The title for this chapter is probably going to take some explaining. The only ones who will probably get it is from my generation, and even then, not everyone in my generation will know what I’m talking about. “John 5” is the stage name for John Williams Lowery, who was the lead guitarist for David Lee Roth, Marilyn Manson, and Rob Zombie. I did not know about John 5 until Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock put on their game “Black Widow of La Porte” by John 5 (featuring rhythm guitarist Jim Root). Every time I heard or I played this song, I would always think of John 5 as in the book of John chapter 5. But now every time I read the book of John chapter 5, I think of John 5 the guitarist and the song “Black Widow of La Porte.” Let’s talk less about the guitarist and more about the book and chapter.
John 5:1 is proof I’m pretty sure this supplemental Gospel was written topically and not chronologically. If you read to the end of John 4, the last place you leave Jesus is Cana in Galilee. At the beginning of John 5, Jesus is in Jerusalem in Judea. The best transition we get is “some time later.” But let’s talk less about time and more about location. More specifically than Jerusalem, Jesus is at out pool by the Sheep Gate, which has the name Bethesda (or Bethzatha or Bethsaida, depending on what manuscript your translation used). The name literally means, “House of Healing,” so you know where this story is going. The setting is a sad story, as the place is crawling with the ill, the injured and the disabled. Why?
Now’s the perfect time to point out John 5 is missing verse 4. Why is it missing? Verse 4 can only be founded in the later manuscripts. All the discovered early manuscripts don’t have it. Most likely, John never wrote verse 4. Later on, an editor put in it to explain the significance of the pool because people forgot the importance. So let’s look at verse 4.
John 5:4-
“From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had.”
So legend had that every now and then (and it was a rare every now and then), an angel would come down and stir up the waters. When the angel stirred the waters, the waters had healing powers, but only enough power to heal one person. The first one in the water would be healed. You might be thinking, “Then why don’t you just sit the pool the whole time?” It didn’t work like that. It would have to be the first one in the pool after the water was stirred, not during or while the pool was being stirred. Besides, if you sat in the pool waiting for a rare occurrence, you’d have more wrinkles than a raisin and a prune combined. Now this legend isn’t as pure as you think. First, I will note that this was a local legend, local meaning only the people of the city believed it. You probably couldn’t find any other believers in the rest of Judea, Samaria, Galilee or anywhere else in the world. Second, the legend was brought about by the Greeks while they were in the land, not the Jews. You will find nowhere in the Old Testament, New Testament, or even the Jewish Talmud (commentary on the Torah) that would support this legend. The Bible Knowledge Commentary points out that this is unbiblical because it’s so cruel to make disabled people compete for healing. So it’s not a Jewish legend, but rather a Greek legend. It has to be a Greek legend, because when the Greeks were in the land, they worshipped snakes there. As a matter of fact, a lot of them worshipped snakes on poles, just like the Bronze snake on the pole Moses made while the Israelites were wandering in the desert. In the Greek legend, it probably wasn’t an angel that stirred the waters, but their god of healing, which is also symbolized by a snake on a pole. (And that is why hospitals and ambulances use a snake on a pole as their symbol. It is the Greek god for healing.) When the Jews took back the land, the local Jews fixed the legend, replacing the Greek god with an angel of the Lord. It really doesn’t matter where the legend came from. The point to be to made is that the disabled people were willing to anything to be healed, even if it is hoping in a silly superstition.
John 5:5 picks out one of these men, but it’s only descriptive to a point. The NLT and NCV calls him “sick.” The RSV, NRSV, and NASB calls him “ill.” The NET calls him “disabled.” The NIV, ESV and Message call him an “invalid.” The KJV and NKJV says he has an “infirmity.” Very generic. I looked at the original Greek. The word they used is asthenia, which can be translated “weakness” or “frailty.” It still doesn’t help clear things up. A lot of commentaries will simply say he’s paralyzed because context clues says he has problems getting off his mat. The text does tell us this man has been invalid for 38 years, and he’s possibly been waiting at the pool for 38 years. The text doesn’t tell how many ill people are at the pool at this point, but Jesus chooses this invalid man to pick out.
When Jesus asks the invalid man in John 5:6, “Do you want to get well?” we may find it a stupid question. Of course a man disabled for 38 years wants to get well! Many scholars have given many interpretations for why Jesus asked a question that seemed so obvious. Perhaps the man made his living off begging for money out of the people’s pity for him. Healing him would take away his source of income (compare to Acts 16:16-21). Maybe the man got so use to a lifestyle of being invalid he had accepted it and no longer desired to change his lifestyle. It would be like asking a man in a wheelchair, “Would you like to walk?” and the wheel chaired man replying in anger, “What? Am I not good enough because I am in a wheelchair?! Does it make me less of a human because I am in a wheelchair?!” On that note, perhaps Jesus didn’t want to offend the man by making him look weak and pathetic being invalid. Sometimes disabled people do get offended if you baby them too much. Maybe Jesus asked the question because, as we’ll see later on the story, both He and the invalid man knew that they would be breaking the man-made “Sabbath laws” by being healed and carrying a mat. Jesus didn’t want to throw that kind attention on the invalid man if he didn’t want it. Perhaps Jesus said to get the man excited about the real possibility of getting healed. Also remember that Jesus many times connected physical ailment to spiritual ailment and physical healing to spiritual healing. Many people, back then and today, don’t recognize they have sin, and even if they do, both those who do and do not may enjoy their sin and not see as wrong. As much as God hates, he will still honor their free will and allow them to stay in their sin (see Romans 1:24,26,28). On last possibility is that Jesus is calling the man out on his superstition, and calling him to real faith in Christ. It’s like Jesus is saying, “Do you [really] want to get well? [Because this superstition isn’t working. Believe in Me instead. I can really heal you.]”
What may seem weirder than Christ’s question is the invalid man’s answer. The invalid man’s answer is somewhere along the lines of, “Yeah, but it’s not going to happen because I’m too weak and too slow to get in the water when it is stirred, so someone always beats me to it.” It’s like the invalid man doesn’t even answer Christ’s question. The man is so hooked on this superstition, he believes it’s his only way to get cured.
As expected, the miraculous healing takes place in John 5:8,9, but pay close attention to what’s happening. Jesus doesn’t say, “I’ll help you next time the angel stirs the water!” then precedents to wait until the next stirring, when Jesus throws him in the pool. Jesus doesn’t say, “Well, I’m God, so I’ll stir the water for you so you don’t have to wait for the silly angel” and then waits for the man to get so He can stir the water. In fact, notice Jesus doesn’t use the water at all. He just says the word, and the man is healed! Once again, Jesus is drawing the man away from believing in superstitions and towards believing in Jesus Christ. Actually, in light of John 5:14, maybe his superstitious beliefs caused him to sin, which led to his disability.
May I pause him here to say “Amen?” You won’t believe the number of Christians I know who are superstitious is some way, shape or form. Well, ok, I don’t know too many, but that number should be zero, but it isn’t! You might think “I’m not a superstitious Christian” but you might just be. Do you believe in good luck and bad luck? If you do, then you are! The idea of “luck” really denies God of His Will and His sovereign control. It states God cannot destine or predestine anything. But we all know God does control everything with His sovereign hand, and He can destine and predestine events in people’s lives. Thus, anything that happens in our lives, whether good or bad, shouldn’t be credited to luck because that’s crediting it to a non-existing force. Instead of “good luck” we have “blessings;” instead of “bad luck” we have “curses.” None of that is out of God’s control, for it is God who blesses and God who curses (although I will note that some bad things are the consequences of sin, which is the absence of God, but that’s another long post for another time). So Christians, stop believing in “luck” and stop involving yourself in those superstitious things that are suppose to give you good luck, for you are messing with forces that are not meant to be missed with. You too can be invalid by sinning, or something worse!
(Alright, that last paragraph reminded me of a funny saying I had during quizzing. I went into quizzing believing in good luck and bad luck. I even had a lucky t-shirt for quizzing. When I started quizzing for Spring City, my coaches Dave and Vicki Deitrick taught me there was no such thing as good luck and bad luck, but only God’s blessings and God’s curses. So I would teach my quizzing teammates the same, saying to them, “I don’t believe in luck. I only believe in God’s blessing. So remember that next time you see me turn my quizzing opponents and say, ‘Good luck!’.” :-) haha).
What might be crazier than Christ’s question in verse 6 or the invalid man’s answer in verse 7 is the Jewish leaders’ response in verse 10 when they see the man walking. Most people would be happy to see a lame man walking. Even in today’s day and age, we’d be glad to see a man who use to need a wheelchair, crutches or a walker walking on his own. Not the Jewish leaders, though. What is their reaction? They call him out for breaking the Law! The only problem is this “law” is not written in the Torah, not is it even written in the Talmud (Moses’s commentary on the Torah). It’s a law the Sanhedrin wrote out of their interpretation of the Law. Still, in their eyes, this man is in trouble, and he probably would have gotten into trouble, too. But then he mentions someone made him well. In their minds, they could be thinking, “Well, whoever this man is who made you well is in bigger trouble because he did a bigger work on the Sabbath: healing!” At least it got the healed man out of trouble. The Jewish leaders ask the man who healed him because they want to interrogate this healer, but all the man can do is shrug his shoulders. He doesn’t know either, but what does he care, he’s healed! Later on, though, the man finds out the healer was Jesus, and once he does, he reports back to the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus, possibly to keep himself out of hot water.
Before we go any further, we got to ask ourselves the question, “Why does Jesus perform this miracle?” or even “Why did John decide to include this miracle in his book?” Remember, John only put 7 miracles in books. We’re already up to the 3rd miracle (yes, I did skip the 2nd miracle in John 4, but that’s because the post on John 4 was already long enough and it was off topic). So why is this one so important? We could just stick with generic answers. It shows Christ’s power over nature. Jesus came to defeat the Fall, and Jesus defeated all aspects of the Fall, including sickness and disease. Christ’s power to defeat a physical ailment that everyone can see demonstrates His power to defeat the unseen spiritual ailment known as sin. All of those do work, all of those do show Jesus as God, but it would be better if we could have a reason that’s less generic and more specific to the story in this chapter. I’m not going to read the verse, but let’s just say the next verse, John 5:16, shows a dramatic transition in the chapter’s text. It’s almost like a cause-and-effect transition. Many commentaries agree on why Jesus performed this miracle, but they don’t really word it correctly, so it sounds harsh. If I were to paraphrase their belief on why Jesus performed the miracle, it would be, “Jesus healed the man to start a debate with the religious leaders.” Doesn’t that sound harsh, that Jesus would only heal a person to start an argument? It would totally reword Christ’s question in John 5:6 to “Can I make you well so I can pick a fight with the Jewish leaders?” But if you think about it, it does make sense. Jesus never healed people just for the sake of healing people. To borrow the title of an ApologetiX song, Jesus did not want to become the “Temple Physician.” Jesus performed His miracle to demonstrate His authority and verify His message. In short, Jesus performed miracles to demonstrate who He is and verify what He did. Once again, notice how this miracle smoothly transits into Christ’s preaching. So the commentaries did have it right; they just needed to word it better. They could say that the miracle was an attention-getting introduction to His preaching, or say that the healed invalid man was the “visual aid” his teaching.
Now it’s time for the great transition from miracle to teaching. John 5:16 says that because Jesus was preaching work on the Sabbath (or so it seemed) and even working himself on the Sabbath (miracles constituted as work), the Jewish leaders begin persecuting Jesus. Let’s quickly compare the Jews from Jerusalem’s reaction toward John the Baptist to their reaction toward Jesus. When it came to John the Baptist, it was just a close, watchful eye. Yeah, John the Baptist was calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees to hypocrites and sinners, but beside that He was doing nothing wrong. Baptism has its roots in Jewish cleansing rituals, so there was nothing really wrong with John baptizing (although the Jews didn’t think it was necessary to baptize yet). Both John the Baptist and the Jews believed the Messiah was coming, even though John thought he was coming sooner than the rest of the Jews thought. And as matter of fact, John the Baptist’s preaching called for the people to repent of their sins, which was very similar to the Jewish leaders teaching the people to follow the Law. So while the Jews from Jerusalem kept a close eye on John the Baptist to make sure he didn’t start a revolution, the Jews really didn’t see him as a threat. Now when the disciples transfer from John the Baptist to Jesus Christ, so the Jewish leader’s watchful eye also transfer from John to Jesus. At first, their reaction is skeptical. Their questions are merely to get a better understanding of what Jesus is preaching. But by now, by John 5:16, it goes from curiosity to persecution. Their questions go from curiosity and understanding to criticizing and doubting. Why? Jesus is not only working on the Sabbath, but telling others it’s alright to work on the Sabbath. Although healing and carrying a mat are not declared work in the Torah or Talmud, the Jewish leaders saw it as work, therefore they saw as a man breaking the Law and teaching others to break the Law, and the religious leaders would not put up with that. Any man who broke the Law and taught of breaking the Law, even if it was just their interpretation of the Law, was deemed a sinner, a blasphemer and a heretic. To them, the situation called for persecution.
We’re going to skip over John 5:18 for now, but we’ll come back to it. Right now, we’re going to jump right into Christ’s teaching, starting in John 5:19. Now I’ll point out some specifics, but I want to more show the overall message and how it reveals Jesus as God the Son because it will stick to the overall message of John’s Gospel. And you’ll see the number one way John shows Jesus is the Son of God is by teaching trinity.
To fully understand John 5:19-30, we have to get out of our Western mindset of thinking and go into an Eastern mindset of thinking. What’s the difference? The Western mindset of thinking is all about dissecting, breaking down and analyzing. When it comes to trinity, it will break the trinity into 3 parts, break it into 3 categories, and then try to nicely and neatly put categorize all the acts of God into these 3 categorize, by what entity performs what task. The reasons we want to get out of this mindset is because, as we’ll find out, it will create a big mess. Instead, the better thinking is the Eastern mindset, which sees the trinity as 3 persons, and then tries to see how these 3 persons relate to one another. You’ll see John 5:19-30 does not try to categorize the actions of the Father and the actions of the Son, but instead shows how the Father and the Son relate, and how they work together.
So first, starting with John 5:19, we learn that God the Son cannot act independently from God the Father, nor can the Son act in opposition to the Father. There is only love in this relationship, and they come to work together in unity. Just an earthly father mentors his earthly son, so the Heavenly Father mentors His Son and shows the Son the Father’s Will and the Father’s works. In John 5:21, Jesus gives the specific example of life and resurrection. Both the Father and the Son have the power of life. The Son offers eternal life (salvation), and the Father will raise from the dead whoever took up on Christ’s offer for eternal life. In John 5:22, Jesus provides judgment as another specific example. The Father has handed over His power to judge to the Son in order that the Son may be treated like the Father. After all, the Jews in the Old Testament feared God the Father because they knew of the power He had to judge them. Now the Jews in the New Testament were in a whole lot of trouble because the Jew in the New Testament were not treating the Son of God, Jesus, with that same honorable fear. Because Jesus warns the people that to not fear or honor Jesus is like not fearing or honoring God.
Since Jesus is on the subject of judgment, he will talk about the present state of judgment. This talk is going to be very similar to Christ’s talk with Nicodemus in John 3. Whoever hear Christ’s words and believes in Him will receive eternal life. If anyone does not, that person will remain in his or her state of condemnation. That is what is mean when Jesus mentions crossing over from death to life. Before a person has Jesus, the person stands condemned in his or her sin, condemned to death. When a person receives Jesus, the person goes from condemned to forgiven, the person goes from hell to heaven, the person goes from life to death. How can Jesus do this? Jesus is God the Son. God the Father has given the power of life to God the Son. So Jesus, God the Son, can give life to whomever He pleases. And while Jesus is on the subject of judgment, he will talk about the future state of judgment. To demonstrate that the Son has the power of life, the Son of God will resurrect everyone on the Last Day, both the good and the evil. Those who are evil will be condemned to eternal damnation, while the good will be raised to eternal life. Once again, how is this possible for Jesus? Only by the Father.
Before we transit into the next section, let’s once again summarize the teaching of Jesus here, as well as summarize the theology that goes along with it. God the Father loves God the Son, and God the Son loves God the Father. Therefore, they work in unity with one another. Their thoughts, words, and actions are always working together. They will never be in opposition, nor will they ever contradict. Since there is love and unity between the Father and the Son, the Father can entrust the Son will power, such as the power to judge and the power to give life. The Father does not have to worry about the Son abusing these powers because the Father knows the Son loves Him and wants to work to please Him. Everything the Son does is done just the way the Father wants it done because the Son wants to please the Father. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to categorize the trinity into 3 parts because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have the same powers, such as the powers to judge, condemn, forgive, heal and give life. It all comes down to how the 3 persons relate to one another and work together for unity.
Let’s make one quick application pause before we move on. I’ve always believe the relationship between the persons of the trinity, or the community of the trinity, can demonstrate how humans should develop relationships, both with God and with other humans. Since this passage more talk about divine things, let’s look at what humans can learn about their relation to God the Father from God the Son. If we as Christians truly love God, we should seek unity with him. What does it mean to have unity with God? Our thinking should be the same as God. Our feelings should be godly. Our wants and desires should be the same wants and desires our Lord as. If it’s God’s Will, then it should be our will as well. When we do something, whatever it is, it should be done the way God wants it done, in order to give God praise, honor and glory. I believe when we do that, and when we get to that point, God will give us more power because He know and entrusts us to use it continue give him the glory and the praise. I believe that’s what all the authors of the Bible books had in common. They were able to get to the point where their wants, their needs, their desires and their will was the same as God’s. So God entrusted them to write His words.
Just as Jesus makes a smooth transition into another topic (or maybe it’s a sub-topic), so shall we make the same smooth transition. I want you to notice something very important about the transition. The last few paragraphs, John 5:19-30, Jesus talks about God the Father and God the Son. In the next few paragraphs, John 5:31-45, Jesus talks about God the Father and Himself in the first person (I, me, my, mine, etc.). I’ll put it into a simple sentence to show the transition more easily. It goes from God the Father and God the Son to God the Father and Himself. God the Father & God the Son --> God the Father & Himself. Notice the parallel in the transition. It’s almost like Jesus is talking about Himself interchangeably with God the Son. That’s because He is. This is another piece of evidence, another proof, another sign, another sighting that Jesus is God the Son. He declares by talking about Himself as God the Son.
The NIV calls the next section “Testimonies about Jesus.” The ESV calls the section “Witnesses to Jesus.” Both would be accurate descriptions of the section. As a matter of fact the Greek word martyreo, used throughout the section, is most accurately translated “testify” or “bear witness” (it is also where we get the word “martyr” from). Jesus is being nice to Jewish leader by offering the sign of authority that the Jewish leaders have been asking for. So Jesus lies down 4 pieces of evidence, 4 proofs, 4 reasons or 4 signs of Christ’s authorities. This would be similar to the God Sightings we did in John 1 because all 4 do reveal Jesus to be God the Son. So just like John 1, let me list the 4 witnesses that give testimony that Jesus is the Son of God.
