My Theology on Video Games

Introduction

I have gained entrance to five difference dance clubs by showing off my moves to five different dance crews. I also was a back-up dancer for the Black Eyed Peas. I played my guitar to become part of a world famous band, I played my guitar to unite rival gangs in a city, I played my guitar to set free a demigod, and I played my guitar to stop zombies from invading a city. I tested a teleportation device for a science company. When the tests succeeded, the company tried to trap me to prevent their secret from escaping, and when I tried to escape, they tried to kill me. I helped detain an asylum when a few inmates tried to take control of the asylum in a coup. I accidentally killed my father in the utopian society he attempted to erect, and then went after the man who made me kill my father. All of this is possible through the world of video games.

Video games have evolved over the years in many aspects. They have evolved graphically. Video games have gone from eight-bit graphs to 1080p graphics. Video games have evolved in game play. Video games have gone from linear games, jumping from platform to platform, to games where players can explore worlds and make choices. Video games have also evolved in storytelling. Video games now have cut scenes, with animation and voice actors. With this evolving have come new worlds, new choices and new decisions. With new worlds, choices, and decisions, video games have earned a second glance.

Probably the most tell-tale sign on how much video games have evolved is how much time is spent examining video games. If someone attempted to study video games a mere decade ago, that person would come up with very little resources. When video games grew in popularity, however, and when video games clearly became a part of culture, video games had to be re-analyzed. Naturally, when the secular world analyzes something, the Christian must analyze it as well. In the past, when Christians analyzed video games, they seemed to take the five ways American Christians have handled culture, according to Andy Crouch in his book Culture Making. Christians have condemned video games, refusing to play them because they are sinful. Christians have critiqued video games. They willingly watched video games, but only saw their faith as conflicting with the video game world. On the other end, Christians have consumed video games, not even thinking about what video games have done to their faith. Christians have copied video games, making their own video games, and yet still missing the point. This paper will argue that none of those methods work the best. Instead, the best method is the method that examines the morals in the game, compare and contrast them to Christianity, and when possible, make the Christian choice within the video game. But first, in order to see why this is the best method, all other methods must be examined to see where they fall short.

Gaming is Culture

Video games cannot be denied as part of the culture. Surveys show that eighty-seven percent students in grades four to twelve play video games. These students will play video games for at least an hour a day. Video games cannot be limited to a single culture, either. In India, fifty-three percent of children who have access to a computer play video games. In China, people aging under twenty-five spend most of their computer time playing games. In Australia, children spend a fourth of their computer time playing games. These statistics demonstrate the gaming spans across different cultures over different countries and different continents. While gaming may not favor a race, it may favor a gender. In the United States, ninety-six percent of video games players are boys, leaving only four percent to be girls. In Canada, four-fifths of video games players are boys, and one-fifth of video gamers are girls. While Canada comes closer to a balance, both statistics may hint that video games fit men more than woman. Still, when combined with the surveys displaying how many people play video games, video games can be understood as important part of culture. Therefore, Christians must decide on how to appropriately react to them.

Critiques and Condemnation

If the fundamentalists would have a doctrine on video games, they would declare them evil and avoid them at all costs. If neo-evangelicals wanted to analyze video games, they would watch from a distance and criticize them for all the times that the game disagreed with their faith. The commonality between these two views lies in their negative outlook. The negative bias against video games is nothing new to anyone involved in video games, the makers and the players alike. This section of this blog will look at some of the complaints about video games and will show that they are merely criticism and condemnation is not the appropriate answer to video games.

Escapism

The Webster-Merriam Dictionary defines escapism as “habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine.” In terms of video games, a video gamer commits escapism when he or she uses video games in order to live out life in a fantasy world instead of facing reality. Escapism has negative effects to the human psyche. First, escapism can cause denial when video games won’t face what’s happening in reality, but try to live out their fantasy world in reality. Second, escapism can lead to self-hatred. Gamers hate their real self, wishing to be their fantasy self. The worst effects of escapism hurt Christian gamers the most. Escapism can cause players to refuse to recognize any sin or evil in the world. The players rather escape to a world of happiness and perfection than rather deal with the sin of the suffering of the world, locally or globally.

Recently, studies show video games might not provide escapism as people thought. Instead, video games further equip the player for the real world. Educational video games help children advance in school. Math Blasters teach children math, Where in the World is Carmen San Diego teaches children geography, and Oregon Trail teaches history. Education video games help children so much in school that businesses look into making job training into games in order to train employe3s effectively. Even the military has taken advanced of this “gamification.” They created a video game out of basic training because they realized the best performers at basic training were those who played first person shooter games, such as Halo and Call of Duty.

If video games do have any escapism, it can be positive. In other words, video games can provide psychological needs video games might not receive in the real world. People need to feel like they are in control, and video games can put a person in charge of a person or a bunch of people. People need to feel successful at something. When a gamer completes a game, a feeling of satisfaction comes over a person. People also need to feel like they belong to a common community. Massive multiplayer online role playing games create a community of video gamers playing the same game, working together for the same goal. So video games might not simply be a tool to escape from the real world, but rather a tool to dive further into the real world.

