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: A Story About The Son of God

Sometimes when Christians zoom in and focus on one verse, they lose the context of the chapter, or even the paragraph the verse is in. Sometimes when Christians zoom in and focus on one chapter, they lose the context of the whole book. I know through my studies of John that when we focused on one chapter of John, it might be easy only think about what that chapter is saying and not even consider the context of the whole book of John. It would be a shame if we did that because most likely that chapter contributes the book’s overall message, and if we don’t think about the book’s overall message, we might very well miss the true meaning of the chapter. I close my devotional commentary on John by stepping back, zooming out, and looking at the whole picture of John. I’ll start by reviewing the introductory material to John, then we’ll outline John, and from that we’ll pull out theological pictures, themes and messages.

Before we go any further, I will put a disclaimer by saying that this will be nothing like my devotional commentary on Mark. Mark is not like John. Mark is an epic story; John is not. Let me be clear on what I am saying. Yes, John is a story, in the sense it is written in narrative form. I believe John does this in order to demonstrate what he is writing is historical truth (history in the 1st century was written like a story). But as I will remind you in the introductory review, John is a supplemental Gospel. And just like the supplemental appendixes to any book, both fictional and non-fictional books, the supplemental appendixes are not meant to tell a good story, but are meant to give extra information to help the reader understand the book’s concepts further. That is what John is trying to do. He’s not trying to tell a good story to get the reader to come to faith. Instead, John is trying to give extra information about the history of Jesus to persuade the reader to come to faith (or continue faith). So think of John less as a story, and more like a persuasive essay. That will also help with the introductory material.

Speaking of introductory material, let’s move on to the introductory material. Now I’m not going to spend time defending all of it. If you want a defense of all these, go back to “John 0: An Introduction” where we talked about this. If you don’t want to read it [again], just accept what I have said as truth. Remember, the introductory information is what reporters seek when asking questions. This is the who, whom, what, where, when, why, and how. To be more specific, the answers to these question will be the author, the audience, the historical occasion, the location, the date, the purpose and the structure.

THE AUTHOR (WHO): John
THE AUDIENCE (WHOM): Christians
THE LOCATION (WHERE): Written in Ephesus, Takes Place Mostly in Judea
THE DATE (WHEN): 85-95 AD
THE HISTORICAL OCCASION (WHAT): Gnosticism and other pseudo-Christianity cults were preaching that Jesus was only a man, and wasn’t God.
THE PURPOSE (WHY): John wrote the book of John to persuade Christians to continue believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
THE STRUCTURE (HOW): A Supplemental Gospel

Now if you remember my explanation on the structure (how), I told you that it could both/either the writing style and/or method, or it can be an outline. In my review of the introductory material, I simply told you the writing style. The Gospel of John is a supplemental Gospel. But I do also want to outline the book for you. At Bible College, I was taught that a good start to outlining a Bible Book is to first write sentence summaries on the paragraphs, and then group the similar paragraphs together. But I don’t have the time to write paragraph summaries, and you probably don’t have the time to read paragraph summaries. So for simplicity’s sake, I am going to write a sentence summary for each chapter. Then we will combine similar chapter summaries together to draw up an outline. Below are the sentence summaries. The bullet number is the chapter number. Also, I will sometimes “cheat” on the sentence summaries. If I cannot write a one-sentence summary without making a ridiculously long run-on, I will make it two or three sentences.

1. Jesus is God because He was with God at the beginning, He created the universe and He gives life. Then 5 men testify Jesus is God: John the Baptist, John the Disciple, Andrew, Philip and Nathanael
2. Christ’s disciples believe Jesus is the Christ and Son of God through His first miracle of turning water to wine and through the cleansing of the temple.
3. Nicodemus moves from the darkness of sin to the True Light, Jesus Christ, because Nicodemus believes in Jesus as the Son of God.
4. Jesus evangelizes the Gospel as Living Water to the Samaritan Woman at the well, and she believes that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.
5. Jesus points out 4 testimonies that demonstrate Jesus is God the Son: God the Father, John the Baptist, Old Testament Scriptures, miracles/miraculous signs
6. Jesus demonstrates that He is the Bread of Life, an “I AM” statement, by Feeding over 5,000 people. Many followers turn away from Jesus because they cannot accept his hard teachings, but the disciples stick with Jesus because they believe Jesus is the Holy God.
7. The people are skeptic about Jesus, split between either “a good teacher” or “a deceiver,” but few will commit to Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus calls the people to a stronger faith, one that recognizes Jesus as the Christ and/or the Son of God.
8. Jesus demonstrates He is God because uses 2 “I AM” statements, which link back to God’s name, Yahweh, or “I AM WHO I AM.”
9. Jesus demonstrates that He is the Light of the World, an “I AM” statement, by giving light to a blind man. The miracle shows that those who are in sin are in darkness because they do not have the Light of the World.
10. Jesus teaches that He is the good shepherd, an “I AM” statement, and a biblical allusion to God that all the Jewish people will recognize, thanks to Psalm 23.
11. Jesus demonstrates that He is the Resurrection and the Life, an “I AM” statement, by raising Lazarus from the dead.
12. As Jesus enters Jerusalem, the Jewish form a parade and declare that Jesus is the Son of David and the King of Israel, titles only for the Messiah. John shows the reader Scripture foretelling of this event, further proof that Jesus is the Christ.
13. Christ’s betrayer is identified, and this further proves Jesus is the Messiah because Old Testament Scriptures, such as Psalm 41:9, foretell of the Messiah having a betrayer.
14. Jesus demonstrates He is God by teaching He is the only way to the father, as well as the only way to even see the Father, using an “I AM” statement. Jesus also displays Himself as the God the Son by depicting the Trinity, with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
15. Jesus demonstrates that He is God by teaching that He is the Vine (an “I AM” statement), the Father is the Gardener, and the Christians are the branches.
16. Jesus is shown as God the Son because He sends God the Holy Spirit from God the Father.
17. Jesus is displayed as the Son of God because He calls God His Father in an intimate way.
18. Jesus shows that He is in control of the Jewish trials because God is the one who gives the Jewish leaders the authority they are in.
19. Jesus shows that He is in control because He explains to Pilate that the only reason why Pilate is in charge is because God gave him authority. Jesus also is seen as the Christ because He fulfills prophecy and serves as Penal Substitution for sin.
20. Jesus rises from the dead, and His disciples and followers go from calling Jesus “Rabbi” and “Teacher” to “Lord” and “God.” For the disciples, the resurrection was the ultimate sign Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.
21. The large catch of large fish is a post-resurrection miracle that further proves to the disciples that Jesus is the Lord God.