4 Testimonies that Jesus is God the Son as found in John 5
1. God the Father’s testimony (vs. 31,32,37,38)
2. John the Baptist’s testimony (vs.33-35)
3. Self-testimony through miracles and miraculous signs (vs. 36)
4. Old Testament Scripture’s testimony (vs.39-47)
Once again, through 4 different testimonies, the evidence clearly proves Jesus is God the Son. I could go through each testimony explaining the proof, but most of these have already been covered, either in this chapter or the chapter before. The last one, however, hasn’t been discussed too deeply, and it’s the one that really hits home, back then and today. Let’s look at the testimony the Old Testament Scriptures gave.
First, let’s look at the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures in light of 1st century context. Jesus was making no understatement in John 5:39 when he said the Jewish leaders had diligently studied the Scriptures. Any well-educated Jew had the whole Torah memorized. Imagine having Genesis to Deuteronomy memorized by heart! Most Jews did. The highly educated Jews that were rabbis, teachers of the law and Sanhedrin went further and memorized the whole Tanak (Hebrew Bible). Imagine having Genesis to Malachi memorized. Some went even further and memorized the Talmud, which is Moses’s commentary on the Torah. They knew the Scriptures and every possible interpretation. Why were they so dedicated? They truly believed that the Law would bring them salvation, so they made sure they knew it in and out, and they obeyed every word. Jesus says the only way the Scriptures bring salvation is that they point out salvation through Christ Jesus. The problem was the Jewish leaders did not recognize this, so they refused to recognize Jesus as Messiah, or even sent from God. Jesus really gets gutsy when He tells the Jewish leaders that they do not believe Moses and Moses is their accuser, condemning them. In the Jewish mindset, Moses is the hero because he is the lawgiver who gave the Law that brings salvation. Jesus corrects the Jewish mindset, remind them that the Law condemns them because it reveals they can never truly follow the Law, even if they declare they do. Moses also accuses and condemns them because Moses warned the Jews that a prophet like him was coming, and if they did not believe in the prophet, they would be cut off from God’s people (see Deuteronomy 18:15). The Sanhedrin refused to believe in Jesus, so as Moses foretold, they are condemned to be apart from God.
Now bring it up today. Today Christians use the term “Bible-based” like it is the ultimate safety net. For example, if a church is Bible-based, it’s a good church and nothing can wrong. Christians must be careful to use this term as a safety net, for if they are not, they will fall into the same problem the Pharisees and the Sadducees fell into. It will quickly lead to legalism, and before you know it, we’ll be worshipping the Bible, believing the Bible gives us salvation. The Bible can show us the way of salvation, but it does not give us salvation, as it has the Law in it, which condemns us. This is why I am Cristocentric, or Christ-centered, instead of Bibliocentric, or Bible-centered. It is Jesus Christ who created me, loved me and saved me, not the Bible. The Scriptures can only point me in the way to Jesus. Now it is true that there is a strong link between the Word of God and Jesus. After all, it was just in John 1:1 where we read the Word was God and was with God in the beginning. But the saving Word is the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ. The Bible is just the words on paper. Scriptures are not to be treated like a 4th person of the trinity, for that would be a paradox.
And because I wrote this for the quizzers studying John, I believe this is a helpful reminder that our knowledge of the Bible does not save us. Your rank on the standings does not show how good of a Christian you are. The Top 50 Bible Quizzers List is not a list of the 50 most spiritual people in Bible Quizzing. It’s very possible that the most spiritual quizzer (if it’s possible to measure spirituality like that) may only score 10 points all year. Quizzers, don’t make the same mistakes as the Pharisees and Sadducees and know the Scriptures more than you know God. For that alone is proof that being Christ-centered and Bible-centered are not the same thing. Because it is possible to know the Bible, yet not know God. So quizzers, don’t get too stuck in the technicalities in knowing the material. Actually read the Bible as God’s Word, and get to know God through it.
Before we close, let’s go back to John 5:18, for I think it sums up the chapter, as well as connects back to John’s overall message for his gospel.
John 5:18-
“For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
Remember how in the introduction to John I told you to look out for who Jesus claimed He was, as well as the claims about Jesus from those “pro-Jesus” and those “anti-Jesus”? Throughout John 1-4, we’ve seen the claims from Jesus and the “pro-Jesus” about who Jesus is, but not really from the “anti-Jesus” people. Here, in John 5, the religious leaders, who are clearly against Jesus, weigh in on their opinion. Why are they trying to kill Jesus? They knew he was calling God his Father, and they knew calling God your Father meant you were calling yourself equal to God. The only way to be equal to God is to be God. So what’s the testimony of the Jewish religious leaders? Jesus is the Son of God. Now with all 3 groups of people weighing on Jesus, we’re now starting to see a fuller picture of who Jesus is, more specifically the Son of God. As we move on in John 5, we’ll see how these 3 people groups will continue to weigh in on the subject. We’ll also see how the teaching of Jesus becomes bolder, how the proponents of Jesus continue to support Jesus, and the opponents of Jesus sharply oppose Him.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
John 4: The Woman Who Met Mr. Right
I hope you liked my devotional commentary on John 3. I know I did. I wasn’t expecting it to go the evangelistic route, but it did, and I liked it. I know for sure this John 4 commentary will go that route. When I was in 8th grade, the 8th grade Bible curriculum at my middle school was the Gospel of John. I remember that when the class got to John, the teacher paused to do a whole unit of evangelism and witnessing. I would like to do the same because I clearly see evangelism in John 4, too. While John 3 was evangelistic because the chapter preached a Gospel message of salvation; John 4 will be evangelistic because it will disciple believers on how to evangelize to non-believers (although if a non-believer paid close attention to what Jesus is saying in John 4, I believe a non-believer could come to faith). In John 4, the reader learns how to evangelize by watching Jesus do it Himself. The person Jesus will evangelize to is not like Nicodemus in chapter 3. In fact, you’ll find out she is almost the quite opposite.
Before John dives into the “meat” of the story, even before John describes the setting of the story, John sets the scene for the setting. The first 3 verses in John 4 actually clarify something all the way back in John 1. John 4:1-3 clarifies why Jews in Jerusalem were sending priests and Levites to observe John the Baptist. They weren’t curious; they were keeping on eye on him. They were making sure John the Baptist didn’t start a revolution, either a religious one or a political one. Why? Because John the Baptist had earned quite the following. If so many people were following John the Baptist and becoming his disciple, he must be up to something. By the time John 4 rolls around, people are following John the Baptist less and following Jesus more. The only thing John the Baptist’s disciples are listening to is John the Baptist saying, “Go follow Jesus.” With less people around John the Baptist, the Jews from Jerusalem saw John the Baptist as a “fad” or a “phase,” but no longer a threat (the only one who saw John the Baptist as a threat was Herod, but that’s for later). But now Jesus has the large following, so now Jesus is seen as the possible threat. From now on, the Jews in Jerusalem are keeping a closer eye on Jesus. During John 4, Jesus does not feel comfortable or safe in Judea because of the Jews in Jerusalem, so He decides it is best to return to Galilee.
Onto the setting of the book. The land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, once known as Israel, has now been divided into 3 regions by the Roman Empire. Galilee is in the north, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee. Judea is in south, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. Between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, between Galilee and Judea, right smack dab in the middle, is a region of land called Samaria. Its inhabitants are the Samaritans. The Jews and the Samaritans did not get along. They hated each other with racial prejudice.
Quick history lesson. To understand the racial hostility between Jews and Samaritans, we have to go back to the time of Divided Kingdom of Israel and Judah. God warned both Israel and Judah that if they did not follow the Law, they would be conquered and they would be exiled. Of course neither Israel nor Judah listened and instead both broke the law. God followed through with his warning. In 722 BC, Israel would be conquered and exiled by the Assyrians, and in 586 BC, Judah would be conquered and exiled by the Babylonians. The Assyrians and the Babylonians had different views on how to deal with conquered people. The Babylonians would take the upper class citizens of the conquered back to their main homeland and capital, leaving only the lower class conquered people back in their homeland (there was no middle class at this time period). The Assyrians, on the other hand, did the opposite. Instead of dragging people back to your homeland, you implant your people in the new land, and have them intermingle with the natives, keeping the conquerors at a higher status than the conquered. And so that’s what happened. The upper class of Judah was exiled to Babylon, while the lower class of Judah was left to fend for themselves with whatever was left over. The Assyrians moved into their new conquered land of Israel and settled there, intermingling with the people. Now the Jews, the people from Judah (the term “Jew” does technically come from “citizen of Judah”), realized that their exile was due to the sin, so they finally sincerely repented. All the years in exile, the Jews of Judah lived a life following the Law. The conquered Israelites didn’t exactly get the picture still. They kept up with their old sinful habits. As the Assyrians intermingled with the Israelites, the Israelites intermingled with the Assyrians. The Israelites took on the ethnical, cultural, political and spiritual identity of Assyrians. Some Israelites and Assyrians intermarried. I will note here that some of this intermarrying was willing and intentional, but sometimes Israelites were forced to marry Assyrians. After all, the Assyrians were the ones in change, and Israel had to submit to them. So the offspring of these intermarriages created a new race of people. They were the Samaritans.
So when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were allowed back into their original lands, thanks to the Persian, Greek and Roman Empire, the reunion between the Jews and the Samaritans was not a happy one. The Jews found out that the Israelites had intermarried with a foreign people, a direct violation of God’s Law. The pious Jews would have nothing to do with a people who did not obey God’s Law. The Jews refused to consider the Samaritans as real Jews, even though the Samaritans believed they were. The Jews saw the Samaritans as “half-breeds” and they looked down upon them for it. Jews would not eat at the same table as Samaritans, nor would they even eat from the same dishes a Samaritan used. The Jews would not allow Samaritans to use their temple on Mount Zion or read from their scrolls. So in order for the Samaritans to continue their religion, they had to build their own temple on Mt. Gerizim, and they had to write their own Scriptures, in order to make sense of a temple on Mt. Gerizim. Yet when the Jews heard this, they criticized the Samaritans for not even being true Jews in religious worship. It would seem as if the Samaritans were stuck in a rut, with no way out. So the Jews and Samaritans became enemies, with racial hostility between them. The hostility got so bad, Jews traveling between Galilee and Judah would go around Samaria instead of going through. If they would have gone right through Samaria, the trip would only take 3-4 days, but they hated the Samaritans so much, they took a trip that lasted 7-10 days!
With that in mind, imagine the disciples’ reactions when Jesus tells them they have to go through Samaria. They might have thought He was out of His mind. I imagine that the racial hostility between the Jews and Samaritans got so bad, that at this point, it might have become unsafe for a Jew to travel through Samaria, like today it is unsafe for an Israeli to be in Palestine. Maybe Jesus stressed a need of urgency to get back to Galilee, so the disciples were willing to go along with the plan. Then imagine the reaction from the disciples when they get to Sychar, and Jesus tells the 12 disciples to go off without Him to find food. If some of the disciples were willing to walk in Samaria because they knew they had God the Son Incarnate literally walking beside them, they didn’t have that anymore. I bet as they walked through Sychar, they said to one another, “Alright, stay close together, watch each other’s back…” But as we begin our story, I have a feeling Jesus purposely sent the disciples away, for a bigger reason than to look for food because he was hungry. Jesus was about to encounter a Samaritan. He didn’t want his Jewish disciples giving neither Him nor the Samaritan hard time for having a conversation. After all, these were the disciples who rebuked children (see Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17), so they probably would have no problem rebuking an adult.
One more time, let me summarize the setting. Jesus and His disciples are in the region of Samaria, a region hated by Jews. More specifically, Jesus and His disciples are in the town of Sychar. This town has some Old Testament history, as it is the land Jacob gave Joseph and Joseph’s sons. Some scholars believe that Sychar is the New Testament name for the Old Testament time of Shechem. Even more specifically, Jesus is sitting at Jacob’s well, which also has some Old Testament history (see Genesis 33:18-20). As for the time, it is the “6th hour,” which is believed to be around noon, about midday.
While Jesus is sitting at the well, waiting for his disciples to return with lunch, a Samaritan woman comes to the well to draw water. Jesus asks her for a drink. This might seem like a simple question to those reading this story in 21st century, but in the 1st century, this was a shocker. On top of racism between Jews and the Gentiles, sexism was very strong. Most women in the day lived in the shadow of men. They were not allowed to speak unless they were spoken to, and most of the time, it was culturally unacceptable for men and women to have conversation in public. So this person had two strikes against her: she was a Samaritan and she was a woman. Most Jewish rabbis would be so appalled by her, they would totally ignore her, as if she didn’t exist. If they were really thirsty, they would probably be more willing to dehydrate than have to ask her water. How shocked and surprised she must have been to see a Jewish man talking to her a Samaritan woman. She even tries to remind him of the social barrier between the two of them.
Christ’s move is genius, though. Jesus has got her attention, but not he needs to hook her curiosity. So Jesus says something along the lines of, “Oh, if you only knew who you were talking to, you’d be asking me for water, and not just any water, but living water.” Now the Samaritan woman’s curiosity is hooked, but it might hooked by a misconception. Just like Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman might have tried to understand Christ’s words in a literal, physical way. Back in Bible terms, wells, or cisterns, had tops that were open and exposed to nature. So the water wasn’t as clean as it is today. The dirt, bugs and other junk would be at the top of the water, and the cleanest of water would be at the bottom. People in the 1st century lacked the technology to get the clean water from the bottom without the dirty water on the top. The Samaritan woman might have thought Jesus was claiming He could do such a thing. The Samaritan woman pretty much replies, “Who do you think you are?” and then citing a famous patriarch, Jacob. She questions if Jesus is better than Jacob. While the Greek shows that she asked it in a way that expects a response of “no,” the irony of it all is Jesus is greater than their forefather Jacob.
Jesus tries to clarify what He meant. He explains that the water in this well will make people thirsty again, but then He offers Living Water, in which people will never thirst again and they will have eternal life. At this point, the Samaritan woman goes from a liberal understand of the physical laws to a supernatural understanding. She’s imagining a literal water she can drink so her body will never literally thirst again. It would be like she could drink one cup of this water and never have to worry about dehydration ever again. Now Jesus has her full, undivided attention. Of course she wants this water! If she had this water, she wouldn’t need to keep going back and forth to the well to get water so often. She’s all ears on how to get this water.
What Jesus does next is challenges the Samaritan women by asking her to bring her husband. I bet Jesus said it subtly and innocently, like, “Alright, bring your husband so I can tell him, too.” Now the Samaritan woman knows what kind of trouble she’s in. So she tries to also cunningly reply that she has no husband. Jesus replies, “You’re right, you don’t have a (1) husband. You have husbands. Five, to be precise, and maybe a possible 6th, because the man you are with now isn’t one of the 5…” Doesn’t this sound perfect for a Jerry Springer episode?
And now all of a sudden it makes sense why the Samaritan woman is at the well during the middle of the day. You were probably thinking, “Why would someone be doing chores like fetching water in the middle of the day when it’s the hottest out?” You’re right, something is wrong with that. But understanding this Samaritan woman’s situation, it makes sense. Indeed, most of the women would do all their outside chores, like fetching water, at sunrise and sunset, when the sun wasn’t shining down directly on them. But women around a well in Bible times are like office co-workers around the water cooler. Gossip is rampant, and this Samaritan woman was probably the talk of the town. You can’t sleep around with 5 different men and not get some nasty rumors circulated about you. It wouldn’t surprise me if the women of the town called this one Samaritan woman “slut,” “tramp,” “whore,” “ho,” or “prostitute.” The women probably pointed fingers at her, fingers of accusations, meant to put her down. Perhaps even if she went to the well with the rest of the women, the women would ignore, and they would pass her with chins up. So that’s probably half the reason this Samaritan woman came at noon: because the other women weren’t there. The other half of the reason is who IS there. At noon, it’s lunch break for the men who have been working hard out in the fields or with the flocks. They will gather around the well for a water break. It’s very probably that’s where this Samaritan woman got her 5 husbands. It’s very likely she goes there to pick up me. And may I even suggest a scary, odd thought: Maybe the Samaritan woman was trying to pick up Jesus.
Like any other person caught in sin, the Samaritan woman tries to change the subject. The Samaritan woman pretty much says, “Alright then, Mr. Smarty pants, if you are so smart, tell me which mountain is the right mountain to worship on: Mount Zion in Judea or Mount Gerazim in Samaria.” Remember the Jews would not allow Samaritans to worship at the temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. So the Samaritans had to result in building their temple. Rising hostilities between the 2 races led to religious arguments over the right place to worship. Between Jews and Samaritans, the right place of worship was a hot topic. Jesus gives a simple reply, saying it’s not where you worship that’s important, but rather how you worship. After all, it is made possible by Christ’s atoning death, in which we all become temples for the Holy Spirit.
The Samaritan woman isn’t fully satisfied with this answer. All she can reply is “Well, I know when the Messiah comes, He’ll tell us the right answer and straighten everything out.” To which Jesus raises his hand and says, “That would be me.” This is the first recorded time that Jesus declares Himself to be the Messiah. Jesus hadn’t told anyone this before, not any man, not any Jew, not His own family, not even His disciples. Up to this point, the disciples are just going on the assumption Jesus is the Messiah, and it’s true Jesus has done nothing to deny these claims, not stop these claims. The first person Jesus tells that He is the Messiah is a person with 3 strikes against: Samaritan, woman, adulterer.
Just as Jesus makes His confession, the disciples walk back to the well with lunch. They see Jesus say something to the Samaritan woman, and then see the Samaritan woman run into town all excited. The first thing on their mind is “What was that all about?” The second thing on their mind, being the stereotypical Jewish men they were was, “Why is Jesus talking to her?” But of course, no one is brave enough to call Jesus out on this, afraid of consequence, for good reason. They made the smart call by keeping quiet. Then Jesus and His disciples have a little conversation, something like this-
Disciples: “Jesus, eat something”
Jesus: “I have Living Food, so I never go hungry”
Disciples: “Wait, did someone else bring you food?”
Jesus: *sigh* “Not again… Didn’t I just get done with this?...”
Meanwhile, the Samaritan woman is going through the town of Sychar, urging everyone to go see Jesus. Her tagline: “He told me everything I ever did.” Well, who wouldn’t want to see the stranger that knows everyone’s life in and out? So many Samaritans come down to meet Jesus and listen to him. I wonder if this made the Jewish disciples uncomfortable. The Samaritan people are so impressed by Jesus, they urge Jesus to stay for a couple more days, and he does. During that time, because of the Samaritan woman’s testimony, many Samaritans come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and the Savior of the world.
