John 8: I AM and I AM

Remember how I told you to begin looking out for “I AM” statements? Well, 2 of these “I AM” statements will appear in John 8 alone. So let’s check them out.

But before we get to the “I AM” statements we have to discuss John 7:53 to 8:11 (although it has nothing to do with the I AM statements) because most of you probably won’t let this topic go. The last verse of John 7 and the first 11 verses of John 8 do not appear in any of the earliest manuscripts of John. The earliest manuscripts found with this story are not the most reliable manuscripts either. These manuscripts will put this story in the middle of John, at the end of John, in the middle of Luke, or at the end of Luke. None of the earliest church fathers (100s-300s AD) mention it, but that is an argument from the silence. The earliest mention of the story is in 450 AD. It was most likely part of the oral tradition (the story was passed down by word of mouth) and later on thrown in there by copyists. Isn’t it quite obvious, though? There is no smooth transition in and out of this story. As a matter of fact, some people say the transition is smoother without this story in it. The writing style, both the vocabulary and grammar, does not fit the rest of the book. For example, this is the only time the term “teachers of the Law” (“scribes” in more literal translations) is used in the whole book (yes, quizzers, “teachers of the Law” is key for the year). Another example is that this is the only time Jesus is called “Teacher” (Greek word didaskale), whereas the rest of the book calls him “Rabbi.”

So the passage is not written by John, but is it still Scripture? Is it still inspired, infalliable, inerrant, authoritative revelation breathed by God, which makes it Scripture? I would say yes. Why? As John will later tell us in John 21:25, Jesus did many other things that are not in the 4 Gospels, so much that there is not enough books in the world to write it all down. To put in my words, it would be easier putting the internet in a book than it would be to put every word and deed of Jesus in a book. But the biggest and greatest proof is that whether or not the passage belongs in the Bible is if it agrees or disagrees with the overall theology of the Bible. We know what books are psedupigraphal (fake Bible books) because their theology does not agree with biblical theology at all. John 7:53-8:11 certainly does not promote any theology that is against the Bible. The words and actions of Jesus are line with the character of Jesus. Same could be said for the Pharisees. In fact, going back to Jesus, the reader can find in John 8 alone preaching from Jesus that would defend his words and actions in John 8:1-11. For example, in John 8:15, Jesus says He passes judgment on no one. I conclude that this story is a true account of Jesus and does belong in the Bible. Even if John didn’t write it, we can say for certain God authored it. So let’s take a look at it.

The action of the story begins when the Pharisees and teachers of the law bring Jesus a woman caught in adultery. Adultery, in the most general sense, is a sexual sin. I define it in the most general sense because John uses the word “adultery” in most general sense in John 8. It could be premarital sex (having sex with someone before marriage), extramarital sex (having sex while married with someone who is not your spouse), homosexuality (having sex with someone of the same sex), incest (having sex with a family member or relative), bestiality (having sex with an animal), prostitution (having sex as a business, and being paid for it), or even rape (having sex with someone against their will). All these are strictly forbidden by the Law (see Leviticus 18 & 20) as adultery. While John isn’t specific on the adultery, one thing he is specific on is the Pharisees’ and teachers of the law’s wording. The Pharisees and teachers of the Law say that the woman was “caught in the act.” Isn’t that disturbing? Imagine the Pharisees and teachers of the law going around, going house to house, and checking to see if all couples having sex have a marriage license. Once they caught someone, they dragged that person out to a trial.

Using this adulterous woman as a visual aid, the Pharisees and teachers of the Law ask Jesus what her fate should be. Should the woman be stoned, as the Law says, or not? As John 8:6 reveals, this question is merely meant to trap Jesus. It seems like a simple “yes” or “no question, but there is no right answer. If Jesus says “no,” He is breaking the Jewish Law, for indeed, the Law of Moses did say adulterers need to be stoned to death (see Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22-24). If Jesus said “yes,” He is breaking the Roman Law, for the Romans would allow occupied people groups to carry out their own trials, but would forbid occupied people to carry out executions; they had to go to the Romans for permission. The Pharisees and teachers of the law set Jesus up to make him look like a bad teacher or even make him look like a sinner. Yet the Pharisees and teachers of the Law aren’t as pure as they think they are. They had made mistakes themselves. First, the Law of Moses (once again, both the Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22-24 passages) declare both the man and the woman are to be stoned, not just the woman. The Pharisees and teachers of the law needed to bring forth the man as well. Second, according to the Law, for a proper trial to happen, the trial must be performed by a proper judge. By the 1st century, judges were commonly from the Sanhedrin. Although the Christian reader knows Jesus is the real, true judge because He is God, in the human mind and in human terms, Jesus could not be the judge because He was not in the Sanhedrin. So the fact is the Pharisees and teachers of the law were breaking the Law by setting up this question, thus sinning.