Alright, the next step is to group them together into similar themes or similar messages. Now I was taught a good outlines has neither too many points nor too few points, or a good outline has neither too many section or too few sections. This became a problem for because of the latter. Every time I tried to outline it, I ended up shoving a bunch of chapters into a single section. But I tried to look past this. I didn’t want a hermeneutical rule to be stronger than good theology. Maybe if the theology is good, it doesn’t matter if the hermeneutical rule is broken. So the first one I tried was to group was by Christ’s “life stages,” or by time. Once again, the bullet numbers are the chapter numbers.

Outlined by the Life of Christ
1-10. The Ministry of the Christ (3-4 years)
11. Transition from the Ministry to the Passion (1-2 days)
12-21. The Passion of the Christ (1 week)

This outline has many strengths, of because of the many strengths, this one is the one I like the most, despite its shortcomings. One of its biggest strengths is that it cuts the Gospel of John in half, and the halfway point is the perfect transition. Another good sign of an outline is that it is no lop-sided, and this outline definitely does not lop-side the Gospel of John. The Ministry of the Christ is 10 chapters long. The Passion of the Christ is 10 chapters longs. That one chapter that serves as the halfway marker is the Resurrection of Lazarus. The Resurrection of Lazarus is part of The Ministry of Christ because He is serving people to bring them to believe in Him. The Resurrection of Lazarus also is part of The Passion of the Christ because it foreshows that Jesus will die and be raised up. Another reason I like this outline is because you could rename the section titles, and they would still contain the same chapters. For example, you could name the outline “Outlined by Location.” Chapters 1-10 would be labeled “Israel” because Jesus ministers in Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Chapter 11 would be labeled “Perea” because the Resurrection of Lazarus takes place in Perea. Chapters 12-21 would be labeled “Jerusalem” because all 10 chapters (for the most part) take place in Jerusalem only. Another example would be renaming the outline “Outlined by Time” Chapters 1-10 is “The Years,” Chapter 11 is “Day,” Chapter 12-21 is “week.” A third reason I like this outline is that all the sections are consistant with John’s purpose. All the sections portray Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God. What are the problems with this outline? Like I said above, it bunches too many chapters into one section. 10 chapters for one section is a lot, especially for a book with 21 chapters. On a similar note, 1 chapter is too small for a section, especially if the other 2 sections have ten chapters. Speaking of an unbalance, another fault is the time is unbalanced. There’s not a good balance if you go from years, to days, to weeks. If you were to go back the “location outline,” the balance within “Israel” and “Jerusalem” is not good either. Only once does Jesus go to Samaria in “Israel.” And a couple times in “Jerusalem” Jesus is outside of Jerusalem, like in Bethany or by the Sea of Galilee. But I still feel like this is nit-picky, and next to the pros of the outline, the cons seem like nothing.

Still, I tried to think up of a way outline this Gospel in another way. On one hand, if my biggest problem with the first outline was that the sections were too big, I had to figure out a way to make the sections smaller. On the other hand, if one of the things I liked about the previous outline was the transition in chapter 11, so I had to figure out a way to keep it. The best way I could think of keeping the transition was to think up another transition similar to the one in chapter 11. In order to do this, I looked at different interpretations and different lessons learned from John 11. By doing so, I came up with an outline that outlines the Gospel Book by the numbers of followers Jesus had. I came up with this.

Outline by Number of Followers
1-5. Thousands of followers (5,000+)
6. Transition from thousands of followers (5,000+) to tens of followers (70-90)
7-10. Tens of followers (70-90)
11. Transition from tens of followers (70-90) to hundreds of followers (100-600)
12-21. Hundreds of followers (100-600)

This outline does need a bit more explaining. As you can guess, one way I looked at story of the Resurrection of Lazarus was at the great increase of followers. That immediately reminded me of another great change of numbers when it came to Christ’s followers. It wasn’t an increase, but a decrease. In chapter 6, many followers leave because they cannot accept Christ’s hard teachings. So I tried to see this as 2 transitions. While the generic titles of sections, such as “tens,” hundreds,” and “thousands” do not need great explaining, maybe the more specific numbers do. But before I explain them, let me say these are rough estimates, which means they were rounded. The “thousands” number of “5,000+” I got from the Feeding of the 5,000, obviously. I chose “70-90” for the tens because we know at this point in the Life of Christ Jesus sends out 72 disciples to minister to the people (see Luke 10) but it can’t be in the hundreds. For the “hundreds” I chose “100-600” because we know Jesus appeared to over 500 believers after the resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15) but we also know there are only 120 in Jerusalem during Pentecost (see Acts 2). This outline has strengths. First, it gives us more sections. We went from 3 sections to 5 sections. Second, it gives us a better spread of chapters…well, at least better than the last outline. Yet each strength of this outlines has weaknesses, and then some more. First, while it gives us more sections, it doesn’t give us too many more sections. 3 sections to 5 sections is not a big change. On that note, the sections don’t exactly divide the material better. For starters, it only gets rid of one of the big sections of 10 chapters, but it also leaves the other big section of 10 chapters. Next, the chapter divisions are far from even. If written out, the chapter divisions would be 5-1-4-1-10. Even without the transition chapters, it’s 5-4-10. These are far from even. At least the last outline was closer to even. As I argued with chapter 11 above, chapter 6 alone is not good enough to be its own section, even if it is 70 verses long. As I stated with one of the negatives with the last outline, these titles don’t fully do a good. In chapter 1, Jesus only has 5-6 followers. In the first half of chapter 2, Jesus has 5-13 followers. Chapter 1 and half of chapter 2 is far from thousands of followers. My last argument against it would be the theology behind it. Did Jesus ever measure His ministry’s success by number of followers? Far from it. It would seem like more often Jesus called His followers to be more sincere and serious about their faith, even if it mean losing several followers. If Jesus didn’t measure His ministry by His followers, then neither shall we.