Before we move onto the direct application of the chapter, let’s quickly glance back at the overall application of the book with the book’s theme. How does John 4 portray Jesus as the Son of God, or God the Son? Well, the obvious answer is we see the omniscience (all-knowing) of God in Jesus because Jesus knows the Samaritan woman’s adulterous life without her telling him. The Samaritan woman can testify to that. The other proof is within Christ’s teachings. His words alone are bringing people to faith. But the strongest evidence that makes Jesus the Son of God is His love and compassion for a Samaritan woman, who was an outcast three times to Jewish men. Any other Jewish rabbi would have ignored her, but Jesus cared about her spiritual well-being and was out to save her from her sin and bring her into his family. This love can only be seen from God, who loves and cares for all His creation.
Alright, now onto the discipleship of evangelism. Clearly we see evangelism happen in John 4, as Jesus presents the gospel message to the Samaritan woman and she comes to salvation. Before I go further, let me add a disclaimer that there is no perfect “cookie-cutter” method to evangelism that will work perfectly for everyone every time. As one who has the gift of evangelism, I had heard many methods to evangelism, and I can see the pros and cons of each method. I believe that Christ’s evangelism to the Samaritan woman shows a method of evangelism, and it gives us good pointers. Did the evangelism of the perfect, sinless Jesus have its cons? In context, no. Jesus, being the all-knowing God, knew exactly what the Samaritan woman needed and was able use the method of evangelism that would best work with her. We, as humans, are finite and flawed beings who will not be able to figure out every little detail of a person’s life, so even if we used the exact same methods, we would still not have a perfect method to evangelism. Still, John 4 gives us a few good pointers for whatever method we use, so let’s look at those pointers.
1. Find a common ground to talk about to open conversation
A lot of times I think 20th and 21st Century American Christians are guilty of “ambush evangelism” in a few aspects of their evangelism. The definition of ambush, according to the Merriam-Website Collegiate Dictionary (11th Edition), is “a trap in which a concealed person lies in wait to attack by surprise.” Sometimes Christians do that to non-Christian. A non-Christian might be just walking down the road, mind his/her own business, when, all of a sudden, a Christian pops up out of nowhere and starts talking about Christianity. It can be positive and passive, like “Jesus loves you! He wants you to be part of His family in heaven!” It can be negative and aggressive, like “Repent of your wicked sins and be saved from the fires of hell!” Either way, it’s an interjection that catches one off guard and by surprise. Have you ever thought of what kind of message that is sending to whomever you are evangelizing to? They are getting the message all you want to do is talk about your faith, convert them to your faith, and whatever the results may be, when you are done, you are done with them. This can be a turn off right from the start because it shows little care about the person himself/herself.
Instead of starting by talking about your faith, open the conversation with some other topic you both have interest in and you can both openly converse on. I believe Jesus was doing this in John 4:7 when he simply asked for a drink. Most likely the Samaritan woman was at the well because she too was thirsty and needed water to drink. She was thirsty and needing a drink, and Jesus was thirsty and needing a drink. There’s your common ground. Common ground doesn’t have to be too complicated. If it’s at a restaurant, compare favorite dishes. For girls who like talking about clothing, comment on each other’s outfits. Speaking of clothing, look at their shirts. What people wear can tell you a lot about their personality. If you have a good knowledge about the subject they are advertising on their clothing, talk about it. Most people know what’s going in the world, so you can use current events to open conversation, like the news, the weather, or sports. On the same note, most people know about the media coming out of Hollywood, so movies, television and music can be a conversation starter, too. But I would really encourage you to evangelize to someone who shares a favorite hobby of yours, so you can talk about that. Why? All the other things I mentioned above would just be short and “shallow” conversations in order just to get conversation. But if it’s your favorite hobby, activity or interest, you probably know it front and back, left and right. If the person you are evangelizing to also shares that hobby, activity or interest as favorite, he/she will also be able to talk about as well as you can. Then you can go in-depth with the conversation. For the deeper you can do with the conversation start, the more it will display how much you genuinely care for the person, and that you are not just trying to add another one to the Christian number. Just remember, this initial common ground conversation cannot be about religion, beliefs or faith. For if you are a Christian, and he/she is a non-Christian, that is not common ground.
2. Make a smooth transition into talking about your faith
Once again, another way Christians do “ambush evangelism” is they might start a conversation other than Christianity, but then they will make a sharp turn into talking about the faith. One minute the non-Christian thinks he’s having a nice conversation with a Christian about something else than religion, so he let’s his shields down, then all a sudden the Christian says out of no where, “You need to believe in Jesus!” and the shields have to quickly spring up. Again, think about the message you are sending when you this. It does feel like you are entrapping the non-Christian. The only reason you had the nice conversation about whatever was just because you wanted to lure them in talking about faith. If the conversation before now seems fake, it, once again, will seem like you really don’t care for the person.
Notice the first thing Jesus says to the Samaritan woman in John 4:7 and then the second thing Jesus says to the Samaritan woman in John 4:10. Both lines are talking about water and about drinking water (although those words might not be used exactly). Jesus smoothly went from asking for a drink of water (talking about a physical need) to talking about drinking Living Water (a spiritual need). The smooth transition will make it seem less like an ambush to talk about faith, and more like a natural change of subject. There’s a couple ways to do this. The first method I call the 3 C’s: correlates, contradicts, or corrects. “Correlate” means it agrees with your Christian faith. “Contradict” means it doesn’t agree with your faith. “Corrects” means it agrees with your faith in some areas, but in other areas it does not, but after making the corrections with the areas it does not agree, it now fully agrees. Talk about if your faith correlates, contradicts or corrects with the subject you started talking about. A second transition you can use is comparing your opening subject to the simple, overall redemptive history God has written. If you are unaware of this simple, overall redemptive history, it simply states the history recorded in the Bible can be simplified into four stages: God created the world and man, man and the world fell into sin, Jesus redeemed man and the world, the Holy Spirit is re-creating man and the world. To shorten it to just one word each: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Re-Creation. See if any of those 4 stages can be seen in what you were talking about before. One stage, if not all 4, if you were talking about popular books, movies or TV shows. Compare what it says to what the Bible says. A third approach I would use is to take something from your earlier conversation and turn it into an analogy for something in Bible. Jesus used this in John 4, calling salvation “Living Water” because they were talking about drinking water. So do the same. Say, “You know, [previous subject] kind of reminds me of [something in the Bible]…” Those are 3 transitions I would believe would work. But may I add that transitions may not happen immediately. They may take time. After your first initial conversation about whatever may not lead into talking about your faith. You might need to have a couple common ground discussions before you can discuss your beliefs. Be patient, as God is patient, and it will all come in time.
3. Hook them and lure them in to an interest
Don’t make your evangelism a boring lecture about what you believe. Anyone listening to that will zone out and not care. Look how Jesus piqued her interest. He said he had a water in which the drinker will never thirst and have eternal life, and the Samaritan woman immediately wanted it. To put it in the words of the song “Shine” by the Newsboys, you got to “make them wonder what you got, make them wish that they were not on the outside looking bored.” For example, if you are talking about something materialistic, like the latest fashion or the more recent technological gadget, say, “It’s OK I don’t have one, I know have a greater treasure than that.” Show them that that you have something they don’t, and make them want it, or even better, need it.” Expose the need. If they are scared about what happens after they die, say to them you have comfort in your life after death. If they are afraid and worried about their future on earth, tell them you feel secure because you know God is watching over you. Many unsaved people out there feel like their life is incomplete, even if they have a life where they can do whatever they want and party hard. Many unsaved people have fallen for the lies of the world, that worldly ways will bring happiness. Demonstrate that even if you don’t have that life, you feel complete and joyful. If you can display joy without having a worldly life, it will blow their mind.
4. Expose the Problem and the Need
An answer is no good if there’s no question. A solution is no good if there is no problem. You need to expose the problem and the need. I already started talking about that in the last point. That “expose the need” was more along the lines of demonstrating you have something they don’t to draw them in. At this point, it could more of “expose the want” because, at this point, it’s just something the person might want. Now it’s time to turn the want into a need. This “expose the need” is showing them the problem in their lives. We Christians know the problem is sin.
Now there’s a right way and a wrong way to expose sin, and we have to be careful with how we expose sin. I’m going to reference back to John 3 for this. Remember how John 3 says that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world? Since we are following in the path of Jesus, we are to be like Him, and this means our evangelism is not one that condemns, which means to judge guilty of sin, with no way out. Make sure in no way it appears as if you exposing their sin so you lift yourself above them morally, or so you can be right and they can be wrong. It’s a turn off. Display you are exposing their sin out of genuine concern for their life and their well-being. Remember we said that the word “perish” in John 3:16 is along the lines of “ruining.” So when exposing sin, show how their sin(s) is(are) ruining their life.
One more note on exposing sin, don’t touch “hot-button” subjects, like homosexuality or abortion. Yes, they are sins, but even if you witnessing to a gay man or a lesbian woman, or you are evangelizing to an abortion “doctor” or a woman who got an abortion, don’t bring them up. These hot topics can become just as much political as religious, so you could be mistaken for preaching political propaganda instead of evangelizing the gospel. But I also think it is a strong witness. What a strong witness it is to avoid these, but bring up other sins in their life which they truly see as a problem. My favorite sin (that sounds so wrong) to talk about is lying. My generation has gotten so use to lying, they see it as natural. It will really open their mind to how destructive it can be. On that note, try to nab a sin that really drives home to the person. Jesus was able to do that with the Samaritan woman when he exposed her for her adultery. The more closer and more harder you hit home, the more the person knows he/see needs a solution.
5. Be prepared to answer questions and objections
When the Samaritan woman was faced with her sin, she quickly changed the subject. You’ll face that too when evangelizing. She decided to change the subject with a question, possibly to throw Jesus off. You’ll face the same. People will ask you questions. Some questions are real questions because they don’t understand something, and they want answers. Other questions are fake questions, meant to throw you off, show contradictions in your faith, or to object to Christianity. Know you will face these questions and be prepared. Study up, and always be prepared to be to give an answer and give a defense (1 Peter 3:15). And if you don’t know, it’s OK that you don’t know. If you don’t know, don’t try to pass it off as if you do know. Be honest and admit you don’t know. But make sure you make clear a difference between “don’t know” and “don’t care.” Even if you don’t know, do care. If you have the time, tell the person you will look it up and find an answer. Just make sure that you demonstrate that even if you don’t know, you still have faith in your beliefs, not knowing doesn’t mean your faith is wrong.
6. Point out the Way to the Solution
The Samaritan woman knew the solution was the Messiah, for she knew that Messiah would come and fix everything. What the Samaritan woman didn’t know was Jesus was the Messiah. When Jesus revealed He was the Christ, the Samaritan woman believed and came to salvation. Your evangelism is no good if there is no solution. Even if you start the conversation on a non-related topic, smoothly go into the topic of faith, interest them in the topic, expose their need and answer all questions, it’s no good if you cannot give a solution to their problem. Now’s the time to give the solution. The solution can be shared in five steps. First, say that Jesus is God, is man, and is perfect. Second, tell them that Jesus willingly died on the cross to pay the payment for our sins. Third, say that Jesus rose 3 days later, defeating sin, evil and death. Fourth, tell them that they can be saved of their sins if they repent of their sins, believe in Jesus and follow Him. Fifth, say that God promises all who repent and believe will be forgiven of their sins, welcomed into God’s family, and have a room in heaven one day. It’s as simple as that. Have your Bible ready if the person you are evangelizing to needs proof.
One more note I need to make on sharing the solution. Be careful of the words you pick! Being Christian for so long, you may have picked up “Christian-ese” a foreign language to non-Christians. I have a funny story that shows this. One night I was having dinner with a non-Christian at a diner. She was checking Facebook on her phone, and while still looking at her phone, she said to me, “Graham, you’re a Christian, right?” I confirmed. She went on, “My friend is a Christian who goes to Liberty University.” I’ll admit, I thought in my head, “Oh no…” The young lady continued, “My friend’s Facebook status says, ‘Volunteered at the Campus Crusade and saw 9 people give their lives to Christ. So excited!’ What does she mean when she says ‘gave their life to Christ’? Are the Liberty students performing human sacrifices? Is there a ritual suicide happening down there? I’m pretty sure both are illegal.” I did my best to suppress breaking out in laughter because her question was a sincere one. She didn’t know about being a living sacrifice, so the term “giving your life to Christ” was totally foreign. I had to explain it was pretty much converting to Christianity. As much as Christians like to avoid the term “converting” because it’s “too religious,” it’s the only term she understood, so I had to use it. Use terms they will understand.
7. If the person receives Christ, encourage her to spread the good news!
Look at the Samaritan woman’s reaction when she found out Jesus was the Messiah. How did she act? When she realized Jesus was the Messiah, she ran back into town and told everyone that they needed to meet this man, who she was pretty sure was the Messiah. The gospel message is a contagious one. We want to tell everyone the good news because it changed our lives. Someone who sincerely comes to faith in Christ will also want to spread the good news. Do not hinder them to do so. Let them do it. Don’t worry about if the new Christian will know how to start or what to say. If their salvation is genuine, they know the transformation that has happened in their life and they will communicate that transformation. On top of evangelism, encourage them to spiritually grow in other places, like Bible reading, praying, confessing and fellowshipping. If they don’t have a Bible, give them one. If they don’t have a church, invite them to your church or set them up with a local church.
I’ll write down the 7 bullet points together you can see them together
7 Tips for Evangelism Learned in John 4
1. Find a common ground to talk about to open conversation
2. Make a smooth transition to talking about your faith
3. Hook them and lure them into an interest
4. Expose the Problem and the Need
5. Be prepared to answer questions and objects
6. Point out the way to the solution
7. If the person receives Christ, encourage them to share the good news!
So go out and try it. Start with people you already have connections with, such as family, relatives and friends. Remember, the only thing you can bring into heaven with you is family, relatives and friends, so make sure they are coming with you. Then branch out into you local community, and then the surrounding communities. If every Christian could start out by just doing this, they could easily spread the gospel to the ends of the earth. So go out and show the world that Jesus is the ultimate Mr. Right, for men and women of all tongues, all tribes and all nations!
Before John dives into the “meat” of the story, even before John describes the setting of the story, John sets the scene for the setting. The first 3 verses in John 4 actually clarify something all the way back in John 1. John 4:1-3 clarifies why Jews in Jerusalem were sending priests and Levites to observe John the Baptist. They weren’t curious; they were keeping on eye on him. They were making sure John the Baptist didn’t start a revolution, either a religious one or a political one. Why? Because John the Baptist had earned quite the following. If so many people were following John the Baptist and becoming his disciple, he must be up to something. By the time John 4 rolls around, people are following John the Baptist less and following Jesus more. The only thing John the Baptist’s disciples are listening to is John the Baptist saying, “Go follow Jesus.” With less people around John the Baptist, the Jews from Jerusalem saw John the Baptist as a “fad” or a “phase,” but no longer a threat (the only one who saw John the Baptist as a threat was Herod, but that’s for later). But now Jesus has the large following, so now Jesus is seen as the possible threat. From now on, the Jews in Jerusalem are keeping a closer eye on Jesus. During John 4, Jesus does not feel comfortable or safe in Judea because of the Jews in Jerusalem, so He decides it is best to return to Galilee.
Onto the setting of the book. The land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, once known as Israel, has now been divided into 3 regions by the Roman Empire. Galilee is in the north, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee. Judea is in south, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. Between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, between Galilee and Judea, right smack dab in the middle, is a region of land called Samaria. Its inhabitants are the Samaritans. The Jews and the Samaritans did not get along. They hated each other with racial prejudice.
Quick history lesson. To understand the racial hostility between Jews and Samaritans, we have to go back to the time of Divided Kingdom of Israel and Judah. God warned both Israel and Judah that if they did not follow the Law, they would be conquered and they would be exiled. Of course neither Israel nor Judah listened and instead both broke the law. God followed through with his warning. In 722 BC, Israel would be conquered and exiled by the Assyrians, and in 586 BC, Judah would be conquered and exiled by the Babylonians. The Assyrians and the Babylonians had different views on how to deal with conquered people. The Babylonians would take the upper class citizens of the conquered back to their main homeland and capital, leaving only the lower class conquered people back in their homeland (there was no middle class at this time period). The Assyrians, on the other hand, did the opposite. Instead of dragging people back to your homeland, you implant your people in the new land, and have them intermingle with the natives, keeping the conquerors at a higher status than the conquered. And so that’s what happened. The upper class of Judah was exiled to Babylon, while the lower class of Judah was left to fend for themselves with whatever was left over. The Assyrians moved into their new conquered land of Israel and settled there, intermingling with the people. Now the Jews, the people from Judah (the term “Jew” does technically come from “citizen of Judah”), realized that their exile was due to the sin, so they finally sincerely repented. All the years in exile, the Jews of Judah lived a life following the Law. The conquered Israelites didn’t exactly get the picture still. They kept up with their old sinful habits. As the Assyrians intermingled with the Israelites, the Israelites intermingled with the Assyrians. The Israelites took on the ethnical, cultural, political and spiritual identity of Assyrians. Some Israelites and Assyrians intermarried. I will note here that some of this intermarrying was willing and intentional, but sometimes Israelites were forced to marry Assyrians. After all, the Assyrians were the ones in change, and Israel had to submit to them. So the offspring of these intermarriages created a new race of people. They were the Samaritans.
So when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were allowed back into their original lands, thanks to the Persian, Greek and Roman Empire, the reunion between the Jews and the Samaritans was not a happy one. The Jews found out that the Israelites had intermarried with a foreign people, a direct violation of God’s Law. The pious Jews would have nothing to do with a people who did not obey God’s Law. The Jews refused to consider the Samaritans as real Jews, even though the Samaritans believed they were. The Jews saw the Samaritans as “half-breeds” and they looked down upon them for it. Jews would not eat at the same table as Samaritans, nor would they even eat from the same dishes a Samaritan used. The Jews would not allow Samaritans to use their temple on Mount Zion or read from their scrolls. So in order for the Samaritans to continue their religion, they had to build their own temple on Mt. Gerizim, and they had to write their own Scriptures, in order to make sense of a temple on Mt. Gerizim. Yet when the Jews heard this, they criticized the Samaritans for not even being true Jews in religious worship. It would seem as if the Samaritans were stuck in a rut, with no way out. So the Jews and Samaritans became enemies, with racial hostility between them. The hostility got so bad, Jews traveling between Galilee and Judah would go around Samaria instead of going through. If they would have gone right through Samaria, the trip would only take 3-4 days, but they hated the Samaritans so much, they took a trip that lasted 7-10 days!
