If I were to survey Christians and ask them what the most popular or most famous Psalm is, or even if I asked them to name a Psalm of the top of their head, the first one that came to mind, I’m pretty sure I would get the same answer for all 4 questions. The 4 questions would all yield the same answer: Psalm 23. If you don’t recognize the Psalm by its number, you’ll recognize it by its first line: “The Lord is My Shepherd.” This Psalm has become quite famous, so famous you can find lines of it on everything from stationary to home décor. It’s so famous that it’s a popular choice of Bible memory for children. Perhaps you memorized it as a child. Well, it was no different for the Jews in the 1st century. Psalm 23 was well known by all the Jews during the time of Jesus. So when Jesus uses his next “I AM” statement to compare himself as a shepherd, it will perk all the ears of the Jews. So we’re going to take a closer look at this metaphor of Jesus being the good shepherd. I will first put up the key “I AM” verses, and then I will look at this chapter topically to compare Jesus to a 1st century shepherd.
John 10:11,14-
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep…I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me”
John 10:7,9-
Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep…I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.”
Just as the shepherd enters by the gate, so Jesus has the truth (vs. 2). Back in Bible times, sheep pens were simple areas. Sheep pens were a space enclosed by a high stone fence or stone wall in the shape of a circle or a rectangle. There was only one opening in the wall. The only person that would go through that opening would be the shepherd, or possibly a gatekeeper or hired hand under him. Going through the gate was the “right” way to go to the sheep. Anyone who went through the gate the right way was a good person and good to the sheep. In the same way, Jesus approaches us in the right way. He’s not out to deceive us or trick us. He’s not broad or vague. He’s up front with us. He tells it like it is. He has the truth, the good truth, the saving truth. He gives us the truth to for our own good, to save us from the evil in the world. Jesus is not out to hurt us, but to protect us, so he presents the good news in a loving way. However, there’s a flip side to this…
Just as thieves and robbers go over the sheep pen to steal and kill sheep, so false prophets and antichrists use dishonest methods to win over people (vs. 1, 10). Not everyone (or should I say “everything”) was out to be nice and loving to the sheep as the shepherd. Everything from wolves to thieves threatened the sheep. Some would steal sheep; others would kill them. Both wolves and robbers never entered the sheep pen by the gate. They would use other methods, like climbing over the wall to get to the sheep. What a dishonest method! Ladies and gentlemen, the threat to Christians is just as real today. There are false prophets, false teachers, false apostles and antichrists among us today. Just like thieves and robbers, they use dishonest methods to steal people’s souls away from God. They appeal to the sinful desire, by proclaiming selfish desires as good. They disregard the Bible, claiming it is a weight that holds people down. They are bold and arrogant in their empty words, which they cannot back up. They deny the Sovereignty of God or Jesus, making themselves equal, or better, to them. What seems like a movement to better the world ends up bringing to hurt to the people involved, both in this life and the next. Christians, be on the eye for those who “come over the wall,” whose methods are deceitful, tricky and dishonest. Don’t listen to them. Trust in Jesus, and listen to Him. Focus on the one who goes through the entrance, not the one who goes over the wall. For the one who goes in at the entrance also guards the entrance from those who go over the wall. On that note…
Just as the shepherd is the gate of the pen, so Jesus is the way to heaven (vs. 7,9). There was a reason that thieves and robbers had to go over the wall instead of through the entrance. Back in Bible times, sheep pens did not have a “door” or “gate” as we would think. It did not have a “door” or “gate” with hinges and a knob or latch. The entrance of the sheep pen was merely a gap in the wall. When the sheep were in the pen, the shepherd would sit or lie down in the gap, and thus literally become the “door” or the “gate.” No one or nothing could go in or out of the sheep pen without the shepherd knowing and without the shepherd giving permission. In the same way, Jesus is like the gate. (Quick note: This is why I do not consider “I am the gate” as an “I AM” statement. Since the good shepherd became the gate, I see Jesus simply using synonymous parallelism, meaning he’s using two different terms for the same meaning.) First and foremost, this is seen as salvation. The only way to get to heaven is to go through Jesus. But second, remember that nothing harmful can get through the entrance because the good shepherd stands in the gate. In the same way, Jesus protects anything harmful from entering through the opening. Of course, the really deceitful people will try climbing over the wall. Jesus does protect us from those deceitful people who go over the wall, but we still must be on our guard. How do we be on our guard?
Just as the shepherd knows the sheep, and the sheep know the shepherd, so Jesus knows His followers and His followers know Him (vs. 3,14). Good shepherd knew everything about their sheep. As we know from the Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4-7), shepherds knew how many sheep were in their flock. If the shepherd’s flock got mixed in with another flock, he would still know which sheep were his. Shepherds were usually close to their sheep, even if they knew they would be sent to the slaughter for either food for people or sacrifice for God. Shepherds would name their sheep and treat them like pets, from birth until they were sold. There was a very loving relationship there, and as stupid as sheep are, they at least knew when they had a nice, kind, loving shepherd. The sheep would know their name. The sheep would know the shepherd’s voice. The sheep would come whenever the shepherd called. Like I said, the relationship was very loving, and it was mutually loving. In the same way the shepherd loves his sheep, so Jesus loves us. He knows us by name, and everything about us, even down to the numbers of hairs on our head. He knows us past, present and future. He’s by our side from conception to death, and even after that. And the best part is that, like the good shepherd, he’s called us. Notice how the good shepherd does not call his sheep in a mass, but by name, one by one. So Jesus has called us, not just in general, but specifically by name. Anyone who recognizes how much Jesus loves him or her will truly be motivated to love Jesus in return. The first step to loving Jesus is getting to know him. And the first step to knowing him…
Just as the sheep follow the shepherd’s voice, so should Christians listen to and obey God’s commands (vs. 4b). When the shepherd calls for the sheep, the sheep comes. Whatever the shepherd says, the sheep does. The sheep doesn’t question the shepherd because the sheep knows the shepherd says what is best for it. The sheep doesn’t even need to see the shepherd, for the sheep recognizes the shepherd’s voice. If a sheep is this trustful to its shepherd, so Christians also need to be trustful and obedient to their shepherd, Jesus Christ. Sometimes Christians are tempted to question God’s decision in their life or in the world. We really need to cast those temptations out of our head, for Jesus does know what’s best for us. The biggest temptation to question is when it comes to God’s Law or Christ’s teachings. Sometimes people think that God is keeping us from “fun” or he’s all work and no play. But that’s sin trying to convince that our selfish, evil desires are what’s “fun” and “good” for us. So Christians must shut out that temptation and familiarize themselves with the words of Jesus. How do we do that? First step, read the Bible. The Bible is God’s Word. Second step, remember what Jesus says, whether it is by reading it over and over or having a discussion with someone about what you read. Either way, the repetition will help it stick in your memory. Between repetition and memory, you’ll know what Jesus says for you. Third step, respond in obedience. It’s no good if you read and remember, but don’t do anything about it. As James 1:17 simply puts it, “Do what it says.” Not only does it show that we love God, it also helps us be able to recognize the voice of Jesus. Because we all know there’s a flip side to it…
Just as sheep avoid a stranger’s voice, so should Christians avoid listening to the ungodly (vs. 5,8). Why don’t sheep listen to strangers? Simply put they no the strangers are up to no good. They know most strangers are thieves and robbers who want to steal or kill them, so they avoid them. Christians should have that same hesitance towards the worldly ways of this world. The ways of the world are deep in sin, and they are no good for Christians. Those ways will just lead us further away from God, not closer. Our objective as Christians is to get as close to God as possible in our fallen state. Therefore, we need to not listen to any voice that is not godly. For if we do, we could easily find ourselves deceived. Don’t be deceived. Continue to remind yourself of what God has said of you, and avoid anything that does not match up with it. Don’t worry, though, you’ll have someone to help you: your Good Shepherd.
Just as the shepherd goes ahead of the sheep, so Jesus goes ahead of His followers (vs. 4a). The shepherd is a leader. He leads the sheep out of the pen until they are out. He leads them to the pasture. He is the first one in the pasture to make it is safe for the sheep. He knows all aspects of the pasture, just in case the sheep gets lost or stuck. He keeps a watchful and protective eye over the sheep, just as if they were in the sheep pen. When I think of “goes ahead,” I think of God “going ahead” of the Israelites into the Wilderness and into the Promised Land. Well, since Jesus is God, Jesus goes ahead of His followers in the same way. What better example than the life of Jesus. Jesus, while here on earth, was human just as much as he was God. He had a human body, just like yours and mine. He felt all the human needs: hunger, thirst, tiredness. He dealt with every temptation known to mankind. Jesus knew what it meant to be human, so when he taught, he was realistic because he knew how hard it could get. He met our human needs. He knew what it was like to be sick, so he healed the sick. He knew what it was like to be rejected by society, so he reached out to the social rejects. He knew how bad people wanted answers, so he answered questions. He knew how much people loved a good story, so he told stories. I think if there’s any lesson that can be learned from the life of Jesus here on earth, it could be that Jesus was just as human as we were, yet he lived out His teachings perfectly. If He can do it, so can we, or at least we can try or strive to do our best to get to that point, or something close to it. Most importantly, though, Jesus saw we were hurting ourselves in our fallen and depraved state, so He did something about it…
Just as the shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, so Jesus lays down His life for His people (vs. 11-18). If you wanted a dangerous job in the 1st century, believe it or not, shepherding was one of them. The shepherding lands were full of many wild beasts, such as lions, leopards, panthers, bears, jackals, hyenas and wolves. The one thing they all have in common was they all loved munching down on sheep. If you want to know how tough shepherding was, just read shepherding accounts of Jacob and David (Genesis 31:38-40 and 1 Samuel 17:34-37 respectively) to get the picture. A good shepherd would fight off these animals tooth and nail to defend their sheep, even it meant being mutilated and mauled. Bad shepherds or hired hands would flee at the sign of danger, leaving the defenseless sheep on their own to be mauled. Why would a good shepherd defend his sheep? Once again, it goes back to the intimate relationship with the sheep. He loves them and cares for them, so he will do anything to defend them from harm. Jesus does the same. John 10:11 is most commonly translated “for the sheep” but a better translation would be “on behalf of the sheep.” Jesus lays down His life on our behalf, for our own sake. He knows the danger people are in, that is sin and evil. He knew it leads us to death and hell. But Jesus loved us personally, loved us intimately. So He was willing to pay whatever price it would take to get us back, even if it was His life. How ironic, yet fitting, that it is the shepherd, who will be the once-and-for-all sacrifice, for the animal that was usually sacrificed on the Day of Atonement was a sheep. Jesus willingly laid down his life for His people, and God the Father was pleased by this. We too should give Jesus the credit for what He has done by praising and worshipping Him.
