just, faithful and loving. He looks out for his Bible. These attributes of God alone should provide enough reason to trust in God and follow his commands. Yet throughout the whole Bible, Bible readers can see people throughout history make choices that side them against God. Think about the famous stories of the Bible. Why did Adam and Eve choose to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, when God clearly commanded them, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Why did the people of Israel choose to wander 40 years in the desert rather than enter the land God promised them, a land flowing of milk and honey? Yeah, there were some bad spies who convinced the Israelites that the people there were as tall as giants, but hadn’t God told them that he would take care of it, and hadn’t God proven it with the way he dealt with Egypt? Why did the new nation of Israel, during the time of the Judges, keep going to back to the idolatrous way by worshipping the pagan gods, even though they knew it would lead to the foreign nations conquering and enslaving them? This isn’t just before Jeremiah’s time, for it happened after Jeremiah’s time, too. The biggest example yet is in the New Testament. Why would the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the teachers of the law, the experts of the law and the masters of law, have the long-awaited Messiah right in front of their faces, and yet they deemed him a blasphemer deserving death? If you ever wondered any of those questions, Jeremiah 17:9 will provide an answer.

In the near context, Jeremiah 17:9 plays a crucial role in preparing Jeremiah for what he’ll face in rest of the book of Jeremiah. Over the years, Jeremiah has received the title of “the weeping prophet” from Bible scholars and church layman alike, for a number of reasons. Mainly, the title comes from the bad news he always has to deliver and how Jeremiah responds to it. Indeed, after receiving his first batch of bad news, Jeremiah says in Jeremiah 9:1, “Oh that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” I call Jeremiah the weeping prophet, not just due to the bad news Jeremiah has to give the people, but I believe the way the people received the news must have caused Jeremiah to weep as well. Just take a look at these 3 instances. In Jeremiah ch. 27&28, Jeremiah goes out to the people of Judah and preaches, “Because of your sin, God has handed you over to King Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, and you will serve them!” How do the people of Judah respond? Out of them arise false prophets and sorcerers (more like “fortune tellers”). They preach to the people, “It’s not that bad. At the worse, King Nebuchadnezzar will be around for 2 years. But after that, it’s peace and restoration!” Of course, the people favor the latter and no one will take Jeremiah seriously. Then, in chapter 38, Jeremiah proclaims to Zedekiah, the King of Judah, “If you want King Nebuchadnezzar to spare you, your family or any of household, just surrender and the Lord will take care of you. If you do not surrender, however, you will face utter destruction, and so will your family and household. Of course, King Zedekiah and his household don’t take too kindly to this. They throw Jeremiah into a muddy cistern, and Zedekiah and his family attempt to flee anyway. Long story short, Jeremiah gets out of the cistern. Zedekiah witnesses his two sons murdered in front of him, and then King Nebuchadnezzar blinds Zedekiah so the last thing Zedekiah sees is his sons dying. Once King Nebuchadnezzar takes away the upper class citizens of Jerusalem, Jeremiah gathers the leaders of the lower class remnant and says to them in chapter 42, “Stay here, and God will take care you. Just whatever you do, don’t go down to Egypt, for if you do, Nebuchadnezzar will follow you down there, and you will be walking into your own demise.” In chapter 43, the people respond to Jeremiah, “No, you’re wrong, God did not tell you that. We’re going down to Egypt, and we’re taking you along as our good luck charm, you like it or not.” Jeremiah almost literally goes to Egypt kicking and screaming, and he stays there until he dies. Sure enough, King Nebuchadnezzar decides to continue his campaign right into Egypt, and the Jews who fled to Egypt find themselves right in the middle of it again. Poor Jeremiah! God has granted Jeremiah one of the most precious gifts of his time, to be the mouthpiece for God, and the people do the opposite of what Jeremiah says. Fortunate for Jeremiah, God prepared Jeremiah ahead of time with Jeremiah 17:9.

In the immediate context, Jeremiah 17:9 answers Jeremiah 17:5-10. In this section of the book of Jeremiah, the Lord reminds Judah about the covenant they entered with him. Prior to Jeremiah 17:5, God exposes Judah for breaking the conditions of the covenant. Now comes the time for the Lord to remind Judah that those conditions came with a promise of blessing to those obeyed and curses those who did not. In Jeremiah 17:5-8, the Lord contrasts the man who trusts in man and the man who trusts in the Lord with an illustration of a shrub in the desert and a tree planted by water. Just like nothing good ever happens to a shrub in the desert, the man who trusts in man is cursed, and no good will come to him. Just like the tree planted near water, the man who trusts in the Lord bless. He will continue to reap blessings, even when hard times comes, like a well-watered tree will continue to produce, even during a heat wave or drought. From this illustration, the right answer should be clear. You’d want to be like that well-watered tree, that tree planted near water, so you could always reap the blessings. Therefore, you should want to put your trust in the Lord so you could reap his blessings. Yet Judah had chosen to be like the shrub in the desert by choosing to trust in man. Soon, this illustration would become quite literal, as the invading Babylonians would destroy that land so badly, that even the most fertile lands would look like barren deserts. Clearly, from this illustration, choosing the desert shrub is the wrong answer! Why would anyone choose that, knowing it will lead only to curses?

The answer to the far context, the near context and the immediate context all come to answer in Jeremiah 17:9. It all comes back to the heart. Jeremiah 17:9 describes what the heart is like that causes it to act this way. First, it says it is “deceptive,” or in the Hebrew, עָקֹב (aqob). Yes, this is Hebrew root from which get Jacob. If you recall, the name Jacob literally means “grasps at heel,” but metaphorically means “deceiver.” Think back to Jacob in the book of Genesis. How did Jacob get the birthright? By taking advantage of his brother’s weakened state of hunger. How did Jacob get the blessing? By tricking his father Issac to believing he was Esau, even making sure he felt like Esau, smelt like Esau, and had stew that tasted like Esau. That’s what your heart does to you! It takes advantage of your weakness to get you to do the wrong thing. It gets you to go out of way to do something you don’t even want to do, just to satisfy the sin.

Second, Jeremiah 17:9 describes the heart as אָנַשׁ (ʾānašh). The New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version definitely have the most literal translation of the word. It means “to be sick” or “to be ill,” but in the case, the Hebrew tense is in the absolute, meaning there’s an emphasis on the word, almost to an extreme, hence the “desperately” part. It’s almost like chronic illness, a sickness that has no cure, hence why the NIV says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.” But keep in mind this isn’t a medical heart illness, like coronary heart disease or a heart palpitation. No, this is an inner heart disease, a spiritual heart disease. That’s why this time I turn to the King James Version’s interpretation of Jeremiah 17:9. The KJV says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” The heart desires and yearns to that which is selfish and wicked, even if it brings about harm to others and self. It has no desire to be healed. It only wants more sin.

After understanding how depraved the heart really is, you might wonder aloud the rhetorical question the ends verse 9. “Who can understand the heart?” Sin has corrupted the heart. Since the heart is so deceitful, no person can even trust his or her own heart. That’s where the Lord steps in. The Lord can understand the heart, for he is the omniscient God who can search it and test. God cannot be deceived, for not even the worst heart can hide evil intentions from the Lord. Only a holy God can therefore be trusted, for he has not been corrupted or deceived by evil.

And may I be clear this isn’t an intellect vs. emotions kind of thing. As much as I would like to say this verse is promotion us to abandon our emotions and feelings for strict intellectual thought, being the intellectual thinker I am, it is not. In this passage, the “heart” is verse 9 is paralleled to the “mind” (Actually, the Hebrew word literally translates to “the kidneys.” You might be tempted to laugh at that, but if you think about, how much medical research proven that the heart’s job is to solely work with the blood in our circulatory system, and yet we still use it as a metaphor for the source of our emotions.) in verse 10, which means they are treated as synonyms. In the original audience’s context, in the Hebrew context, the people of Judah would not have separated intellect and emotions like we do, but have understood both heart and mind as synonyms symbolizing the inner being. Still, for our context, the parallel reminds us that the sinful nature infects both the head and heart alike.

Someone who would have understood this the doctrine of sin nature would be Aurelius Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo. Augustine struggled with what has been described as “every man’s battle.” Augustine struggled with lust, making him very relatable to every man. Now usually people don’t ask questions like, “Why does God allow suffering?” or “Why do bad things happen to good people?” until the bad or evil thing happens to them. Not for Augustine. Augustine recognized that he was the evil, and he needed to know how to stop. Augustine tried many worldly philosophies attempting to solve his questions, but they could not. The best solution came from the Scripture. In his studies of the Scriptures, Augustine learned a lot about sin. For example, he learned how sin was the absence of good. Most importantly, he learned that his fallen heart had enslaved him to sin. If Augustine knew about drugs like we do in the 21^st century, he would have described our sin nature just like a drug addiction. Just like the drug addict will lie, cheat and steal to get his or her fix, so they sinful nature will commit all kinds of sinful act to get his or her selfish wants, even if it destroys him or her.