With that in mind, imagine the disciples’ reactions when Jesus tells them they have to go through Samaria. They might have thought He was out of His mind. I imagine that the racial hostility between the Jews and Samaritans got so bad, that at this point, it might have become unsafe for a Jew to travel through Samaria, like today it is unsafe for an Israeli to be in Palestine. Maybe Jesus stressed a need of urgency to get back to Galilee, so the disciples were willing to go along with the plan. Then imagine the reaction from the disciples when they get to Sychar, and Jesus tells the 12 disciples to go off without Him to find food. If some of the disciples were willing to walk in Samaria because they knew they had God the Son Incarnate literally walking beside them, they didn’t have that anymore. I bet as they walked through Sychar, they said to one another, “Alright, stay close together, watch each other’s back…” But as we begin our story, I have a feeling Jesus purposely sent the disciples away, for a bigger reason than to look for food because he was hungry. Jesus was about to encounter a Samaritan. He didn’t want his Jewish disciples giving neither Him nor the Samaritan hard time for having a conversation. After all, these were the disciples who rebuked children (see Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17), so they probably would have no problem rebuking an adult.
One more time, let me summarize the setting. Jesus and His disciples are in the region of Samaria, a region hated by Jews. More specifically, Jesus and His disciples are in the town of Sychar. This town has some Old Testament history, as it is the land Jacob gave Joseph and Joseph’s sons. Some scholars believe that Sychar is the New Testament name for the Old Testament time of Shechem. Even more specifically, Jesus is sitting at Jacob’s well, which also has some Old Testament history (see Genesis 33:18-20). As for the time, it is the “6th hour,” which is believed to be around noon, about midday.
While Jesus is sitting at the well, waiting for his disciples to return with lunch, a Samaritan woman comes to the well to draw water. Jesus asks her for a drink. This might seem like a simple question to those reading this story in 21st century, but in the 1st century, this was a shocker. On top of racism between Jews and the Gentiles, sexism was very strong. Most women in the day lived in the shadow of men. They were not allowed to speak unless they were spoken to, and most of the time, it was culturally unacceptable for men and women to have conversation in public. So this person had two strikes against her: she was a Samaritan and she was a woman. Most Jewish rabbis would be so appalled by her, they would totally ignore her, as if she didn’t exist. If they were really thirsty, they would probably be more willing to dehydrate than have to ask her water. How shocked and surprised she must have been to see a Jewish man talking to her a Samaritan woman. She even tries to remind him of the social barrier between the two of them.
Christ’s move is genius, though. Jesus has got her attention, but not he needs to hook her curiosity. So Jesus says something along the lines of, “Oh, if you only knew who you were talking to, you’d be asking me for water, and not just any water, but living water.” Now the Samaritan woman’s curiosity is hooked, but it might hooked by a misconception. Just like Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman might have tried to understand Christ’s words in a literal, physical way. Back in Bible terms, wells, or cisterns, had tops that were open and exposed to nature. So the water wasn’t as clean as it is today. The dirt, bugs and other junk would be at the top of the water, and the cleanest of water would be at the bottom. People in the 1st century lacked the technology to get the clean water from the bottom without the dirty water on the top. The Samaritan woman might have thought Jesus was claiming He could do such a thing. The Samaritan woman pretty much replies, “Who do you think you are?” and then citing a famous patriarch, Jacob. She questions if Jesus is better than Jacob. While the Greek shows that she asked it in a way that expects a response of “no,” the irony of it all is Jesus is greater than their forefather Jacob.
Jesus tries to clarify what He meant. He explains that the water in this well will make people thirsty again, but then He offers Living Water, in which people will never thirst again and they will have eternal life. At this point, the Samaritan woman goes from a liberal understand of the physical laws to a supernatural understanding. She’s imagining a literal water she can drink so her body will never literally thirst again. It would be like she could drink one cup of this water and never have to worry about dehydration ever again. Now Jesus has her full, undivided attention. Of course she wants this water! If she had this water, she wouldn’t need to keep going back and forth to the well to get water so often. She’s all ears on how to get this water.
What Jesus does next is challenges the Samaritan women by asking her to bring her husband. I bet Jesus said it subtly and innocently, like, “Alright, bring your husband so I can tell him, too.” Now the Samaritan woman knows what kind of trouble she’s in. So she tries to also cunningly reply that she has no husband. Jesus replies, “You’re right, you don’t have a (1) husband. You have husbands. Five, to be precise, and maybe a possible 6th, because the man you are with now isn’t one of the 5…” Doesn’t this sound perfect for a Jerry Springer episode?
And now all of a sudden it makes sense why the Samaritan woman is at the well during the middle of the day. You were probably thinking, “Why would someone be doing chores like fetching water in the middle of the day when it’s the hottest out?” You’re right, something is wrong with that. But understanding this Samaritan woman’s situation, it makes sense. Indeed, most of the women would do all their outside chores, like fetching water, at sunrise and sunset, when the sun wasn’t shining down directly on them. But women around a well in Bible times are like office co-workers around the water cooler. Gossip is rampant, and this Samaritan woman was probably the talk of the town. You can’t sleep around with 5 different men and not get some nasty rumors circulated about you. It wouldn’t surprise me if the women of the town called this one Samaritan woman “slut,” “tramp,” “whore,” “ho,” or “prostitute.” The women probably pointed fingers at her, fingers of accusations, meant to put her down. Perhaps even if she went to the well with the rest of the women, the women would ignore, and they would pass her with chins up. So that’s probably half the reason this Samaritan woman came at noon: because the other women weren’t there. The other half of the reason is who IS there. At noon, it’s lunch break for the men who have been working hard out in the fields or with the flocks. They will gather around the well for a water break. It’s very probably that’s where this Samaritan woman got her 5 husbands. It’s very likely she goes there to pick up me. And may I even suggest a scary, odd thought: Maybe the Samaritan woman was trying to pick up Jesus.
Like any other person caught in sin, the Samaritan woman tries to change the subject. The Samaritan woman pretty much says, “Alright then, Mr. Smarty pants, if you are so smart, tell me which mountain is the right mountain to worship on: Mount Zion in Judea or Mount Gerazim in Samaria.” Remember the Jews would not allow Samaritans to worship at the temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. So the Samaritans had to result in building their temple. Rising hostilities between the 2 races led to religious arguments over the right place to worship. Between Jews and Samaritans, the right place of worship was a hot topic. Jesus gives a simple reply, saying it’s not where you worship that’s important, but rather how you worship. After all, it is made possible by Christ’s atoning death, in which we all become temples for the Holy Spirit.
The Samaritan woman isn’t fully satisfied with this answer. All she can reply is “Well, I know when the Messiah comes, He’ll tell us the right answer and straighten everything out.” To which Jesus raises his hand and says, “That would be me.” This is the first recorded time that Jesus declares Himself to be the Messiah. Jesus hadn’t told anyone this before, not any man, not any Jew, not His own family, not even His disciples. Up to this point, the disciples are just going on the assumption Jesus is the Messiah, and it’s true Jesus has done nothing to deny these claims, not stop these claims. The first person Jesus tells that He is the Messiah is a person with 3 strikes against: Samaritan, woman, adulterer.
Just as Jesus makes His confession, the disciples walk back to the well with lunch. They see Jesus say something to the Samaritan woman, and then see the Samaritan woman run into town all excited. The first thing on their mind is “What was that all about?” The second thing on their mind, being the stereotypical Jewish men they were was, “Why is Jesus talking to her?” But of course, no one is brave enough to call Jesus out on this, afraid of consequence, for good reason. They made the smart call by keeping quiet. Then Jesus and His disciples have a little conversation, something like this-
Disciples: “Jesus, eat something”
Jesus: “I have Living Food, so I never go hungry”
Disciples: “Wait, did someone else bring you food?”
Jesus: *sigh* “Not again… Didn’t I just get done with this?...”
Meanwhile, the Samaritan woman is going through the town of Sychar, urging everyone to go see Jesus. Her tagline: “He told me everything I ever did.” Well, who wouldn’t want to see the stranger that knows everyone’s life in and out? So many Samaritans come down to meet Jesus and listen to him. I wonder if this made the Jewish disciples uncomfortable. The Samaritan people are so impressed by Jesus, they urge Jesus to stay for a couple more days, and he does. During that time, because of the Samaritan woman’s testimony, many Samaritans come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and the Savior of the world.
Before we move onto the direct application of the chapter, let’s quickly glance back at the overall application of the book with the book’s theme. How does John 4 portray Jesus as the Son of God, or God the Son? Well, the obvious answer is we see the omniscience (all-knowing) of God in Jesus because Jesus knows the Samaritan woman’s adulterous life without her telling him. The Samaritan woman can testify to that. The other proof is within Christ’s teachings. His words alone are bringing people to faith. But the strongest evidence that makes Jesus the Son of God is His love and compassion for a Samaritan woman, who was an outcast three times to Jewish men. Any other Jewish rabbi would have ignored her, but Jesus cared about her spiritual well-being and was out to save her from her sin and bring her into his family. This love can only be seen from God, who loves and cares for all His creation.
Alright, now onto the discipleship of evangelism. Clearly we see evangelism happen in John 4, as Jesus presents the gospel message to the Samaritan woman and she comes to salvation. Before I go further, let me add a disclaimer that there is no perfect “cookie-cutter” method to evangelism that will work perfectly for everyone every time. As one who has the gift of evangelism, I had heard many methods to evangelism, and I can see the pros and cons of each method. I believe that Christ’s evangelism to the Samaritan woman shows a method of evangelism, and it gives us good pointers. Did the evangelism of the perfect, sinless Jesus have its cons? In context, no. Jesus, being the all-knowing God, knew exactly what the Samaritan woman needed and was able use the method of evangelism that would best work with her. We, as humans, are finite and flawed beings who will not be able to figure out every little detail of a person’s life, so even if we used the exact same methods, we would still not have a perfect method to evangelism. Still, John 4 gives us a few good pointers for whatever method we use, so let’s look at those pointers.
1. Find a common ground to talk about to open conversation
A lot of times I think 20th and 21st Century American Christians are guilty of “ambush evangelism” in a few aspects of their evangelism. The definition of ambush, according to the Merriam-Website Collegiate Dictionary (11th Edition), is “a trap in which a concealed person lies in wait to attack by surprise.” Sometimes Christians do that to non-Christian. A non-Christian might be just walking down the road, mind his/her own business, when, all of a sudden, a Christian pops up out of nowhere and starts talking about Christianity. It can be positive and passive, like “Jesus loves you! He wants you to be part of His family in heaven!” It can be negative and aggressive, like “Repent of your wicked sins and be saved from the fires of hell!” Either way, it’s an interjection that catches one off guard and by surprise. Have you ever thought of what kind of message that is sending to whomever you are evangelizing to? They are getting the message all you want to do is talk about your faith, convert them to your faith, and whatever the results may be, when you are done, you are done with them. This can be a turn off right from the start because it shows little care about the person himself/herself.
Instead of starting by talking about your faith, open the conversation with some other topic you both have interest in and you can both openly converse on. I believe Jesus was doing this in John 4:7 when he simply asked for a drink. Most likely the Samaritan woman was at the well because she too was thirsty and needed water to drink. She was thirsty and needing a drink, and Jesus was thirsty and needing a drink. There’s your common ground. Common ground doesn’t have to be too complicated. If it’s at a restaurant, compare favorite dishes. For girls who like talking about clothing, comment on each other’s outfits. Speaking of clothing, look at their shirts. What people wear can tell you a lot about their personality. If you have a good knowledge about the subject they are advertising on their clothing, talk about it. Most people know what’s going in the world, so you can use current events to open conversation, like the news, the weather, or sports. On the same note, most people know about the media coming out of Hollywood, so movies, television and music can be a conversation starter, too. But I would really encourage you to evangelize to someone who shares a favorite hobby of yours, so you can talk about that. Why? All the other things I mentioned above would just be short and “shallow” conversations in order just to get conversation. But if it’s your favorite hobby, activity or interest, you probably know it front and back, left and right. If the person you are evangelizing to also shares that hobby, activity or interest as favorite, he/she will also be able to talk about as well as you can. Then you can go in-depth with the conversation. For the deeper you can do with the conversation start, the more it will display how much you genuinely care for the person, and that you are not just trying to add another one to the Christian number. Just remember, this initial common ground conversation cannot be about religion, beliefs or faith. For if you are a Christian, and he/she is a non-Christian, that is not common ground.
2. Make a smooth transition into talking about your faith
Once again, another way Christians do “ambush evangelism” is they might start a conversation other than Christianity, but then they will make a sharp turn into talking about the faith. One minute the non-Christian thinks he’s having a nice conversation with a Christian about something else than religion, so he let’s his shields down, then all a sudden the Christian says out of no where, “You need to believe in Jesus!” and the shields have to quickly spring up. Again, think about the message you are sending when you this. It does feel like you are entrapping the non-Christian. The only reason you had the nice conversation about whatever was just because you wanted to lure them in talking about faith. If the conversation before now seems fake, it, once again, will seem like you really don’t care for the person.
Notice the first thing Jesus says to the Samaritan woman in John 4:7 and then the second thing Jesus says to the Samaritan woman in John 4:10. Both lines are talking about water and about drinking water (although those words might not be used exactly). Jesus smoothly went from asking for a drink of water (talking about a physical need) to talking about drinking Living Water (a spiritual need). The smooth transition will make it seem less like an ambush to talk about faith, and more like a natural change of subject. There’s a couple ways to do this. The first method I call the 3 C’s: correlates, contradicts, or corrects. “Correlate” means it agrees with your Christian faith. “Contradict” means it doesn’t agree with your faith. “Corrects” means it agrees with your faith in some areas, but in other areas it does not, but after making the corrections with the areas it does not agree, it now fully agrees. Talk about if your faith correlates, contradicts or corrects with the subject you started talking about. A second transition you can use is comparing your opening subject to the simple, overall redemptive history God has written. If you are unaware of this simple, overall redemptive history, it simply states the history recorded in the Bible can be simplified into four stages: God created the world and man, man and the world fell into sin, Jesus redeemed man and the world, the Holy Spirit is re-creating man and the world. To shorten it to just one word each: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Re-Creation. See if any of those 4 stages can be seen in what you were talking about before. One stage, if not all 4, if you were talking about popular books, movies or TV shows. Compare what it says to what the Bible says. A third approach I would use is to take something from your earlier conversation and turn it into an analogy for something in Bible. Jesus used this in John 4, calling salvation “Living Water” because they were talking about drinking water. So do the same. Say, “You know, [previous subject] kind of reminds me of [something in the Bible]…” Those are 3 transitions I would believe would work. But may I add that transitions may not happen immediately. They may take time. After your first initial conversation about whatever may not lead into talking about your faith. You might need to have a couple common ground discussions before you can discuss your beliefs. Be patient, as God is patient, and it will all come in time.
3. Hook them and lure them in to an interest
Don’t make your evangelism a boring lecture about what you believe. Anyone listening to that will zone out and not care. Look how Jesus piqued her interest. He said he had a water in which the drinker will never thirst and have eternal life, and the Samaritan woman immediately wanted it. To put it in the words of the song “Shine” by the Newsboys, you got to “make them wonder what you got, make them wish that they were not on the outside looking bored.” For example, if you are talking about something materialistic, like the latest fashion or the more recent technological gadget, say, “It’s OK I don’t have one, I know have a greater treasure than that.” Show them that that you have something they don’t, and make them want it, or even better, need it.” Expose the need. If they are scared about what happens after they die, say to them you have comfort in your life after death. If they are afraid and worried about their future on earth, tell them you feel secure because you know God is watching over you. Many unsaved people out there feel like their life is incomplete, even if they have a life where they can do whatever they want and party hard. Many unsaved people have fallen for the lies of the world, that worldly ways will bring happiness. Demonstrate that even if you don’t have that life, you feel complete and joyful. If you can display joy without having a worldly life, it will blow their mind.
4. Expose the Problem and the Need
An answer is no good if there’s no question. A solution is no good if there is no problem. You need to expose the problem and the need. I already started talking about that in the last point. That “expose the need” was more along the lines of demonstrating you have something they don’t to draw them in. At this point, it could more of “expose the want” because, at this point, it’s just something the person might want. Now it’s time to turn the want into a need. This “expose the need” is showing them the problem in their lives. We Christians know the problem is sin.
Now there’s a right way and a wrong way to expose sin, and we have to be careful with how we expose sin. I’m going to reference back to John 3 for this. Remember how John 3 says that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world? Since we are following in the path of Jesus, we are to be like Him, and this means our evangelism is not one that condemns, which means to judge guilty of sin, with no way out. Make sure in no way it appears as if you exposing their sin so you lift yourself above them morally, or so you can be right and they can be wrong. It’s a turn off. Display you are exposing their sin out of genuine concern for their life and their well-being. Remember we said that the word “perish” in John 3:16 is along the lines of “ruining.” So when exposing sin, show how their sin(s) is(are) ruining their life.
One more note on exposing sin, don’t touch “hot-button” subjects, like homosexuality or abortion. Yes, they are sins, but even if you witnessing to a gay man or a lesbian woman, or you are evangelizing to an abortion “doctor” or a woman who got an abortion, don’t bring them up. These hot topics can become just as much political as religious, so you could be mistaken for preaching political propaganda instead of evangelizing the gospel. But I also think it is a strong witness. What a strong witness it is to avoid these, but bring up other sins in their life which they truly see as a problem. My favorite sin (that sounds so wrong) to talk about is lying. My generation has gotten so use to lying, they see it as natural. It will really open their mind to how destructive it can be. On that note, try to nab a sin that really drives home to the person. Jesus was able to do that with the Samaritan woman when he exposed her for her adultery. The more closer and more harder you hit home, the more the person knows he/see needs a solution.
5. Be prepared to answer questions and objections
When the Samaritan woman was faced with her sin, she quickly changed the subject. You’ll face that too when evangelizing. She decided to change the subject with a question, possibly to throw Jesus off. You’ll face the same. People will ask you questions. Some questions are real questions because they don’t understand something, and they want answers. Other questions are fake questions, meant to throw you off, show contradictions in your faith, or to object to Christianity. Know you will face these questions and be prepared. Study up, and always be prepared to be to give an answer and give a defense (1 Peter 3:15). And if you don’t know, it’s OK that you don’t know. If you don’t know, don’t try to pass it off as if you do know. Be honest and admit you don’t know. But make sure you make clear a difference between “don’t know” and “don’t care.” Even if you don’t know, do care. If you have the time, tell the person you will look it up and find an answer. Just make sure that you demonstrate that even if you don’t know, you still have faith in your beliefs, not knowing doesn’t mean your faith is wrong.