Just as a shepherd has other sheep in other pens, so Jesus has followers from other places in the world (vs. 16). I know this one kind of sticks out weird, but I thought it was kind of cool to mention. Sometimes a shepherd would keep his sheep in the same pen with sheep from another shepherd. Sometimes a shepherd would keep his sheep in multiple pens. Sometimes a shepherd would do a combination of both. But when it was time for the sheep to graze in the pasture, he would call all his sheep together as one. Truly, the other sheep in other pens are the Gentiles. How do we know these Gentiles are true sheep? Just like the real sheep of the shepherd, they know the shepherd’s voice and follow. The Gentiles who hear the teachings of Jesus and follow Jesus are true believers. They will join up with Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah, and they will become one. This is what I see happening in Acts. Gentiles from other tribes and nations (other pens, if you will) all over the world, coming together as a new kingdom and a new nation, the kingdom of God. And what made this all possible? The works of Jesus.
What does Psalm 80:1, Ecclesiastes 12:11, Isaiah 40:11 and Jeremiah 31:10 all have in common? All of these Old Testament verses describe God as the Shepherd of His people Israel. All of the Jews knew these verses, and they all knew God as their Shepherd. So when the Jews heard Jesus proclaim that He was the Good Shepherd, all the Jews knew He was proclaiming to be God. If you need internal evidence, just keep reading the chapter. In John 10:30, Jesus says that He and the Father are one, that is, God. In John 10:31-33, the Jews get ready to stone Jesus because they say Jesus claims to be God. Even the opponents of Jesus are claiming Jesus is God, or at least claiming that Jesus is claiming that Jesus is God. Think back to the original questions that I asked you in the introduction of John. Who does Jesus say He is? Who do the opponents of Jesus say that He is? God the Son. Yet another “I AM” statement proves Jesus is God the Son, just like John intended. John will continue to show us Jesus is God the Son with the “I AM” statements right into the next chapter of the book of John.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, February 09, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
John 7: The Word on The Street
The title of this post comes from the title of a paraphrased Bible. The Word on the Street Bible was an attempt to paraphrase the Bible using 21st century language, including 21st century slang and jargon. Rob Lacey, the British author, still seemed to miss the urban feeling he was going for, perhaps because the British urban slang is much different than American slang. (For example, his 21st century equivalent to “amen” is “absolutely.” How many gangsters do you hear saying “absolutely!”?) There’s debate whether the Word on the Street Bible is to be taken seriously as inspired Scripture, or if Lacey has gone too far with paraphrasing, making it dangerously close to heresy. I decided to name this post, not after the paraphrase of the Bible, but because it does literally cover the topic about this chapter. John 7 is about the word on the street about Jesus.
I believe there are 2 ways to understand what the brothers of Jesus are saying in John 7:3,4. The first way is to approach what they say as sarcastic. This would render us the most literal interpretation of verse 5. The brothers are sarcastically telling Jesus to act like a public figure because they really think Jesus isn’t all that and He shouldn’t be a public figure. Now some people are wary to say people are speaking sarcastically, so the second way to look at John 7:3,4 is to look at what the brothers say as literal. In this case, verse 5 would more mean that they do not believe in Christ’s ministry or mission, for His mission is not one to become a popular leader. The brothers seem like they care more about the popularity, fame or even riches that would come with popularity and fame. Jesus is not interested in that. Jesus is interested in proclaiming the gospel message.
Jesus knows it’s too dangerous to go to Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders, such as the Sanhedrin, have more control in Judea than in Galilee, and even more control in Jerusalem than the rest of Judea. Jesus is well aware people are trying to kill him, especially after His teaching in John 6. Jesus also understands why the people are trying to kill him. The people (mainly the Pharisees and Sadducees) want him dead because He exposes the sin of the world, especially the sins of those who think of themselves as righteous. So Jesus decides not to go…or does he? John 7:10 tells the reader he went later secretly.
Why did Jesus go? First, Jesus was a good Jew. The Jewish Law commanded that all laws were mandatory. Yes, Jews had to celebrate holidays. To not celebrate a holiday would be breaking the Law. Jesus was sinless, so to remain sinless, He had to obey the Law and celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. Second, it’s fair to point out that Jesus did not say he wasn’t going to the Feast of Tabernacles. He just said it was not his time. Apparently His time to go up was a bit later, after everyone else went up. Why? That leads us right into point 3. Third, Jesus just wanted to go in secret to prevent public attraction. If he went with all His family and His disciples at once, Jesus would have stuck out like a sore thumb. When Jesus goes by Himself, He is able to sneak into the city without anyone noticing. Fourth (and this is purely argument from the silence, but it makes logical sense to me), Jesus knew ministry needed to be done in Jerusalem, and nothing could keep Jesus from performing the mission that His Father gave to Him. Well what about His life? It goes back to point. Jesus knew it was not His time for His death. So Jesus knew the Father would keep Him safe. We’ll see that play out.
Sure enough, in John 7:11, all the Jews, the small and the great alike, are looking for Jesus. Now John 7:12,13 is an interesting 2 verses. John puts the reader in the mind of the Jews in Jerusalem. How does he do this? Perhaps he interviewed the Jews. Maybe he just eavesdropped on the gossiping going around. Or maybe even the Holy Spirit told John as John was writing the book. Either way, listening in on this gossiping about Jesus shows how things have changed after Christ’s teaching in John 6. Before John 6 (more specifically, John 6:66), those for Jesus were the majority, and those against Jesus were the minority. Those who were pro-Jesus were large in number and those anti-Jesus were small in number. Then Jesus taught the Bread of Life message in John 6, and John 6:66 reveals that the message caused many to turn away from Jesus. Now we can see that, as John 7:12,13 almost make it look like the approval rating of Jesus is 50/50 or half-and-half. Those who still approve of Jesus say that Jesus is a good man. Those who disapprove of Jesus claim Jesus deceives the people. Both groups are afraid to say anything out loud, in fear of the Sanhedrin. They know they hold the power in Judea and the Jewish faith to announce if Jesus is in the right or in the wrong. Anyone against the Sanhedrin’s decision would be the wrong one, and that would make them a bad Jew. This foreshadows a Jewish crowd that is easily persuaded by its leaders.
But let’s quickly go back to the two statements. Those pro-Jesus, or for Jesus, say, “He is a good man.” Those anti-Jesus, or against Jesus, say, “He deceives the people.” Deception is a form of lying. So those against Jesus call Jesus a liar, but those supportive of Jesus call him a good man. This reminds me of C.S. Lewis’s “trilemma.” Just like in the early 2000s, the people of the early 1900s were trying to simply declare (or rather, simply dismiss) Jesus as a good man and a good teaching, and nothing more, like God. But C.S. Lewis sees a problem with this because of 2 things Jesus taught. First, Jesus taught He was the Truth, and He always told the truth. Second, Jesus taught that He was indeed Lord and God. So C.S. Lewis stated we are left with three options, hence a tri-lemma. First option, Jesus wasn’t God, knew he wasn’t God, but still taught He was God, which would make him a liar. Liars do not make good teachers, or even good people. Second option, Jesus wasn’t God, but He really thought He was God, thus He taught the people He was God, which would make Him insane, crazy or a lunatic. Insane and crazy lunatics do not make good teachers. Third option, Jesus was truly God, Jesus knew He was God, and Jesus taught the truth that He was God to people, which would make Him Lord. This is the only way Jesus could be a good teacher. He had to be the Lord God, for His teaching testifies to it. C.S. Lewis stated this 1900 years after the earthly ministry of Jesus, but it seems like even the people of the 1st century know C.S. Lewis’s trilemma had to be the truth.
The Feast of Tabernacles is a week long feast, so about a half of a week in, Jesus decides He has had enough time alone in private, so He comes out, teaching in temple courts. In teaching, He amazes they Jewish people. They ask in verse 15, “How has this man get such learning without having studied?” The Jews did take studying the Scriptures very seriously. They went through Torah School in what we would call the preschool, elementary school and middle school years. Then they prominent students did an internship/mentoring with a rabbi during what we would call the high school years. At the minimum, the Jews had the whole Torah memorized. That’s Genesis to Deuteronomy! At the maximum, the Jews had the whole Tanak (Hebrew Bible) memorized. That’s Genesis to Malachi! Some of the most outstanding Jews would even attempt to memorize parts of the Talmud, which is Moses’s commentary on the Torah. But not all Jews got to this point. Many could not make it beyond their regular schooling. These Jews went back to their family trade, like farming, fishing, or carpentry, for example. I said carpentry on purpose because that was the trade of Joseph, the father of Jesus, and so that would have been the trade of Jesus. It got the Jews hung up because a carpenter shouldn’t be this wise when it came to the study, interpretation and application of the Scriptures.
Today, Christians can get caught up in the same rut. Christians want the people with the most degrees or the highest degrees teaching and preaching. All Christians would acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is dwelling in every believer of Christ, yet few would be willing to trust an uneducated person as much as an educated person with Biblical matters. Christians cannot get hung up on this. Trust me, I can attest to this. I know two very good pastors, who have never stepped foot on a seminary, and yet they are very good preachers. Another good example would be my quiz coach of 5 years. He never got any formal teaching or training in the Scriptures beyond Sunday School and church. He’s not a lead pastor, an associate pastor, or a youth pastor. In fact, he’s an electrician! Yet he knows the Bible inside and out, and he has a wisdom that rivals Solomon’s. A third example I could give is my favorite childhood Sunday School teacher. Once again, he had no formal training or teaching. His occupation was painting decals on vehicles. Yet he had a heart of spiritual leadership. Christians, never put a person down because they have less education. If we truly have the same Holy Spirit in us all, the Holy Spirit can speak truth to us all through us all. So make sure you carefully listen to everyone. (And this is saying a lot, coming from a Bible college graduate!)
In response to the Jews, Jesus calls out the Jews twice on hypocrisy. First, Jesus points out the Jews hate them for exalting God, while the Jews exalt themselves. For if the Jewish leaders did glorify God, their teaching would sound a lot like the teachings of Jesus. Second, Jesus also points out that the Jews yell at him for healing on the Sabbath, yet they circumcise on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly shows that healing is no more work than circumcising. In fact, Jesus actually has to correct the Jews. By this time, the Jews are claiming circumcision came from Moses. Jesus has to get them back to the Scriptures so they can see Abraham is the one who brought circumcision, and Isaac and Jacob followed through with it. Yet the Jews act like circumcising it not work, and healing is. So Jesus calls them out in verse 24, and he says something that people say all the time in the 21st century, but only Jesus really has the right to say: “You have no right to judge me.”