Running out of ideas, I “cheated” and I turned to commentaries. And I do use the term “cheated” loosely. Whether that was “cheating” or not in Bible College varied among your professors. Some professors did call it cheating because they claimed that you should be able to outline it yourself by just reading it, and you shouldn’t need any help, especially from commentaries. Other professors say that it’s not cheating, but proper research. In fact, you should check commentaries to see if you are right or not. Coincidentally, these professors were the professors who would cut and paste the commentaries’ outlines in their PowerPoint when teaching. Well, I am going to side with the other professors and look at what a couple commentaries say.

The first commentary I want to look at is The Bible Reader’s Companion. The reason I am showing you this is not because it’s a good outline, or at least it’s not the best outline, but because it does kind of verify my first outline. Now because it is very similar to my outline, it’s going to have the same weaknesses as my first outline, the biggest one would being the sections are too big (also note that I am only going to show you the main points, not the subpoints). But at the same time, it has the same strengths. So let’s take a look at it.

The Bible Reader’s Companion Outline
1-12. Public Ministry
13-21. Private Ministry

From the start you can see the problems I had with this outline. There’s not enough sections. Because there is not enough sections, there are too many chapters within a section. Yet it works. The first 12 chapters of John all show the Public Ministry of Jesus. In those chapters, Jesus is seen multiple times teaching to large crowds. All his teachings and miracles are done in a public place where everyone can see, like a synagogue or a temple (see John 18:20,21). The last 9 chapters, chapters 13 to 21, show the Private Ministry of Christ. Remember that John 13-17 is all behind the close doors of the Upper Room where the Last Supper takes place. Most of John 18 and John 19 is Jesus privately talking to his accusers, both the Jewish accusers and the Roman accusers. In the last 2 chapters of John, John 20 and 21, Jesus only appears to the followers, which are only a few hundred. Once again, this is not the best outline because of too few and too big section breakdowns. But it does show it is possible to have a working outline with few sections breakdowns.

The next outline comes from Willmington’s Bible Handbook. This outline is better than the last outline, but it’s still lacking that good quality I am looking for. It’s better because it’s more specific than the last outline. It has more sections. At the same time, it’s still lacking in places, such as even splits between sections. Once again, I’m only going to show you the main points, not the whole outline. Now you’re going to notice a few different things about this outline. This commentary is not as concerned about chapter barriers. Most Bible scholars say this is good. So it will divide by verses. You are also going to notice that this commentary will use a more theological approach to outlining it. I think this is a plus, and I’ll explain it once you see it.

Willmington’s Bible Handbook Outline
1:1-1:18. Jesus the Eternal Son of God.
1:19-18:11. Jesus the Earthly Son of God
18:12-19:42. Jesus the Executed Son of God
20:1-21:25. Jesus the Exalted Son of God.

The first thing I like about this outline (and this is the reason I am showing it) is that the outline keeps in mind the purpose John is writing and the picture of Jesus John is painting. This outline remembers that John is trying to show us Jesus is the Son of God. So in outlining the book, it wants the outline to also show Jesus is the Son of God. So the commentary went into outlining John by asking, “How does John show Jesus as the Son of God?” And the outline shows the answer. The first 18 verses of John shows Jesus as the Son of God eternal with God the Father Himself. The commentary believes John 1:19 to John 18:11 shows Jesus as the Son of Man just as much as the Son of God. To them, this section shows the duality between Christ’s deity and Christ’s humanity. And I can partially see it too. The next thing the commentary notices is that half of chapter 18 and all of chapter 19 is the Son of God being put on trial, which leads to his execution. Then, the last 2 chapters show Jesus exalted through his resurrection. Of course, my biggest beef with this outline is the lack of balance in the sections. The first section is 18 verses, roughly one half of the first chapter of John. The next section is 16 whole chapters and 2 half chapters, totaling 17 chapters. The third section is half of chapter 18 and all of chapter 19, totaling 1 ½ chapters. The last section is 2 chapters, the only section with whole chapters. If you’re following and keeping score, the chapter splits are ½ - 17 – 1 ½ - 2. There’s the lack of even chapter divisions. Also, there’s too much weight on the “earthly son of God.” I don’t think it really tells what all happens within those chapters.

The outline I liked best is from the Bible Exposition Commentary. Just take a look.

Bible Exposition Commentary Outline
I. OPPORTUNITY for Jesus to present Himself (ch. 1-6)
A. Jesus presents Himself to the disciples (ch. 1-2)
B. Jesus presents Himself to Nicodemus (ch. 3)
C. Jesus presents Himself to the Samaritans (ch. 4)
D. Jesus presents Himself to the Jewish leaders (ch. 5)
E. Jesus presents Himself to the Jewish people (ch. 6)
II. OPPOSITION over conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish leaders (ch. 7-12)
A. Conflicts over Moses (ch. 7)
B. Conflicts over Abraham (ch. 8)
C. Conflicts over the Messiah (ch. 9-10)
D. Conflicts over miracles and signs (ch. 11-12)
III. OUTCOME of Jesus and the people (ch. 13-21)
A. The disciples believe and accept Jesus (ch. 13-17)
B. The Jewish leaders do not believe and reject Jesus (ch. 18-19)
C. Jesus is victorious (ch. 20-21)

Let me first explain the reason I put the sub-points in this time. First, the sub-points help better explain why the commentary used these section divisions. Second, this outline needs the sub-points, for the outline would make no sense without them. Immediately I like this outline because it gets rid of all the weaknesses of the past outlines. First of all, it seems like it has the right amount of section divisions. The most we’ve been able to divide the book into is 5 sections, and the least amount of divisions is 2 divisions. We’ve gotten 3 section divisions before, so 3 seems to be the right amount. Second, I like how these sections fairly even divide the chapters. The first section, the “opportunity” section, is 6 chapters long. The second section, the “opposition” chapter, is also 6 chapters long. Sections 1 are 2 are equal. I really like how the public ministry of Jesus is evenly divided. The last section, the “outcome” section is the only big section, with 9 chapters. But considering that most outlines insist on putting chapters 13-21 (even 12-21!) together, it’s best to just leave it like that. But the sub-points help make sense of that.

Speaking of sub-points, the strengths listed above are also true for the sub-points. There is not too many or too few sub-points. Each section has no more than 5 sub-points, and no fewer than 3 sub-points. Each sub-section does not have too many chapters in them. Most sub-points either have 1 or 2 chapters. The one sub-point that has 5 chapters I don’t see as a problem because most commentaries do group all those chapters together. What I’m trying to say is this outline is well balanced outline, and that’s why I like it so much.