Now I know what I am preaching right now would be a hard message for the non-Christians, those outside church. Psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and anthropologists would all say that all people are born good and all throughout their lives are generally good people. Yeah, they will admit people do bad things, but they account those bad things as good people doing the wrong thing, almost like “mistakes,” but still call them good people. Only a few people can truly receive the title of “evil,” like Nebuchadnezzar, Nero, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Yet I am going to a bold statement. In all honesty, I really think that Americans of the past two centuries, the 20^th and 21^st centuries, don’t really believe this, and I have both a classical example and a more modern example to prove my point.

Who has read the book The Coral Island by R.M. Ballaytne, whether that be in a college, high school or middle school literature class? Written in 1857, the book is about 3 British boys, eighteen-year-old Jack, fifteen-year-old Ralph and thirteen-year-old Peter, who all get shipwrecked all alone on an island in the Pacific Ocean. Despite having little modern technology, they are able to create a self-sustaining lifestyle on the island, adequately providing themselves with food and shelter. Life is idyllic and idealistic on the island. It is almost as if they made their own little utopian society with the three of them thereon the island. Eventually they decide it is time to leave the island with the boat they have made. They come upon another nearby island, where they meet a barbaric and savage Polynesian tribe. Through teaching Victorian-era manners and ideals, however, these 3 young men are able to civilize the whole village. Once again, the boys leave the island and come ashore on another island. Here, they run into Christian missionaries, who have struggled to convert the native polytheist to Christianity. Again, once the boys teach the native people proper Victorian etiquette, the missionaries can successfully convert the Polynesian polytheists to Christianity. I’m betting a lot of you never read this books, and I think there’s a reason for that.

But who has read The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, even if it is in a college, high school or middle school literature? This book was written in response to The Coral Island. William Golding read The Coral Island and thought to himself, “No, that’s not how it would happen.” He wrote his book, The Lord of the Flies, as a response, almost a satire, of The Coral Island, even giving the main characters the same name. In the same way, Jack, Ralph and the other boys find themselves stranded on an inhabited island. Instead of working together to form a self-sustaining society, they argue with each other, they curse at each other, they bully each other, and even near the end (spoiler alert!) they begin to kill each other! By the end, the last “good” boy is merely trying to survive from the other boys on the island!

I bet a lot of you have read The Lord of the Flies, at least a lot more than The Coral Island. Indeed, The Lord of the Flies seems to be more popular than The Coral Island. One reason some books become more popular than others is because of how relatable they are. With popular books, we can relate with the character and their life more than in the unpopular books, where we can’t relate to the characters. The Coral Island is unpopular because we can’t relate to that experience; The Lord of the Flies is popular because we can relate to that story. We have no experiences of everyone coming together to create a greater good, yet we can name the countless experiences where people have turned on us, betrayed us, and caused stress and conflict just to get what they wanted. See, people really don’t believe that good-at-heart philosophy. They too recognize the heart is sick with evil.

But The Coral Island was written in the late 1800s, and The Lord of the Flies was written in the early 1900s. What about the 21^st century? Maybe we’ve matured or culture ourselves so we are working together for good. Let’s use less of a classic example and more of modern example. In the late 1980s, three teenagers in Los Angeles came together to form a punk rock band which the world would come to known as Green Day. At first, their songs were about typical things that caused 90’s teenagers angst: parents, teachers, school, work, friends and girlfriends. Eventually, everyone got tired of their music, including the band themselves! In 2005, instead of the typical songs, lead singer Billie Joe wanted to create album that told of story from his life. This album would become known as American Idiot. To date, this is their most popular album, so popular, it became a tour, a live album and even a music. Let’s take a look at it.

 

The first track serves as a prologue of the story of the album, and it sets the scene. The song “American Idiot describes how the main character sees the world he is in. American is run by politics and the media, all driven by agendas and bias. They tell the American people what to believe in how to act. They use propaganda as a tool, and it only leads to a paranoid people. In the end, it turns all Americans into American Idiots, hence the title of the album and the song title [“American Idiot”].

The second track of the album introduces the main character. Billie Joe Armstrong gives him the name “Jesus of Suburbia.” Armstrong has carefully chosen the name, as the first part of the song uses Biblical imagery to describe his main character. The lines “the bible of none of the above” and “No one died for my sins in hell” describe the Jesus of Suburbia as a self-centered and self-righteous egotist. He says/sings, “There’s nothing wrong with me. This is the way I’m supposed to be,” yet he seeks answers for the problems of life. He starts his search in his hometown, following the adage “home is where your heart is,” but it only leads to disappointment. Singing “…everyone’s heart doesn’t beat the same, we’re beating out of time,” he says there is no connection in relation.  He sings, “Like the holy scriptures of a shopping mall /And so it seemed to confess / It didn't say much / But it only confirmed that / The center  of the earth / Is the end of the world.” He means that no one knows the answer any better than he does, and he concludes that listening to one another then just make everything worse.  So the Jesus of Suburbia denounces his home city, concluding it to dead and damned [“Jesus of Suburbia” Part 2 – City of the Damned]. What hurts Jesus of Suburbia is that no one seems to care, even looking upon the dirty faces of lost children. Jesus of Suburbia denounces them again, calling them liars, hypocrites, and the worse, “hearts recycled but never saved.” He condemns their beliefs as “make believe,” and therefore he doesn’t believe. So he replies in the song, “If you don’t care, then neither do I!” At the end of part 3, subtitled “I Don’t Care,” two phrases describe the Jesus of Suburbia: not believing and not caring [“Jesus of Suburbia” Part 3 – I Don’t Care.” Jesus of Suburbia cries out for help, hoping someone can give him therapeutic advice, but no one answers, further reinforcing his belief that no one cares about anyone but himself or herself [“Jesus of Suburbia” – Part 4 Dearly Beloved] Because of his home city’s lack of concern, Jesus of Suburbia concludes he will never find his answer in his home city. To stay and die there would be tragic because he’d never have his answers. So he runs away, and leaves the city behind, to find out what he really believes [“Jesus of Suburbia” – Part 5 Tales of Another Broken Home].

Jesus leaves his home city for the big city. The big city give him new life. For Jesus of Suburbia to be in the big city, it’s like his life is one big holiday, one big vacation (In British English and Australian English, the words “holiday” and “vacation” can be used as synonyms)[“Holiday”]. Yet when the emotional high of new beginnings settles down, Jesus of Suburbia then experiences an emotional hangover. Despite being in a big city, he realizes he is all alone. The only companion is his own shadow. He still longs for someone to find him and give him his answers [“Boulevard of Broken Dreams”].

Upon realizing he is alone, the Jesus of Suburbia begins to have his doubts. Things seem to be no different. Whether he’s in his home city where he is metaphorically alone (no one cares),  or the big city where he’s literally alone, he ends up alone either way. Doubts enter his mind, “The Jesus of Suburbia is a lie.” He repetitious scream, “Are we, we are, are we, we are the waiting” has him thinking, “What am I waiting for?” He feels like he’s waiting for something that will never happen, something that will never come true, a fairy tale [“Are We The Waiting”].When all of a sudden, lo and behold, another character enters the story. Billie Joe gives him the name St. Jimmy. St. Jimmy describes himself as “the needle in the vein of establishment,” “the product of war and fear that we’ve been victimized” and twice “I'm the patron saint of the denial, with an angel face and a taste for suicidal. St. Jimmy seems to be the typical bad boy. He interests are in crime, gangs, sex, drugs and rock and roll [“St. Jimmy”].

St. Jimmy convinces Jesus of Suburbia to take the same route as he does. Jesus of Suburbia follows St. Jimmy’s footsteps. He takes drugs to numb the pain his problems have caused [“Give Me Novocain”]. It appears that Jesus of Suburbia will fall into a slump he will never get out off, when all of a sudden a new character appears out of nowhere. Armstrong gives her the name Whatserface, which will make more sense by the end of the album. The singer describes Whatserface as a rebel, a saint, salt of the earth, dangerous, vigilante, missing link on the brink of destruction, the symbol of resistance and the mother of all bombs. Her path of life involves liberating people of the old way of thinking and starting a revolution of new thinking [“She’s A Rebel”].