This leaves the Jews dumfounded. The Jewish people look to towards the Jewish leaders, but they can’t get a peep in. The most they can get in is a denial and an accusation, both of which are false (John 7:20). Since the Jewish leaders are remaining silent, some of the Jewish people are starting to take the silence of the Jewish leaders to say, “We got no argument against Him. He’s right,” which could be interpreted, “He is the Christ.” So the crowd is left to decide on their own. Some come to faith and side with Jesus, believing that no one can give a greater testimony that he is the Christ than Jesus can. Others still are hesitant in coming to faith. They are clinging onto a Jewish tradition that said the Messiah would have no background, like family or hometown. So they can’t believe Jesus is the Messiah because they know He is from Nazareth and they know His mother is Mary and His father is Joseph. Jesus is even willing to demonstrate that He fulfilled the tradition by coming from God the Father, who is mystery to human beings, so it is almost as if Jesus doesn’t have a background because His “background” can’t be comprehended by mere mortals. Still, the Jewish people are cautious.
The Jewish leaders, still dumbfounded, quickly send the temple guard to come and arrest Jesus. To the chief priests and Pharisees, it’s the only way to get Jesus to shut up, since the chief priests and Pharisees can’t say anything to prove Jesus wrong. Yet even arresting Jesus won’t work. John, in his narration, simply says that it was not Christ’s time to be arrested, so the Father prevented Jesus from being arrested. Of course, temple guards, chief priests and Pharisees can’t see this. So when the Pharisees and chief priests question the temple guards on why they came back empty handed, the simply report that while pushing through the crowd, they heard Jesus preach, and they stopped and listening, for even they were perplexed by His words. The chief priests and Pharisees simply dismiss as stupidity. They claim that the only reason Jesus is winning over people is because the people are uneducated and thus are too stupid to know real teaching from fake teaching, good teaching from bad teaching. But Nicodemus, our good from John 3, who is also a Pharisee, raises an eyebrow at this. Nicodemus calls out the Pharisees, his own religious party, for not giving Jesus a fair chance to speak because they are going in to listen to Jesus with a bias against them. Once again, the Pharisees simply dismiss this, arguing that the only reason Nicodemus is defending Jesus is because Jesus is from Galilee, just like Nicodemus is from Galilee.
Jesus preaches in Jerusalem all the way to the end of the Feast of Tabernacles. By now, it almost sounds like he’s repeating himself, for his words, his metaphors and his message sound the same as in John 4-6. It shows Jesus is really trying to get out this message to the people. They need to believe in Him.
So what’s the reaction of the people in the crowd to all of Christ’s teaching? It hasn’t changed too much from before. It’s still split half-and-half, or 50/50. Some people are siding with Jesus, claiming He is either the Christ or the Prophet. Other people are still not willing to side with Jesus. They are still caught up with the fact Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. Even getting past their Jewish tradition, they know the Scriptures clearly say that the Messiah will come out of David’s family, which means the Messiah would have to come from Bethlehem in Judea. If the people would simply do their genealogy homework, they could see that both Mary and Joseph are descendants of David, thus making Jesus a descendant of David. If the people would simply do their history homework, they would have discovered Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem. (It’s interesting to see the issue of the location of Christ’s birth comes in the book of John during chapter 7, yet John does not include a birth story. But as we already talked about, John’s telling of the origins of Christ, as told in John 1, fit John’s overall message better.) Yet the Jews remain ignorant about it, and because of it, many refuse to come in faith. So what’s the thesis, or main verse, for John 7?
John 7:43-
“Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.”
Sorry if this post seemed to be all over the place, bouncing back and forth in the chapter. But you’ll see that no matter where I bounced, every verse pointed back to John 7:43. Sorry if it doesn’t seem like there is an overall, primary application to this chapter (although I did make sure to put in small, secondary applications), especially in relation to John’s overall purpose and portrayal of Jesus Christ. What I wanted to show you, and I believe that John wanted the reader to see this in chapter 7 as well, is that after Jesus taught the Bread of Life in John 6, much of the crowd went from follower to skeptic, which led the people to be sharply divided on the subject of Jesus. Some still supported Jesus, while other opposed Him. If there is a group that is larger than the supporters, and larger than the opposers, it would be the undecided and the skeptics. In John chapters 1-6, Jesus laid down the evidence that He was God the Son. Now Jesus is calling for the crowds listening to Him, as well as the reader reading about Him, to make the decision if Jesus truly is God or not. As we read through the next 2/3 of the book of John, we’ll continue to see Jesus prove Himself as God, call the people to make a decision to believe, and see the growing split between those for and against Jesus.
I believe there are 2 ways to understand what the brothers of Jesus are saying in John 7:3,4. The first way is to approach what they say as sarcastic. This would render us the most literal interpretation of verse 5. The brothers are sarcastically telling Jesus to act like a public figure because they really think Jesus isn’t all that and He shouldn’t be a public figure. Now some people are wary to say people are speaking sarcastically, so the second way to look at John 7:3,4 is to look at what the brothers say as literal. In this case, verse 5 would more mean that they do not believe in Christ’s ministry or mission, for His mission is not one to become a popular leader. The brothers seem like they care more about the popularity, fame or even riches that would come with popularity and fame. Jesus is not interested in that. Jesus is interested in proclaiming the gospel message.
Jesus knows it’s too dangerous to go to Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders, such as the Sanhedrin, have more control in Judea than in Galilee, and even more control in Jerusalem than the rest of Judea. Jesus is well aware people are trying to kill him, especially after His teaching in John 6. Jesus also understands why the people are trying to kill him. The people (mainly the Pharisees and Sadducees) want him dead because He exposes the sin of the world, especially the sins of those who think of themselves as righteous. So Jesus decides not to go…or does he? John 7:10 tells the reader he went later secretly.
Why did Jesus go? First, Jesus was a good Jew. The Jewish Law commanded that all laws were mandatory. Yes, Jews had to celebrate holidays. To not celebrate a holiday would be breaking the Law. Jesus was sinless, so to remain sinless, He had to obey the Law and celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. Second, it’s fair to point out that Jesus did not say he wasn’t going to the Feast of Tabernacles. He just said it was not his time. Apparently His time to go up was a bit later, after everyone else went up. Why? That leads us right into point 3. Third, Jesus just wanted to go in secret to prevent public attraction. If he went with all His family and His disciples at once, Jesus would have stuck out like a sore thumb. When Jesus goes by Himself, He is able to sneak into the city without anyone noticing. Fourth (and this is purely argument from the silence, but it makes logical sense to me), Jesus knew ministry needed to be done in Jerusalem, and nothing could keep Jesus from performing the mission that His Father gave to Him. Well what about His life? It goes back to point. Jesus knew it was not His time for His death. So Jesus knew the Father would keep Him safe. We’ll see that play out.
Sure enough, in John 7:11, all the Jews, the small and the great alike, are looking for Jesus. Now John 7:12,13 is an interesting 2 verses. John puts the reader in the mind of the Jews in Jerusalem. How does he do this? Perhaps he interviewed the Jews. Maybe he just eavesdropped on the gossiping going around. Or maybe even the Holy Spirit told John as John was writing the book. Either way, listening in on this gossiping about Jesus shows how things have changed after Christ’s teaching in John 6. Before John 6 (more specifically, John 6:66), those for Jesus were the majority, and those against Jesus were the minority. Those who were pro-Jesus were large in number and those anti-Jesus were small in number. Then Jesus taught the Bread of Life message in John 6, and John 6:66 reveals that the message caused many to turn away from Jesus. Now we can see that, as John 7:12,13 almost make it look like the approval rating of Jesus is 50/50 or half-and-half. Those who still approve of Jesus say that Jesus is a good man. Those who disapprove of Jesus claim Jesus deceives the people. Both groups are afraid to say anything out loud, in fear of the Sanhedrin. They know they hold the power in Judea and the Jewish faith to announce if Jesus is in the right or in the wrong. Anyone against the Sanhedrin’s decision would be the wrong one, and that would make them a bad Jew. This foreshadows a Jewish crowd that is easily persuaded by its leaders.
But let’s quickly go back to the two statements. Those pro-Jesus, or for Jesus, say, “He is a good man.” Those anti-Jesus, or against Jesus, say, “He deceives the people.” Deception is a form of lying. So those against Jesus call Jesus a liar, but those supportive of Jesus call him a good man. This reminds me of C.S. Lewis’s “trilemma.” Just like in the early 2000s, the people of the early 1900s were trying to simply declare (or rather, simply dismiss) Jesus as a good man and a good teaching, and nothing more, like God. But C.S. Lewis sees a problem with this because of 2 things Jesus taught. First, Jesus taught He was the Truth, and He always told the truth. Second, Jesus taught that He was indeed Lord and God. So C.S. Lewis stated we are left with three options, hence a tri-lemma. First option, Jesus wasn’t God, knew he wasn’t God, but still taught He was God, which would make him a liar. Liars do not make good teachers, or even good people. Second option, Jesus wasn’t God, but He really thought He was God, thus He taught the people He was God, which would make Him insane, crazy or a lunatic. Insane and crazy lunatics do not make good teachers. Third option, Jesus was truly God, Jesus knew He was God, and Jesus taught the truth that He was God to people, which would make Him Lord. This is the only way Jesus could be a good teacher. He had to be the Lord God, for His teaching testifies to it. C.S. Lewis stated this 1900 years after the earthly ministry of Jesus, but it seems like even the people of the 1st century know C.S. Lewis’s trilemma had to be the truth.
The Feast of Tabernacles is a week long feast, so about a half of a week in, Jesus decides He has had enough time alone in private, so He comes out, teaching in temple courts. In teaching, He amazes they Jewish people. They ask in verse 15, “How has this man get such learning without having studied?” The Jews did take studying the Scriptures very seriously. They went through Torah School in what we would call the preschool, elementary school and middle school years. Then they prominent students did an internship/mentoring with a rabbi during what we would call the high school years. At the minimum, the Jews had the whole Torah memorized. That’s Genesis to Deuteronomy! At the maximum, the Jews had the whole Tanak (Hebrew Bible) memorized. That’s Genesis to Malachi! Some of the most outstanding Jews would even attempt to memorize parts of the Talmud, which is Moses’s commentary on the Torah. But not all Jews got to this point. Many could not make it beyond their regular schooling. These Jews went back to their family trade, like farming, fishing, or carpentry, for example. I said carpentry on purpose because that was the trade of Joseph, the father of Jesus, and so that would have been the trade of Jesus. It got the Jews hung up because a carpenter shouldn’t be this wise when it came to the study, interpretation and application of the Scriptures.