Another reason this outline works is because it also carries all the strengths of the other outlines. The “opportunity” section and the “opposition” section are the Ministry of Christ, more specifically the Public Ministry of Christ. The “outcome” section is the Passion of the Christ, or the Private Ministry of the Christ. The “opportunity” section and the “opposition” section focus on Christ’s journeys through Galilee, Samaria and Judea, while the “outcome” section focuses on Jerusalem. The last section also accurately reflects how many followers are with Jesus at the time. Finally, the beauty of this outline is that is does go back to how John is viewing Jesus in his Gospel account. This outline does focus on Jesus as the Son of God. The “opportunity” section is Jesus presenting Himself as the Son of God. In the “opposition” section, all the arguments roughly trace back to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. The outcomes also go back to Jesus as God the Son. The disciples believe and accept Jesus as the Son of God. The Jewish leaders do not believe and reject Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus is victorious because He is God.

So in conclusion to the outlines, I am going to adapt The Bible Exposition Commentary’s outline as the best outline of John. If we need to pick an original outline, or a shorter outline, it would be the first outline I showed you.

So let’s quickly use the outline to tell the story of John. Ever since Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30, he presented Himself to people as the Son of God, such as the disciples, Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman at the well. Through His presentation as the Son of God, most people believe and come to faith, while others simply listen to Him and ask Him questions out of curiosity. The climax of Jesus presenting Himself comes in chapter 6, when Jesus starts teaching harder teachings. Many of His followers cannot accept these harder teachings. So his number of followers greatly drops, and now there are 3 views of Jesus. There are the believers, there are the skeptics and there are the adversaries. The believes accept Christ’s teachings and follow Him. The skeptics are unsure about Jesus and question Him. The adversaries oppose Jesus and doubt Him. So Jesus has to go from presenting Himself to defending Himself, as the opposition increases. Jesus defends Himself with Abraham, Moses, the prophets and miracles. The results are the same. Some people believe and come to faith, others do not believe and reject, and yet others are skeptics who are 50/50. But near the end of Christ’s earthly life, that last week, there is no middle ground for the skeptics to stand on. They either have to follow the decision of the disciples by believing and receiving Jesus, or they have to follow the path of the Jewish leaders by not believing and rejecting Jesus. Some come to faith, after seeing the resurrection of Lazarus, but others do not in fear of being excommunicated from the Jewish faith. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the sign that choosing believing faith in Jesus was the right answer, for it is the one that comes with eternal life.

The perfect transition from outline to theology is talking about other structural details. Why is the perfect transition? A lot of people have attempted to outline John by using common themes found in John’s Gospel. The only problem is these outlines tend to either be topical (as opposed to chronological), messy or confusing. So instead of showing you the outlines that are made, I’m just going to list where the structures appear.

The first and foremost common theme would be the “I AM” statements. I made sure we followed the 7 “I AM” statements carefully. The “I AM” statements are probably the most explicit proof in the Gospel of John that Jesus is God. First and foremost, the term, in the Jewish and Christian mindset, immediately goes back to the name God gave Moses to give to the Israelites in Exodus 3:14- “I AM WHO I AM.” But second, each “I AM” statement would finish with a quality or characteristic that both Jews and Christians would relate to God. Thus, in every “I AM” statement, Jesus twice declares He is God. The 1st century Jews recognized this, and every Christian of every century recognizes this. I hope you were able to follow all the “I AM” statement, but just in case you were unable, here they are-

The 7 “I AM” Statements
1. I AM the Bread of Life (6:35)
2. I AM the Light of the World (8:12)
3. Before Abraham was born, I AM (8:58)
4. I AM the Good Shepherd/Door (10:11,14/10:7,9)
5. I AM the Resurrection and the Life (11:25)
6. I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life (14:6)
7. I AM the Vine (15:1,5)

Going along with the theme of 7s, there is another 7 in Gospel of John. (Some scholars have suggested John likes the number 7, for when he writes Revelation, there are 7 churches, 7 seals, 7 trumpets and 7 bowls.) The other 7 is the seven miracles, the 7 signs or the 7 miraculous signs. Obviously, I have to start out by defining the term. The Greek term is semeion. Some translations translate it “miracle,” while others translate it as “sign.” The NIV compromises and translates it “miraculous sign.” On the surface level, this may seem redundant, but maybe this redundancy reveals a great theology behind John. Of all the miracles Jesus has done, he picks seven, and he picks his seven very carefully. All 7 miracles serve as signs to the message Jesus is preaching. For example, Jesus uses the Feeding of the 5,000 to preach that He is the Bread of Life. Another good example is John retells Jesus healing a blind man to put in light Christ’s teaching the He is the Light of the World. All 7 Miracles serve as a sign that Jesus is the Son of God. Even the miracles are central to this message.

The 7 Miraculous Signs Jesus Performed in John
1. Water to wine at the wedding in Cana (2:1-11)
2. Healing the Royal Official’s son of a fever (4:43-54)
3. The Invalid Man walks at the Pool of Bethesda (5:1-15)
4. Feeding the 5,000 (6:1-15)
5. Walking on Water (6:16-24)
6. The Blind Man sees at the Pool of Siloam (9:1-7)
7. Lazarus is raised from the dead (11:1-44)

Both the 7 “I AM” Statements the 7 Miraculous Signs demonstrate Jesus is the Son of God, but what else displays Jesus as the Son of God? If John truly is trying to get across the message that Jesus is the Son of God, what else would John include? Indeed, John does insert a lot of evidence that Jesus is the Son of God, so much that if I were to cover it all, it would at least double what I have already written now. So I will quickly cover a few quick topics. Just as we saw early God Sightings in John 1, I will once again bring you to John 1 to look closer at the titles given to Jesus: “the Word” and “the True Light”. In Bible Quizzing, quizmasters made the quizzers say “Word” or “True Light” in the appropriate places and not simply “God” or “Jesus.” I think they made the right decision, both for quizzing and for theology.