6. Point out the Way to the Solution
The Samaritan woman knew the solution was the Messiah, for she knew that Messiah would come and fix everything. What the Samaritan woman didn’t know was Jesus was the Messiah. When Jesus revealed He was the Christ, the Samaritan woman believed and came to salvation. Your evangelism is no good if there is no solution. Even if you start the conversation on a non-related topic, smoothly go into the topic of faith, interest them in the topic, expose their need and answer all questions, it’s no good if you cannot give a solution to their problem. Now’s the time to give the solution. The solution can be shared in five steps. First, say that Jesus is God, is man, and is perfect. Second, tell them that Jesus willingly died on the cross to pay the payment for our sins. Third, say that Jesus rose 3 days later, defeating sin, evil and death. Fourth, tell them that they can be saved of their sins if they repent of their sins, believe in Jesus and follow Him. Fifth, say that God promises all who repent and believe will be forgiven of their sins, welcomed into God’s family, and have a room in heaven one day. It’s as simple as that. Have your Bible ready if the person you are evangelizing to needs proof.
One more note I need to make on sharing the solution. Be careful of the words you pick! Being Christian for so long, you may have picked up “Christian-ese” a foreign language to non-Christians. I have a funny story that shows this. One night I was having dinner with a non-Christian at a diner. She was checking Facebook on her phone, and while still looking at her phone, she said to me, “Graham, you’re a Christian, right?” I confirmed. She went on, “My friend is a Christian who goes to Liberty University.” I’ll admit, I thought in my head, “Oh no…” The young lady continued, “My friend’s Facebook status says, ‘Volunteered at the Campus Crusade and saw 9 people give their lives to Christ. So excited!’ What does she mean when she says ‘gave their life to Christ’? Are the Liberty students performing human sacrifices? Is there a ritual suicide happening down there? I’m pretty sure both are illegal.” I did my best to suppress breaking out in laughter because her question was a sincere one. She didn’t know about being a living sacrifice, so the term “giving your life to Christ” was totally foreign. I had to explain it was pretty much converting to Christianity. As much as Christians like to avoid the term “converting” because it’s “too religious,” it’s the only term she understood, so I had to use it. Use terms they will understand.
7. If the person receives Christ, encourage her to spread the good news!
Look at the Samaritan woman’s reaction when she found out Jesus was the Messiah. How did she act? When she realized Jesus was the Messiah, she ran back into town and told everyone that they needed to meet this man, who she was pretty sure was the Messiah. The gospel message is a contagious one. We want to tell everyone the good news because it changed our lives. Someone who sincerely comes to faith in Christ will also want to spread the good news. Do not hinder them to do so. Let them do it. Don’t worry about if the new Christian will know how to start or what to say. If their salvation is genuine, they know the transformation that has happened in their life and they will communicate that transformation. On top of evangelism, encourage them to spiritually grow in other places, like Bible reading, praying, confessing and fellowshipping. If they don’t have a Bible, give them one. If they don’t have a church, invite them to your church or set them up with a local church.
I’ll write down the 7 bullet points together you can see them together
7 Tips for Evangelism Learned in John 4
1. Find a common ground to talk about to open conversation
2. Make a smooth transition to talking about your faith
3. Hook them and lure them into an interest
4. Expose the Problem and the Need
5. Be prepared to answer questions and objects
6. Point out the way to the solution
7. If the person receives Christ, encourage them to share the good news!
So go out and try it. Start with people you already have connections with, such as family, relatives and friends. Remember, the only thing you can bring into heaven with you is family, relatives and friends, so make sure they are coming with you. Then branch out into you local community, and then the surrounding communities. If every Christian could start out by just doing this, they could easily spread the gospel to the ends of the earth. So go out and show the world that Jesus is the ultimate Mr. Right, for men and women of all tongues, all tribes and all nations!
Saturday, January 21, 2012
John 3: Nick@Nite
My favorite band of all time is the ApologetiX, a Christian parody band. The first album of theirs that I owned was called Keep the Change. My favorite song from their album Keep the Change is “The Real Sin Savior,” a parody of “The Real Slim Shady” by Eminem. One of the lines from that song that sticks out to me is “But if Jesus loved his enemies, and Pharisees…” The first couple times I heard this song, I thought it said, “But if Jesus loved his enemies, like Pharisees…” The ApologetiX could have said the same thing and it would be true. Jesus did preach, on the Sermon on the Mount, to love our enemies. I truly believe Jesus never asked his followers to do anything He did not do. So we ask, “How did Jesus love his enemies?” but then that leads us to ask, “Who were His enemies?” Christ’s enemies were the ones who opposed Him and His gospel message. Mostly, those opponents were the Pharisees and the Sadducees, as well as other religious parties within the Jewish religion. So Christ’s enemies were the Pharisees and Sadducees. So how did Jesus show love to the Pharisees and Sadducees? Whenever a Pharisee or Sadducee would approach Jesus in a way that wasn’t meant to insult Him, belittle Him, threaten Him or doubt His authority, Jesus always was open to discuss spiritual matters in a non-threatening environment. John 3 paints a wonderful picture of this.
John 3 opens in verse 1 by introducing Nicodemus, and with quite a résumé. Nicodemus is a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish Ruling Council, which some people might know better as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was a Jewish Ruling Council of 70 Jews, from each and every religious party. They were still under Roman rule in the Roman Empire, but among Jews, they were the highest form of government. Religiously speaking, these 70 men were the most intellectual and most spiritual Jews in the land. Nicodemus definitely had the five books of Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) memorized, and it’s very possible that Nicodemus had all the books of the Tanak (what we know as the Old Testament) memorized. The Bible only speaks positively of 3 Sanhedrin members: Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Gamiliel. But the Bible doesn’t just hand Nicodemus a positive outlook, so we’ll see how Nicodemus builds up that repertoire throughout the Gospel of John.
Verse 2 first tells the reader that Nicodemus came at night. The Bible doesn’t explicitly tell the reader why Nicodemus came at night, but I have a hunch. It’s the same reason why crime happens more often in the night than in the day. Because of the darkness, night is associated with hiddenness and secrecy. Even if there is 3 men in the Sanhedrin on the side of Jesus, there’s still 67 (maybe more, maybe less) who are against Jesus. If Nicodemus is exposed as being on the side of Jesus, or even giving Jesus a chance, he could be ridiculed or discredited among the Sanhedrin. So Nicodemus has to go when there is the fewest amount of witnesses. As the reader reads on in verse 2, the reader learns that Nicodemus is a skeptic, what politicians would call a “swing vote.” Going back to the Sanhedrin’s stance on Jesus, some scholars have suggested that the standpoint Nicodemus reveals in his beliefs about Jesus is where most of the Sanhedrin members stand on Jesus. They don’t want to believe Jesus is sent from God because Jesus is preaching against them. Yet they can’t help but believe Jesus is from God because of all the miraculous signs. Especially consider this in light of the temple cleansing in John 2. When Jesus cleanses the temple, the Jews demand a miraculous sign to back up his actions. Now, sticking with my belief that the temple cleansing happened within a week of Christ’s crucifixion, Jesus has been performing several miracles, many of which were healing people. On top of that, Christ’s preaching itself was a sign and testimony to His authority (see Matthew 12:39 and Luke 11:29). So signs are aplenty. It all comes down to whether or not the Jews accept the signs, for whatever those reasons may be. Nicodemus realizes it has come down to this. It’s almost like Nicodemus is saying, “They don’t want you to be a rabbi, but you have to be, because as much as they like to deny it, you do have the signs to prove it.”
Since Jesus sees Nicodemus is coming to Him to really learn, Jesus presents Nicodemus with a simple teaching in verse 3. The NIV translates it as “born again” but other translations have translated it “born anew” or “born above.” All of these translations mean the same thing. Jesus is talking about a spiritual transformation that changes the whole person. Change like this can only come from above, from heaven, from the Father. When this transformation happens, it turns the person into a whole new person, as if he or she has a brand new life. Hence, it is appropriate to compare this to a second birth.
Yet in verse 4 Nicodemus can’t handle the metaphor, and he gets hung up by it. Nicodemus takes the metaphor very literally, believing he must re-enter his mother’s uterus and re-emerge from it in order to receive salvation. Christian readers know this obviously isn’t the answer. But I don’t think Nicodemus believes this is the answer either. It’s like Nicodemus is saying, “You don’t really expect me to believe I have to go through the birthing canal again, do you?”
Jesus can tell Nicodemus can’t handle this “born again” teaching with ease, so He makes the teaching easier for Nicodemus to understand. He uses an analogy of the Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit) to wind. In English, this analogy already makes sense, but it makes more sense in Hebrew and Greek, two languages in which Christ’s Jewish audience would be well familiar with. The Hebrew word is ruah and the Greek word is pneuma. In both languages the word means both “wind” and “spirit.” So comparing the Spirit to wind is like comparing apples to apples because it is the same word. It’s a beautiful wordplay. And whether you’re reading John 3 in Hebrew, Greek or English, the analogy works in full. Nobody knows the source of wind, nor its final destination. Back then, how wind worked puzzled people, and still today our laws about wind are fully complete. Just as wind is still somewhat a mystery, the Holy Spirit is a mystery to us in some aspects. Jesus even tries to reach out to Nicodemus using simple logic. Flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit. Simply state: Flesh --> Flesh, Spirit --> Spirit. This verifies Christ’s teaching above on being “born again.” Your first birth was a physical birth. Your second birth, in which you are “born again,” is a spiritual birth. Your physical birth was a result of man’s decision and man’s will (mom + dad. Need I say more) on the earth. Your spiritual birth comes from above, from heaven, from the Holy Spirit.
Before I move on, I guess I must make a comment on John 3:6, where Jesus says that no one is able to be born again “unless he is born of water and the spirit.” What does he mean, especially in regards to “of water and the spirit”? Someone might easily want to say that this is a reference to baptism, for when you are baptized with water, you receive the Holy Spirit. But from that, a lot of issues arise. What about that one criminal crucified next to Jesus who recognized he is being just punished for his evil deeds (I believe this is repentance) and who believes Jesus is Christ, God and sinless (I believe this is showing belief). He was not baptized, and Jesus told him that he would be in Heaven with Jesus. And what about the book of Acts, where people received the Holy Spirit before and after baptism, just as much as those who received it at the same time? Also, if this was a reference to baptism, wouldn’t that technically mean there is an act or work necessary for salvation, so salvation isn’t by faith alone? So it can’t be a reference to baptism. Others have claimed this parallels the difference between the first birth and the second birth. The first birth is of water (after all, when a woman is about to give birth, he “water breaks.”), and the second birth is of spirit. I would say this is the second best interpretation, for it tries to take this verse literally, but at the same time, it’s out of pure logic. People have tried to take “water” more as a metaphor, giving it symbolic. Perhaps water is a symbol for the Holy Spirit or the Word of God. I don’t like either of these interpretations, because it removes a literal meaning too much, and the meaning becomes purely allegorical. Instead, combine the symbolic meaning to first interpretation. When we think of “water” in our faith, we do normally think of baptism. What does baptism represent, or what is it a symbol of? It is a symbol that shows we are dead to our sin, and we are brought back to life by the work of the Holy Spirit. Ah, there’s that word, “Spirit.” So we know this interpretation is dead on track. “Born of water and of spirit” means that we must repent of our worldly life and worldly living, and instead let the Holy Spirit transform us to more spiritual beings. This is the best interpretation because it fits historically, logically and theologically.
Still, with all this explaining, Nicodemus still doesn’t get it. In verse 9, all Nicodemus can utter is, “How can this be?” Jesus wants to reply, “How can you be so dense?” but instead replies in verse 10, “You are Israel’s teacher and you do not know these things?” Christ’s question does raise some legitimate concerns. Nicodemus is on the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council. He’s suppose to have the Pentateuch memorized, and very possibly the whole Old Testament. Every Jew looks up to this man as a Rabbi who knows the way to God and can show other people the way. What a shocker it is to Jesus, and to the rest of the Jews, to find such a highly regarded Jewish man dumfounded. Think back to what I said about Nicodemus representing the general consensus of the Sanhedrin. If knowledge was measured in comparison to the population, Nicodemus would be average among the Sanhedrin. He probably carries the same knowledge as those 70 Jews do. So all 70 members of the Sanhedrin would also be dumfounded by Christ’s teachings. Maybe that is why so many Pharisees and Sadducees oppose Christ’s preaching. They just don’t get it. This kind of reminds me of the Dark Ages of the Church. The pope, the cardinals, the bishops and the archbishops were suppose to read, remember and understand the Scriptures in order to lead the parishioners into the right spiritual life. Instead, they stopped reading the Scriptures. Their memory of what the Bible actually said faded, and all they could remember was dogmatic tradition. Both this dogmatic tradition and the faint memories of their Bible reading they didn’t understand. It resulted in totally walking down the wrong path. Same seems to be true for the Sanhedrin in 1st century. They don’t understand what the Scriptures are telling them. Instead of receiving grace and faith, they resort to legalism.
I think Jesus sees this and calls out Nicodemus, as well as the whole Sanhedrin, on this. First, they call themselves teachers and rabbis, yet they still lack a lot, so much, they need to be taught. Second, as seen in verse 11, even if the Jews of the day did not understand what was being preached, they could have at least accepted the testimony, or the result, of what was true. Yet they did not even do that. In short, they could (and should) have said, “We don’t fully understand, but we’ll still believe it.” Instead, they said, “We don’t understand it, so it can’t be true!” Third, as seen in verse 12, they are trying to go onto bigger things without understanding the smaller things. It would be like a brain surgeon, trying to operate on a patient’s brain, without knowing how brain cells connect to one another. It would be like a rocket scientist, trying to build a newer rocket for astronauts to use, when the scientist does not know how combustion works. It would be like a mechanic, trying to build a car from scratch, without knowing the parts of an engine. Of course Nicodemus didn’t understand the spiritual matters Jesus was talking about! He couldn’t even comprehend how earthly matters worked! What Nicodemus may or may not have known is that no one can fully understand spiritual matters. Heck, even with the science we have today, we still don’t comprehend earthly matters either. This was humbling experience for Nicodemus, and it would also be a humbling experience for anyone, back then or today, who acts like they know everything earthly and spiritually. Lucky for Nicodemus, and for us, there is someone who does understand the spiritual world, because he was from the spiritual world. His name was Jesus. Jesus is the only one who descended from heaven, and he will also ascend there.
The thought of descending and ascending leads Jesus to another thought, a thought from history. No, it’s not Jacob’s ladder in Genesis, but rather the bronze snake in Numbers. Let me give you a quick reminder of the story. The Israelites are complaining and whining in the desert wilderness. God, sick of the Israelites constant complaining (and probably sick of having to come up with new punishments all the time) decides that if an Israelite sins, he or she will be painfully bitten by a poisonous snake, which will lead to sickness and even possibly death. Well, the Israelites realize their mistake and cry out to the Lord for salvation. So Moses seeks the Lord for a solution. God tells Moses to forge out of bronze a snake on a pole. If an Israelites sins, he or she will receive a fatal bite from a snake, but if the Israelite looks at the bronze snake on the bronze pole (a sign of repentance), God will forgive that individual and heal him or her from the snake poison. Jesus uses this typology for what He is going to do. Jesus reveals humankind is sick with a more deadly poison: sin. Sin kills us both physically and spiritually. The Son of Man, Jesus, will be lifted up like the Bronze Snake, but it will be on a cross. If anyone was to look towards Jesus on the cross (a sign of repentance and belief), he or she would be healed from sin and will receive eternal life.
Now before we go any further, we need to have a lexical study of John 3:16-21 (and “lexical study” simply means we’re going to look at the original text in its original language). If you were to look at different Bible translations, you might have notice that they differ in where they place the quote the ends Christ’s words. Most translations put the end quote after verse 21. But a few translations, like the RSV, place the quotes at the end of verse 15. The 1984 edition of the NIV places the quotes at the end of verse 15, but the 2011 edition has the quotes end at verse 21. What gives? Koine Greek, the Greek language of the 1st century AD, did not have quotation marks. So it’s not as clear when someone’s speaking begins and ends. Trust me, I take Greek. It’s frustrating translating because you don’t know if you should translate the sentence “The prophets say, ‘You should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.’” or “The prophets say that you should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.” Of course, I’m only beginning Greek 2, and some Greek experts might say this is an amateur mistake. But at the same time, this doesn’t mean the experts find translating easy, for there is debatable passages, such as John 3. So if the quotation ends at John 3:15, then who is saying John 3:16-21? That would be the narrator, who in this case is the beloved disciple John. Remember that John’s Gospel is a supplementary Gospel, one in which John gives his own commentary while narrating the events of the book. John 3:16-21 could simply be John explaining Christ’s teachings in John 3, especially 3:11-15. Proponents of the view that John 3:16-21 is John’s commentary say their number 1 proof is that that the speaker is speaking in the third person. But someone could easily object, showing that Jesus many times spoke in the third person. I do believe these verses, especially the famous 3:16 verse, are indeed the words of Jesus. I don’t want to go into the whole lexical, exegetical and hermeneutical arguments, so I will simply defend my view with the numbers. A majority of the scholars believe these words belong to Jesus, and most of these scholars are conservative scholars. A minority of scholars believe those verses are John’s words, and most of those scholars are liberal scholars. But at the end of the discussion and debate, someone can simply say that it doesn’t matter who said them, the words themselves speak a powerful message, a message that needs to be looked at. So let’s stop talking about who said it, and let’s look more at what these verses are saying.
I’m going to breeze over John 3:16 because most Christians already know. It has become a famous Bible verse, seen commonly at football games. One thing I will quickly note is that the Greek word for “perish” does not necessarily mean “annihilate” or “wiped out of existence” as we would think in our English minds. A better definition for perish in this context would be “ruined,” as if verse 16 is telling the reader that whoever does not believe in Jesus is ruining their life, and at the end of life, his or her life will be left in ruins. Very interesting concept. But enough of the famous verse. Let’s look at the lesser famous verses, which have a messages that is just as powerful, if not more powerful. I’ll even put them right into this text.
John 3:17-21-
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”
The common questions I will get from non-Christians are questions over the judgment of God, or sometimes even more specific, like the judgment of Jesus. These questions range from “Does God/Jesus judge people?” to “Does God/Jesus judge sin?” Sometimes these questions will turn into comments, some saying, “It’s wrong for God to judge people as sinners for all the wrong things they have done.” (and I still have to hear a convincing argument for why), while others say, “Jesus doesn’t judge people’s sins or judge people as sinners because He loves us and He forgave us.” There are many different routes we can go to point the errors in these comments, including correcting an incorrect view of the Law (or maybe even making light of the ignored Law!). But let’s stick to using this passage to formulate an answer, for both these questions and these comments/claims.