Today, Christians can get caught up in the same rut. Christians want the people with the most degrees or the highest degrees teaching and preaching. All Christians would acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is dwelling in every believer of Christ, yet few would be willing to trust an uneducated person as much as an educated person with Biblical matters. Christians cannot get hung up on this. Trust me, I can attest to this. I know two very good pastors, who have never stepped foot on a seminary, and yet they are very good preachers. Another good example would be my quiz coach of 5 years. He never got any formal teaching or training in the Scriptures beyond Sunday School and church. He’s not a lead pastor, an associate pastor, or a youth pastor. In fact, he’s an electrician! Yet he knows the Bible inside and out, and he has a wisdom that rivals Solomon’s. A third example I could give is my favorite childhood Sunday School teacher. Once again, he had no formal training or teaching. His occupation was painting decals on vehicles. Yet he had a heart of spiritual leadership. Christians, never put a person down because they have less education. If we truly have the same Holy Spirit in us all, the Holy Spirit can speak truth to us all through us all. So make sure you carefully listen to everyone. (And this is saying a lot, coming from a Bible college graduate!)
In response to the Jews, Jesus calls out the Jews twice on hypocrisy. First, Jesus points out the Jews hate them for exalting God, while the Jews exalt themselves. For if the Jewish leaders did glorify God, their teaching would sound a lot like the teachings of Jesus. Second, Jesus also points out that the Jews yell at him for healing on the Sabbath, yet they circumcise on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly shows that healing is no more work than circumcising. In fact, Jesus actually has to correct the Jews. By this time, the Jews are claiming circumcision came from Moses. Jesus has to get them back to the Scriptures so they can see Abraham is the one who brought circumcision, and Isaac and Jacob followed through with it. Yet the Jews act like circumcising it not work, and healing is. So Jesus calls them out in verse 24, and he says something that people say all the time in the 21st century, but only Jesus really has the right to say: “You have no right to judge me.”
This leaves the Jews dumfounded. The Jewish people look to towards the Jewish leaders, but they can’t get a peep in. The most they can get in is a denial and an accusation, both of which are false (John 7:20). Since the Jewish leaders are remaining silent, some of the Jewish people are starting to take the silence of the Jewish leaders to say, “We got no argument against Him. He’s right,” which could be interpreted, “He is the Christ.” So the crowd is left to decide on their own. Some come to faith and side with Jesus, believing that no one can give a greater testimony that he is the Christ than Jesus can. Others still are hesitant in coming to faith. They are clinging onto a Jewish tradition that said the Messiah would have no background, like family or hometown. So they can’t believe Jesus is the Messiah because they know He is from Nazareth and they know His mother is Mary and His father is Joseph. Jesus is even willing to demonstrate that He fulfilled the tradition by coming from God the Father, who is mystery to human beings, so it is almost as if Jesus doesn’t have a background because His “background” can’t be comprehended by mere mortals. Still, the Jewish people are cautious.
The Jewish leaders, still dumbfounded, quickly send the temple guard to come and arrest Jesus. To the chief priests and Pharisees, it’s the only way to get Jesus to shut up, since the chief priests and Pharisees can’t say anything to prove Jesus wrong. Yet even arresting Jesus won’t work. John, in his narration, simply says that it was not Christ’s time to be arrested, so the Father prevented Jesus from being arrested. Of course, temple guards, chief priests and Pharisees can’t see this. So when the Pharisees and chief priests question the temple guards on why they came back empty handed, the simply report that while pushing through the crowd, they heard Jesus preach, and they stopped and listening, for even they were perplexed by His words. The chief priests and Pharisees simply dismiss as stupidity. They claim that the only reason Jesus is winning over people is because the people are uneducated and thus are too stupid to know real teaching from fake teaching, good teaching from bad teaching. But Nicodemus, our good from John 3, who is also a Pharisee, raises an eyebrow at this. Nicodemus calls out the Pharisees, his own religious party, for not giving Jesus a fair chance to speak because they are going in to listen to Jesus with a bias against them. Once again, the Pharisees simply dismiss this, arguing that the only reason Nicodemus is defending Jesus is because Jesus is from Galilee, just like Nicodemus is from Galilee.
Jesus preaches in Jerusalem all the way to the end of the Feast of Tabernacles. By now, it almost sounds like he’s repeating himself, for his words, his metaphors and his message sound the same as in John 4-6. It shows Jesus is really trying to get out this message to the people. They need to believe in Him.
So what’s the reaction of the people in the crowd to all of Christ’s teaching? It hasn’t changed too much from before. It’s still split half-and-half, or 50/50. Some people are siding with Jesus, claiming He is either the Christ or the Prophet. Other people are still not willing to side with Jesus. They are still caught up with the fact Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. Even getting past their Jewish tradition, they know the Scriptures clearly say that the Messiah will come out of David’s family, which means the Messiah would have to come from Bethlehem in Judea. If the people would simply do their genealogy homework, they could see that both Mary and Joseph are descendants of David, thus making Jesus a descendant of David. If the people would simply do their history homework, they would have discovered Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem. (It’s interesting to see the issue of the location of Christ’s birth comes in the book of John during chapter 7, yet John does not include a birth story. But as we already talked about, John’s telling of the origins of Christ, as told in John 1, fit John’s overall message better.) Yet the Jews remain ignorant about it, and because of it, many refuse to come in faith. So what’s the thesis, or main verse, for John 7?
John 7:43-
“Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.”
Sorry if this post seemed to be all over the place, bouncing back and forth in the chapter. But you’ll see that no matter where I bounced, every verse pointed back to John 7:43. Sorry if it doesn’t seem like there is an overall, primary application to this chapter (although I did make sure to put in small, secondary applications), especially in relation to John’s overall purpose and portrayal of Jesus Christ. What I wanted to show you, and I believe that John wanted the reader to see this in chapter 7 as well, is that after Jesus taught the Bread of Life in John 6, much of the crowd went from follower to skeptic, which led the people to be sharply divided on the subject of Jesus. Some still supported Jesus, while other opposed Him. If there is a group that is larger than the supporters, and larger than the opposers, it would be the undecided and the skeptics. In John chapters 1-6, Jesus laid down the evidence that He was God the Son. Now Jesus is calling for the crowds listening to Him, as well as the reader reading about Him, to make the decision if Jesus truly is God or not. As we read through the next 2/3 of the book of John, we’ll continue to see Jesus prove Himself as God, call the people to make a decision to believe, and see the growing split between those for and against Jesus.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
John 6: The Real, True Story of the Feeding of the 5,000
Nothing like a controversial title to get your attention. Don’t get me wrong, I do fully believe in the inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, authority and revelation of the Scriptures. But remember we agreed that John is writing his book to an audience that he assumes has read and understood the synoptic Gospels. Thus, John writes about the new, unique stories of the life of Jesus. Yet John decides to include the Feeding of the 5,000, which all 3 synoptic Gospel writers also include. Yes, this is the only miracle (and possibly the only story period) that all 4 Gospel writers include in their Gospel. Broadly speaking, why would all 4 Gospel writers include the story of this miracle? More specifically speaking, why would John include the miraculous story, and how does it add to his purpose?
Well, let’s do some pre-thinking brainstorming here. Let’s do so by answering this question: How has movies, television (both TV shows and movies made for TV), music, books, magazines and other forms of media depict this story? This was the answer I came up with: “Unless the source of media is sticking to staying true to a certain Gospel account, most of the time, the media will combine all 4 Gospel accounts to get a full picture.” Notice the preamble I used: “Unless the source of media is sticking to staying true to a certain Gospel account…” Well, we are sticking to staying true to a Gospel account, more specifically, John. So we’re going to want to pick out the unique points that John mentions. After all, he wants to give the readers a fresh look at Jesus. The biggest difference I see in the book is the length of the story. While the synoptic Gospel writers take 12-15 verses to tell the story, John takes 70 verses! You might be thinking to yourself, “Well, that’s because you are including every verse of the chapter for John’s account, while for the synoptic accounts, you’re only taking the verses from the actual story.” I do that because I believe while the synoptic Gospel writers simply summarize the events of the pericope (a story from the life of Jesus) and then move onto the next pericope, John connects the rest of the events (mainly the teaching in 6:22-71) back to the Feeding of the 5,000. Like I said in the introduction, if John repeats a story from the synoptic Gospels, he’s going to bring new information with it, like a teaching. So once again, I’m just going to highlight a couple differences in the actual story, but mainly focus on the preaching afterward.
The first difference I want everyone to notice is that Christ’s response to the hunger of the people. John’s Gospel doesn’t mention this, but all 3 synoptic Gospels say that the disciples said to Jesus that the people were probably getting hungry from listening to Jesus in a remote area for so long. Their idea is to send them away to get their own food. In the 3 synoptic Gospels, Jesus says to the disciples, “You give them something to eat,” but John records Jesus saying in John 6:5, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” Does this mean that John got it wrong, and there is an error in the Bible? By no means! All you have to do is look at the next verse, John 6:6. Jesus is saying this to test the disciples. So what Jesus said, according to John, could be summarized, “You give them something to eat” because whatever Jesus said, he meant to bring to light the severity of the need. Actually, I believe that John’s different wording brings to light the disciples’ response. Mark is the only author to record that the disciples objected by claiming they didn’t have enough money. This objection and claim doesn’t make sense how they made the jump from Christ’s suggestion to feed them to the disciples’ claim that they didn’t have enough money. John clarifies that. John records Jesus suggesting they pay for this. Once again, this is Jesus bringing to light the severity of the situation. In order to give each person (the Bible records 5,000 men, but if there was at least 1 woman and 1 child for every man, that’s at least 15,000 people) at least 1 bite, it would take 200 denarii, or 8 months worth of pay, and even that would not fill the people. Things were dire.
The second difference I want to point out is the use of the disciples’ names. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, it simply says, “the disciples.” Jesus tells the disciples to give the people something to eat. The disciples tell Jesus there is not enough money. The disciples find a boy with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. John picks out specific disciples. Jesus speaks to Philip when he asks how to feed the people. Philip tells Jesus there is not enough money. Andrew finds a boy with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. This is not meant to be seen as John picking on people. Instead, this is to be seen as good character development to make the story telling have more of a real feeling. Instead of giving the generic group “the disciples” John picks out specific people, like Philip and Andrew to show the real-life interaction between Jesus and His disciples. And once again, if John has to re-tell a story, he’s going to do it in a new way, even if it is adding some details.