Jesus of Suburbia falls in love with Whatserface. The two enter some kind of relationship, whether it be friendship or a romantic one. Either way, Jesus of Suburbia falls deeper in love with her, both with who she is and what she does. Unlike the people of his home city, Whatserface legitimately cares for people. Jesus of Suburbia finds Whatserface to be an extraordinary girl. Yet problems arise in their relationship. [“Extraordinary Girl”]. It’s not her; it’s him. In “Letterbomb,” a letter from Whatserface to Jesus of Suburbia ending the relationship, Whatserface confronts him with his problems. For Whatserface, Jesus of Suburbia not only represents the problems in the city she’s trying to solve, he seems to be contributing to them. The climax of the song, and the album, comes near the end of the song. Whatserface says/sings, “You're not the Jesus of Suburbia. The St. Jimmy is a figment of your father's rage and your mother's love, made me the idiot America.” This reveals so much. For the first time, the listener realizes that St. Jimmy isn’t real. St. Jimmy either been a schizophrenic hallucination or a bipolar alter ego. On top of that, Whatserface calls out the main character for daring to call himself the Jesus of Suburbia. His whole title, “son of rage and love,” was from his father’s rage and his mother’s love, and both of them were formed by the American Idiot condemned at the beginning of the album. If the main character really was the “Jesus of Suburbia,” he would be doing more like what Whatserface was. Ultimately, Whatserface blames Jesus of Suburbia for the city’s problems. She decides to take the same path Jesus of Suburbia (we’ll still call the main character that until the end to prevent further confusion) took at the beginning of the album and leave the city behind, and leave Jesus of Suburbia behid with him [“Letterbomb”].

In the song “Wake Me Up When September Ends,” Jesus of Suburbia realizes that he still had some innocence in him, and now he lost the last bit of innocence. His innocence led him to think that he could find the perfect answer to all his problems. His innocence led him to believe that the big city and the “holiday feeling” could give him the answer.  His naïve innocence led him to follow St. Jimmy’s path of sex, drugs and rock and roll for an answer. Instead of gaining from his innocence, those events resulted in losing innocence. And ultimately, he loses Whatserface as a result.

In the beginning of the song “Homecoming,” Jesus of Suburbia finds himself alone once again, with doubt. St. Jimmy makes another appearance. He argues that Whatserface was wrong. He blames other people, mainly Jesus of Suburbia’s mother and father, and offers the solution, returning to the world of sex, drugs and rock and roll. Jesus of Suburbia faces a challenge. He can either return to St. Jimmy or start all over and try again. The end of part 1 of the song sums up the decision: “St. Jimmy died today. He blew his brains out into the bay. In my state of mind, my own private suicide.” St. Jimmy’s metaphorical suicide represents that Jesus of Suburbia acknowledged St. Jimmy was not real, but a part of Jesus of Suburbia, a part that needed to stop [“Homecoming” Part 1 - The Death of St. Jimmy]. Yet it comes at a cost. St. Jimmy at least made Jesus of Suburbia felt like he had company. After killing St. Jimmy, Jesus of Suburbia comes to an even harder realization that he is alone, and no one cares. Aiming to really become his namesake, Jesus of Suburbia signs up for community service (Part 2 is called East 12^th Street. East 12^th street is where Billie Joe Armstrong had to do community service after his DUI arrest). The job is not as life changing as Jesus of Suburbia hoped, as he is only doing paperwork. He finds himself wishing again to get out [“Homecoming” Part 2 - East 12^th Street]. Yet Whatsername’s word won’t get out of his head, “Nobody likes you. Everyone left you. They're all out without you havin fun.” Not only can he not get her words out of his head, he can’t her out of his head. He finds himself constantly missing her, hoping she’ll come back [“Homecoming” Part 3 – Nobody Likes You]. Going back to his old life in the big city isn’t an option. In a postcard from a friend, Jesus of Suburbia learns that his friend Tunny has sobered up and cleaned himself up, which allowed him to start a famous and successful rock band. His friend asks Jesus of Suburbia to get off his case and leave him alone [Homecoming Part 4 – Rock and Roll Girlfriend]. So Jesus of Suburbia decides to return to his home city. Running away has not solved his problem. When he left home, his problems followed him, and the big city made them worse. Neither the holiday feeling of the big city or St. Jimmy’s lifestyle gave him the answer. Jesus of Suburbia gives up on finding the answers out there and just goes home. Yet, Jesus of Suburbia still can’t get Whatsername’s words out of his head, “Nobody likes you. Everyone left you. They're all out without you havin fun.” [“Homecoming” Part 5 – We’re Coming Home Again].

The last song, “Whatserface,” takes place years after the previous song “Homecoming.” It would seem that Jesus of Suburbia has changed to be like Whatserface, which would be liberating people from the old way of thinking to start a revolution of new thinking. This is why Jesus of Suburbia says/sings in the last line of the last song of the album “Forgetting you, but not the time.” While Jesus of Suburbia might have forgotten the girl’s name, hence calling her “Whatserface,” he has not forgotten her personality and what she stands for. He lives on her legacy by living out that lifestyle himself. Yet he can’t help but miss her and wish she was back [“Whatserface”].

Now that we have all observed a summary of the story in American Idiot, let’s make some interpretations. Now that we have a full view of the story, the listener comes to recognize that St. Jimmy was never a real person. I’d like to go further and say that the Jesus of Suburbia is not a real person either. Jesus of Suburbia too is a name given to describe the personality of a character. Then who is the main character? The album does not say. The musical, which goes by the same name, gives the main character the name “Johnny,” so let’s call him Johnny.

So what does Jesus of Suburbia and St. Jimmy have to do with the main character, Johnny, if each one is not the main character himself? For that, you need to know some Freud. In Freud’s model of the psyche, Freud said that the ego was mediator between the super ego and the id. The id is the part of the self that drives the instinctual drives, desires, wants and needs. Of course, Freud being Freud, is was about sex and power. The super ego is the critical and moral side of the self. In short, the ego is made up of the balance between id and superego. What does this have to with American Idiot? I believe the Freudian psyche model accurately describes what is happening to the ego of Johnny. The super ego is the Jesus of Suburbia. Johnny’s superego, Jesus of Suburbia, is not happy with American being idiots. He wants change. The id is St. Jimmy. Sex, drugs, and punk rock are examples of things the id goes after. The whole story is about this battle between Johnny’s id and super ego to comprise his ego. At first, it’s Johnny’s super ego which pushes him to not accept unbelieving unsympathetic society he’s grown up in. Then the id steps in under the name of St. Jimmy, telling Billie the answer is in sex, drugs and rock and roll. Johnny listens to him, but his problems only become worse.

There it is again. We see again the heart’s tendency to lean towards the evil and lean away from the good. Johnny found it easier to listen to St. Jimmy, but found it hard to listen to Jesus of Suburbia. I believe this album became so popular because people could relate on how easy it is to evil and how hard it is to do good. Also, we notice another key aspect everyone can relate to: the struggle part. For years, people have tried to explain what this struggle could be.

Sigmund Freud tried to explain this is in terms of id, superego and ego. For Freud, the id is the selfish wants and desires that demands “I want it now,” the superego is the altruistic, utilitarian and moralistic side that informs you, “That’s not right,” and the ego is the real you, the compromise between the superego and the id. While Freud might have been onto something, I don’t like his conclusions. For starters, a Jew gone atheist does not belong in the church. Most importantly, Freud’s ego consists of a compromise between the selfish and the altruistic, the good and the evil. Freud’s philosophy states that the ego finds a moral excuse to act immorally. The Bible clearly teaches that no action is moral unless our thoughts and feelings are also moral.

The media tries to explain it, mainly in children’s cartoons. It is portrayed in the imagery of a “shoulder angel” and a “shoulder demon.” The shoulder angel whispers into one ear the right, good thing to do, and the shoulder demon whispers into the other ear the mean, selfish things to do. My favorite example of this comes from the Disney animated film The Emperor’s New Groove. While this may help explain to children moral decisions and moral dilemmas, I wouldn’t build a theology around it. This illustration makes it look like the shoulder angel and shoulder demon have equal strength and an equal opportunity to influence the person. The Bible makes it clear that the person with the deceitful heart is enslaved to do evil, unless the Almighty God intervenes, which we will get to now.

So how should Christians respond to this doctrine of the sinful nature?

First, people should admit and confess their sinful nature. There’s a saying that goes something along the lines of, “The greatest lie the Devil ever told was convincing people that he didn’t exist.” I would say along those lines that the next greatest lie that the Devil ever told was convincing people that they are good. When people are convinced they are good, even the most basic sense, they refuse to work on better themselves when they do sin. This is even harder for Christians. We know are process of sanctification, the process of becoming less sinful and more holy, yet that doesn’t mean we don’t deal with temptation or sin. That’s where we can get tripped up. We can allow the devil to convince us, “Well, you’re born again and you’re in the process of sanctification, so that thought/feeling must be right.” We must put our guard up. If Judah might have confessed their sin and guilt, God might have spared them from Nebuchadnezzar, but that would have required humility, which Judah did not have. Let us humble ourselves to admit our sin and confess we cannot do anything along.