First of all, let me start by saying both the questions and comments are a result of a misunderstanding of the definition of “judgment,” which comes from an unnecessary negative connotation of the word “judgment.” It seems like the generations of the 21st century (and maybe I’ll even add the 1990s generation) have associated the word “judge/judgment” with having to go to court. With a generation that has heavy gang involvement, from which a “no snitching” policy has arisen, this generation has associated going to court, or going to a judge, as a negative experience because they have been convicted of a crime, and the judge will punish them. Even outside the court setting, a lot of people out of this generation, when judged by authorities or even older people, have come out with a bad judgment, for one reason or another. Either way, the 21st century generation sees judgment with a negative connotation, as if it was bad. But a closer look and deeper thought reveals it isn’t always true. Yes, it is bad if you are judged and declared guilty. But it’s good if you judged and declared innocent. It’s also good if the judgment brings justice to you. So “judge” and all forms of it (judging, judgment, etc.) are suppose to be neutral in connotation. The negative word is suppose to be “condemn,” which means to be judged, fail judgment, and to be punished with no hope of escape from the judgment and punishment. And there are many positive connotations to judge, like “forgive,” “innocent” or any other word that shows a positive passing of judgment.
Back to the verses, I do believe God and Jesus play an active role as judge, but I also believe there’s a more passive role, and John 3:17-18 bring light to that. When I say God/Jesus has a passive role in judging, I could simply state it as this: “When sinners stand in the presence of a holy and righteous God, their sins are exposed and they stand in judgment.” God doesn’t have to point out sins. The sins stand out like a sore thumb when they are exposed. To deny fully exposed sins would be like denying a black eye or a big pimple at the end of your nose, which everyone can see. I don’t have to announce to everyone that you have a black eye or big pimple at the end of your nose, for everyone who looks at your face will see it.
What a better way to talk about judgment that using courthouse language, as well as analogies to light and darkness. Did you catch the courthouse vocabulary? “This is the verdict.” Jesus is saying, “The trial has happened, judgment has been passed (neutrally!), and these are the results. What are the results? “Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” The Light is Jesus and His Gospel message, the one that will save humankind from their sins. The darkness is the sinful, fallen, depraved world we live in. Logically speaking, someone would think people would want to go from darkness to light. But they don’t! Why not? The light exposes the evil deeds of the dark world, and people are too afraid to come into to the light because their deeds will be exposed, and they will stand condemned. Why are they so afraid? Perhaps they are afraid of shame. Maybe they fear they will ruin their pride.
How true it is for this 21st century generation (and once again, may I add the 1990s generation into this). A common banner I see this generation’s youth and young adults wave is “You have no right to judge me.” This banner covers everything from religion to beliefs to morals. Sometimes this banner comes out in a passive form: “Well, that’s what you believe, but I believe different. So you believe what you believe, I’ll believe what I believe, and let’s keep it at that.” Other times, this banner has come out more aggressively: “How dare you judge me for my beliefs! Who gave you the right to decide my beliefs are wrong and yours are right?! Your beliefs are right for you, my beliefs are right for me.” Modernists blame postmodernism for this. Modernists claim that postmodernism has made beliefs, spirituality and religion so individualistic that every person’s religious and spiritual beliefs are their own religion and their own personal religious truth, so no one has the right to infringe on their “personal religion.” So what happens to morals? Morality becomes a thing of emotional feeling. If it feels right, it’s moral, but if it doesn’t feel right, it’s immoral. So if something feels right for you, but doesn’t feel right to me, that means it moral to you, but not moral to me. What kind of system is that?
There’s a reason John calls Jesus the “true light.” Think about what light can do. It’s easy to keep things hidden in darkness. You can place something out in the open in the darkness, and the darkness will hide it. It’s hard to hide things in the light, for light will expose everything that it touches. Jesus is the light, and evil is the darkness. Evil tries to hide our sins, tries to convince that our sins are right and we have nothing to be embarrassed about. If someone or something tries to embarrass us or judge us for our sins, they are in the wrong, not us. Jesus, the true light, works differently. Jesus exposes everything, the good and the evil, the righteous and the sinful.
So what do I say to the people who ask me if God judges, if Jesus judges, or even if Christians should judge other people, both Christians and non-Christians? First, I do acknowledge God and Jesus as the judge over all humankind. After all, God/Jesus is holy and righteous, which makes Him better than us fallen sinners. Second, I do admit that the Bible does say Christians shouldn’t judge other people, but I do also recognize the Bible says Christians should judge sinful actions (not going any further on this discussion, as it would take us way off topic). But then I follow that up by saying, “But Christians really don’t have to judge people, and technically, God doesn’t have to either. Because the people already stand in judgment, and the judgment is they are guilty of their sins.” I use John 3:18 to back me up.
That is why, as John 3:17 tells us, that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world. The world already stood condemned because their sins and their evil ways had been exposed. Their crimes had been exposed, and so they were exposed as guilty. They were already condemned. If Jesus were to come into the word to condemn the world, it would be redundant. If humanity were to look at themselves honestly, they would already know they were condemned.
If I were to stop right here, I would be just as guilty as my generation for giving the word “judge” a negative connotation. If Jesus didn’t come into the world to condemn it, he must have come for another reason. Hopefully it’s a positive one! Indeed it is. John 3:16-21 simply says we believe and come into the light by living the truth, we will not be condemned, we will not perish but we will live an eternal life in the light. Jesus didn’t come into the world to declare us guilty, but Jesus came into the world to forgive us, so He could declare us innocent.
So you’d think it would be a “no-brainer” to receive the light and the salvation that comes with it. Everyone should be running out of the darkness and into the light. But not everyone does. Why? It goes back to John 3:19-20, and even back to the true meaning of “perish” in John 3:16. People are given the chance to come into the light, but when they come into the light, their sins will be exposed, so they would have to admit those sins, admit they were evil, and then reject them. The sad reality is some people love the darkness. Some people love their sins and love evil. There’s a reason phrases like “the ways of the world” or “worldly ways” can be synonymous with “sinful ways.” Since the world we live in is a fallen and depraved one, it’s a world that’s going to offer us sin as the “high life.” Sex, drugs, wealth, popularity, partying is what it tries to sell you. Any threat to these lifestyles is an enemy. So if the True Light tries to expose these as wrong, the True Light is your enemy. The ways of the world begs you, “Don’t walk into the light! It will just judge you to put you down and make you feel bad. It wants to embarrass you. Stay in the darkness. It is your friend.” People listen to this dark world. Fear of hurting their pride or even the pride of their sins keeps them from entering the Light. They know a life in the Light will have them reject their old life, and they want to selfishly hold onto their life of sin. So they stay in the darkness. Even if a beam of light comes near them, they yell, “Stay back, Light! Don’t judge me!” Little do they know that they have brought judgment upon themselves. Little do they know that while the darkness hides the evil, it does not get rid of it. They still stand with their evil sins, and thus they still stand condemned. And little do they know that they are slowly perishing, which means they are slowly ruining their lives until they die.
In closing, I am reminded that some evangelists use this book of the Bible as an evangelism tool. While I said and shown that this book is better used for discipleship reasons, I do believe this passage does give a strong evangelistic gospel message. Just don’t use John 3:16, but include John 3:17-21 into this as well. John 3:16-21 paints a beautiful picture of the gospel. There we were, in a dark and fallen world, slowly perishing and slowly ruining our lives. But God, out of His everlasting love, sent God the Son into the world, to expose the world of sin so the people could see how much they were ruining their lives. Some people didn’t mind their sins, so they went back into the darkness and went back to a slow ruin. But some people walked into the light, believed in the Son, and received eternal life. The reader is faced with the same 2 decision. You either go back into the darkness and back to your evil sins, or come into the light by believing in Jesus and walking the ways of truth. Does this gospel message work? Well, look at the first hearer of this word: Nicodemus. Does Nicodemus come to faith? Well, the next time you’ll see Nicodemus, he’ll denounce the Pharisees (remember Nicodemus is a Pharisee!) for not giving Jesus a fair chance to preach or even to defend himself. Later on, you’ll see Nicodemus help Joseph of Arimathea bury Joseph. I think both actions are a demonstration of his faith. By the end of chapter 3, Nicodemus know what Jesus is teaching, understands what Jesus is preaching, believes Jesus is the Son of God and walks from darkness into the light. After all, the next time you see Nicodemus, he won’t be sneaking around in the dark, but boldly standing up for Jesus in the light of the day.
P.S. I decided not to go into the rest of John 3. Why? The rest of John 3 is John the Baptist confirming what Jesus preached earlier in the chapter. To give a quick summary, John the Baptist’s disciples come to John the Baptist whining, complaining, “That Jesus man is taking your disciples!” to which John the Baptist replies, “Good. He is suppose to.” Then John the Baptist verifies Christ’s teaching in John 3 by preaching that Jesus is from above, Jesus testifies about heavenly things, people have not believed in Christ’s testimony, those who receive Christ’s testimony has eternal life, and those who do not are condemned. Everything I can about this I have already said above. Besides, it was already getting too long.
John 3 opens in verse 1 by introducing Nicodemus, and with quite a résumé. Nicodemus is a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish Ruling Council, which some people might know better as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was a Jewish Ruling Council of 70 Jews, from each and every religious party. They were still under Roman rule in the Roman Empire, but among Jews, they were the highest form of government. Religiously speaking, these 70 men were the most intellectual and most spiritual Jews in the land. Nicodemus definitely had the five books of Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) memorized, and it’s very possible that Nicodemus had all the books of the Tanak (what we know as the Old Testament) memorized. The Bible only speaks positively of 3 Sanhedrin members: Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Gamiliel. But the Bible doesn’t just hand Nicodemus a positive outlook, so we’ll see how Nicodemus builds up that repertoire throughout the Gospel of John.
Verse 2 first tells the reader that Nicodemus came at night. The Bible doesn’t explicitly tell the reader why Nicodemus came at night, but I have a hunch. It’s the same reason why crime happens more often in the night than in the day. Because of the darkness, night is associated with hiddenness and secrecy. Even if there is 3 men in the Sanhedrin on the side of Jesus, there’s still 67 (maybe more, maybe less) who are against Jesus. If Nicodemus is exposed as being on the side of Jesus, or even giving Jesus a chance, he could be ridiculed or discredited among the Sanhedrin. So Nicodemus has to go when there is the fewest amount of witnesses. As the reader reads on in verse 2, the reader learns that Nicodemus is a skeptic, what politicians would call a “swing vote.” Going back to the Sanhedrin’s stance on Jesus, some scholars have suggested that the standpoint Nicodemus reveals in his beliefs about Jesus is where most of the Sanhedrin members stand on Jesus. They don’t want to believe Jesus is sent from God because Jesus is preaching against them. Yet they can’t help but believe Jesus is from God because of all the miraculous signs. Especially consider this in light of the temple cleansing in John 2. When Jesus cleanses the temple, the Jews demand a miraculous sign to back up his actions. Now, sticking with my belief that the temple cleansing happened within a week of Christ’s crucifixion, Jesus has been performing several miracles, many of which were healing people. On top of that, Christ’s preaching itself was a sign and testimony to His authority (see Matthew 12:39 and Luke 11:29). So signs are aplenty. It all comes down to whether or not the Jews accept the signs, for whatever those reasons may be. Nicodemus realizes it has come down to this. It’s almost like Nicodemus is saying, “They don’t want you to be a rabbi, but you have to be, because as much as they like to deny it, you do have the signs to prove it.”
Since Jesus sees Nicodemus is coming to Him to really learn, Jesus presents Nicodemus with a simple teaching in verse 3. The NIV translates it as “born again” but other translations have translated it “born anew” or “born above.” All of these translations mean the same thing. Jesus is talking about a spiritual transformation that changes the whole person. Change like this can only come from above, from heaven, from the Father. When this transformation happens, it turns the person into a whole new person, as if he or she has a brand new life. Hence, it is appropriate to compare this to a second birth.
Yet in verse 4 Nicodemus can’t handle the metaphor, and he gets hung up by it. Nicodemus takes the metaphor very literally, believing he must re-enter his mother’s uterus and re-emerge from it in order to receive salvation. Christian readers know this obviously isn’t the answer. But I don’t think Nicodemus believes this is the answer either. It’s like Nicodemus is saying, “You don’t really expect me to believe I have to go through the birthing canal again, do you?”
Jesus can tell Nicodemus can’t handle this “born again” teaching with ease, so He makes the teaching easier for Nicodemus to understand. He uses an analogy of the Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit) to wind. In English, this analogy already makes sense, but it makes more sense in Hebrew and Greek, two languages in which Christ’s Jewish audience would be well familiar with. The Hebrew word is ruah and the Greek word is pneuma. In both languages the word means both “wind” and “spirit.” So comparing the Spirit to wind is like comparing apples to apples because it is the same word. It’s a beautiful wordplay. And whether you’re reading John 3 in Hebrew, Greek or English, the analogy works in full. Nobody knows the source of wind, nor its final destination. Back then, how wind worked puzzled people, and still today our laws about wind are fully complete. Just as wind is still somewhat a mystery, the Holy Spirit is a mystery to us in some aspects. Jesus even tries to reach out to Nicodemus using simple logic. Flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit. Simply state: Flesh --> Flesh, Spirit --> Spirit. This verifies Christ’s teaching above on being “born again.” Your first birth was a physical birth. Your second birth, in which you are “born again,” is a spiritual birth. Your physical birth was a result of man’s decision and man’s will (mom + dad. Need I say more) on the earth. Your spiritual birth comes from above, from heaven, from the Holy Spirit.
Before I move on, I guess I must make a comment on John 3:6, where Jesus says that no one is able to be born again “unless he is born of water and the spirit.” What does he mean, especially in regards to “of water and the spirit”? Someone might easily want to say that this is a reference to baptism, for when you are baptized with water, you receive the Holy Spirit. But from that, a lot of issues arise. What about that one criminal crucified next to Jesus who recognized he is being just punished for his evil deeds (I believe this is repentance) and who believes Jesus is Christ, God and sinless (I believe this is showing belief). He was not baptized, and Jesus told him that he would be in Heaven with Jesus. And what about the book of Acts, where people received the Holy Spirit before and after baptism, just as much as those who received it at the same time? Also, if this was a reference to baptism, wouldn’t that technically mean there is an act or work necessary for salvation, so salvation isn’t by faith alone? So it can’t be a reference to baptism. Others have claimed this parallels the difference between the first birth and the second birth. The first birth is of water (after all, when a woman is about to give birth, he “water breaks.”), and the second birth is of spirit. I would say this is the second best interpretation, for it tries to take this verse literally, but at the same time, it’s out of pure logic. People have tried to take “water” more as a metaphor, giving it symbolic. Perhaps water is a symbol for the Holy Spirit or the Word of God. I don’t like either of these interpretations, because it removes a literal meaning too much, and the meaning becomes purely allegorical. Instead, combine the symbolic meaning to first interpretation. When we think of “water” in our faith, we do normally think of baptism. What does baptism represent, or what is it a symbol of? It is a symbol that shows we are dead to our sin, and we are brought back to life by the work of the Holy Spirit. Ah, there’s that word, “Spirit.” So we know this interpretation is dead on track. “Born of water and of spirit” means that we must repent of our worldly life and worldly living, and instead let the Holy Spirit transform us to more spiritual beings. This is the best interpretation because it fits historically, logically and theologically.
Still, with all this explaining, Nicodemus still doesn’t get it. In verse 9, all Nicodemus can utter is, “How can this be?” Jesus wants to reply, “How can you be so dense?” but instead replies in verse 10, “You are Israel’s teacher and you do not know these things?” Christ’s question does raise some legitimate concerns. Nicodemus is on the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council. He’s suppose to have the Pentateuch memorized, and very possibly the whole Old Testament. Every Jew looks up to this man as a Rabbi who knows the way to God and can show other people the way. What a shocker it is to Jesus, and to the rest of the Jews, to find such a highly regarded Jewish man dumfounded. Think back to what I said about Nicodemus representing the general consensus of the Sanhedrin. If knowledge was measured in comparison to the population, Nicodemus would be average among the Sanhedrin. He probably carries the same knowledge as those 70 Jews do. So all 70 members of the Sanhedrin would also be dumfounded by Christ’s teachings. Maybe that is why so many Pharisees and Sadducees oppose Christ’s preaching. They just don’t get it. This kind of reminds me of the Dark Ages of the Church. The pope, the cardinals, the bishops and the archbishops were suppose to read, remember and understand the Scriptures in order to lead the parishioners into the right spiritual life. Instead, they stopped reading the Scriptures. Their memory of what the Bible actually said faded, and all they could remember was dogmatic tradition. Both this dogmatic tradition and the faint memories of their Bible reading they didn’t understand. It resulted in totally walking down the wrong path. Same seems to be true for the Sanhedrin in 1st century. They don’t understand what the Scriptures are telling them. Instead of receiving grace and faith, they resort to legalism.
I think Jesus sees this and calls out Nicodemus, as well as the whole Sanhedrin, on this. First, they call themselves teachers and rabbis, yet they still lack a lot, so much, they need to be taught. Second, as seen in verse 11, even if the Jews of the day did not understand what was being preached, they could have at least accepted the testimony, or the result, of what was true. Yet they did not even do that. In short, they could (and should) have said, “We don’t fully understand, but we’ll still believe it.” Instead, they said, “We don’t understand it, so it can’t be true!” Third, as seen in verse 12, they are trying to go onto bigger things without understanding the smaller things. It would be like a brain surgeon, trying to operate on a patient’s brain, without knowing how brain cells connect to one another. It would be like a rocket scientist, trying to build a newer rocket for astronauts to use, when the scientist does not know how combustion works. It would be like a mechanic, trying to build a car from scratch, without knowing the parts of an engine. Of course Nicodemus didn’t understand the spiritual matters Jesus was talking about! He couldn’t even comprehend how earthly matters worked! What Nicodemus may or may not have known is that no one can fully understand spiritual matters. Heck, even with the science we have today, we still don’t comprehend earthly matters either. This was humbling experience for Nicodemus, and it would also be a humbling experience for anyone, back then or today, who acts like they know everything earthly and spiritually. Lucky for Nicodemus, and for us, there is someone who does understand the spiritual world, because he was from the spiritual world. His name was Jesus. Jesus is the only one who descended from heaven, and he will also ascend there.