The third difference I see is the reaction of the crowd. As a matter of fact, neither Matthew, nor Mark, nor Luke records the reaction of the people in the crowd. But John does. John says that the people believed Jesus was The Prophet the Scriptures foretold about. John also tells the reader that they were planning to make Jesus king by force. Why would they do that? Imagine a politician running for president claiming that if he is elected president, he would feed everyone, whether it be handing out government-grown food, reimbursing everyone’s food bills, or simply giving everyone food stamps. I bet he would win the presidential race if he could prove his claim. Well, that’s what the crowd of 5,000 men saw. They saw a man feed them with very little food. It got them thinking, “If this man were our king, we would never go hungry ever again because he could feed the whole nation with whatever little food we had!” They loved this thought so much, they were willing to start a revolution to overthrow the Romans and make Jesus king, even if Jesus didn’t want it! But John also records Jesus knew about their intents, so he high-tailed it out of there!
Now the next story seems to “interrupt” the story of the Feeding of the 5,000, between the miracle and the teaching. It’s a famous story. It’s the story of Jesus walking on the water during a storm on the sea. This one isn’t in all 4 Gospel narratives, but it is in 3 of the 4: Matthew, Mark and John. Yet John seems to talk about the miracle the least. Once again, we ask ourselves, “Why would John include this story?” Well, first of all, it’s just the natural progression of events. After the Feeding of 5,000, the crowd is pressing on Jesus and His disciples. I can almost imagine Jesus shoving the disciples on the boat, yelling, “I’ll fend them off. Go on ahead without me. I’ll catch up!” And I bet the storm came up the minute a disciple said out loud, “How do you think Jesus is going to catch up with us?” Most likely, they thought he would go around the lake or take a different boat later on, but I’m sure the least likely response would be “Walk on water.” I would even more say this story is here for progression of events because Mark tells us that despite Jesus walking on water and calming the storm, they still don’t understand the miracle of the Feeding of the 5,000. This is the perfect segway into John 6:22-71, even if John doesn’t record it. But the second and just as important reason is for the disciples’ reaction because it fulfills John’s purpose. It’s interesting to see that although it answers John’s purpose, John does not record it, but Matthew does. So you don’t have to leave your place in John 6, I’ll put it up right here.
Matthew 14:33-
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Bam! There it is. When the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, they knew Jesus was the Son of God, or God the Son. Although John does not explicitly state it, John believes that through seeing this miracle, the reader will also see Jesus as God. Remember, John only puts 7 miracles in his book, and all of these miracles are to point to Jesus as the Son of God and God the Son. So we understand why the miracle of Jesus walking on water shows Jesus as God, but we still need to see how the Feeding of the 5,000 reveals Jesus to be God. So let’s begin in verse 22.
Meanwhile, while the disciples were sailing across the Sea of Galilee, and Jesus was walking across it (I always wondered if Jesus started walking while the crowd was pressing on him, and if so, I wonder what the crowd’s reaction was…), the crowd has been going to every town on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, looking for Jesus. They still have the intent of forcing him to be king so he can continue making lots of food out of very little food. I love their reaction when they finally find Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum. It’s like they are saying, “Jesus! It just so happens all 5,000 of us men just so happened to be visiting Capernaum, and lo and behold, you are here! What a coincidence!” Jesus, instead of continuing to try to run away, confronts the people. Jesus basically says in John 6:26, “You’re not here to truly listen to my teaching and follow me. You’re only here to eat more food.” It would be like a youth leader confronting his youth group by saying, “You’re not here for Bible study. You’re just here to eat my snacks and play my games.”
Now the youth accused of such things might try to prove this wrong by playing along in Bible study, even fully participating in answering questions. So the crowd also plays along. They pretty much ask Jesus in John 6:28, “What are teaching, and how do we follow it?” Maybe they are truly playing along, too, hoping that if they do follow Christ’s teaching, He will truly give them more food. Jesus plays along, too, giving a simple answer: Believe in the One Sent. Obviously, the one sent is Jesus. Are you seeing a reoccurring theme of believing in Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God? John in 6 chapters has already driven home his purpose. But he’s not done yet, neither in this book nor in this chapter. He’s got a stronger statement to reveal Jesus is God in John 6. Let’s keep reading.
The crowd is sick of playing games by verse 30, but they don’t want to come out and say it, either. So, being the good Jews they are, they ask Jesus for a sign. You’d think they are completely forgetting the Feeding of the 5,000 that happened just a few verses earlier, but in fact, the opposite is true. They remember the Feeding of the 5,000 quite well, and they are trying to coax Jesus into doing it again. They even use the manna from heaven story in the Old Testament as an example. It’s like the crowd is saying, “Sure, we’ll believe in you, Jesus, but first give us a sign to prove you’re the One. Let’s see, Moses provided manna/bread from heaven as his sign, how about you provide more bread too?” :-D
Jesus isn’t falling for it. First, Jesus corrects the crowd by explaining it was not Moses who gave them bread, but rather God providing bread. Such an attitude reflects the Jews clinging on to the Law and the Lawgiver Moses, instead of God, the true author of the Law. Second, Jesus talks about a bread that gives life. Uh-oh. Another Samaritan Woman at the well incident is about to happen. The people believe that Jesus can provide a literal bread from heaven that can literally give eternal life. Just like the Samaritan Woman, they then demand of this bread. Jesus has the perfect response for that, and I’m going to record it right here.
John 6:35-
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
There it is. There is our first occurrence of the 7 “I AM” statements in John, and what a better statement to start it with. This statement is rich with Jewish typology. First and foremost, when Jesus starts off this statement with I AM, the Jews are immediately linking it back to the Great I AM Yahweh. Second, as the Jews earlier in this chapter mention, Jesus is probably linking this back to the manna from heaven. Just as God provided physical bread for the people in the desert, so God provided spiritual bread for the people, who is Jesus Christ. Third, there is a connection to the table of showbread. The table of showbread was inside the tabernacle, on the north side of the Holy Place. On the showbread table was placed twelve loaves of unleavened, fine flour bread. A fresh batch of bread was placed on the table at the beginning of the week, and it would remain there until the end of the week. At the end of the week, the priests would come together to eat the bread together, and a new batch of bread would be put in its place. Jewish tradition says that God kept the bread fresh at all times, as fresh as it was right out of the oven. Another Jewish tradition says that all it takes is a piece of this bread the size of a bean to fill you up completely. The table of showbread had much symbolism to it. There were 12 loaves of bread for the 12 tribes of Israel. The table had a special reason for its location. It was in front of the Holy of Holies, in front of the presence of God. It symbolized that the 12 tribes of Israel were always in the presence of God. God would never forget Israel, and He was keeping a watchful eye over them. This image is further shown with the priests eating the bread together, because it shows God fellowshipping with the people. The bread was a reminder that God was the provider of Israel. All this symbolism transferred to Jesus when Jesus declared Himself “the Bread of Life.” Jesus is always in the presence of God. Jesus is always in the presence of His people, the church. Jesus never forgets His people, the church, and He always keeps a watchful, protective eye over them. Jesus always provides for them, too. Fourth, many times the prophets would mention the Messiah providing for the people food and drink. All these added up together give us strong evidence that Jesus was clearly declaring Himself as God.
Furthermore, in John 6:36-50, Jesus continues to demonstrate that He is God by once again talking about Himself as the Son and talking about God as the Father. Also, Jesus displays He is God because He shows the interlinking between God the Father, Yahweh, and God the Son, Jesus. The Son has everything and everyone the Father gives Him. The Father’s Will and the Son’s Will are one and the same. The Father’s Will is that the Son will raise up everyone who the Father gives the Son. The Father’s Will is that everyone who believes in the Son will have eternal life, which will be given by the Son (and if you remember chapter 5, that power has been given to the Son by the Father). Everyone who listens to the Father and obeys the Father listens to the Son and obeys the Son, and vice versa. No one has seen the Father except the Son, and the only way to see the Father is to see the Son. The interchangeability between the Father and Son makes the reader conclude the Father and the Son are one and the same, so Yahweh and Jesus are one and the same. Once again, the reader sees Jesus is not only the Son of God, but also God the Son!
Now we have a “fun” passage we need to deal with: John 6:51-59. Indeed passages like this are what the Catholics use to support transubstantiation, which is the belief that the bread and wine/grape juice literally becomes Christ’s body and blood respectively. Yet there a lot of holes to expose on using this passage to support transubstantiation. First, the Last Supper has not happened yet, so it can’t be a reference to communion (in fact, the Last Supper will not happen for another year). Second, the Law strictly forbid drinking literal blood, whether it be from man or animal (see Leviticus 3:17, 17:10-14). Third, if Jesus was to talk about the Lord’s Supper, it would only be among the disciples (as he did with the Last Supper) and not unbelievers, like the crowd he is facing now. Fourth, what Jesus is talking about in John 6:51-59 seems to be a requirement. If this were true, then anyone who has not taken communion is not saved and is in hell. Once again, I will bring up that one criminal crucified next to Jesus. He probably never took communion, yet Jesus acknowledged he would be in heaven. So the Last Supper can’t be a requirement. On that same note, this would be hinting that practicing a religious sacrament is what saves you, not believing in Jesus Christ. Last, this passage as a whole makes more sense figuratively than literally. It seems like Jesus rebukes the ones who take what he says literally (see John 6:60-64).
Unfortunately, while we have a strong defense against transubstantiation, we, however, only have a weak stance on any other point of view. The Bible Knowledge Commentary tries to parallel this passage with John 6:35, claiming “eating Christ’s body” means coming to Jesus, and “drinking Christ’s blood” means believing in Him. The New Bible Commentary believes “the body of Christ” refers to Christ’s human nature and “the blood of Christ” refers to Christ’s divine nature. The Bible Exposition Commentary and The Pulpit Commentary: St. John (Vol. 1) both sum up the metaphor along the lines of, “Just as food and drink gets absorbed into your body for your physical well-being, so you must absorb Jesus in your life for your spiritual well-being” (my paraphrase). There’s a just a few to name. Whatever the right interpretation may be, overall, most schools of thought believe that “eating Christ’s body” and “drinking Christ’s blood” in John 6:51-59 is simply a metaphor for Christ’s atoning death on the cross.