Of course Jesus knows this is a trap so instead of stating an answer, Jesus bends to the ground and draws on the ground. John doesn’t say what he wrote, so many people have guessed what He was writing. The most common one I hear was Jesus was writing down the names of the people there, followed by all the sins they have committed. Some even go a step further and say Jesus was writing down all the names of those who committed adultery themselves, as well as their adulterous acts. Along with the previous thought, some scholars have suggested Jesus was literally acting out Jeremiah 17:13, where the names of those who have fallen away are written in the dust. Perhaps Jesus was writing down the names of the people who did not believe in Him, showing them to be as guilty as the woman was. Some have suggested Jesus was writing down one of the Laws that spoke out against false witnesses or false testimony, such as the 9th commandment or Exodus 23:1,7. Others think that Jesus was following a Roman custom, in which it was a requirement for the conviction to be written out during the trial. There’s even a few crazy guesses. For example, Jesus was merely doodling or Jesus was drawing 2 sets of tablets on the ground to remind the Jews that the Israelites sinned, causing Moses to break the tablets. Whatever it was, it was enough to rattle the people watching, especially the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. It causes the people in the crowd to walk away, in the order of oldest to youngest. Why? Once again, the Bible does not say, and a whole array of reasons could be given. Again, the point is that it the drawing/writing shook the people up so bad, they walked away.

In the middle of the drawing, Jesus interrupts himself to say, “If one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Simply put, I see Jesus throwing the question back at the accusers. This is why the most popular interpretation of the drawing on the ground is the most common. Jesus had exposed that all the people there were sinners. Jesus exposed all the people there deserved to be stoned to death because they were sinners. Paul will state this clearly to Christians in his book which we call Romans. Take a look in Romans 3:23 and 6:23a and put the 2 verses together to make a fine doctrine. “For all have sinned” + “for the wages of sin is death” = We all deserve to die because of our sins. Jesus showed the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, and everyone else watching that they deserved to be on death row as much as they were. On the same note, Jesus is demonstrating that they have as much a right to accuse and condemn the adulterous woman of sin as the adulterous woman has the right to accuse and condemn them. A lot of people would say Jesus is making a bold and powerful statement against the death penalty, and I would agree. No one should be executed for a crime because all deserve to be executed for their sins. But I think there’s a strong message here, a message about judging people and condemning people. No person should judge a person (the person himself/herself, not their acts), nor should a person condemn a person (judge them as guilty beyond hope of redemption). Why? We all have sinned, so we all deserve to be judged and condemned. Yet a sinless Jesus, who had the right to judge and condemn us, forgave us, so we should forgive as well. I hope you can see and understand that, and if you can’t wait until the end of the story in verse 11, and you’ll definitely be able to see it.

The crowd thins out until only Jesus and the adulterous woman is left. Jesus shows her all her accusers have gone away, even asking if there is anyone left to condemn her or stone her. I imagine the woman looking around and giving her simple answer: “No, sir.” Jesus replies that he does not condemn her either, but he sends her away, commanding her, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Now I hope you understand what I was saying. The last person standing with the adulterous woman was the man who was without sin and could throw the first stone with a clear conscience. Yet He did not. He chose to forgave her. If the sinless man, who could condemn, chose to forgive, shouldn’t the sinners who are trying to walk in His footsteps also do the same?