Second, people need to receive the cure. If you read Jeremiah 17:9 in the New International Version, it reads, “The heart is deceitful and beyond all cure.” I get what they’re doing here. They are attempting to explain that absolute adjective form, which the English Standard Version explains as “desperately.” I don’t like their interpretive move because, simply put, there is a cure. Jeremiah may have given a lot of bad news, but Jeremiah did give some good news. Jereiah got to foresee the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31. Specifically, in Jeremiah 31:33,34, the Lord says, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” There is a cure, and his name is Jesus. Jesus was both a rebel and a saint. He rebelled against the legalistic religiosity of Pharisees and the Sadducees, and yet he did not break a sing law, staying holy. Christ’s death and resurrection ushered in the New Covenant that Jeremiah foresaw. Instead of a heart bent towards to sin and evil, the New Covenant gives us a heart towards holiness. How is that possible? The prophet Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeremiah, also saw the New Covenant. In Ezekiel 36:26 God announces that he will give those in the New Covenant a new heart. Only a brand new heart can break this addiction to sin and allow sanctify ourselves. That heart can only come through Jesus. If you haven’t called on Jesus, believe in him, and you will get your new heart.

Third, we must remove all sin in our lives. Sin is destructive, both to the individual and the corporate. If we don’t rid our lives of sin, it will only lead to destructive results. Romans 8:13 says, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” I like how John Owens, a Puritan preacher, said it, “Be killing sin or it will be killing you.”

Fourth, what we about the sinful nature of the heart should lead to praise God for his grace and mercy. Now I am getting back to those still struggling with this teaching. Those struggling with this doctrine might be thinking right now, “What about non-profit organizations, like the Red Cross? Are you really trying to convince me that they are evil?” I would not say they are evil, but I will not say that the goodness they create is a goodness that comes from their own heart. I credit that goodness to the grace and mercy of our Lord God. All things good can only come our Heavenly Father (James 1). When we credit goodness to humanity’s own head, heart and hands, we rob God of praise he deserves. Let us praise God bringing goodness down to earth through his grace and mercy, even when it seems like humanity is doing the opposite.

1 John 1: Pathological Liars

Have you ever been around a pathological liar? A pathological liar is someone who lies so much, he/she have convinced himself/herself that his/her lies are really the truth. Anything that contradicts their false truth, even if it is the real truth, is a lie in his/her mind. It’s kind of scary being around pathological liars because they don’t know what truth is, and they can easily distort the truth in their minds. Did you the Bible calls out some people to be pathological liars spiritually? It does, right here in 1 John 1.

1 John 1 is the shortest chapter of 1 John, only 10 verses long. I believe that this chapter can be divided evenly in half into two sections. True, most Bible translations will make the section splits between verse 4 and verse 5, but I believe verse 5 belongs more with the first 4 verses than it does with the last 5 verses. It all has to do with seeing 1 John 1:1-5 as a prologue. If you can recollect from my studies on 1 John, I displayed how John 1 (John 1 broadly, John 1:1-18 specifically) served as a prologue to the Gospel of John. 1 John 1:1-15 will also become a prologue. Any reader can be certain of this, for it has many parallels to John 1:1-18. If you want to, you can go back and re-read John 1:1-18 to find these parallels. But if you rather not, let me give you my paraphrase of John 1:1-18…

“In the beginning was the Word. The Word was the same as God, and yet the Word was different than God at the same time. The Word was there since the beginning of the creation, and the Word created everything. The Word created life and the Word created goodness. The Word gave goodness to the life in the world known as humankind, but humankind rejected it for sin and evil. So the Word, goodness incarnate, became flesh. We knew him as Jesus. Jesus presented goodness to mankind, but mankind also rejected the goodness that was Jesus and killed him. There are some, however, that received Jesus, and thus have eternal life. Such men are John the Baptist, who testified about Jesus before Jesus, and John the disciple, who testified about Jesus after Jesus. These men were not the good news, but they testified about the good news.”

And I was finishing my paraphrase of John 1:1-18, I looked back on 1 John 1:1-5 and I almost stopped and deleted it. For if you look at 1 John 1:1-5, you’ll notice it says everything John 1 was saying in 5 verses. 1 John 1:1-5 is the perfect paraphrase of John 1:1-18. Just like in John 1:1, John starts out 1 John in 1 John 1:1 by talking about the Word. This time, in 1 John, John decides to add the prepositional phrase, “of life.” Many scholars have attempted to distinguish “the Word of life” as different or separate from “the Word,” but all I think John is simply doing is reminding the audience that life (and eternal life!) is from the Word. Once again, John reminds us that the Word was present since the dawn of time. When John uses phrases like “seen with our eyes” and “our hands have touched” in 1 John 1:1, John is reinforcing that the Word became flesh, as stated in John 1:14. Moving into 1 John 1:2, the word “testify” appears. It parallels John 1, where John the Baptist is the one testifying about Jesus before Jesus came. Now that Jesus has come and gone, it’s the disciples who are now testifying about Jesus. Also, in verse 2, notice the phrase “…which was with the Father and has appeared to us.” Clearly, John has finally gotten that to see Jesus was to see the Father, and to know Jesus was to know the Father. 1 John 1:3 states because Christians can know and see the Father through Jesus, Christians can have a relationship with God the Father, and fellowship with him.

Now here comes 1 John 1:5. I truly believe that 1 John 1:5 belongs with the prologue. My biggest proof would be its parallels to the prologue in John 1. If you can recall in my studies of the Gospel of John, I suggested that John 1:1-18 not only states that Jesus is the Word incarnate, but it also states that Jesus is the True Light incarnate. Looking at John 1 alone, this suggestion would be merely a theory, for John does not explicitly say in John 1 that Jesus is the True Light who became flesh. 1 John 1:5 does say that a little more explicitly. 1 John 1:5 says that God is Light. Notice the equitive sentence: “God is light.” I did look this up in the Greek, and even the Greek manuscripts have no article for “light.” God is not a light. God is not the light. God is light. Follow my logic. If God is light, and Jesus is God, then Jesus is light. The same principle applies to Jesus. Jesus is not a light. Jesus is not the light. Jesus is light. Jesus is light incarnate. In this way 1 John 1:5 parallels John 1:1-18, so I see it as fitting best in the prologue.

I want to remind you what “light” means in this context. Yes, it can refer to physical light, as Jesus made physical light. But light also takes on a symbolic meaning as well. Symbolically, light also means moral goodness. It does fit the context of 1 John, and even fits the context of the Gospel of John. Both God and Jesus are the symbolic meaning of light, for they holy, or perfectly good. It definitely makes the next part of the verse make more sense, too. The rest of 1 John 1:5 states that God has no darkness. The Greek manuscripts use a double negative. In English, double negatives negate one another and make the statement really positive, but in Greek, a double negative adds more emphasis to the negative. Sometimes double negatives are translated as the word “never.” A literal translation of 1 John 1:15 could be “…in Him there is no darkness – none at all.” Now take the symbolic meaning of that. If light is symbolic for moral goodness, then darkness symbolizes sin and evil. There is no sin or evil in God or Jesus – none at all. 1 John 1:5 reminds of the doctrine that God is holy, and then applies it to Jesus. Jesus is holy. And it doesn’t matter if you see 1 John 1:5 as being with verses 1 to 4 or verses 6 to 10, either way, 1 John 1:5 serves as a perfect transition between the two sections. For if God is morally good, without any sin or evil, then that is what Christians should strive to be.

For the next part, the best way to get across John’s message is to show the parallels John is using. Now this is going to get a little tricky because I know that this blog's template will not allow me to accurately format a table. But read 1 John 1:6,7 and try to connect like words and phrases.

As you can see, John is using If/then clauses to compare and contrast claims with the true results. The parallels are not clear cut as they seem, so let me explain them. John presents two possible ways to walk in 1 John 1:6,7. A person can either walk in light or walk in darkness. These are the only two options to John. They are black and white, and there are no gray areas. You’re either walking in darkness or walking in light. Even if you are walking in darkness and claim to be in fellowship with God, that does not put you in the light, it is no different than walking anyway else to be walking in darkness. John declares that anyone who walks in darkness, they do not live by the truth. Even if they claim they are with God, they are lying to themselves. Those who are in darkness can’t be in fellowship with God because God is light, and darkness is nowhere near God. On the flip side, those who walk in light do have fellowship with God because God is light. If we walk in the light, we must be in fellowship with the light. May I be clear here that “fellowship with one another” is not between Christians, but rather a mutual relationship between God and his people. Those who walk in the light fellowship with God just as much as God fellowships with them. It all goes back to God being light. Think about what Jesus said about light and darkness, or good and evil, in the 3rd chapter of the Gospel of John. Men refused to come into the light because they were afraid the light would expose their evil deeds. So they continued to walk in the darkness because they loved their evil deeds so much. John once again confronts his readers with this hard truth. If people continue to walk in darkness, it shows they want no part of the holy God. Those who walk in light want to be a part of God.