Don’t worry if either the John 6:36-50 or John 6:51-59 got you hung up in confusion. It did the same to the Jewish crowd following Jesus. One minute, the Jewish crowd thinks Jesus is talking about cannibalism. The next minute, the Jews are whining that Jesus is claiming to be all that, while he is simply the son of a carpenter. After both passages, it leaves Christ’s followers to say, “This is a hard teaching. Who can understand it?” (I must note that indeed most Bible translations use the word “disciples” in John 6:60 and 6:66, but in most of our minds, when we think of the disciples of Jesus, we automatically think of the Twelve Disciples Jesus chose. This cannot be the case, for in verse 67, Jesus turns to the Twelve Disciples. Remember that on top of the Twelve, Jesus had a great number of people who followed Jesus wherever Jesus went, even if these people weren’t specifically called by Jesus. To prevent confusion, I will call these people “followers” instead of “disciples.”) What did Christ’s followers mean in verse 60 when they said it was a hard teaching they didn’t understand? Perhaps it could have been they still didn’t comprehend or understand Christ’s teaching. In the parable of the sower, Jesus calls these people “the seed sown along the path” (see Matthew 13, Mark 4 & Luke 8). Maybe the followers meant it was hard to apply to their lives. Either way, they could no longer accept the teachings of Jesus. They were almost unbearable to the Jews to follow. Jesus explains in verse 65 that the reason they do not comprehend or the reason they cannot apply is that the Father has not enabled them. The result? John 6:66. I will put this verse up since this is going to be a climatic event that will totally change the ministry of Jesus, or at least those receiving the ministry.
John 6:66-
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
The joke about this verse is that a verse that talks about people falling away from Jesus or people who aren’t Christian is a verse prescribed the verse number 666, the number given to the followers of the Antichrist during the Great Tribulation (who would also be non-Christians). Whether this was intentional or not, this verse does show an epic turning point. Before this verse, or even this chapter, Jesus indeed had a large following. Why did Jesus have to feed 5,000 men, and possibly 15,000-20,000 people? Because that’s how many people were following Jesus up to this point. Jesus had followers in the thousands. After this, Christ’s followers would only be in the hundreds, and maybe not even that (Acts 1:15 tells us that after the ascension, there was only 120). Before this point, it’s very possible people were just following Jesus because it was the popular thing to do. Jesus clearly states that following Him isn’t merely a fad. Jesus called for people to truly follow Him, or don’t follow Him it all. Most public relations experts would tell a public figure this is a bad move to make, for if you want to be popular, you need to appease to your fans. Jesus did not come to this earth to become a popular icon, so in no way was He going to appease to followers just to be liked. Jesus set out His life on earth to glorify the Father, and anyone who wanted to come along was more than welcome, but those who were not on the same path had no part in the ministry of Jesus.
Today celebrities are well aware that a majority of Americans are Christians, so they will appeal to their fans or “followers” by “practicing” Christianity. Politicians will go to church. Rappers will wear crosses around their neck. Athletes will take a knee in prayer after scoring a goal or points, such as a homerun or touchdown. Actors and actresses of both the small television screen and the big silver screen will throw somewhere in their speech accepting an award that they want to thank God or Jesus. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe some politicians, rappers, athletes, actors and actresses legitimately are believers giving God the glory. But at other times I can’t help but wonder if they are just jumping on the popularity bandwagon, knowing that they can earn fans or followers from the Christian faith by doing such things. Sure they might believe in the Jesus who fed 5,000 men, but do they believe in the Jesus that preached hard teachings, not just eating his body and drinking his blood, but also giving up your life, giving up riches of the world, and giving up a sinful lifestyle? Just like the people in John 6:66, when they faced with these teachings, they too might turn their backs and no longer follow Jesus. But the ones who stayed are the true believers.
That’s what we see in John 6:67-71. Jesus turns to the Twelve Disciples, and He pretty much asks them, “Are you going to leave me too?” It’s almost as if Jesus is saying, “Now’s your chance to leave if you want to.” I really love Simon Peter’s answer. Even though Simon Peter says it, you can tell all Twelve are behind him on this. To sum it all up, Peter says, “Yeah, your teaching is hard, but it’s still the truth, and we know it’s the truth because You are the Holy God. So we’re committed to being your disciples.” I will say it again, I really love Peter’s answer. It’s a great application for Christians today in the 21st century. Indeed, the teachings of Jesus are hard. They call us to be holy not in our actions alone, and not just words and actions, but in actions, words and thought. They call us to constantly confess and repent of sins in our life. They call us not to lift up ourselves, but to lift up God in glory. They teach us to love God and others before ourselves. They call us to reject riches if it puts someone in poverty. None of this is easy, and they are especially hard with a sinful nature which wants all of them. Our world tries to live by this philosophy: “If it’s too hard to do, all we have to simply do is stop believing, and then we can stop following them and take the easy path.” But as Simon Peter revealed, when we entertain such thinking, we are really fooling ourselves. Simply choosing not to believe in something does not mean it ceases to exist. I can stop believing gravity exists, but that doesn’t mean I’ll start floating away because I stopped believing gravity. Gravity is still there, whether I believe it or not. The same is true for God. God still exists, whether people choose to believe it or not, and choosing not to believe in God does not lead to escape of God’s Law. But many people, as the people in John 6:66, believe that when God’s teaching gets too tough, we can walk away so we can take the easy path. On the contrary, it makes us guiltier because we are consciously aware of the Law, yet refuse to follow it.
I must also point out that Simon Peter calls Jesus “The Holy One of God.” Once again, Peter’s testimony is the proof that Jesus is God because you can’t get any more straight forward than the Holy One of God. To be the Holy One of God, you must be God. It fits John’s purpose perfectly. Speaking of John’s purpose, let’s conclude John 6 by going back to my introduction to the chapter and answering the broad and specifics of why John, as well as the other Gospel writers, decided it was necessary to mention the Feeding of the 5,000.
Broadly speaking, why did all 4 Gospel writers decide their accounts of the life of Jesus needed the Feeding of the 5,000? Think about the other miracles Jesus performed. Jesus healed the blind. The only people who can really relate to this are blind or visually impaired people who desire to see with 20/20 vision. Jesus healed the deaf, but the only people who could relate to this or the blind or those who need a hearing aid, both who wish to hear on their own. Jesus healed the mute, but the only ones who could relate are the mute, or possibly those who stutter, has a lisp or some other speech impediment. Jesus healed the paralyzed, but the only people who can relate are those who need the help of a wheelchair, crutches or a walk to move around. Well what about those who see, hear, talk and move perfectly? How can they relate? All people need food. Most people can’t go more than a month without food. There are roughly 800 million people around the world who are starving, but even if you’re not one of those 800 million, you’ve probably felt hunger before, when you’ve gone a long time without food and your stomach starts growling. Everybody can relate to needing food, so everyone can relate to needing to be fed. Thus, everyone can relate to the Feeding of the 5,000. Therefore, all the Gospel writers including the Feeding the 5,000 narrative because it doesn’t matter if you are Jew, Roman, Greek or Christian, everyone needs food and everyone Jesus to be that ultimate provider.
Specifically speaking, why did John decide to include the Feeding of the 5,000, especially after Matthew, Mark and Luke did it before him? We’ve already discussed the broad reasons, but to get to specific reasons, we got to look at John’s purpose and portrayal of Jesus. What’s John’s purpose? John wrote the book of John to persuade Christians [to continue] to believe Jesus is the Son of God and Christ. How is John portraying Jesus? Jesus is the Son of God, or God the Son. So how does the Feeding of 5,000 demonstrate to the reader Jesus is the Son of God, or God Himself. We can go with the obvious answer of “Only God could manipulate nature to fully feed all those people with such little food,” but let’s look deeper than that. How does John add to the story what the synoptic Gospel writers did not? Giving names and revealing Christ’s intent as well as the crowd’s intent seems kind of petty. The best answer is that John demonstrates that the Feeding of the 5,000 was a small part of a bigger picture. Since the pericope of the miracle is only about 1/5 of the chapter, it almost seems as if the miracle is only the introduction, or the attention-getter, of the bigger message Jesus wants to preach. It is like the miracle is only the visual aid to His teaching. So to look into how it reveals Jesus as Christ and God the Son, we have to look into the message. What does it say? It makes Jesus and God one and the same. It makes salvation and eternal life only possible through Jesus. All these add to up to Jesus being portrayed as the Son of God. But suppose we wanted to narrow it down to one verse. If the miraculous Feeding of the 5,000 was the introduction, then the thesis of the chapter would be John 6:35, where Jesus declares “I AM the Bread of Life.” Everything before the verse points forward to this verse, and everything after points back to the verse.
After 6 chapters of John, we’ve already gone through 5 miracles, and only have 2 remaining. But in John 6, we reached our first “I AM” statement and have 6 more to go. So as we continue through John, let’s focus less on miracles and more around the teachings that surround the “I AM” statements about Jesus.
Well, let’s do some pre-thinking brainstorming here. Let’s do so by answering this question: How has movies, television (both TV shows and movies made for TV), music, books, magazines and other forms of media depict this story? This was the answer I came up with: “Unless the source of media is sticking to staying true to a certain Gospel account, most of the time, the media will combine all 4 Gospel accounts to get a full picture.” Notice the preamble I used: “Unless the source of media is sticking to staying true to a certain Gospel account…” Well, we are sticking to staying true to a Gospel account, more specifically, John. So we’re going to want to pick out the unique points that John mentions. After all, he wants to give the readers a fresh look at Jesus. The biggest difference I see in the book is the length of the story. While the synoptic Gospel writers take 12-15 verses to tell the story, John takes 70 verses! You might be thinking to yourself, “Well, that’s because you are including every verse of the chapter for John’s account, while for the synoptic accounts, you’re only taking the verses from the actual story.” I do that because I believe while the synoptic Gospel writers simply summarize the events of the pericope (a story from the life of Jesus) and then move onto the next pericope, John connects the rest of the events (mainly the teaching in 6:22-71) back to the Feeding of the 5,000. Like I said in the introduction, if John repeats a story from the synoptic Gospels, he’s going to bring new information with it, like a teaching. So once again, I’m just going to highlight a couple differences in the actual story, but mainly focus on the preaching afterward.