The Word. John chooses to call Jesus the Word in order to use familiar terminology with both the Jews and the Greeks. By the 1st century AD, many Jews were now using the Aramaic term for word, memra, in place of God’s holy name, Yahweh, in order to prevent themselves from using God’s name in vein. Because they were doing so, a philosophy developed that the Word of God was equivalent to God Himself, or even that the Word of God is interchangeable with God. On the Gentile side of the coin, Greek philosophers were believed that the Word (Greek term logos) was in eternal, impersonal force that created everything, sustained everything, and ruled over everything. When John uses the term “Word,” John is using the best of both worlds to teach about Jesus. Jesus is the Word like the Greeks say because Jesus created everything, sustains everything, and rules over everything. Unlike the Greeks, Jesus is like the Word like the Jews say because He is the same personal God found in the Old Testament. The only correction John needs to make to the Jews is that Jesus is not interchangeable with God, or equivalent to God, but rather Jesus is His own entity. This is why John says that was with God AND the Word was God in John 1:1,2.

The True Light. Quickly go back and read John 1:5-8. Now read John 1:9-13. Does it look like “the light” John is talking about in both sections are the same light? I say it is not. In John 1:5-8, the light simply refers to moral goodness, and John 1:5-8 shows a spiritual battle between moral goodness and the darkness of sin and evil. The fate of this spiritual battle? The darkness of sin and evil does not understand it. In John 3, Jesus says that the light is rejected because men love the darkness so they can keep on with their evil deeds. By John 1:9-13, the light is now called the True Light because it no longer is talking about the moral goodness, but it is talking about a person, and that person is Jesus Christ. John 1:9-13 pretty much tells the reader that the light in John 1:5-8 was personified and took on a body. Not only is Jesus the Word Incarnate, but Jesus is also the Light Incarnate. Jesus is full of goodness (or sinless), just as much as God the Father is. Remember how John 1:5-8 tells a story of the light entering the world, but being rejected? John 1:9-13 parallels the story to foreshadow the fate of Jesus. Jesus will walk the same path as light. Jesus will enter the world, and then He will be rejected by the world, mainly because the people do not understand Him. Now, unlike the Word, John is more consistent in keeping up with this terminology for Jesus. Jesus refers to light in John 3, John 8 and John 9.

Of course there is more proof that Jesus is the Son of God in John 1, and if you want to look at that again, go back to my writings on John 1. But for those who just want a quick reminder, I will post the 8 God Sightings found in John 1-

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)
3. John the Baptist’s testimony: Lamb of God and Son of God (vs. 15-35)
4. Andrew and John’s testimony: Rabbi (vs.35-39)
5. Andrew’s testimony: Messiah (vs. 40-42)
6. Philip’s testimony: The One Moses and the Prophets foretold (vs. 43-46)
7. Nathanael’s testimony: Rabbi, Son of God, King of Israel (vs. 46-49)
8. Jesus gives a self-testimony: Son of Man (vs. 50-51)

Now, if we’re sticking with John 20:31 to look for theological themes that John is trying to draw out, remember that John wants to prove that Jesus is the Christ just as much as Jesus is the Son of God. So to accurately look at the theology of the Gospel of John, a examination of the Christ as found in the Gospel of John is necessary.

But first, we must look at the Jewish understanding of the Messiah by the time of Jesus. Obviously, the best way to start this would be to look at the Old Testament. The Old Testament promises a Messiah. This promise is made every time God makes a covenant with someone. In every Old Testament covenant, God promises land, seed and blessing. The ultimate fulfillment of the seed is the promised Messiah. This can be most explicitly seen in the Davidic Covenant, for God promises that the Messiah would be a kingly descendant from the line of David. After God makes this promise with David, that’s all the Old Testament can talk about. The most prevalent fact about the Messiah in the Old Testament is that the Messiah will come from David and would be a king like David. This becomes a problem when Israel and Judah are sent into exile. From the Assyrian captivity of Israel in 722 BC and the Babylonian captivity of Judah in 586 BC, there would always be someone over the Jews, whether it be the Persians, the Greek or the Romans. So how could the Messiah be a sovereign king over a sovereign nation if Israel and Judah were in exile? The Jews concluded that the Messiah had to be a political and militant Messiah. If the Messiah were to be a sovereign king over a sovereign nation, he would have to overthrow the reigning empire. But I will be clear that not every Jew believed the Messiah was to be political and militant. Some Jews watered down this messiah, simply making the Messiah the greatest Rabbi and the greatest Prophet that ever existed. Now this wasn’t the only debate the Jews had about the Messiah. The Messiah was a popular debate topic up to the time of Jesus. Many Jews would come to debate everything about the Messiah, from the origin to Messiah to the destiny of the Messiah.

Therefore, when John writes his Gospel, he adds to the debates and the discussions. John recalls Jesus correcting all these misconceptions about the Messiah. In John 7, the Jews debate whether or not the Messiah’s location origin will be known or not. Jesus answers that his true origin, heaven, is unknown because no one has been to heave. In John 12, when the Jewish leaders ask if the Son of Man will die or live eternally, Jesus replies that the Son of Man must die then be raised to eternal life. These are just a few examples, but I hope you see that not only does Jesus correct the understandings of the Messiah, but also proves how He is fulfilling them. If the teachings and corrections from Jesus aren’t enough, then just look at the testimonies. Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, the Samaritan Woman at the Well and Martha all declare that Jesus is the Messiah. And that’s even before Jesus rose from the dead! All 5 of these people knew Jesus was the Messiah just by being around Jesus.

I will draw you back to the testimonies in John 5. Once again, I will not repeat an explanation for all of them. If you want the explanation, go back to my writings on John 5. I will simply give a list of the 4 Testimonies found in John 5. These testimonies demonstrate that Jesus is both the Christ and the Son of God.