The thought of descending and ascending leads Jesus to another thought, a thought from history. No, it’s not Jacob’s ladder in Genesis, but rather the bronze snake in Numbers. Let me give you a quick reminder of the story. The Israelites are complaining and whining in the desert wilderness. God, sick of the Israelites constant complaining (and probably sick of having to come up with new punishments all the time) decides that if an Israelite sins, he or she will be painfully bitten by a poisonous snake, which will lead to sickness and even possibly death. Well, the Israelites realize their mistake and cry out to the Lord for salvation. So Moses seeks the Lord for a solution. God tells Moses to forge out of bronze a snake on a pole. If an Israelites sins, he or she will receive a fatal bite from a snake, but if the Israelite looks at the bronze snake on the bronze pole (a sign of repentance), God will forgive that individual and heal him or her from the snake poison. Jesus uses this typology for what He is going to do. Jesus reveals humankind is sick with a more deadly poison: sin. Sin kills us both physically and spiritually. The Son of Man, Jesus, will be lifted up like the Bronze Snake, but it will be on a cross. If anyone was to look towards Jesus on the cross (a sign of repentance and belief), he or she would be healed from sin and will receive eternal life.
Now before we go any further, we need to have a lexical study of John 3:16-21 (and “lexical study” simply means we’re going to look at the original text in its original language). If you were to look at different Bible translations, you might have notice that they differ in where they place the quote the ends Christ’s words. Most translations put the end quote after verse 21. But a few translations, like the RSV, place the quotes at the end of verse 15. The 1984 edition of the NIV places the quotes at the end of verse 15, but the 2011 edition has the quotes end at verse 21. What gives? Koine Greek, the Greek language of the 1st century AD, did not have quotation marks. So it’s not as clear when someone’s speaking begins and ends. Trust me, I take Greek. It’s frustrating translating because you don’t know if you should translate the sentence “The prophets say, ‘You should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.’” or “The prophets say that you should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.” Of course, I’m only beginning Greek 2, and some Greek experts might say this is an amateur mistake. But at the same time, this doesn’t mean the experts find translating easy, for there is debatable passages, such as John 3. So if the quotation ends at John 3:15, then who is saying John 3:16-21? That would be the narrator, who in this case is the beloved disciple John. Remember that John’s Gospel is a supplementary Gospel, one in which John gives his own commentary while narrating the events of the book. John 3:16-21 could simply be John explaining Christ’s teachings in John 3, especially 3:11-15. Proponents of the view that John 3:16-21 is John’s commentary say their number 1 proof is that that the speaker is speaking in the third person. But someone could easily object, showing that Jesus many times spoke in the third person. I do believe these verses, especially the famous 3:16 verse, are indeed the words of Jesus. I don’t want to go into the whole lexical, exegetical and hermeneutical arguments, so I will simply defend my view with the numbers. A majority of the scholars believe these words belong to Jesus, and most of these scholars are conservative scholars. A minority of scholars believe those verses are John’s words, and most of those scholars are liberal scholars. But at the end of the discussion and debate, someone can simply say that it doesn’t matter who said them, the words themselves speak a powerful message, a message that needs to be looked at. So let’s stop talking about who said it, and let’s look more at what these verses are saying.
I’m going to breeze over John 3:16 because most Christians already know. It has become a famous Bible verse, seen commonly at football games. One thing I will quickly note is that the Greek word for “perish” does not necessarily mean “annihilate” or “wiped out of existence” as we would think in our English minds. A better definition for perish in this context would be “ruined,” as if verse 16 is telling the reader that whoever does not believe in Jesus is ruining their life, and at the end of life, his or her life will be left in ruins. Very interesting concept. But enough of the famous verse. Let’s look at the lesser famous verses, which have a messages that is just as powerful, if not more powerful. I’ll even put them right into this text.
John 3:17-21-
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”
The common questions I will get from non-Christians are questions over the judgment of God, or sometimes even more specific, like the judgment of Jesus. These questions range from “Does God/Jesus judge people?” to “Does God/Jesus judge sin?” Sometimes these questions will turn into comments, some saying, “It’s wrong for God to judge people as sinners for all the wrong things they have done.” (and I still have to hear a convincing argument for why), while others say, “Jesus doesn’t judge people’s sins or judge people as sinners because He loves us and He forgave us.” There are many different routes we can go to point the errors in these comments, including correcting an incorrect view of the Law (or maybe even making light of the ignored Law!). But let’s stick to using this passage to formulate an answer, for both these questions and these comments/claims.
First of all, let me start by saying both the questions and comments are a result of a misunderstanding of the definition of “judgment,” which comes from an unnecessary negative connotation of the word “judgment.” It seems like the generations of the 21st century (and maybe I’ll even add the 1990s generation) have associated the word “judge/judgment” with having to go to court. With a generation that has heavy gang involvement, from which a “no snitching” policy has arisen, this generation has associated going to court, or going to a judge, as a negative experience because they have been convicted of a crime, and the judge will punish them. Even outside the court setting, a lot of people out of this generation, when judged by authorities or even older people, have come out with a bad judgment, for one reason or another. Either way, the 21st century generation sees judgment with a negative connotation, as if it was bad. But a closer look and deeper thought reveals it isn’t always true. Yes, it is bad if you are judged and declared guilty. But it’s good if you judged and declared innocent. It’s also good if the judgment brings justice to you. So “judge” and all forms of it (judging, judgment, etc.) are suppose to be neutral in connotation. The negative word is suppose to be “condemn,” which means to be judged, fail judgment, and to be punished with no hope of escape from the judgment and punishment. And there are many positive connotations to judge, like “forgive,” “innocent” or any other word that shows a positive passing of judgment.
Back to the verses, I do believe God and Jesus play an active role as judge, but I also believe there’s a more passive role, and John 3:17-18 bring light to that. When I say God/Jesus has a passive role in judging, I could simply state it as this: “When sinners stand in the presence of a holy and righteous God, their sins are exposed and they stand in judgment.” God doesn’t have to point out sins. The sins stand out like a sore thumb when they are exposed. To deny fully exposed sins would be like denying a black eye or a big pimple at the end of your nose, which everyone can see. I don’t have to announce to everyone that you have a black eye or big pimple at the end of your nose, for everyone who looks at your face will see it.
What a better way to talk about judgment that using courthouse language, as well as analogies to light and darkness. Did you catch the courthouse vocabulary? “This is the verdict.” Jesus is saying, “The trial has happened, judgment has been passed (neutrally!), and these are the results. What are the results? “Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” The Light is Jesus and His Gospel message, the one that will save humankind from their sins. The darkness is the sinful, fallen, depraved world we live in. Logically speaking, someone would think people would want to go from darkness to light. But they don’t! Why not? The light exposes the evil deeds of the dark world, and people are too afraid to come into to the light because their deeds will be exposed, and they will stand condemned. Why are they so afraid? Perhaps they are afraid of shame. Maybe they fear they will ruin their pride.
How true it is for this 21st century generation (and once again, may I add the 1990s generation into this). A common banner I see this generation’s youth and young adults wave is “You have no right to judge me.” This banner covers everything from religion to beliefs to morals. Sometimes this banner comes out in a passive form: “Well, that’s what you believe, but I believe different. So you believe what you believe, I’ll believe what I believe, and let’s keep it at that.” Other times, this banner has come out more aggressively: “How dare you judge me for my beliefs! Who gave you the right to decide my beliefs are wrong and yours are right?! Your beliefs are right for you, my beliefs are right for me.” Modernists blame postmodernism for this. Modernists claim that postmodernism has made beliefs, spirituality and religion so individualistic that every person’s religious and spiritual beliefs are their own religion and their own personal religious truth, so no one has the right to infringe on their “personal religion.” So what happens to morals? Morality becomes a thing of emotional feeling. If it feels right, it’s moral, but if it doesn’t feel right, it’s immoral. So if something feels right for you, but doesn’t feel right to me, that means it moral to you, but not moral to me. What kind of system is that?
There’s a reason John calls Jesus the “true light.” Think about what light can do. It’s easy to keep things hidden in darkness. You can place something out in the open in the darkness, and the darkness will hide it. It’s hard to hide things in the light, for light will expose everything that it touches. Jesus is the light, and evil is the darkness. Evil tries to hide our sins, tries to convince that our sins are right and we have nothing to be embarrassed about. If someone or something tries to embarrass us or judge us for our sins, they are in the wrong, not us. Jesus, the true light, works differently. Jesus exposes everything, the good and the evil, the righteous and the sinful.
So what do I say to the people who ask me if God judges, if Jesus judges, or even if Christians should judge other people, both Christians and non-Christians? First, I do acknowledge God and Jesus as the judge over all humankind. After all, God/Jesus is holy and righteous, which makes Him better than us fallen sinners. Second, I do admit that the Bible does say Christians shouldn’t judge other people, but I do also recognize the Bible says Christians should judge sinful actions (not going any further on this discussion, as it would take us way off topic). But then I follow that up by saying, “But Christians really don’t have to judge people, and technically, God doesn’t have to either. Because the people already stand in judgment, and the judgment is they are guilty of their sins.” I use John 3:18 to back me up.
That is why, as John 3:17 tells us, that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world. The world already stood condemned because their sins and their evil ways had been exposed. Their crimes had been exposed, and so they were exposed as guilty. They were already condemned. If Jesus were to come into the word to condemn the world, it would be redundant. If humanity were to look at themselves honestly, they would already know they were condemned.
If I were to stop right here, I would be just as guilty as my generation for giving the word “judge” a negative connotation. If Jesus didn’t come into the world to condemn it, he must have come for another reason. Hopefully it’s a positive one! Indeed it is. John 3:16-21 simply says we believe and come into the light by living the truth, we will not be condemned, we will not perish but we will live an eternal life in the light. Jesus didn’t come into the world to declare us guilty, but Jesus came into the world to forgive us, so He could declare us innocent.
So you’d think it would be a “no-brainer” to receive the light and the salvation that comes with it. Everyone should be running out of the darkness and into the light. But not everyone does. Why? It goes back to John 3:19-20, and even back to the true meaning of “perish” in John 3:16. People are given the chance to come into the light, but when they come into the light, their sins will be exposed, so they would have to admit those sins, admit they were evil, and then reject them. The sad reality is some people love the darkness. Some people love their sins and love evil. There’s a reason phrases like “the ways of the world” or “worldly ways” can be synonymous with “sinful ways.” Since the world we live in is a fallen and depraved one, it’s a world that’s going to offer us sin as the “high life.” Sex, drugs, wealth, popularity, partying is what it tries to sell you. Any threat to these lifestyles is an enemy. So if the True Light tries to expose these as wrong, the True Light is your enemy. The ways of the world begs you, “Don’t walk into the light! It will just judge you to put you down and make you feel bad. It wants to embarrass you. Stay in the darkness. It is your friend.” People listen to this dark world. Fear of hurting their pride or even the pride of their sins keeps them from entering the Light. They know a life in the Light will have them reject their old life, and they want to selfishly hold onto their life of sin. So they stay in the darkness. Even if a beam of light comes near them, they yell, “Stay back, Light! Don’t judge me!” Little do they know that they have brought judgment upon themselves. Little do they know that while the darkness hides the evil, it does not get rid of it. They still stand with their evil sins, and thus they still stand condemned. And little do they know that they are slowly perishing, which means they are slowly ruining their lives until they die.
In closing, I am reminded that some evangelists use this book of the Bible as an evangelism tool. While I said and shown that this book is better used for discipleship reasons, I do believe this passage does give a strong evangelistic gospel message. Just don’t use John 3:16, but include John 3:17-21 into this as well. John 3:16-21 paints a beautiful picture of the gospel. There we were, in a dark and fallen world, slowly perishing and slowly ruining our lives. But God, out of His everlasting love, sent God the Son into the world, to expose the world of sin so the people could see how much they were ruining their lives. Some people didn’t mind their sins, so they went back into the darkness and went back to a slow ruin. But some people walked into the light, believed in the Son, and received eternal life. The reader is faced with the same 2 decision. You either go back into the darkness and back to your evil sins, or come into the light by believing in Jesus and walking the ways of truth. Does this gospel message work? Well, look at the first hearer of this word: Nicodemus. Does Nicodemus come to faith? Well, the next time you’ll see Nicodemus, he’ll denounce the Pharisees (remember Nicodemus is a Pharisee!) for not giving Jesus a fair chance to preach or even to defend himself. Later on, you’ll see Nicodemus help Joseph of Arimathea bury Joseph. I think both actions are a demonstration of his faith. By the end of chapter 3, Nicodemus know what Jesus is teaching, understands what Jesus is preaching, believes Jesus is the Son of God and walks from darkness into the light. After all, the next time you see Nicodemus, he won’t be sneaking around in the dark, but boldly standing up for Jesus in the light of the day.
P.S. I decided not to go into the rest of John 3. Why? The rest of John 3 is John the Baptist confirming what Jesus preached earlier in the chapter. To give a quick summary, John the Baptist’s disciples come to John the Baptist whining, complaining, “That Jesus man is taking your disciples!” to which John the Baptist replies, “Good. He is suppose to.” Then John the Baptist verifies Christ’s teaching in John 3 by preaching that Jesus is from above, Jesus testifies about heavenly things, people have not believed in Christ’s testimony, those who receive Christ’s testimony has eternal life, and those who do not are condemned. Everything I can about this I have already said above. Besides, it was already getting too long.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
John 2: 2 Events
When you have a following, and you’re trying to gain a bigger following, the first thing you have to do is convince those close to you and those already following you. A crucial part of a hopeful politician’s path to become presidents is to win his party’s nomination, and even before that, he’s got to win a few caucuses over to his side. Although Jesus has called his disciples (John only tells the calling of a few, but by John 2, we can assume all 12 have been called), He can’t slack off around them. He’s got to prove to them he’s worth following, and he doesn’t waste a minute doing it. John 2 provides 2 stories to show how Jesus proves himself to his disciples, and to us.
The first story in John 2 Bible versions have titled “The Wedding at Cana,” “Jesus Turns Water into Wine” and “Christ’s First Miracle.” From these titles, you can tell wacky interpretations and application came from this passage. From what I’ve heard and read, I’ve seen this passage used to write doctrine on how Jesus treated his mother (and sometimes an application on how we should treat our mothers!), to write doctrine and application for alcohol, and even to write doctrine on the proper way to hold a wedding ceremony. But is John writing the book of John to inform us how Jesus treated his mother or to inform us how we are to treat our mothers? No, John is not writing the book of John for either reason. Is John writing his book to make a statement on alcohol? No, he is not. Is John’s purpose of his Gospel account telling us how to run a wedding? No. If you want to make an applicable doctrine on any of those three subjects, there are much better passages in the Bible to do make such doctrines. Here’s a quick reminder on the purpose why John is writing. John wrote the book of John to persuade Christians to believe [or continue believing] that Jesus is the Christ and God the Son. So when reading this story, any reader needs to see how Jesus is revealing himself to be the Son of God. But of course, if any of it helps, I’ll definitely mention it.
Although this chapter is not meant to design Christian weddings, I think if I told you with some background information on 1st century Jewish weddings, it would help set the scene. If you thought 21st century weddings were crazy with events all day, you ain’t seen nothing until you’ve seen a 1st century Jewish wedding. The events didn’t just last all day, but rather the events lasted all week (sometimes only six days to avoid working on the Sabbath). Just like ours, the wedding would start in the beginning with a ceremony. Then they partying would commence for a week, with activities and gift giving, but especially with lots of eating and drinking. The wedding would end with a giant parade leading the newlywed couple to the bedroom of their new house so they could consummate the marriage. If you think that last part is crazy, there are crazier stories about how they made sure the marriage was consummated. Sometimes the wedding guests would stand around the bedroom until they heard the appropriate sound effects that go along with consummation. At other times, both the bride and the groom’s parents would enter the bedroom the day after to find the evidence to prove the couple consummated the marriage. Crazy. Who was invited to these weddings? Anyone and everyone. Weddings guests consisted of family, close relatives, distant relatives, close friends, distant friends, family friends, neighbors, co-workers and maybe even you dad’s co-workers and business partners (considering most people back then were in the family business). Because back then (and this is probably true today too), weddings could be used to show wealth and social status. The rich would throw big, extravagant weddings to show off their wealth. The bigger the wedding and the more people you could invite, the better. But you had to make sure you had enough food and drink for everyone. Don’t over-estimate, in fact, never ever over-estimate! For if a family did not have enough food or drink for everyone invited, it would bring embarrassment and shame on both of the newlywed’s family. Keep that last bit in mind as we enter into our wedding story in John 2.
John begins by telling the reader a wedding was taking place in Cana in Galilee. Mary and her family was invited, so I would have to say that Mary was related to either the bride or the groom. Naturally everyone knew that a rabbi’s disciples went wherever that rabbi went, and everyone was beginning to accept Jesus a rabbi, so naturally all of Christ’s disciples were there, whether it be 5 or 12 (it is debatable how many disciples Jesus had picked at this point. Some say all 12 have been chosen at this point, while others say only the 5 mentioned in John 1 are the only one following him. Personally, I believe it’s all 12.). So if the reader places himself/herself at the setting, the reader is in a wedding in Cana in Galilee, with Jesus, his disciples and his mother.
Now the conflict arises. The wine is gone. Now that we understand the culture, Mary’s concern doesn’t make Mary sound like a drama queen. Mary’s concern is also our second proof to why she’s related to one of the newlyweds. Running out of wine means that the newlywed’s families are faced with shame, Mary and her family could face shame, and it’s even possible Jesus could face shame. So what does Mary do? She goes to Jesus.
Why did Mary go to Jesus? Remember, the Bible claims this is Christ’s first miracle. How would Mary know Jesus could help? There’s a whole spectrum of possible answers, from a liberal answer to a supernatural answer, and everything in between. The liberal answer is Mary just wanted Jesus to run an errand. The liberal answer is Mary telling Jesus (paraphrased), “Jesus, they ran out of wine. Would you mind running down to the nearby liquor store and picking up a couple wineskins with whatever money you have? Or better yet, send one of your disciples to do it.” Too liberal for me. Well, what about the supernatural answer? Well, there are crazy stories that circulated in the 2nd century AD (although believed to be pseudepigrapha, which means “false writings”) that have stories about Jesus performing miracles in his childhood. Indeed, these stories are truly crazy, like Jesus turning clay birds to life, carrying water on a cloth, stretching out a beam of wood, and bringing down curses on kids bullying him. Maybe Mary saw and remembered these childhood miracles, so she went to Jesus and said (my paraphrase), “Remember those childhood magic tricks you use to do? You think you could do another one here and give us wine?” I’m still not satisfied with this answer. I do hold to the Words of the Bible as true, and this is truly the first miracle of Jesus. Is this a middle ground to this spectrum? I think so. In Luke, the Bible says that everything before and during the birth of Jesus, Mary “treasured up in her heart.” I think Mary still treasured up all those memories in heart, even though her boy was all grown up. I believe she constantly looked upon her as not just her son, but the Son of God. At this point, in this story, maybe Mary was thinking, “Whenever I need help with something out of my power, I pray to God and ask for help. But wait! My son is God. Maybe I could ask God by asking him right to his face.” Maybe, in a way, this is Mary testifying that Jesus is God the Son.