The first difference I want everyone to notice is that Christ’s response to the hunger of the people. John’s Gospel doesn’t mention this, but all 3 synoptic Gospels say that the disciples said to Jesus that the people were probably getting hungry from listening to Jesus in a remote area for so long. Their idea is to send them away to get their own food. In the 3 synoptic Gospels, Jesus says to the disciples, “You give them something to eat,” but John records Jesus saying in John 6:5, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” Does this mean that John got it wrong, and there is an error in the Bible? By no means! All you have to do is look at the next verse, John 6:6. Jesus is saying this to test the disciples. So what Jesus said, according to John, could be summarized, “You give them something to eat” because whatever Jesus said, he meant to bring to light the severity of the need. Actually, I believe that John’s different wording brings to light the disciples’ response. Mark is the only author to record that the disciples objected by claiming they didn’t have enough money. This objection and claim doesn’t make sense how they made the jump from Christ’s suggestion to feed them to the disciples’ claim that they didn’t have enough money. John clarifies that. John records Jesus suggesting they pay for this. Once again, this is Jesus bringing to light the severity of the situation. In order to give each person (the Bible records 5,000 men, but if there was at least 1 woman and 1 child for every man, that’s at least 15,000 people) at least 1 bite, it would take 200 denarii, or 8 months worth of pay, and even that would not fill the people. Things were dire.
The second difference I want to point out is the use of the disciples’ names. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, it simply says, “the disciples.” Jesus tells the disciples to give the people something to eat. The disciples tell Jesus there is not enough money. The disciples find a boy with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. John picks out specific disciples. Jesus speaks to Philip when he asks how to feed the people. Philip tells Jesus there is not enough money. Andrew finds a boy with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. This is not meant to be seen as John picking on people. Instead, this is to be seen as good character development to make the story telling have more of a real feeling. Instead of giving the generic group “the disciples” John picks out specific people, like Philip and Andrew to show the real-life interaction between Jesus and His disciples. And once again, if John has to re-tell a story, he’s going to do it in a new way, even if it is adding some details.
The third difference I see is the reaction of the crowd. As a matter of fact, neither Matthew, nor Mark, nor Luke records the reaction of the people in the crowd. But John does. John says that the people believed Jesus was The Prophet the Scriptures foretold about. John also tells the reader that they were planning to make Jesus king by force. Why would they do that? Imagine a politician running for president claiming that if he is elected president, he would feed everyone, whether it be handing out government-grown food, reimbursing everyone’s food bills, or simply giving everyone food stamps. I bet he would win the presidential race if he could prove his claim. Well, that’s what the crowd of 5,000 men saw. They saw a man feed them with very little food. It got them thinking, “If this man were our king, we would never go hungry ever again because he could feed the whole nation with whatever little food we had!” They loved this thought so much, they were willing to start a revolution to overthrow the Romans and make Jesus king, even if Jesus didn’t want it! But John also records Jesus knew about their intents, so he high-tailed it out of there!
Now the next story seems to “interrupt” the story of the Feeding of the 5,000, between the miracle and the teaching. It’s a famous story. It’s the story of Jesus walking on the water during a storm on the sea. This one isn’t in all 4 Gospel narratives, but it is in 3 of the 4: Matthew, Mark and John. Yet John seems to talk about the miracle the least. Once again, we ask ourselves, “Why would John include this story?” Well, first of all, it’s just the natural progression of events. After the Feeding of 5,000, the crowd is pressing on Jesus and His disciples. I can almost imagine Jesus shoving the disciples on the boat, yelling, “I’ll fend them off. Go on ahead without me. I’ll catch up!” And I bet the storm came up the minute a disciple said out loud, “How do you think Jesus is going to catch up with us?” Most likely, they thought he would go around the lake or take a different boat later on, but I’m sure the least likely response would be “Walk on water.” I would even more say this story is here for progression of events because Mark tells us that despite Jesus walking on water and calming the storm, they still don’t understand the miracle of the Feeding of the 5,000. This is the perfect segway into John 6:22-71, even if John doesn’t record it. But the second and just as important reason is for the disciples’ reaction because it fulfills John’s purpose. It’s interesting to see that although it answers John’s purpose, John does not record it, but Matthew does. So you don’t have to leave your place in John 6, I’ll put it up right here.
Matthew 14:33-
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Bam! There it is. When the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, they knew Jesus was the Son of God, or God the Son. Although John does not explicitly state it, John believes that through seeing this miracle, the reader will also see Jesus as God. Remember, John only puts 7 miracles in his book, and all of these miracles are to point to Jesus as the Son of God and God the Son. So we understand why the miracle of Jesus walking on water shows Jesus as God, but we still need to see how the Feeding of the 5,000 reveals Jesus to be God. So let’s begin in verse 22.
Meanwhile, while the disciples were sailing across the Sea of Galilee, and Jesus was walking across it (I always wondered if Jesus started walking while the crowd was pressing on him, and if so, I wonder what the crowd’s reaction was…), the crowd has been going to every town on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, looking for Jesus. They still have the intent of forcing him to be king so he can continue making lots of food out of very little food. I love their reaction when they finally find Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum. It’s like they are saying, “Jesus! It just so happens all 5,000 of us men just so happened to be visiting Capernaum, and lo and behold, you are here! What a coincidence!” Jesus, instead of continuing to try to run away, confronts the people. Jesus basically says in John 6:26, “You’re not here to truly listen to my teaching and follow me. You’re only here to eat more food.” It would be like a youth leader confronting his youth group by saying, “You’re not here for Bible study. You’re just here to eat my snacks and play my games.”
Now the youth accused of such things might try to prove this wrong by playing along in Bible study, even fully participating in answering questions. So the crowd also plays along. They pretty much ask Jesus in John 6:28, “What are teaching, and how do we follow it?” Maybe they are truly playing along, too, hoping that if they do follow Christ’s teaching, He will truly give them more food. Jesus plays along, too, giving a simple answer: Believe in the One Sent. Obviously, the one sent is Jesus. Are you seeing a reoccurring theme of believing in Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God? John in 6 chapters has already driven home his purpose. But he’s not done yet, neither in this book nor in this chapter. He’s got a stronger statement to reveal Jesus is God in John 6. Let’s keep reading.
The crowd is sick of playing games by verse 30, but they don’t want to come out and say it, either. So, being the good Jews they are, they ask Jesus for a sign. You’d think they are completely forgetting the Feeding of the 5,000 that happened just a few verses earlier, but in fact, the opposite is true. They remember the Feeding of the 5,000 quite well, and they are trying to coax Jesus into doing it again. They even use the manna from heaven story in the Old Testament as an example. It’s like the crowd is saying, “Sure, we’ll believe in you, Jesus, but first give us a sign to prove you’re the One. Let’s see, Moses provided manna/bread from heaven as his sign, how about you provide more bread too?” :-D
Jesus isn’t falling for it. First, Jesus corrects the crowd by explaining it was not Moses who gave them bread, but rather God providing bread. Such an attitude reflects the Jews clinging on to the Law and the Lawgiver Moses, instead of God, the true author of the Law. Second, Jesus talks about a bread that gives life. Uh-oh. Another Samaritan Woman at the well incident is about to happen. The people believe that Jesus can provide a literal bread from heaven that can literally give eternal life. Just like the Samaritan Woman, they then demand of this bread. Jesus has the perfect response for that, and I’m going to record it right here.
John 6:35-
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
There it is. There is our first occurrence of the 7 “I AM” statements in John, and what a better statement to start it with. This statement is rich with Jewish typology. First and foremost, when Jesus starts off this statement with I AM, the Jews are immediately linking it back to the Great I AM Yahweh. Second, as the Jews earlier in this chapter mention, Jesus is probably linking this back to the manna from heaven. Just as God provided physical bread for the people in the desert, so God provided spiritual bread for the people, who is Jesus Christ. Third, there is a connection to the table of showbread. The table of showbread was inside the tabernacle, on the north side of the Holy Place. On the showbread table was placed twelve loaves of unleavened, fine flour bread. A fresh batch of bread was placed on the table at the beginning of the week, and it would remain there until the end of the week. At the end of the week, the priests would come together to eat the bread together, and a new batch of bread would be put in its place. Jewish tradition says that God kept the bread fresh at all times, as fresh as it was right out of the oven. Another Jewish tradition says that all it takes is a piece of this bread the size of a bean to fill you up completely. The table of showbread had much symbolism to it. There were 12 loaves of bread for the 12 tribes of Israel. The table had a special reason for its location. It was in front of the Holy of Holies, in front of the presence of God. It symbolized that the 12 tribes of Israel were always in the presence of God. God would never forget Israel, and He was keeping a watchful eye over them. This image is further shown with the priests eating the bread together, because it shows God fellowshipping with the people. The bread was a reminder that God was the provider of Israel. All this symbolism transferred to Jesus when Jesus declared Himself “the Bread of Life.” Jesus is always in the presence of God. Jesus is always in the presence of His people, the church. Jesus never forgets His people, the church, and He always keeps a watchful, protective eye over them. Jesus always provides for them, too. Fourth, many times the prophets would mention the Messiah providing for the people food and drink. All these added up together give us strong evidence that Jesus was clearly declaring Himself as God.
Furthermore, in John 6:36-50, Jesus continues to demonstrate that He is God by once again talking about Himself as the Son and talking about God as the Father. Also, Jesus displays He is God because He shows the interlinking between God the Father, Yahweh, and God the Son, Jesus. The Son has everything and everyone the Father gives Him. The Father’s Will and the Son’s Will are one and the same. The Father’s Will is that the Son will raise up everyone who the Father gives the Son. The Father’s Will is that everyone who believes in the Son will have eternal life, which will be given by the Son (and if you remember chapter 5, that power has been given to the Son by the Father). Everyone who listens to the Father and obeys the Father listens to the Son and obeys the Son, and vice versa. No one has seen the Father except the Son, and the only way to see the Father is to see the Son. The interchangeability between the Father and Son makes the reader conclude the Father and the Son are one and the same, so Yahweh and Jesus are one and the same. Once again, the reader sees Jesus is not only the Son of God, but also God the Son!
Now we have a “fun” passage we need to deal with: John 6:51-59. Indeed passages like this are what the Catholics use to support transubstantiation, which is the belief that the bread and wine/grape juice literally becomes Christ’s body and blood respectively. Yet there a lot of holes to expose on using this passage to support transubstantiation. First, the Last Supper has not happened yet, so it can’t be a reference to communion (in fact, the Last Supper will not happen for another year). Second, the Law strictly forbid drinking literal blood, whether it be from man or animal (see Leviticus 3:17, 17:10-14). Third, if Jesus was to talk about the Lord’s Supper, it would only be among the disciples (as he did with the Last Supper) and not unbelievers, like the crowd he is facing now. Fourth, what Jesus is talking about in John 6:51-59 seems to be a requirement. If this were true, then anyone who has not taken communion is not saved and is in hell. Once again, I will bring up that one criminal crucified next to Jesus. He probably never took communion, yet Jesus acknowledged he would be in heaven. So the Last Supper can’t be a requirement. On that same note, this would be hinting that practicing a religious sacrament is what saves you, not believing in Jesus Christ. Last, this passage as a whole makes more sense figuratively than literally. It seems like Jesus rebukes the ones who take what he says literally (see John 6:60-64).