Also, take into consideration the historical occasion of epistle of 1 John. False teachers are presenting false teachings to the churches. Here, John presents a way to check if the teacher is a true teacher of the gospel or a false teacher. False teachers will continue to walk in darkness. Even if a teacher claims that he is in fellowship with God, if he walks in darkness, he is a false teacher, who teaches only lies. But if a teacher walks in the light, he is a true teacher of the gospel because he is in fellowship with God.

Believe it or not, that was the easier teachings. Now let’s move on to the harder teaching, the one found in 1 John 1:8-10.

Once again, the parallels aren’t as smooth as we would like them to be, so let me once again draw out the parallels. The “If Clauses” of verses 8 and 10 are synonymous, for they mean the same thing. Remember that human beings are sinners 3 times over. First, humans are born as sinners. Second, humans have a sinful nature, driving them to do the sinful more than good. Third, humans commit sins in their deeds, words and thoughts. Therefore, if any human being were to claim to not have sin in one of those ways, the person is also claiming to be sinless (at least in that way). When we do so, as the “Then Clauses” will tell us, we lie twice. Not only do we call God a liar (for God has stated many times in His word that humans are fallen sinners), we lie to ourselves, for God is not a liar, nor are we sinless. If we call God a liar, then we do not deserve the Word of God. The Word of God is truth. If we treat the Word of God as if it is a lie, then we are mistreating and abusing the Word of God, and we do not deserve it.

Before I throw in 1 John 1:9 into the mix, I want to remind everyone of the antithesis (meaning opposition, contrast, etc.) between truth and lies. If you remember from the Gospel of John, Jesus stated that the Devil is the father of lies and lies are the Devil’s language. Therefore, whether a person uses truth or lies shows which side the person is on. If a person lies, then that person is still a slave to Satan and a slave to sin. If the person tells the truth, then that person has God as their Father. That is why 1 John 1:8 says that the people who deceive themselves (accept their lie[s] as truth) do not have the truth. God is truth, and Satan is lies. Those who accept the lies, accept the Devil, and they do not have God.

The lie that 1 John 1:8-10 is one of the biggest lies that the Devil still likes to use today. A widely popular theory floating around about children is that are born good with a clean slate. Thus, Satan declares that we are not sinners from birth, a lie. Another widely popular theory is that humans, when faced with a good decision and an evil decision, will most likely pick the good decision on their own because there is more good in their heart than evil. Thus, the Devil deems that we do not have a sinful nature, a lie. It may not be a philosophy, but all you have to do is turn on your TV and watch court shows (both fictional, like Law & Order, and non-fictional, like Judge Judy) or talk shows, (like Dr. Phil), and you will find people, both the professional and non-professional, the intellectual and the non-intellectual, defend their acts that the Bible clearly declares as sin as justified to do. The prince of demons has once again got humans justifying their evil acts as good, a lie. What does 1 John 1:8-10 say about the people who adapt these philosophies? They have lied to themselves, and have accepted the lie as a truth. Thus, they do not know the truth. If they know the truth, then they do not know God and have no part with God. Ladies and gentlemen, as hard as it is to expose the world of sin, it is necessary, for without the conviction, the world is doomed to condemnation and destruction.

But wait! There’s hope! Now look at 1 John 1:9. First, let me start by saying that the “If Clause” of 1 John 1:9 are antithetically parallel, or they contrast one another. The opposite of claiming to be without sin is to claim to be with sin. To claim to be with sin is to confess sin. What John is doing is providing an alternative. You don’t have to claim to be without sin, as the false teachers would do. You can confess your sins. In that case, God will forgive you and purify you from all unrighteousness. When God does, you will have fellowship with God.

Once again, consider the historical context. Most of false teachers were teaching that since Jesus died on the cross and paid for your sins, God doesn’t care whether you sin or not because all sin has been paid for. False teachers taught that all the way back in the 1st century, and false teachers today in the 21st century still preach that message. Many people today believe that all you have to do is believe Jesus Christ existed and paid for you sins, and you can then live whatever lifestyle you choose, even if it’s sinful, because Jesus has paid the price for you. Once again, for an example, I will have you recall a Xanga site banner that said, “Sex is a sin, but sin is forgiven, so let’s begin!” Those who do believe that become a liberal Christian, believing that all God wants is for you to be happy and live any lifestyle you want. While I do believe God wants us to be happy, I believe part of the deception this world has fallen into is that we’ve traded the true meaning of happiness and joy for a lie, a fake happiness that is only temporary. Even John says in 1 John 1:4 that these teachings, no matter how hard or tough, will give a complete joy to the Christian’s life. God does want us to be happy, but He doesn’t want us to gain happiness over the hurt of others or the hurt of ourselves. And sin will always lead to the hurt of others or the hurt of ourselves.

Believe it or not, I don’t think this false teaching was merely a brand new, made up teaching. Instead, the teacher was a misguided or incorrect view of the atonement that Jesus paid on the cross. A lot of false teachings use this method. They will use familiar language, like “Christian-ese” to make it sound Christian, but really, it isn’t. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons thrive on this. They will insist that they are just another denomination of Christian because they have God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels, Satan and demons. In reality, a closer look at their beliefs will reveal they are far from it. Here’s an illustration I like to us. Imagine you went up to someone and ask, “Do you believe in Santa Claus?” The person replies, “Of course I believe in Santa. How could I not? After all, Santa Claus is the man who lurks in the night in October and scares and beats little children that don’t listen to their parents. But the few children who always listen to their parents, Santa Claus turns their eggs into chocolate!” Now, after giving this person a few odd looks, the first thought that would come to your mind would be, “That’s not Santa Claus. Are you insane?” Yet Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons do the exact same thing to Jesus, and some people still yet insist they are Christians, no more or less than any other denomination. Well, in my mind, they are far from orthodox Christianity, too far away to be considered Christian. Yet they are not too far off, so far off that they need to be taught from scratch. Instead, they simply need to be re-taught, or have their false teaching corrected into true teachings.

Consider another illustration. (I know this illustration is going to seem far-fetched when it comes to the distances of the locations, but I picked the locations because they will be easy to picture in the mind or easy to locate on a map.) Imagine I am touring with a group of Bible scholars around the continental U.S. to promote Bible literacy. We have just completed a weekend tour in New York City, and we are ready to continue our tour to the next location: Miami, Florida. The group calculated that it would cheaper to drive down to Miami than it would be to fly, so we all begin to drive down to Miami. As I pass Philadelphia on the highway, I realize that I forgot my suitcase in New York City! Not only did that suitcase have my clothes and my toiletries for the week, it also had my notes and the books I used for sources! There is no way I can do any of my work without it, and I don’t have the time or money to get it shipped down to Miami. So I make the next possible legal u-turn, turn around, and head back to New York City. Now consider my u-turn. How is my driving journey the same as before I made the u-turn? It is the same because I am passing through the same cities. How is it different? It is different because I am going a different direction. Instead of going south, I am going north. A person under false teachings does not need totally start from new. The person merely has to make a u-turn, and take a different look at their doctrinal stances.

A shorter illustration I could use is a spin on an old adage. When a teacher asked you a question in school, and you were sort of close, but not exactly right, did your teacher say, “You’re on the right track!” My teachers would say that to me, and I would reply, “Right track, wrong train.” And it technically did work, as in, “Right track of thought, wrong train of thought.” I think that describes people who follow false teachings. They are on the right track, but they are on the wrong train, or their train of thought is going in the wrong direction. They simply need to be put on the right train of thought, the train of thought going in the right direction.

Coming full circle, I believe the false teachers who are teaching that God doesn’t care about sin are only on the wrong train of thought or are going the wrong direction. They understand that God’s atonement means that our sins are forgiven, so well that God does not remember them. Yet that does not give us a “free to sin” card or permission slip. Instead, it rather means that if we do slip up, make a mistake and sin, it’s not the end of the world. Even though we are saved, we’re still battling that sinful nature. And occasionally, we’ll fall into temptation, we’ll make a mistake and we’ll sin. That doesn’t mean our salvation is in question. All we have to do is confess and repent, and we will be forgiven. I think that’s why John did throw in 1 John 1:9. If John did not include verse 9, and he only included verses 8 and 10, we would have Christians falling into guilt, and having the other Christians surrounding them fall into legalism.