The most literal translation of Christ’s response is “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not come.” Some people (mostly women) have tried to claim Jesus is belittling his mother in a sexist way by calling her “woman”. But those people are thinking in a 20th and 21st century context, not in a 1st century context. In the 20th and 21st century, yes, calling a female “woman” is to put her down as someone whose only good is to make the house clean, make sandwiches and make babies. But in the 1st century context, Jesus calling Mary “woman” is no different than calling her “mother.” And the rest of the statement is not Jesus disobeying his mother. Instead, he was announcing that He was listening to his father first and foremost. Yet when Mary tells the servants to listen to him, it seems like it’s too late, and now it’s time for a miracle.
For some reason, sitting nearby are six stone jars, used by the Jews for ceremonial cleaning. Jesus has the servants fill the jars with water, then tells one of them to deliver the wine to the master of ceremonies. Now notice in verse 9, John is already calling it “water turned into wine.” I’ve always wondered at what point it turned into wine. It could be the minute it was poured into the six jars. It possibly could be the minute the water was taken out of the jars. Or just perhaps it was when it touched the master’s lips. No matter when it turned into wine, the matter of the fact is it happened. And note that the wine master calls it the best wine served. Although Jesus have given mediocre wine because no one could taste it being so wasted, he still gave the best, because Jesus always gives the best.
So if this story wasn’t meant to give us doctrine on Christ’s relationship with his earthly mother Mary, nor was it meant to teach us about alcohol, nor as instructions on how to run a wedding, then what is it for? The overall purpose of John is to portray Jesus as the divine Son of God, so how does this story show us that Jesus is God? We could simply say, “It shows manipulation of nature as only God could do.” Yes, it does show Jesus as God because Jesus is manipulating His creation. But I think this story is in here for a deeper meaning, and the Bible would agree with me, for John wrote it right in the story. Look at John 2:11.
John 2:11-
“This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.”
I believe the “revealed his glory” part is just what we said above. The revealed glory is Jesus show He is the creator and He can control it. But more specifically, look at who the miracle was done for. It’s not for the newlywed couple, not their families, not even his mother. Rather, it’s for his disciples. Jesus performed the miracle to reveal his glory to his disciples. This story takes place early in Christ’s ministry. He’s just rallied together his 12 disciples. Now he’s got to prove that He is who He claim he is, and He can do what He claims He can do. Now they can see He is the Son of God, and they can believe Jesus is God the Son. Keep that in mind for the next story
Our next story is a familiar story, the cleansing of the temple. Yes, already in John 2, we have the cleansing of the temple. So I need to discuss a bit about the structure of John. It’s not as straightforward as you think. What do you do when John writes about a temple cleansing so early when all the synoptic authors write about the temple cleansing later? One way is to simply say there were two temple cleansings. Proponents of this view would say that Jesus would have to go to the temple multiple times a year if he was a good Jew. Indeed, I would agree. But you would think if Jesus cleansed out the temple so early, security at the temple would be so much higher, so high that Jesus would not be able to perform a second cleansing. Or at least those selling and changing money would learn their lesson. So I don’t think there were 2 temple cleansings, but only 1. How can this be when the Gospel writers placed it at different points? Remember that the synoptic Gospels are writing Gospels that are early to outline, so they will outline Jesus from Galilee to Judea is one smooth line. John is not as concerned with chronology, so John doesn’t mind going back and forth, in and out of Judea. Instead, John is writing a supplemental gospel, so John could have written his Gospel more topically. I do believe it is written topically, for we’ll see the temple cleansing does have something to do with the wedding at Cana.
To summarize the story, Jesus enters the temple and sees that people are unjustly selling the animals for sacrifice. Jesus is filled with rage for such sin happening in a place where sin is supposed to be paid for. His rage causes him to make a whip out of cords and to overturn tables.
Right now go to Google Image Search (images.google.com) and simply put the word “Jesus” in the search box. Now search. When I did it, I went through 10 pages and not a single picture showed this scene. Now they do exist, if you were to type in Jesus cleanses the temple, they would show up. Clearly they are a minority. We rather have pictures of a loving Jesus, one that hold children and lambs. Maybe there is something good out of that. After all, God’s love is stronger than God’s wrath. But we must not forget that Jesus did get angry and did become wrathful.
As a Mennonite, who takes a non-violent pacifist stand, people have questioned my beliefs, using this passage. How do I, as a Mennonite, understand this with my Mennonite beliefs? It goes back to the message of this book, that Jesus is God the Son. This is Jesus showing His divine side. After all, God the Son calls this building “His Father’s house.” Here, we see the wrath of God through the Son of God. Since Jesus, being the Son of God, is sinless, I believe Jesus is showing a righteous anger, so He does not sin by being angry or violent. Yet Christians are not to act in this way because, simply put, we are not God. So we do not have the authority to perform such acts, especially without sinning. This is where it is important to see Jesus as God.
That’s how the disciples saw it. Well, not immediately. But then again, some of it was immediate, some of it was not. The disciples remembered the Psalm “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The Jews did recognize this psalm as a messianic psalm, a psalm that describes the messiah. They knew “your house” meant God’s house, the temple. Thus, the messiah was has extreme emotional attachment to the temple. When Jesus saw the sin in the temple, and the disciples saw his reaction to it, they remembered this psalm, and saw Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Once Jesus is done cleansing the temple, the Jewish leaders ask Jesus for a sign to accompany his authority. The Jewish leaders have the right to do this, for the Old Testament commands them to do this to divide the true prophets from the false prophets. Jesus says his sign is that he can rebuild his temple in 3 days. Jesus is referring to His body, but the Jewish leaders, as well as Christ’s disciples, don’t get that. They think he is referring to the temple building. For Christ’s disciples, it’s not until after Jesus dies and rises again that they finally get Jesus was talking about the resurrection of His body. What’s the result? John 2:22 tells us.
John 2:22-
“After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.”
There’s that word again: believe. It’s 1 of the 92 occurrences. And look who it is intended for again. The disciples. It makes sense. The religious leaders did not benefit from this story. If anything, they probably used it against Jesus at his trial. The men who were selling animals and exchanging money did not benefit from this story. In fact, they are probably upset at Jesus and don’t want anything to do with him. But look at the impact on the disciples. They believe Jesus is the Messiah because they see his actions towards the temple and remember the Psalm. They remember Jesus called his body the temple after He rose from the dead, and so they believe Jesus is the Son of God. Between these 2 stories, John has accomplished his purpose for the 12 disciple. They believe Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. And now, the disciples are fully behind Jesus. Hopefully these two events have proved to you that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and hopefully you are now fully behind him, too.
The first story in John 2 Bible versions have titled “The Wedding at Cana,” “Jesus Turns Water into Wine” and “Christ’s First Miracle.” From these titles, you can tell wacky interpretations and application came from this passage. From what I’ve heard and read, I’ve seen this passage used to write doctrine on how Jesus treated his mother (and sometimes an application on how we should treat our mothers!), to write doctrine and application for alcohol, and even to write doctrine on the proper way to hold a wedding ceremony. But is John writing the book of John to inform us how Jesus treated his mother or to inform us how we are to treat our mothers? No, John is not writing the book of John for either reason. Is John writing his book to make a statement on alcohol? No, he is not. Is John’s purpose of his Gospel account telling us how to run a wedding? No. If you want to make an applicable doctrine on any of those three subjects, there are much better passages in the Bible to do make such doctrines. Here’s a quick reminder on the purpose why John is writing. John wrote the book of John to persuade Christians to believe [or continue believing] that Jesus is the Christ and God the Son. So when reading this story, any reader needs to see how Jesus is revealing himself to be the Son of God. But of course, if any of it helps, I’ll definitely mention it.
Although this chapter is not meant to design Christian weddings, I think if I told you with some background information on 1st century Jewish weddings, it would help set the scene. If you thought 21st century weddings were crazy with events all day, you ain’t seen nothing until you’ve seen a 1st century Jewish wedding. The events didn’t just last all day, but rather the events lasted all week (sometimes only six days to avoid working on the Sabbath). Just like ours, the wedding would start in the beginning with a ceremony. Then they partying would commence for a week, with activities and gift giving, but especially with lots of eating and drinking. The wedding would end with a giant parade leading the newlywed couple to the bedroom of their new house so they could consummate the marriage. If you think that last part is crazy, there are crazier stories about how they made sure the marriage was consummated. Sometimes the wedding guests would stand around the bedroom until they heard the appropriate sound effects that go along with consummation. At other times, both the bride and the groom’s parents would enter the bedroom the day after to find the evidence to prove the couple consummated the marriage. Crazy. Who was invited to these weddings? Anyone and everyone. Weddings guests consisted of family, close relatives, distant relatives, close friends, distant friends, family friends, neighbors, co-workers and maybe even you dad’s co-workers and business partners (considering most people back then were in the family business). Because back then (and this is probably true today too), weddings could be used to show wealth and social status. The rich would throw big, extravagant weddings to show off their wealth. The bigger the wedding and the more people you could invite, the better. But you had to make sure you had enough food and drink for everyone. Don’t over-estimate, in fact, never ever over-estimate! For if a family did not have enough food or drink for everyone invited, it would bring embarrassment and shame on both of the newlywed’s family. Keep that last bit in mind as we enter into our wedding story in John 2.
John begins by telling the reader a wedding was taking place in Cana in Galilee. Mary and her family was invited, so I would have to say that Mary was related to either the bride or the groom. Naturally everyone knew that a rabbi’s disciples went wherever that rabbi went, and everyone was beginning to accept Jesus a rabbi, so naturally all of Christ’s disciples were there, whether it be 5 or 12 (it is debatable how many disciples Jesus had picked at this point. Some say all 12 have been chosen at this point, while others say only the 5 mentioned in John 1 are the only one following him. Personally, I believe it’s all 12.). So if the reader places himself/herself at the setting, the reader is in a wedding in Cana in Galilee, with Jesus, his disciples and his mother.
Now the conflict arises. The wine is gone. Now that we understand the culture, Mary’s concern doesn’t make Mary sound like a drama queen. Mary’s concern is also our second proof to why she’s related to one of the newlyweds. Running out of wine means that the newlywed’s families are faced with shame, Mary and her family could face shame, and it’s even possible Jesus could face shame. So what does Mary do? She goes to Jesus.
Why did Mary go to Jesus? Remember, the Bible claims this is Christ’s first miracle. How would Mary know Jesus could help? There’s a whole spectrum of possible answers, from a liberal answer to a supernatural answer, and everything in between. The liberal answer is Mary just wanted Jesus to run an errand. The liberal answer is Mary telling Jesus (paraphrased), “Jesus, they ran out of wine. Would you mind running down to the nearby liquor store and picking up a couple wineskins with whatever money you have? Or better yet, send one of your disciples to do it.” Too liberal for me. Well, what about the supernatural answer? Well, there are crazy stories that circulated in the 2nd century AD (although believed to be pseudepigrapha, which means “false writings”) that have stories about Jesus performing miracles in his childhood. Indeed, these stories are truly crazy, like Jesus turning clay birds to life, carrying water on a cloth, stretching out a beam of wood, and bringing down curses on kids bullying him. Maybe Mary saw and remembered these childhood miracles, so she went to Jesus and said (my paraphrase), “Remember those childhood magic tricks you use to do? You think you could do another one here and give us wine?” I’m still not satisfied with this answer. I do hold to the Words of the Bible as true, and this is truly the first miracle of Jesus. Is this a middle ground to this spectrum? I think so. In Luke, the Bible says that everything before and during the birth of Jesus, Mary “treasured up in her heart.” I think Mary still treasured up all those memories in heart, even though her boy was all grown up. I believe she constantly looked upon her as not just her son, but the Son of God. At this point, in this story, maybe Mary was thinking, “Whenever I need help with something out of my power, I pray to God and ask for help. But wait! My son is God. Maybe I could ask God by asking him right to his face.” Maybe, in a way, this is Mary testifying that Jesus is God the Son.
The most literal translation of Christ’s response is “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not come.” Some people (mostly women) have tried to claim Jesus is belittling his mother in a sexist way by calling her “woman”. But those people are thinking in a 20th and 21st century context, not in a 1st century context. In the 20th and 21st century, yes, calling a female “woman” is to put her down as someone whose only good is to make the house clean, make sandwiches and make babies. But in the 1st century context, Jesus calling Mary “woman” is no different than calling her “mother.” And the rest of the statement is not Jesus disobeying his mother. Instead, he was announcing that He was listening to his father first and foremost. Yet when Mary tells the servants to listen to him, it seems like it’s too late, and now it’s time for a miracle.
For some reason, sitting nearby are six stone jars, used by the Jews for ceremonial cleaning. Jesus has the servants fill the jars with water, then tells one of them to deliver the wine to the master of ceremonies. Now notice in verse 9, John is already calling it “water turned into wine.” I’ve always wondered at what point it turned into wine. It could be the minute it was poured into the six jars. It possibly could be the minute the water was taken out of the jars. Or just perhaps it was when it touched the master’s lips. No matter when it turned into wine, the matter of the fact is it happened. And note that the wine master calls it the best wine served. Although Jesus have given mediocre wine because no one could taste it being so wasted, he still gave the best, because Jesus always gives the best.
So if this story wasn’t meant to give us doctrine on Christ’s relationship with his earthly mother Mary, nor was it meant to teach us about alcohol, nor as instructions on how to run a wedding, then what is it for? The overall purpose of John is to portray Jesus as the divine Son of God, so how does this story show us that Jesus is God? We could simply say, “It shows manipulation of nature as only God could do.” Yes, it does show Jesus as God because Jesus is manipulating His creation. But I think this story is in here for a deeper meaning, and the Bible would agree with me, for John wrote it right in the story. Look at John 2:11.
John 2:11-
“This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.”
I believe the “revealed his glory” part is just what we said above. The revealed glory is Jesus show He is the creator and He can control it. But more specifically, look at who the miracle was done for. It’s not for the newlywed couple, not their families, not even his mother. Rather, it’s for his disciples. Jesus performed the miracle to reveal his glory to his disciples. This story takes place early in Christ’s ministry. He’s just rallied together his 12 disciples. Now he’s got to prove that He is who He claim he is, and He can do what He claims He can do. Now they can see He is the Son of God, and they can believe Jesus is God the Son. Keep that in mind for the next story
Our next story is a familiar story, the cleansing of the temple. Yes, already in John 2, we have the cleansing of the temple. So I need to discuss a bit about the structure of John. It’s not as straightforward as you think. What do you do when John writes about a temple cleansing so early when all the synoptic authors write about the temple cleansing later? One way is to simply say there were two temple cleansings. Proponents of this view would say that Jesus would have to go to the temple multiple times a year if he was a good Jew. Indeed, I would agree. But you would think if Jesus cleansed out the temple so early, security at the temple would be so much higher, so high that Jesus would not be able to perform a second cleansing. Or at least those selling and changing money would learn their lesson. So I don’t think there were 2 temple cleansings, but only 1. How can this be when the Gospel writers placed it at different points? Remember that the synoptic Gospels are writing Gospels that are early to outline, so they will outline Jesus from Galilee to Judea is one smooth line. John is not as concerned with chronology, so John doesn’t mind going back and forth, in and out of Judea. Instead, John is writing a supplemental gospel, so John could have written his Gospel more topically. I do believe it is written topically, for we’ll see the temple cleansing does have something to do with the wedding at Cana.
To summarize the story, Jesus enters the temple and sees that people are unjustly selling the animals for sacrifice. Jesus is filled with rage for such sin happening in a place where sin is supposed to be paid for. His rage causes him to make a whip out of cords and to overturn tables.
Right now go to Google Image Search (images.google.com) and simply put the word “Jesus” in the search box. Now search. When I did it, I went through 10 pages and not a single picture showed this scene. Now they do exist, if you were to type in Jesus cleanses the temple, they would show up. Clearly they are a minority. We rather have pictures of a loving Jesus, one that hold children and lambs. Maybe there is something good out of that. After all, God’s love is stronger than God’s wrath. But we must not forget that Jesus did get angry and did become wrathful.
As a Mennonite, who takes a non-violent pacifist stand, people have questioned my beliefs, using this passage. How do I, as a Mennonite, understand this with my Mennonite beliefs? It goes back to the message of this book, that Jesus is God the Son. This is Jesus showing His divine side. After all, God the Son calls this building “His Father’s house.” Here, we see the wrath of God through the Son of God. Since Jesus, being the Son of God, is sinless, I believe Jesus is showing a righteous anger, so He does not sin by being angry or violent. Yet Christians are not to act in this way because, simply put, we are not God. So we do not have the authority to perform such acts, especially without sinning. This is where it is important to see Jesus as God.
That’s how the disciples saw it. Well, not immediately. But then again, some of it was immediate, some of it was not. The disciples remembered the Psalm “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The Jews did recognize this psalm as a messianic psalm, a psalm that describes the messiah. They knew “your house” meant God’s house, the temple. Thus, the messiah was has extreme emotional attachment to the temple. When Jesus saw the sin in the temple, and the disciples saw his reaction to it, they remembered this psalm, and saw Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Once Jesus is done cleansing the temple, the Jewish leaders ask Jesus for a sign to accompany his authority. The Jewish leaders have the right to do this, for the Old Testament commands them to do this to divide the true prophets from the false prophets. Jesus says his sign is that he can rebuild his temple in 3 days. Jesus is referring to His body, but the Jewish leaders, as well as Christ’s disciples, don’t get that. They think he is referring to the temple building. For Christ’s disciples, it’s not until after Jesus dies and rises again that they finally get Jesus was talking about the resurrection of His body. What’s the result? John 2:22 tells us.
John 2:22-
“After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.”
There’s that word again: believe. It’s 1 of the 92 occurrences. And look who it is intended for again. The disciples. It makes sense. The religious leaders did not benefit from this story. If anything, they probably used it against Jesus at his trial. The men who were selling animals and exchanging money did not benefit from this story. In fact, they are probably upset at Jesus and don’t want anything to do with him. But look at the impact on the disciples. They believe Jesus is the Messiah because they see his actions towards the temple and remember the Psalm. They remember Jesus called his body the temple after He rose from the dead, and so they believe Jesus is the Son of God. Between these 2 stories, John has accomplished his purpose for the 12 disciple. They believe Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. And now, the disciples are fully behind Jesus. Hopefully these two events have proved to you that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and hopefully you are now fully behind him, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
An Evaluation of Children's Church Songs
I have an atypical daughter. Despite all the baby books stating that infants sleep 10-12 hours during the night, along with 2 hour-long naps...