The best example that really hits home is another example of adulterous women. It is the pregnant teenager and the single mom. The Church still struggles with this question every day. They set themselves up with the same question that the Pharisees and teachers of the law tried to set Jesus up with: Do we condemn the sin, and thus possibly condemn the sinner with the sin? Or do we instead ignore the sin, but instead support and help? Christians, whether it be in the church, Christian schools/colleges, Christian ministries, or any other Christian organizations, get stuck in a rut trying to answer this question. If Christians cast out the mother, they might appear as mean, rude and heartless to someone in need, and legalistic as well. But if Christians help the mother, they might look like they are ok with the unwed pregnancy, which in turn would make them look like hypocrites. What should Christians do? I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but John 8:1-11 does shed some light on it that would help. Condemnation of the sinner is a definite no-no. The pregnant teenager or single mother is not to be treated like a hopeless sinner, and neither is her child. Neither the mother nor the child are to be treated like lesser humans. Instead of condemnation, forgiveness needs to be given. Even if the mother does not ask for forgiveness, it still needs to be given. It can be given in support and care. What does need to be done is confession and repentance of sins. Jesus did not dismiss the woman’s sin as if it was nothing. He told her to leave her life of sin. This does not need to be some kind of public spectacle for everyone to watch. It just needs to be taken care of with the woman who committed the adultery. There needs to be an evident change in the woman’s lifestyle. This can be a little more conditional. If she still continues a life of adultery and gets pregnant again, then maybe that support and care should be withdrawn. But not to the point where there is no hope of redemption and reconciliation. Christians must struggle daily to find a way to love the sinner and still hate the sin. God does not tolerate sin, and neither should Christians. But God does love and forgive the sinners, and Christians should do likewise.

Alright, that’s the end of the questionable story and the end of the questionable “hot button” topic. Let’s get to the rest of the chapter and look at what we know is true Scripture, and look at what the topic of this chapter is. Indeed, there are 2 “I AM” statements in John 8. Lo and behold, one of those statements are in John 8:12, once the reader gets past the first 11 verses of the last story. It’s interesting to think that if that story really wasn’t in John, John 8:1 would be have the been the “I AM” statement. An “I AM” statement would be definitely the right way to start off this chapter. So let’s look at it

John 8:12-
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Some people will say that talking about Jesus as the light of the world is a smooth transition from the adulterous woman story because the adulterous woman story is showing how Jesus is the light of the world. I’m not sure if I see this, so I’m going to skip that. Actually, for John chapter 8, I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about Jesus as the light of the world because I actually believe John 9 will be better for it. But I will cover what the verse says about itself.

This isn’t the first time Jesus is called light in John. As early as John 1:4-9, John called Jesus The True Light. In John 1:4-9, John proclaimed The True Light gives light and life, the True Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not understand The True Light. In the greater scheme of the Bible, light is constantly used as a metaphor for God, most specifically in reference to His holiness. On the opposite end, the sinful and evil world is described as being in darkness. After all, darkness is the opposite of light, and the opposite of holy God is a sinful and evil mankind. A specific Old Testament example would be Isaiah 9:2, where Isaiah describes the sinners heading for death as “people in darkness” and those with God are ones with light. Jesus brings this idea into the New Testament. The “people in darkness” are those without Jesus, who are also sinners heading for death. Those who believe in Jesus are the ones with light. They will have life, as Isaiah 9:2 and John 1:4-9 tell us. If any Jew knew Isaiah by memory, it’s quite possible Isaiah 9:2 came to mind when Jesus said John 8:12. Also many Jews called God “the giver of light,” going back to Genesis 1:3. For Jesus to proclaim Himself as the source of life, He was calling himself God. Other specific examples of Old Testament metaphors of light would be Psalm 27:1 and Isaiah 58:8. In both verses, light symbolizes God bringing salvation. When Jesus called Himself “the light of the world,” he was calling Himself the source of God’s salvation. (I also want to note many people have tried to connect Jesus as the “light of the world” using typology of things in Old Testament, such as the candelabra in tabernacle/temple, the pillar of fire and the Feast of Lights, but these tend to be allegorical views that ignore the practicality and the original context.)