Even now, as I promote here Christians not falling into sin, I must be careful to not give a mindset or legalism. In order to do so, I give another illustration. I believe the sanctification process of a Christian is like a mother and a father teaching their young child how to work. You can all picture the scene in your head. One parent is at the one end of the room, and the other parent is at the other end of the room. Most likely, one of the parents has video camera in hand. Then the parent at the far end of the room beckons the child to leave his one parent’s arms to walk into the arms of the other parents at the other side of the room. Rarely will the child make the trek on his or her own two feet in the first try. Most of the time, the child will fall even before he or she makes the halfway point. If you are a parent, and you’ve gone through this experience at least once, you could probably relate. Now tell me, when your child falls, do you punish the child? Do you send the child to his or her room? Do you put the child in time out? Do you spank the child? No! You dust the child off, put him or her back at the start, and try again. I could also use the analogy of teaching an older child to ride a bike, for it works the same way. A parent won’t punish the child for falling off the bike. The parent would just help dust the child off and help the child start over again. I really believe that is how our sanctification works. God the Father, our Father, beckons off to leave our life of sin and to come over to holiness that God has. We won’t make it over in this lifetime. We’ll stumble and fall. Yet God does not disown us because we do. He’ll just dust us off, forgive us, and have us try again. All God asks is that we at least leave that life of sin before we were saved, and He expects it from us.

So who are the people that the Bible calls pathological liars spiritually? The spiritual pathological liars are the ones who sin and walk in darkness and yet claim to be without sin and in fellowship with God. In essence, a pathological liar is someone who deceives himself/herself. Satan is the king of deception, so Satan is the king of the spiritual pathological liars, for Satan convinces the world that his lies are the truth. It is like Satan is pathological lying incarnate. If anyone is pathological liar spiritually, he/she is walking the same path Satan is walking. But if a person is willing to confess that he/she is not the source of truth, but God is the source of truth, he/she will come into the light and have fellowship with God. Let us throw off the postmodern mindset the lifts up our truth as absolute, and we must humble ourselves to accept God’s truth the absolute truth.

John 3: Nick@Nite

My favorite band of all time is the ApologetiX, a Christian parody band. The first album of theirs that I owned was called Keep the Change. My favorite song from their album Keep the Change is “The Real Sin Savior,” a parody of “The Real Slim Shady” by Eminem. One of the lines from that song that sticks out to me is “But if Jesus loved his enemies, and Pharisees…” The first couple times I heard this song, I thought it said, “But if Jesus loved his enemies, like Pharisees…” The ApologetiX could have said the same thing and it would be true. Jesus did preach, on the Sermon on the Mount, to love our enemies. I truly believe Jesus never asked his followers to do anything He did not do. So we ask, “How did Jesus love his enemies?” but then that leads us to ask, “Who were His enemies?” Christ’s enemies were the ones who opposed Him and His gospel message. Mostly, those opponents were the Pharisees and the Sadducees, as well as other religious parties within the Jewish religion. So Christ’s enemies were the Pharisees and Sadducees. So how did Jesus show love to the Pharisees and Sadducees? Whenever a Pharisee or Sadducee would approach Jesus in a way that wasn’t meant to insult Him, belittle Him, threaten Him or doubt His authority, Jesus always was open to discuss spiritual matters in a non-threatening environment. John 3 paints a wonderful picture of this.

John 3 opens in verse 1 by introducing Nicodemus, and with quite a résumé. Nicodemus is a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish Ruling Council, which some people might know better as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was a Jewish Ruling Council of 70 Jews, from each and every religious party. They were still under Roman rule in the Roman Empire, but among Jews, they were the highest form of government. Religiously speaking, these 70 men were the most intellectual and most spiritual Jews in the land. Nicodemus definitely had the five books of Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) memorized, and it’s very possible that Nicodemus had all the books of the Tanak (what we know as the Old Testament) memorized. The Bible only speaks positively of 3 Sanhedrin members: Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Gamiliel. But the Bible doesn’t just hand Nicodemus a positive outlook, so we’ll see how Nicodemus builds up that repertoire throughout the Gospel of John.

Verse 2 first tells the reader that Nicodemus came at night. The Bible doesn’t explicitly tell the reader why Nicodemus came at night, but I have a hunch. It’s the same reason why crime happens more often in the night than in the day. Because of the darkness, night is associated with hiddenness and secrecy. Even if there is 3 men in the Sanhedrin on the side of Jesus, there’s still 67 (maybe more, maybe less) who are against Jesus. If Nicodemus is exposed as being on the side of Jesus, or even giving Jesus a chance, he could be ridiculed or discredited among the Sanhedrin. So Nicodemus has to go when there is the fewest amount of witnesses. As the reader reads on in verse 2, the reader learns that Nicodemus is a skeptic, what politicians would call a “swing vote.” Going back to the Sanhedrin’s stance on Jesus, some scholars have suggested that the standpoint Nicodemus reveals in his beliefs about Jesus is where most of the Sanhedrin members stand on Jesus. They don’t want to believe Jesus is sent from God because Jesus is preaching against them. Yet they can’t help but believe Jesus is from God because of all the miraculous signs. Especially consider this in light of the temple cleansing in John 2. When Jesus cleanses the temple, the Jews demand a miraculous sign to back up his actions. Now, sticking with my belief that the temple cleansing happened within a week of Christ’s crucifixion, Jesus has been performing several miracles, many of which were healing people. On top of that, Christ’s preaching itself was a sign and testimony to His authority (see Matthew 12:39 and Luke 11:29). So signs are aplenty. It all comes down to whether or not the Jews accept the signs, for whatever those reasons may be. Nicodemus realizes it has come down to this. It’s almost like Nicodemus is saying, “They don’t want you to be a rabbi, but you have to be, because as much as they like to deny it, you do have the signs to prove it.”

Since Jesus sees Nicodemus is coming to Him to really learn, Jesus presents Nicodemus with a simple teaching in verse 3. The NIV translates it as “born again” but other translations have translated it “born anew” or “born above.” All of these translations mean the same thing. Jesus is talking about a spiritual transformation that changes the whole person. Change like this can only come from above, from heaven, from the Father. When this transformation happens, it turns the person into a whole new person, as if he or she has a brand new life. Hence, it is appropriate to compare this to a second birth.

Yet in verse 4 Nicodemus can’t handle the metaphor, and he gets hung up by it. Nicodemus takes the metaphor very literally, believing he must re-enter his mother’s uterus and re-emerge from it in order to receive salvation. Christian readers know this obviously isn’t the answer. But I don’t think Nicodemus believes this is the answer either. It’s like Nicodemus is saying, “You don’t really expect me to believe I have to go through the birthing canal again, do you?”

Jesus can tell Nicodemus can’t handle this “born again” teaching with ease, so He makes the teaching easier for Nicodemus to understand. He uses an analogy of the Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit) to wind. In English, this analogy already makes sense, but it makes more sense in Hebrew and Greek, two languages in which Christ’s Jewish audience would be well familiar with. The Hebrew word is ruah and the Greek word is pneuma. In both languages the word means both “wind” and “spirit.” So comparing the Spirit to wind is like comparing apples to apples because it is the same word. It’s a beautiful wordplay. And whether you’re reading John 3 in Hebrew, Greek or English, the analogy works in full. Nobody knows the source of wind, nor its final destination. Back then, how wind worked puzzled people, and still today our laws about wind are fully complete. Just as wind is still somewhat a mystery, the Holy Spirit is a mystery to us in some aspects. Jesus even tries to reach out to Nicodemus using simple logic. Flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit. Simply state: Flesh --> Flesh, Spirit --> Spirit. This verifies Christ’s teaching above on being “born again.” Your first birth was a physical birth. Your second birth, in which you are “born again,” is a spiritual birth. Your physical birth was a result of man’s decision and man’s will (mom + dad. Need I say more) on the earth. Your spiritual birth comes from above, from heaven, from the Holy Spirit.

Before I move on, I guess I must make a comment on John 3:6, where Jesus says that no one is able to be born again “unless he is born of water and the spirit.” What does he mean, especially in regards to “of water and the spirit”? Someone might easily want to say that this is a reference to baptism, for when you are baptized with water, you receive the Holy Spirit. But from that, a lot of issues arise. What about that one criminal crucified next to Jesus who recognized he is being just punished for his evil deeds (I believe this is repentance) and who believes Jesus is Christ, God and sinless (I believe this is showing belief). He was not baptized, and Jesus told him that he would be in Heaven with Jesus. And what about the book of Acts, where people received the Holy Spirit before and after baptism, just as much as those who received it at the same time? Also, if this was a reference to baptism, wouldn’t that technically mean there is an act or work necessary for salvation, so salvation isn’t by faith alone? So it can’t be a reference to baptism. Others have claimed this parallels the difference between the first birth and the second birth. The first birth is of water (after all, when a woman is about to give birth, he “water breaks.”), and the second birth is of spirit. I would say this is the second best interpretation, for it tries to take this verse literally, but at the same time, it’s out of pure logic. People have tried to take “water” more as a metaphor, giving it symbolic. Perhaps water is a symbol for the Holy Spirit or the Word of God. I don’t like either of these interpretations, because it removes a literal meaning too much, and the meaning becomes purely allegorical. Instead, combine the symbolic meaning to first interpretation. When we think of “water” in our faith, we do normally think of baptism. What does baptism represent, or what is it a symbol of? It is a symbol that shows we are dead to our sin, and we are brought back to life by the work of the Holy Spirit. Ah, there’s that word, “Spirit.” So we know this interpretation is dead on track. “Born of water and of spirit” means that we must repent of our worldly life and worldly living, and instead let the Holy Spirit transform us to more spiritual beings. This is the best interpretation because it fits historically, logically and theologically.