4 Testimonies about Jesus as found in John 5
1. God the Father’s testimony (vs. 31,32,37,38)
2. John the Baptist’s testimony (vs.33-35)
3. Self-testimony through miracles and miraculous signs (vs. 36)
4. Old Testament Scripture’s testimony (vs.39-47)

Now I know my professors and classmates from LBC would be asking, “Where’s the application?” John does give an application right in his theme verse. It’s the most repeated verb in John 20:31. The application is simply to believe. In the Greek, John uses the Greek verb for believe, pisteuō, 98 times. Now, if you’re reading the NIV, you’re not going to be able to count 98t times the word “believe” because half the time the NIV will translate it “put their faith into” just to mix it up. But interesting enough, the Greek noun for faith, pistis, is never used in the Gospel account. Perhaps John does not want us to see belief as something we have, but something we do. If you recall, throughout the book of John, John shows the contrast between belief and unbelief, or the contrast between believers and unbelievers. In the end of John 2, Jesus performs miracles, but the people still do not believe that He is the Christ or the Son of God. They just like watching him do the miracles. In John 6, thousands claim to be followers of Jesus, but when Jesus cranks up the teachings to harder teachings, many stop following Jesus. In John 7-11, John shows that a person cannot simply pick and choose what believe in Jesus. A true believers has to believe that Jesus is both the Christ and the Son of God. Those who don’t believe both, like the skeptics in John 7-11 who believe Jesus is only a rabbi or a prophet, aren’t real followers. John continues to up the ante by insisting that truly believing doesn’t just believe that Jesus existed in history, but is also following the teachings of Jesus. What a perfect application for today. If you were to ask people in my generation and the next youngest generation what being a believing Christian is, they will pretty much tell you it’s adopting the Christian church’s faith statement as their own. This means that they will believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and they will believe that He is sinless, but they won’t love their neighbor, they won’t love their enemies, they won’t do anything Jesus taught them to do. It’s just like Jesus said: people are presented with the light, but they turn it down for the darkness so they can keep with their deeds. If anything becomes more directly applicable to you, I hope it’s the word “believe.” Read this Gospel and ask yourself, “Do I truly believe?” Don’t just believe what you want to believe about Jesus, but believe what Jesus said and what Jesus did, and do likewise.

I better wrap this up before it gets any longer. I will close my conclusion to the Gospel of John the same way I closed my introduction to the Gospel of John. Before I began looking at each chapter individually, I asked you to ask yourself 3 questions reading through John. First, “Who does Jesus claim He is?” Second, “Who does those pro-Jesus, or for Jesus, claim He is?” Third, “Who does those anti-Jesus, or against Jesus, claim Jesus was?” If you sought after these questions, you would have found every time the answer was “Son of God.” Throughout the book, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, using miraculous signs, using “I AM” statements and even by calling God “the Father.” Those pro-Jesus claimed Jesus was God. The Twelve Disciples (Judas Iscariot is debatable), Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samaritans (including the Samaritan Woman), Martha and Mary Magdalene all claimed Jesus was the Son of God. Even those anti-Jesus, those against Jesus, knew Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. And John reveals they knew it, too, and that’s why they wanted him dead! Jesus, Son of God or not, was a threat to them and their way of life. They were losing disciples to Jesus, and they became jealous. Thus, they went after him, using the claims to be the Son of God against him. Without a doubt, everyone in this book knew Jesus was the Son of God, and I hope you now know it, too.

Scholars have debated whether or not the Book of John is to be used for evangelistic purpose (to convert non-believers to Christianity) or for discipleship purposes (to help grow and strengthen a Christian’s faith). I believe it can be used for both. Anyone who does not believe in Jesus will believe in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God from the evidence of the signs. Those who already do believe in Jesus will receive strong and persuasive proof that they are correct in their beliefs and they should stay strong in continuing to believe Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. And for both, as John says, both will receive eternal life. I hope that you have enjoyed this walk through the Gospel of John, I hope you learned something, and most importantly, I hope that you have either gained a new faith or continued to believer more than ever that Jesus is God.

John 9: I Was Blind, But Now I See

Did you get the reference of the title? No, did you get the real reference of the title? If I were to survey people on what the title was referencing, most of the people surveyed would say it’s the last line of the first verse of the famous hymn “Amazing Grace.” This is true, but it’s not the original reference, as hymn writer borrowed this line for another source. From where did he get it? He got it right here in John 9. What’s so amazing (yes, pun intended) about his use of the line from John 9 is that he used it in the right context, comparing going from blind to seeing as the same is going from lost to found. John 9 explains how they are the same, too. Let’s check it out.

Before we dive right into the story, let’s talk about the structure a little bit. The chapter will start off with a miracle. The miracle is the 6th and second-to-last miracle. Do you remember how John 5 used the healing of the invalid as an introduction to Christ’s teaching? Do you also remember how John 6 used the feeding of the 5,000 to introduce Christ’s preaching on the bread of life? John 9 will follow in the same pattern. In the beginning of chapter 9, Jesus will perform a miracle. This miracle will be the “attention-getter” for the teaching that will take up the rest of the chapter. Another piece I would like to note is that this teaching also has a thesis line. As I said in the conclusion of the chapter before, the thesis is one of the “I AM” statements in John 8. More specifically, it’s John 8:12. I’ll put up John 8:12 again in case you forget, but Jesus does use another form of the statement in John 9:5.

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.”

John 9:5-
“While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

Now let’s dive into the chapter. Along their journeys, Jesus and His disciples pass a man blind from birth. So this man has never seen in all His life. When the disciples see the blind man, they do not have pity or mercy on him, but rather, they turn it into a theological debate. Indeed, this topic was hot topic, just as much as it is today: why do people suffer? The Jews in the 1st century had got it down two possibilities: either the person sinned or the person’s parents sinned. Both views are supported by Old Testament Scripture (Ezekiel 18:4 and Exodus 20:5, 34:7 respectively). The Jews of the 1st century, however, were trying to take it a step further. They were trying to create a methodology to determine whether a person’s suffering resulted in the person’s sin or the person’s parents’ sin. Some rabbis were even declaring that a disability from birth was caused by the person sinning in the mother’s womb. This was a heavily weighted debate, and so the Twelve Disciples asked their rabbi for His view.

What really strikes me here is what I said early on the paragraph above. When the disciples see the blind man, there’s no compassion, no mercy, no pity not even a “Poor guy.” They break out in a theological debate, and right in front him. The man is blind, not deaf. How hurtful that must have been to hear people standing in front of you, arguing whether you are a sinner or your mom and dad are sinners. The blind man might be crying out for help, but they don’t hear because they are too involved in their debate. Sometimes I fear Christians have fallen into the same rut. Christians can get so caught up in being right in their theological debates that they miss the people who are hurting. I remember one time I was in Washington, D.C., walking by the steps on the Supreme Court. On one end of the steps was a Christian man, holding a big, wooden cross that had a poster board nailed to it, which read, “Bring back prayer to school.” He was also handing out persuasive pamphlets. A worthy cause, I will admit. On the other side was a beggar, holding a big, tin coffee can, begging for money. Once again, I will say that bringing back prayer to schools is a worthy cause, but this Christian man was caught up in trying to make a political change that he totally ignored the beggar in need not too far from him. I wanted to yell at him, “Help him!” This Christian man probably would not have a made difference in this nation’s decision on prayer in school, but he probably would have had made a difference to man the begging if he had simply helped the man. Christians, let make sure we don’t get caught up in trying to be right or trying to make a political change that we ignore the people who are truly hurting and in need. When we help them, then we show we are right and making a change.