Now I will admit, this verse does seem to be a little out of context. From verse 13 to verse 30, there’s not going to much talk about light or how Jesus is the light of the world. It’s more going to talk about the testimony Jesus has. Now it’s not Christ’s fault that this happens. The Pharisees take Him off track my challenging His testimony. Jesus does not ignore these challenges, but confronts them. I’m not going to talk about this too much because we’ve already covered it in John 1 and John 5, but I will skim over it and hit new parts.

The Pharisees challenge the testimony of Jesus because their interpretation of Deuteronomy 17:6 said that a self-testimony or a testimony of one person was not good enough. Some scholars believe the Pharisees are trying to throw back Christ’s words at Him (see John 5:31) Once again, Jesus is forced to defend himself. First, Jesus calls the Pharisees out for their judgment of Him. Jesus legitimately uses the fallacy so many 21st century teenagers commit in the right context: “You don’t know me, so don’t judge me.” Second, Jesus claims that He does have someone to second His motion: the Father. Once again, we see a clear image of trinity, and once again, it’s in the light of judgment. It’s as simple as this: the judgments of Jesus are the same judgments God the Father would make. Thus, the Father testifies for the Son, and the Son testifies for the Father. Jesus demonstrates that this fulfills the Law’s requirement of needing at least 2 witnesses, as found in Deuteronomy. When the Pharisees question Jesus on who His Father is, in verse 19, Jesus merely says that they don’t know Him because if they knew Jesus, they would know His Father. To know Jesus is to know God, and to know God is to know Jesus. In John 8:14-19, John demonstrates to reader the trinity, more specifically the relation between the Father and Son, which indirectly shows us Jesus is God the Son.

In John 8:21-22, Jesus once again proclaims to everyone with hearing range that He is going to a place they cannot go to. The Jews are still stumped on this. Last time we left the Jews in John 7, their guess was Jesus was going to the Gentiles areas of the Roman Empire, such as Greece. Their current guess is that Jesus is going to commit suicide. (This is really ironic because after Christ’s death, which skeptics have joked as a “suicide mission,” God did spread the Word to the Gentiles.) Jesus does try to correct the view, using more heavenly metaphor, such as “above the earth.” Even the Jewish culture and customs understood heaven to be above. Jesus turns their misconception about Jesus committing suicide. It’s almost as if Jesus is saying that those who do not believe in Jesus are “committing suicide” because they are killing themselves with their sin.

Let’s jump down to John 8:31 because from John 8:31, Jesus will start talking about a subject that will set him up for His next “I AM” statement, which is near the end of the chapter (which is ironic since John 8:31 is close to the halfway point of the chapter). After the end of the first half of John 8, many Jews came to believe in Jesus through His preaching. So Jesus goes on to preach the next step for these new believers to become disciples. They are to keep believing in Christ’s words, which are the truth, so they can be free. When the Jews hear this, they raise objections. They claim that since they are children of Abraham, they have always been free and never been enslaved. It’s funny to think they these men were scholarly because they have easily forgotten that the children of Abraham time after time were enslaved and were not free. The most obvious example would be the Israelites were slaves to Egyptians for 400 years. During the times of the Judges, many times a people group would invade the land and take control of it for a few years. Even if the Jews didn’t count the Judges, they had to count being exiled to Babylon for 70 years, and even after that, they did not have political sovereignty, as they would always be occupied by the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans. So how could the Jews claim they were free? Well, for once, the Jews agreed with Jesus that freedom is a spiritual thing. The Jews did believe they were spiritual free, meaning they were children of God, not slaves of God. Why? Abraham was their father, and the Jews considered Abraham a child of God. If Abraham is a child of God, then Abraham’s descendants are children of God. Jesus does not agree with this.

Jesus attempts to open the Jews’ eyes. Clearly, the Jews cannot see that they are slaves to sin. In fact, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. The Jews did not see themselves as sinners, so they don’t see themselves as slaves to sin. Jesus has to show them they are sinners, so He can open their eyes to their present slavery. In verse 35, Jesus uses common knowledge of the slavery system back in the 1st century AD. In the 1st century AD, slaves were not considered part of the family unit, so they did not benefit from the same benefits family did, including the final will of the father of the children and master of the slaves. Jesus calls himself the Son because if the son of the family set a slave free, the slave was indeed free. Since Jesus is the Son, he can indeed set people free of their sin.