Unfortunately, while we have a strong defense against transubstantiation, we, however, only have a weak stance on any other point of view. The Bible Knowledge Commentary tries to parallel this passage with John 6:35, claiming “eating Christ’s body” means coming to Jesus, and “drinking Christ’s blood” means believing in Him. The New Bible Commentary believes “the body of Christ” refers to Christ’s human nature and “the blood of Christ” refers to Christ’s divine nature. The Bible Exposition Commentary and The Pulpit Commentary: St. John (Vol. 1) both sum up the metaphor along the lines of, “Just as food and drink gets absorbed into your body for your physical well-being, so you must absorb Jesus in your life for your spiritual well-being” (my paraphrase). There’s a just a few to name. Whatever the right interpretation may be, overall, most schools of thought believe that “eating Christ’s body” and “drinking Christ’s blood” in John 6:51-59 is simply a metaphor for Christ’s atoning death on the cross.
Don’t worry if either the John 6:36-50 or John 6:51-59 got you hung up in confusion. It did the same to the Jewish crowd following Jesus. One minute, the Jewish crowd thinks Jesus is talking about cannibalism. The next minute, the Jews are whining that Jesus is claiming to be all that, while he is simply the son of a carpenter. After both passages, it leaves Christ’s followers to say, “This is a hard teaching. Who can understand it?” (I must note that indeed most Bible translations use the word “disciples” in John 6:60 and 6:66, but in most of our minds, when we think of the disciples of Jesus, we automatically think of the Twelve Disciples Jesus chose. This cannot be the case, for in verse 67, Jesus turns to the Twelve Disciples. Remember that on top of the Twelve, Jesus had a great number of people who followed Jesus wherever Jesus went, even if these people weren’t specifically called by Jesus. To prevent confusion, I will call these people “followers” instead of “disciples.”) What did Christ’s followers mean in verse 60 when they said it was a hard teaching they didn’t understand? Perhaps it could have been they still didn’t comprehend or understand Christ’s teaching. In the parable of the sower, Jesus calls these people “the seed sown along the path” (see Matthew 13, Mark 4 & Luke 8). Maybe the followers meant it was hard to apply to their lives. Either way, they could no longer accept the teachings of Jesus. They were almost unbearable to the Jews to follow. Jesus explains in verse 65 that the reason they do not comprehend or the reason they cannot apply is that the Father has not enabled them. The result? John 6:66. I will put this verse up since this is going to be a climatic event that will totally change the ministry of Jesus, or at least those receiving the ministry.
John 6:66-
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
The joke about this verse is that a verse that talks about people falling away from Jesus or people who aren’t Christian is a verse prescribed the verse number 666, the number given to the followers of the Antichrist during the Great Tribulation (who would also be non-Christians). Whether this was intentional or not, this verse does show an epic turning point. Before this verse, or even this chapter, Jesus indeed had a large following. Why did Jesus have to feed 5,000 men, and possibly 15,000-20,000 people? Because that’s how many people were following Jesus up to this point. Jesus had followers in the thousands. After this, Christ’s followers would only be in the hundreds, and maybe not even that (Acts 1:15 tells us that after the ascension, there was only 120). Before this point, it’s very possible people were just following Jesus because it was the popular thing to do. Jesus clearly states that following Him isn’t merely a fad. Jesus called for people to truly follow Him, or don’t follow Him it all. Most public relations experts would tell a public figure this is a bad move to make, for if you want to be popular, you need to appease to your fans. Jesus did not come to this earth to become a popular icon, so in no way was He going to appease to followers just to be liked. Jesus set out His life on earth to glorify the Father, and anyone who wanted to come along was more than welcome, but those who were not on the same path had no part in the ministry of Jesus.
Today celebrities are well aware that a majority of Americans are Christians, so they will appeal to their fans or “followers” by “practicing” Christianity. Politicians will go to church. Rappers will wear crosses around their neck. Athletes will take a knee in prayer after scoring a goal or points, such as a homerun or touchdown. Actors and actresses of both the small television screen and the big silver screen will throw somewhere in their speech accepting an award that they want to thank God or Jesus. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe some politicians, rappers, athletes, actors and actresses legitimately are believers giving God the glory. But at other times I can’t help but wonder if they are just jumping on the popularity bandwagon, knowing that they can earn fans or followers from the Christian faith by doing such things. Sure they might believe in the Jesus who fed 5,000 men, but do they believe in the Jesus that preached hard teachings, not just eating his body and drinking his blood, but also giving up your life, giving up riches of the world, and giving up a sinful lifestyle? Just like the people in John 6:66, when they faced with these teachings, they too might turn their backs and no longer follow Jesus. But the ones who stayed are the true believers.
That’s what we see in John 6:67-71. Jesus turns to the Twelve Disciples, and He pretty much asks them, “Are you going to leave me too?” It’s almost as if Jesus is saying, “Now’s your chance to leave if you want to.” I really love Simon Peter’s answer. Even though Simon Peter says it, you can tell all Twelve are behind him on this. To sum it all up, Peter says, “Yeah, your teaching is hard, but it’s still the truth, and we know it’s the truth because You are the Holy God. So we’re committed to being your disciples.” I will say it again, I really love Peter’s answer. It’s a great application for Christians today in the 21st century. Indeed, the teachings of Jesus are hard. They call us to be holy not in our actions alone, and not just words and actions, but in actions, words and thought. They call us to constantly confess and repent of sins in our life. They call us not to lift up ourselves, but to lift up God in glory. They teach us to love God and others before ourselves. They call us to reject riches if it puts someone in poverty. None of this is easy, and they are especially hard with a sinful nature which wants all of them. Our world tries to live by this philosophy: “If it’s too hard to do, all we have to simply do is stop believing, and then we can stop following them and take the easy path.” But as Simon Peter revealed, when we entertain such thinking, we are really fooling ourselves. Simply choosing not to believe in something does not mean it ceases to exist. I can stop believing gravity exists, but that doesn’t mean I’ll start floating away because I stopped believing gravity. Gravity is still there, whether I believe it or not. The same is true for God. God still exists, whether people choose to believe it or not, and choosing not to believe in God does not lead to escape of God’s Law. But many people, as the people in John 6:66, believe that when God’s teaching gets too tough, we can walk away so we can take the easy path. On the contrary, it makes us guiltier because we are consciously aware of the Law, yet refuse to follow it.
I must also point out that Simon Peter calls Jesus “The Holy One of God.” Once again, Peter’s testimony is the proof that Jesus is God because you can’t get any more straight forward than the Holy One of God. To be the Holy One of God, you must be God. It fits John’s purpose perfectly. Speaking of John’s purpose, let’s conclude John 6 by going back to my introduction to the chapter and answering the broad and specifics of why John, as well as the other Gospel writers, decided it was necessary to mention the Feeding of the 5,000.
Broadly speaking, why did all 4 Gospel writers decide their accounts of the life of Jesus needed the Feeding of the 5,000? Think about the other miracles Jesus performed. Jesus healed the blind. The only people who can really relate to this are blind or visually impaired people who desire to see with 20/20 vision. Jesus healed the deaf, but the only people who could relate to this or the blind or those who need a hearing aid, both who wish to hear on their own. Jesus healed the mute, but the only ones who could relate are the mute, or possibly those who stutter, has a lisp or some other speech impediment. Jesus healed the paralyzed, but the only people who can relate are those who need the help of a wheelchair, crutches or a walk to move around. Well what about those who see, hear, talk and move perfectly? How can they relate? All people need food. Most people can’t go more than a month without food. There are roughly 800 million people around the world who are starving, but even if you’re not one of those 800 million, you’ve probably felt hunger before, when you’ve gone a long time without food and your stomach starts growling. Everybody can relate to needing food, so everyone can relate to needing to be fed. Thus, everyone can relate to the Feeding of the 5,000. Therefore, all the Gospel writers including the Feeding the 5,000 narrative because it doesn’t matter if you are Jew, Roman, Greek or Christian, everyone needs food and everyone Jesus to be that ultimate provider.
Specifically speaking, why did John decide to include the Feeding of the 5,000, especially after Matthew, Mark and Luke did it before him? We’ve already discussed the broad reasons, but to get to specific reasons, we got to look at John’s purpose and portrayal of Jesus. What’s John’s purpose? John wrote the book of John to persuade Christians [to continue] to believe Jesus is the Son of God and Christ. How is John portraying Jesus? Jesus is the Son of God, or God the Son. So how does the Feeding of 5,000 demonstrate to the reader Jesus is the Son of God, or God Himself. We can go with the obvious answer of “Only God could manipulate nature to fully feed all those people with such little food,” but let’s look deeper than that. How does John add to the story what the synoptic Gospel writers did not? Giving names and revealing Christ’s intent as well as the crowd’s intent seems kind of petty. The best answer is that John demonstrates that the Feeding of the 5,000 was a small part of a bigger picture. Since the pericope of the miracle is only about 1/5 of the chapter, it almost seems as if the miracle is only the introduction, or the attention-getter, of the bigger message Jesus wants to preach. It is like the miracle is only the visual aid to His teaching. So to look into how it reveals Jesus as Christ and God the Son, we have to look into the message. What does it say? It makes Jesus and God one and the same. It makes salvation and eternal life only possible through Jesus. All these add to up to Jesus being portrayed as the Son of God. But suppose we wanted to narrow it down to one verse. If the miraculous Feeding of the 5,000 was the introduction, then the thesis of the chapter would be John 6:35, where Jesus declares “I AM the Bread of Life.” Everything before the verse points forward to this verse, and everything after points back to the verse.
After 6 chapters of John, we’ve already gone through 5 miracles, and only have 2 remaining. But in John 6, we reached our first “I AM” statement and have 6 more to go. So as we continue through John, let’s focus less on miracles and more around the teachings that surround the “I AM” statements about Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
1 Samuel 1: Not Striking Deals But Surrendering Desires
Introduction In those grade school English classes, whether English composition classes or public speaking classes, both taught me that a st...