Jesus understood that. He did not see a theological debate in front on him, but rather a person, a human being, that needed help. Jesus, being the good rabbi he was, did answer the disciples’ question, but he was quick and to the point so He could move on to healing this man. Jesus revealed to His disciples that suffering doesn’t always have to be a result of sin (although it could be). Suffering doesn’t always have to be a negative consequence. Suffering can lead to a positive consequence, like glorying God or healing. Jesus does not deny this blind is a sinner, and the same is true for the blind man’s parents, but He’s simply clearing up that it’s not sin that led to suffering, but the suffering will lead to the works of God being seen. (On the note of “Why do people suffer, on top of our sin, our parents sin, and to give glory to God, I want to note that Romans 3 will tell us people suffer because we’re naturally in a corrupt, depraved, fallen, sinful world. So there’s 4 reasons why people suffer, but that’s another blog for another time.)

How does Jesus perform the miracle? Jesus spits on the dirt, makes mud with it and puts it in the blind man’s eyes. Now I’ve heard some people say Jesus used spit because spit does have healing properties. After all, that’s why people suck on their skin when they get a cut, bruise or burn. But I don’t think that just anyone today could spit in someone’s eyes and heal them, so there definitely still is a great miracle happening here. Then Jesus commands the man to go wash in the Pool of Siloam. The Pool of Siloam is located at the mouth of Hezekiah’s tunnel, which was the waterway that led fresh water from the Gihon Springs outside the city of Jerusalem insider the city of Jerusalem. When I was in Israel, I went to Pool of Siloam, and to this day, it still has water in it. Israeli children take the word “pool” very literally, as they play in it on a hot summer day. The blind man follows the instructions of Jesus, and by the time the blind man gets home, he has 20/20 vision!



Now all the Jews living in the city knew this man as the blind beggar. And now all of a sudden, they see their blind beggar seeing. They cannot comprehend this. Some ever going as far as to say it’s just the man’s doppelganger (“look alike”) or maybe a twin, but it cannot be the man, since he’s been blind from birth. But the man who was blind just keeps insisting “I am the man!” When they ask him how he can see, he tells the story word for word, even giving Jesus the credit. The only thing he cannot tell them is the whereabouts of Jesus.

The befuddled Jews of Jerusalem bring the man who was blind to the Pharisees. There’s a lot of reasons to do this. The Pharisees were greatly valued when it came to spiritual affairs. If the Jewish people needed answers, the Pharisees were the ones to go to. In John 9, the people bring the formerly blind man to the Pharisees to get them to verify he was once blind, he is indeed seeing, and this was a legitimate miracle. This practice is somewhat backed up by Scripture, as the Law of Moses did say a cured person had to go to a priest to be declared fully healed. Now in verse 14, John brings to light a very important key aspect, probably because it is on the Pharisees’ minds as well as all the other people’s minds. According the Pharisees, Jesus broke the law twice. First, Jesus made mud on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees thought that making mud or clay on the Sabbath was doing work, thus breaking the 4th commandment. Second, Jesus healed a person on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees believed that healing on the Sabbath was work, and therefore a sin (unless the person healed was dying). So when the formerly blind man tells his story for a second time, the Pharisees simply dismiss Jesus as a sinner because he broke the Sabbath laws twice. But this further baffles the people who brought in the blind man. They know healing can only come from God, and they also know God only works with the righteous, not the sinners. A sinner cannot work with God, so the miracle must mean Jesus is righteous. In verse 16, John once again describes the Jewish people as “divided.” So for the tie-breaker, the Pharisees act the man who was blind directly. The man simply answers, “I think he’s a prophet.”

Well, this still isn’t good enough for the Jews. So they drag his parents in, just to make sure this is their son, the son blind from birth. But then the Pharisees turn on them the question of how he was healed. The parents do verify that the man is indeed their son, but on how he got healed, they simply reply, “We don’t know. Ask him. He is of age.” John explains the parents’ motif. It almost seems as if the parents do believe this is miraculous healing from Jesus. Yet they are afraid to admit it because the Jewish leaders have declared that anyone who called Jesus the Messiah would be “put out of the synagogue.” We think of “synagogue” as building, and indeed it was a building for public meetings. But the Greek word that “synagogue” comes from could literally be translated as “gathered together.” The term synagogue, to the Jewish people, is not only a building, but can also mean the general assembly of Jews as whole. So to be “put out of the synagogue” would mean being excommunicated or shunned from the general assembly of Jews. The Jews saw this as no longer being a Jew, no longer being God’s chosen people, so they did not want to say or do anything that would shun themselves, including saying that Jesus is the Messiah.

Still not satisfied, the Pharisees drag the man who was blind back and make him swear an oath proclaiming God healed him, and not Jesus, for Jesus is a sinner. The man does not accept and agree with the Pharisees’ decision, nor does he disagree by defending Jesus. He does not know who caused the healing (God or Jesus), nor does he know if Jesus is a sinner. So he simply states the facts he knows are true: “I was blind but now I see.” It’s like the man is crying out, “Who freakin’ cares who made see or how I can see, all that matters is I was freakin’ blind and now I can freakin’ see!” Still, the Pharisees are not satisfied, so they start questioning the formerly blind man as to what had happened, hoping to find some kind of contradiction in his story. They still don’t believe he is telling the truth, even after he’s sworn a solemn oath.