The Jews keep insisting, as seen in verse 39, that they are sons of Abraham (and now the song “Father Abraham” is stuck in your head: “Father Abraham, had many sons, many sons had Father Abraham…”). It reveals a sad reality among the Jews. For salvation, the Jews were banking on themselves as being children of Abraham. Their thinking was along the lines of “If God wants to keep His promise to Abraham, He has to save us. If he didn’t, He would be breaking His promise to Abraham.” What really makes this sad is that this was the same thinking of the Jews before they got swept off into exile: “God won’t punish us and send us into exile because we’re the descendants of Abraham, and He promised Abraham his descendants would get the land.” Like I said, the Jews were really banking on God saving them because they were Abraham’s descendants. No wonder the Jews felt threatened when Jesus brought this thinking into question when he declared that a true believer would follow Christ’s words.

Doesn’t this sound familiar in the 21st century? Today, we’re not banking on being Abraham’s descendants, but like the Jews, we’re banking on the actions of someone in the past. The Jews were banking on Abraham’s past actions. Some Christians today bank on Christ’s past actions, mainly His death and resurrection. The Christians bank on Christ’s actions so much that, like the Jews of the 1st century, they don’t think obedience is necessary. They think that all they have to do is “believe.” To them, “believe” just means to accept a doctrinal statement as their own. So for them, to be saved means to just take on the Christian doctrinal statement as a personal beliefs statement, and they are saved. Jesus would correct these Christians just as much as He corrected the Jews. What did Jesus say was the qualifications of being a disciple of Jesus. In John 8:31 (NIV), Jesus says it’s “hold to my teaching.” More literal translations say, “abide in my teaching” or “continue in My Word.” More dynamic equivalencies and paraphrases say “continue to obey.” The point they are trying to get across is that this “believe,” used over 90 times in John, is not simply accepting a doctrinal statement. It’s living out what Jesus taught. After reading this, I no longer evangelize saying “believe in Jesus” but rather “follow Jesus” because that encompasses practices as well as doctrine. I pray that you Christians out there are not merely “believing” in Jesus, but following Jesus.

Jesus points out a big flaw the Jews have in John 8:40. Jesus comments that a true child of Abraham would follow in Abraham’s footsteps, such as believing in God and obeying God. The Jews were doing neither, and so they did not have the same justifying faith. The Jews might have been the biological descendants of Abraham, but in no means were they spiritual descendants of Abraham. Jesus also points out that Abraham would have never killed a messenger from God, yet the Jews were trying to kill Jesus, the Son of God. Thus, the Jews cannot be children of Abraham, but children of sin and children of the devil. (Another quick note. The majority view is that the “father” in John 8:41 is the Devil. A minority view is that the “father” in John 8:41 is the forefathers of the Jews that killed the prophets. While the majority view makes more sense in the immediate context, I do think the minority view holds some water.) Yet the Jews end verse 41 by saying that they are not illegitimate children, but children of God. I find it funny that the Jews are now waffling. They first insist they are children of Abraham, and now they insist they are children of God. But then again, maybe they see “children of Abraham” and “children of God” as interchangeable.

If I could sum up Christ’s reply in John 8:42-47 in one sentence, it would be “No, you’re not.” Jesus explains this by setting up a sharp contrast between God and the Devil. More specifically, he talks about the truth and lies. This well sums up a common theological theme in John 8. God speaks only the truth, but the devil’s native langue is lies. The Son of God (Jesus) also speaks the truth, but the children of the Devil (the Jews in their sin) speak lies. Thus, when they talk to one another, it’s like 2 people of 2 different languages speaking to each other. They can’t comprehend what the other one is saying. Therefore, the Jews do not understand Jesus, and they do not believe. Instead, like the Devil, they want Jesus dead.