Still, with all this explaining, Nicodemus still doesn’t get it. In verse 9, all Nicodemus can utter is, “How can this be?” Jesus wants to reply, “How can you be so dense?” but instead replies in verse 10, “You are Israel’s teacher and you do not know these things?” Christ’s question does raise some legitimate concerns. Nicodemus is on the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council. He’s suppose to have the Pentateuch memorized, and very possibly the whole Old Testament. Every Jew looks up to this man as a Rabbi who knows the way to God and can show other people the way. What a shocker it is to Jesus, and to the rest of the Jews, to find such a highly regarded Jewish man dumfounded. Think back to what I said about Nicodemus representing the general consensus of the Sanhedrin. If knowledge was measured in comparison to the population, Nicodemus would be average among the Sanhedrin. He probably carries the same knowledge as those 70 Jews do. So all 70 members of the Sanhedrin would also be dumfounded by Christ’s teachings. Maybe that is why so many Pharisees and Sadducees oppose Christ’s preaching. They just don’t get it. This kind of reminds me of the Dark Ages of the Church. The pope, the cardinals, the bishops and the archbishops were suppose to read, remember and understand the Scriptures in order to lead the parishioners into the right spiritual life. Instead, they stopped reading the Scriptures. Their memory of what the Bible actually said faded, and all they could remember was dogmatic tradition. Both this dogmatic tradition and the faint memories of their Bible reading they didn’t understand. It resulted in totally walking down the wrong path. Same seems to be true for the Sanhedrin in 1st century. They don’t understand what the Scriptures are telling them. Instead of receiving grace and faith, they resort to legalism.

I think Jesus sees this and calls out Nicodemus, as well as the whole Sanhedrin, on this. First, they call themselves teachers and rabbis, yet they still lack a lot, so much, they need to be taught. Second, as seen in verse 11, even if the Jews of the day did not understand what was being preached, they could have at least accepted the testimony, or the result, of what was true. Yet they did not even do that. In short, they could (and should) have said, “We don’t fully understand, but we’ll still believe it.” Instead, they said, “We don’t understand it, so it can’t be true!” Third, as seen in verse 12, they are trying to go onto bigger things without understanding the smaller things. It would be like a brain surgeon, trying to operate on a patient’s brain, without knowing how brain cells connect to one another. It would be like a rocket scientist, trying to build a newer rocket for astronauts to use, when the scientist does not know how combustion works. It would be like a mechanic, trying to build a car from scratch, without knowing the parts of an engine. Of course Nicodemus didn’t understand the spiritual matters Jesus was talking about! He couldn’t even comprehend how earthly matters worked! What Nicodemus may or may not have known is that no one can fully understand spiritual matters. Heck, even with the science we have today, we still don’t comprehend earthly matters either. This was humbling experience for Nicodemus, and it would also be a humbling experience for anyone, back then or today, who acts like they know everything earthly and spiritually. Lucky for Nicodemus, and for us, there is someone who does understand the spiritual world, because he was from the spiritual world. His name was Jesus. Jesus is the only one who descended from heaven, and he will also ascend there.

The thought of descending and ascending leads Jesus to another thought, a thought from history. No, it’s not Jacob’s ladder in Genesis, but rather the bronze snake in Numbers. Let me give you a quick reminder of the story. The Israelites are complaining and whining in the desert wilderness. God, sick of the Israelites constant complaining (and probably sick of having to come up with new punishments all the time) decides that if an Israelite sins, he or she will be painfully bitten by a poisonous snake, which will lead to sickness and even possibly death. Well, the Israelites realize their mistake and cry out to the Lord for salvation. So Moses seeks the Lord for a solution. God tells Moses to forge out of bronze a snake on a pole. If an Israelites sins, he or she will receive a fatal bite from a snake, but if the Israelite looks at the bronze snake on the bronze pole (a sign of repentance), God will forgive that individual and heal him or her from the snake poison. Jesus uses this typology for what He is going to do. Jesus reveals humankind is sick with a more deadly poison: sin. Sin kills us both physically and spiritually. The Son of Man, Jesus, will be lifted up like the Bronze Snake, but it will be on a cross. If anyone was to look towards Jesus on the cross (a sign of repentance and belief), he or she would be healed from sin and will receive eternal life.

Now before we go any further, we need to have a lexical study of John 3:16-21 (and “lexical study” simply means we’re going to look at the original text in its original language). If you were to look at different Bible translations, you might have notice that they differ in where they place the quote the ends Christ’s words. Most translations put the end quote after verse 21. But a few translations, like the RSV, place the quotes at the end of verse 15. The 1984 edition of the NIV places the quotes at the end of verse 15, but the 2011 edition has the quotes end at verse 21. What gives? Koine Greek, the Greek language of the 1st century AD, did not have quotation marks. So it’s not as clear when someone’s speaking begins and ends. Trust me, I take Greek. It’s frustrating translating because you don’t know if you should translate the sentence “The prophets say, ‘You should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.’” or “The prophets say that you should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.” Of course, I’m only beginning Greek 2, and some Greek experts might say this is an amateur mistake. But at the same time, this doesn’t mean the experts find translating easy, for there is debatable passages, such as John 3. So if the quotation ends at John 3:15, then who is saying John 3:16-21? That would be the narrator, who in this case is the beloved disciple John. Remember that John’s Gospel is a supplementary Gospel, one in which John gives his own commentary while narrating the events of the book. John 3:16-21 could simply be John explaining Christ’s teachings in John 3, especially 3:11-15. Proponents of the view that John 3:16-21 is John’s commentary say their number 1 proof is that that the speaker is speaking in the third person. But someone could easily object, showing that Jesus many times spoke in the third person. I do believe these verses, especially the famous 3:16 verse, are indeed the words of Jesus. I don’t want to go into the whole lexical, exegetical and hermeneutical arguments, so I will simply defend my view with the numbers. A majority of the scholars believe these words belong to Jesus, and most of these scholars are conservative scholars. A minority of scholars believe those verses are John’s words, and most of those scholars are liberal scholars. But at the end of the discussion and debate, someone can simply say that it doesn’t matter who said them, the words themselves speak a powerful message, a message that needs to be looked at. So let’s stop talking about who said it, and let’s look more at what these verses are saying.

I’m going to breeze over John 3:16 because most Christians already know. It has become a famous Bible verse, seen commonly at football games. One thing I will quickly note is that the Greek word for “perish” does not necessarily mean “annihilate” or “wiped out of existence” as we would think in our English minds. A better definition for perish in this context would be “ruined,” as if verse 16 is telling the reader that whoever does not believe in Jesus is ruining their life, and at the end of life, his or her life will be left in ruins. Very interesting concept. But enough of the famous verse. Let’s look at the lesser famous verses, which have a messages that is just as powerful, if not more powerful. I’ll even put them right into this text.

John 3:17-21-
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”

The common questions I will get from non-Christians are questions over the judgment of God, or sometimes even more specific, like the judgment of Jesus. These questions range from “Does God/Jesus judge people?” to “Does God/Jesus judge sin?” Sometimes these questions will turn into comments, some saying, “It’s wrong for God to judge people as sinners for all the wrong things they have done.” (and I still have to hear a convincing argument for why), while others say, “Jesus doesn’t judge people’s sins or judge people as sinners because He loves us and He forgave us.” There are many different routes we can go to point the errors in these comments, including correcting an incorrect view of the Law (or maybe even making light of the ignored Law!). But let’s stick to using this passage to formulate an answer, for both these questions and these comments/claims.