Now the man who was blind is going to start to become bold in front of the religious leaders. When the Pharisees ask the formerly blind man to re-tell the story, the formerly blind man says, “Why bother? I already told you everything over and over, and you did not listen. I could tell you again, but still won’t listen,” and then at the end he adds, and I do quote, “Do you want to become His disciples, too?” I can really sense sarcasm in the formerly blind man’s last sentence. It’s like he’s saying, “Apparently you love hearing me talk about Jesus so much. I bet you secretly want to become his disciples.” I’m almost sure this is sarcasm, and my proof is the Pharisees’ reaction to it. But I think the man born blind is on to something. He knows that the Pharisees are out to get Jesus. He even proves it, in the boldest fashion, in John 9:30-33. In a way, the man who was blind shows he has greater spiritual wisdom than the religious leaders. The man who was blind from birth simply states what everyone in the crowd is thinking. God only works with the godly who do His will, not sinners. Thus, a sinner cannot make a blind man see, but only a godly man. Therefore, Jesus has to be a godly man, not a sinner, because he can make the blind man see. Well, the Pharisees won’t take this. Since the man was blind from birth, they take their belief he was in sin since he was in the womb. Seeing themselves as righteous and the man as a sinner, they throw him out and shun him.

Before we move on, let’s take a moment to really feel bad for this poor man. He was born blind, which means he wasn’t able to see all his childhood, and a lot of his adulthood. As the disciples demonstrated, he was probably the topic of many theological talks. Then Jesus comes along and heals him. To be healed after being blind for so long would be a reason for praise, rejoicing and celebration…wouldn’t it? I think it is, but that’s not what the blind received. First, his neighbors do not believe it was him, even claiming it was a doppelganger that just looked like him because the blind man could never see. Next, he is dragged before the Pharisees, where he has to explain again and again what happened. Does it cause the Pharisees to rejoice or praise God? No. The Pharisees just keep asking him questions, which turn into accusations. Then the conversation goes from the blind man to Jesus, and they almost forget that a seeing blind man is standing before them. Soon, even the blind man’s parents are brought forward. Do they rejoice and celebrate their son can see? No, because they are afraid, since the Jewish leaders have struck them with fear. By the time, they get to the end, the blind man is insulted and excommunicated. To sum it all up, the Pharisees did to seeing man what the disciples did to the blind. Instead of recognizing and rejoicing, they instead turned it into a theological debate. Once again, I cry out to Christians: Never get so caught up in the theological “why” and “how” that we forget to just praise and worship God for what He has done.

The story concludes quickly after the man is shunned, but it really hits back to the “I AM” statement used in John 8:12 and John 9:5. When Jesus receives news that the man who was blind has been kicked out, He reaches out to the potential believer. Jesus simply asks him in John 9:35, “Do you believe the Son of Man?” Jesus carefully chooses His words. The term “Son of Man” was a title the prophet Daniel gave the Messiah. The man who was born blind shows willingness and unawareness at the same time. Yes, he does want to believe in the Messiah, but he does not know who the Messiah is. Once again, I see Jesus carefully picking his words, and I love how He does it. I love how Jesus says, “You have now seen him.” Jesus is not merely saying, “It’s the man standing before you,” but He’s also saying, “It’s the one who opened your eyes and made you see.” And it brings the formerly blind man to belief and worship. Jesus explains to the man (and possibly everyone around him), “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind” (John 9:39). The Pharisees who overhear Jesus become indignant at Jesus. Whether they know Jesus is being figurative, or even if they take it literally, they know Jesus is calling them blind. In John 9:41, Jesus makes that connection of blindness to sin, or, in the words of the hymn “Amazing Grace,” Jesus makes the connection of “I was blind, but now I see” to “I once was lost, but now am found.”

I was a summer missionary for Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF) for 4 years, and one of those years, the curriculum we used taught children 5 of the “I AM” statements of Jesus. Even the memory verses were those 5 “I AM” statements. On Day 4 (typically Thursdays), the “I AM” statement and memory verse was John 8:12. The Bible story was not about this blind man in John 9, however, but the story of blind Bartimeaus, as found in all 3 synoptic Gospels. They did it because, for the sake of the children, blind Bartimaeus is an easier story to tell because there’s more action and less talking. Let me be clear that the blind man in John 9 is not Bartimeaus. There are many differences in the story, but the biggest difference is the blind man in John 9 lives in Jerusalem, while the blind Bartimeaus in the synoptic Gospels lives in Jericho. But as CEF revealed, theologically speaking, there are commonalities, and those

In other ancient writings, blindness was seen as a blessing. In ancient writings, most blind people were sages who had a deeper understanding of the world, and some could even use it to “see” in the future (yes, the pun was intended, but so was the irony in ancient writings). Not true with the Bible. Blindness was seen as a curse. As the Jews well understood by the 1st century AD, they knew that blindness, a disability, might have been the result of a sin, and there’s some truth to that. But I think the bigger picture God was trying to get across was that blindness was a literal, physical ailment that was to be a symbolic metaphor for being lost in sin. A blind person could be described as “walking in darkness” because darkness is all they could “see.” In the same way, someone who is in sin could also be described as “walking in darkness.” A blind man needs to be led, for if he wasn’t led, he would get lost. In the same way, someone in sin in lost in sin. Blind people represented the fallen human race, lost in their sin, whether could literally see or not. Then Jesus came along, and he made the blind see. In the same way Jesus helped the blind to see, or helped those who “walked in darkness” to “walk into the light,” Jesus brought salvation to sinners so they would no longer have to walk in the darkness of their sins, but walk into the light of salvation. If Jesus can heal the blind of their blindness, Jesus can heal sinners of their sin. This is how Jesus demonstrated He was the Light of the World. Those who believe in Jesus, as the blind man did, are no longer walking in the darkness of their sin, but are now walking in the light of life. On that day, the blind man just didn’t go from blind to seeing, but also from being lost in his sin to being found.

On that same day, the Pharisees took a step back. They went from seeing to being blind (in a spiritual sense). They went from being found to being lost (once again, in a spiritual sense). Their pride would not allow them to trust in Jesus for salvation. So they lied to themselves, believing themselves to be righteous. Jesus said to them that by doing so, they have not becoming innocent, but have made themselves guilty. Jesus also says, as found in verse 39, just as much as he’ll make the blind see, he’ll make the seeing blind. Christians, may we never make the same mistake as the Pharisees and be blind to see the sin in us and around us. May we always walk in the light of Jesus Christ.

So after 9 chapters of John, we have 1 miracle left and 4 “I AM” statements left. 3 times we saw Jesus use a miracle as the “attention-getting” introduction to the teaching, 2 of which were “I AM statements.” To follow the pattern, the last miracle will be used in accordance with an “I AM statement.” But first, we have another “I AM” statement, and it will be found in the next chapter of John.

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.