Since Jesus called the sinful Jews children of the Devil, now the accusations from the Jews are going to fly. First, they call him a Samaritan. Is Jesus a Samaritan? No. But remember the Jews see the Samaritans as “half breeds” and “half human.” Calling Jesus a Samaritan is calling him a lesser human. That one is out there, so I’m going to leave that one be. I want to spend more time on the Jews’ accusation of Jesus as “demon-possessed. Not only do they do it twice in this chapter alone, but 4 times in John alone (7:20, 8:48, 8:52, 10:20)! This one sticks out to me because it is turning the tables on Jesus. They are now trying to call Jesus the Son of the Devil, or the Spawn of Satan. John 8:53b sums up it when they ask, “Who do you think you are?”

Yet Jesus keeps going back to God the Father for His testimony. Jesus says He knows the Father, while the Jews do not. Jesus reminds the Jews He is out to honor and glorify the Father, not Himself. He does so by keeping the Father’s Word, which is also His Word. Now Jesus is getting bold. He calls out the Jews for dishonoring Him, because dishonoring Him means dishonoring the Father. He accuses the Jews of lying because they claim to follow God, but they are not. Jesus then reveals that Abraham looked forward to seeing “[Christ’s] day,” saw “[Christ’s] day” and was glad and rejoiced. To understand what Jesus is saying, we got to understand the Abrahamic Covenant. God promised Abraham salvation through the Messiah, who would come in His family line. When the Messiah fully brought salvation to His descendants, that day would the “Day of the Lord.” Now we can say for certain that Abraham, in his old age, did get to see a son born to him and did get to see that son enter adulthood. Most scholars believe this is what Jesus meant when He said Abraham saw “[Christ’s] day.” There is a Jewish tradition, however, that states near the end of Abraham’s life, God gave Abraham a vision which allowed Abraham to see everything played out, to see His seed, to see the Messiah, and to see the Day of the Lord. If that is true, then indeed Abraham saw Jesus and Jesus saw Abraham. Whether or not that is true, we all know Jesus did indeed see Abraham because Jesus is God and God saw Abraham, knew Abraham and worked with Abraham. But once again, the Jews faced the problem of taking things too literally. They saw a man in His 30s proclaim He saw a man who lived about 2,000 years before their time. How can this be? The Jews set Jesus up perfectly for His next “I AM.” Let’s read it together.

John 8:58-
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Some translations, make this shorter, like “Before Abraham was, I am!” or “Before Abraham, I am!” but either way, this statement is meant to be short and impacting. It indeed was, for look at the reaction! Jesus might as well said, “Before Abraham, YHWH!” for that’s what He was claiming. This can be taken quite literally. The Jews knew the name of their God was “I AM,” as recorded in Exodus 3:14 (In fact, the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the New Testament, translates the “I am” in Exodus 3:14 as the same “I am” in John 8:58). Jesus was using the same name God gave Himself to name Himself. We can also go deeper into this. Jesus was claiming He existed before Abraham, during the time of Abraham, and after Abraham, all the way up to the current time (and further!). By doing so, He was claiming He was greater than their forefather Abraham, one of highest (if not the highest) human figure in the Jewish religion. To make this claim, Jesus had to claim to be God. Jesus was claiming for Himself the same eternal attributes as God Himself, so Jesus must be God.

Like I said, you know that’s what Jesus was claiming by their reaction. The believed Jesus was committing blasphemy. Blasphemy is claiming that you (or it could be another human) are God or you (or another human) is the messiah. Blasphemy was a serious crime, as the punishment was death. When they heard Jesus claim to be God, they were ready to pick up stones and stone him. Remember I said above that the Jews could not perform an execution without Rome’s permission. Yet these people were so offended by the claims of Jesus, they would have stoned him and accepted whatever consequence the Romans gave them. Yet they could not. Jesus can hide in the thick crowd and slip away. Many times through his Gospel account, John will accredit this to God’s Will keeping Him safe, for God has planned for the right time for Jesus to give His life, and only then would an execution happen.

So there it is. In 1 chapter we saw 2 “I AM” statements, bringing us up to 3 “I AM” statements. Yet we were only able to fully flush out 1 of the statements, the other one was just there. Well have no fear, for the next chapter in John will give us a better picture on that “I AM” statement. I hope in this chapter you saw how an “I AM” statement reveals Jesus to be God, and I hope the next chapter will do the same.

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.