First of all, let me start by saying both the questions and comments are a result of a misunderstanding of the definition of “judgment,” which comes from an unnecessary negative connotation of the word “judgment.” It seems like the generations of the 21st century (and maybe I’ll even add the 1990s generation) have associated the word “judge/judgment” with having to go to court. With a generation that has heavy gang involvement, from which a “no snitching” policy has arisen, this generation has associated going to court, or going to a judge, as a negative experience because they have been convicted of a crime, and the judge will punish them. Even outside the court setting, a lot of people out of this generation, when judged by authorities or even older people, have come out with a bad judgment, for one reason or another. Either way, the 21st century generation sees judgment with a negative connotation, as if it was bad. But a closer look and deeper thought reveals it isn’t always true. Yes, it is bad if you are judged and declared guilty. But it’s good if you judged and declared innocent. It’s also good if the judgment brings justice to you. So “judge” and all forms of it (judging, judgment, etc.) are suppose to be neutral in connotation. The negative word is suppose to be “condemn,” which means to be judged, fail judgment, and to be punished with no hope of escape from the judgment and punishment. And there are many positive connotations to judge, like “forgive,” “innocent” or any other word that shows a positive passing of judgment.

Back to the verses, I do believe God and Jesus play an active role as judge, but I also believe there’s a more passive role, and John 3:17-18 bring light to that. When I say God/Jesus has a passive role in judging, I could simply state it as this: “When sinners stand in the presence of a holy and righteous God, their sins are exposed and they stand in judgment.” God doesn’t have to point out sins. The sins stand out like a sore thumb when they are exposed. To deny fully exposed sins would be like denying a black eye or a big pimple at the end of your nose, which everyone can see. I don’t have to announce to everyone that you have a black eye or big pimple at the end of your nose, for everyone who looks at your face will see it.

What a better way to talk about judgment that using courthouse language, as well as analogies to light and darkness. Did you catch the courthouse vocabulary? “This is the verdict.” Jesus is saying, “The trial has happened, judgment has been passed (neutrally!), and these are the results. What are the results? “Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” The Light is Jesus and His Gospel message, the one that will save humankind from their sins. The darkness is the sinful, fallen, depraved world we live in. Logically speaking, someone would think people would want to go from darkness to light. But they don’t! Why not? The light exposes the evil deeds of the dark world, and people are too afraid to come into to the light because their deeds will be exposed, and they will stand condemned. Why are they so afraid? Perhaps they are afraid of shame. Maybe they fear they will ruin their pride.

How true it is for this 21st century generation (and once again, may I add the 1990s generation into this). A common banner I see this generation’s youth and young adults wave is “You have no right to judge me.” This banner covers everything from religion to beliefs to morals. Sometimes this banner comes out in a passive form: “Well, that’s what you believe, but I believe different. So you believe what you believe, I’ll believe what I believe, and let’s keep it at that.” Other times, this banner has come out more aggressively: “How dare you judge me for my beliefs! Who gave you the right to decide my beliefs are wrong and yours are right?! Your beliefs are right for you, my beliefs are right for me.” Modernists blame postmodernism for this. Modernists claim that postmodernism has made beliefs, spirituality and religion so individualistic that every person’s religious and spiritual beliefs are their own religion and their own personal religious truth, so no one has the right to infringe on their “personal religion.” So what happens to morals? Morality becomes a thing of emotional feeling. If it feels right, it’s moral, but if it doesn’t feel right, it’s immoral. So if something feels right for you, but doesn’t feel right to me, that means it moral to you, but not moral to me. What kind of system is that?

There’s a reason John calls Jesus the “true light.” Think about what light can do. It’s easy to keep things hidden in darkness. You can place something out in the open in the darkness, and the darkness will hide it. It’s hard to hide things in the light, for light will expose everything that it touches. Jesus is the light, and evil is the darkness. Evil tries to hide our sins, tries to convince that our sins are right and we have nothing to be embarrassed about. If someone or something tries to embarrass us or judge us for our sins, they are in the wrong, not us. Jesus, the true light, works differently. Jesus exposes everything, the good and the evil, the righteous and the sinful.

So what do I say to the people who ask me if God judges, if Jesus judges, or even if Christians should judge other people, both Christians and non-Christians? First, I do acknowledge God and Jesus as the judge over all humankind. After all, God/Jesus is holy and righteous, which makes Him better than us fallen sinners. Second, I do admit that the Bible does say Christians shouldn’t judge other people, but I do also recognize the Bible says Christians should judge sinful actions (not going any further on this discussion, as it would take us way off topic). But then I follow that up by saying, “But Christians really don’t have to judge people, and technically, God doesn’t have to either. Because the people already stand in judgment, and the judgment is they are guilty of their sins.” I use John 3:18 to back me up.

That is why, as John 3:17 tells us, that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world. The world already stood condemned because their sins and their evil ways had been exposed. Their crimes had been exposed, and so they were exposed as guilty. They were already condemned. If Jesus were to come into the word to condemn the world, it would be redundant. If humanity were to look at themselves honestly, they would already know they were condemned.

If I were to stop right here, I would be just as guilty as my generation for giving the word “judge” a negative connotation. If Jesus didn’t come into the world to condemn it, he must have come for another reason. Hopefully it’s a positive one! Indeed it is. John 3:16-21 simply says we believe and come into the light by living the truth, we will not be condemned, we will not perish but we will live an eternal life in the light. Jesus didn’t come into the world to declare us guilty, but Jesus came into the world to forgive us, so He could declare us innocent.

So you’d think it would be a “no-brainer” to receive the light and the salvation that comes with it. Everyone should be running out of the darkness and into the light. But not everyone does. Why? It goes back to John 3:19-20, and even back to the true meaning of “perish” in John 3:16. People are given the chance to come into the light, but when they come into the light, their sins will be exposed, so they would have to admit those sins, admit they were evil, and then reject them. The sad reality is some people love the darkness. Some people love their sins and love evil. There’s a reason phrases like “the ways of the world” or “worldly ways” can be synonymous with “sinful ways.” Since the world we live in is a fallen and depraved one, it’s a world that’s going to offer us sin as the “high life.” Sex, drugs, wealth, popularity, partying is what it tries to sell you. Any threat to these lifestyles is an enemy. So if the True Light tries to expose these as wrong, the True Light is your enemy. The ways of the world begs you, “Don’t walk into the light! It will just judge you to put you down and make you feel bad. It wants to embarrass you. Stay in the darkness. It is your friend.” People listen to this dark world. Fear of hurting their pride or even the pride of their sins keeps them from entering the Light. They know a life in the Light will have them reject their old life, and they want to selfishly hold onto their life of sin. So they stay in the darkness. Even if a beam of light comes near them, they yell, “Stay back, Light! Don’t judge me!” Little do they know that they have brought judgment upon themselves. Little do they know that while the darkness hides the evil, it does not get rid of it. They still stand with their evil sins, and thus they still stand condemned. And little do they know that they are slowly perishing, which means they are slowly ruining their lives until they die.

In closing, I am reminded that some evangelists use this book of the Bible as an evangelism tool. While I said and shown that this book is better used for discipleship reasons, I do believe this passage does give a strong evangelistic gospel message. Just don’t use John 3:16, but include John 3:17-21 into this as well. John 3:16-21 paints a beautiful picture of the gospel. There we were, in a dark and fallen world, slowly perishing and slowly ruining our lives. But God, out of His everlasting love, sent God the Son into the world, to expose the world of sin so the people could see how much they were ruining their lives. Some people didn’t mind their sins, so they went back into the darkness and went back to a slow ruin. But some people walked into the light, believed in the Son, and received eternal life. The reader is faced with the same 2 decision. You either go back into the darkness and back to your evil sins, or come into the light by believing in Jesus and walking the ways of truth. Does this gospel message work? Well, look at the first hearer of this word: Nicodemus. Does Nicodemus come to faith? Well, the next time you’ll see Nicodemus, he’ll denounce the Pharisees (remember Nicodemus is a Pharisee!) for not giving Jesus a fair chance to preach or even to defend himself. Later on, you’ll see Nicodemus help Joseph of Arimathea bury Joseph. I think both actions are a demonstration of his faith. By the end of chapter 3, Nicodemus know what Jesus is teaching, understands what Jesus is preaching, believes Jesus is the Son of God and walks from darkness into the light. After all, the next time you see Nicodemus, he won’t be sneaking around in the dark, but boldly standing up for Jesus in the light of the day.

P.S. I decided not to go into the rest of John 3. Why? The rest of John 3 is John the Baptist confirming what Jesus preached earlier in the chapter. To give a quick summary, John the Baptist’s disciples come to John the Baptist whining, complaining, “That Jesus man is taking your disciples!” to which John the Baptist replies, “Good. He is suppose to.” Then John the Baptist verifies Christ’s teaching in John 3 by preaching that Jesus is from above, Jesus testifies about heavenly things, people have not believed in Christ’s testimony, those who receive Christ’s testimony has eternal life, and those who do not are condemned. Everything I can about this I have already said above. Besides, it was already getting too long.