Violence

Research hasn’t always been consistent on the correlation between video game violence and violence in real life. One study has saw that when people played violent video games, the part of the brain associated with anger and hatred becomes very active. On the other hand, many surveys have shown that in past years, the popularity of video games have increased, while violence has decreased in general. Those supporting video games credit video games as a healthy method to releasing anger, just like punching a pillow, while those against video games, claim the statistic is a mere correlation fallacy. A better interpretation of the studies and statistics conclude that while violent video games can fuel the rage within a person, the video game itself cannot induce a person to violence.

No one should shun video games because of violence. First of all, not all video games have violence in them. The ERSB rates games, taking into consideration the amount of violence within a video game. Games rated EC, E and E10 rarely have violence. If they do, the ERSB describes the violence as “mild violence” or “fantasy violence,” which is similar to the violence in Loony Tunes. Even games rated T and have violence keep the violence fairly mild, maybe not using blood. When games become rated M, then games become violent, but the M stands for “mature” and is not intended for an audience below the age of seventeen. Second, just because a game has violence available as an option, it does not mean violence is the only option. Players can actively choose a non-violent method. In fact, games like Mirror’s Edge and Call of Duty Black Ops give out pacifism achievements, which are rewards for not harming a single player. But even if a video games has violence, and makes the gamer participate in violence, don’t throw it out into the trash. These violent games can open the door for discussion on Christians and their views on just war and justifying violence. A good game to bring about such conversion would be the original God of War trilogy. In the first God of War game, the violence has an opportunity to be justified, as the god kills to avenge his fallen loved ones and seek repentance in his own wrongdoing. When the series progresses into God of War 2 and God of War 3, the mood changes. The god kills merely for revenge and to satisfy his own anger. This game alone not only opens a door for just violence among humans, but also can lead a discussion about the times when Yahweh is “violent” in the Bible.

 

Sexual

The first question anyone needs to ask when it comes to video games is, “Why is there sex and nudity in video games?” First, sex indeed sells. People will indeed buy video games just to see nudity and sex. Video game creators will take advantage of this market, making games like Leisure Suit Larry and Duke Nukem Forever, because the creators will know people will buy the game just for the sexual content. Second, when the creators see their games as forms of art, they put nudity in their games to demonstrate their artistic advance. Medieval and Renaissance artists did this in their painting and sculpting. In a time before photographs, artists painted and sculpted nude bodies to demonstrate how realistic they can portray bodies. The same philosophy stands true for video games. Back in the days of eight-bit graphics, the difference between a male torso and a female torso was rectangle torso for males and triangle torso for females. The nudity allows the game programmers to show off every curve of the human body. Third, the medium of video games is still young, and thus is immature. Film went the same direction early in its life. Early movies contain scenes of random nudity, men and women dressing and undressing, fully exposed to the camera, for no reason at all. The best explanation any film analyst would attempt to give is that film, in its youth, tried experimenting with what it could get away with in society. Video games might be participating in the same experiment, seeing how people respond to their use of nudity and sexuality. Fourth, and most importantly, video games use sexuality to show dynamic relationships. In the game Heavy Rain, if the player chooses for Ethan Mars to engage in sexual intercourse with Madison Page, Ethan forgives Madison and they remain together for the rest of the game. If Ethan and Madison do not have sex, the two characters separate and create a totally different ending to the story. In Mass Effect 2, the hero, Commander Shepherd, can choose to have sex early or later in the game. If Shepherd has sex early in the game, Shepherd destroys the relationship with the woman, but if Shepherds hold off on sex, the relationship with the girl flourishes and blooms. Sex can communicate relationships and character development in a story.

The appropriate response to sex in video games has much similarity to the response to violence in video games. First, video game ratings take into consideration sexual content. Games with EC, E and E10 ratings will have no sexual content, or even nudity. Games rated T will have revealing clothing at the most, but no sexual acts. Only the games rated M will have sex in them. People who want to enjoy games without sex should then avoid M rated games, as well as pursue caution in T rated games. Second, just because a game has sex does not mean the player’s character has to engage in sex. For the games with the most explicit sex scenes, gamers have to go out of their way to find these scenes. For the games that present sex up front, players have the option, most of the time, to turn down sex. Either way, players do have a say in their character’s sexual life. Third, and most importantly, allow sex in video games to open the door for theological discuss and try to create a theology of sex in video games. Christians should discuss with other Christians if sex in video is both permission and beneficial to the Christian. Christians should ask themselves what the sex signifies, and if the creators could have communicated the message in a better way. Once Christians have developed their philosophy, the Christian video gamer should attempt to live this out in his video game life. If the game chooses to live a life of celibacy, he should try to get his character to live the same way. If he cannot make his character live this way, maybe he shouldn’t be playing the game. As long as Christians properly deal with sex in video games, the excuse to not play video games because of sex should cease to exist.

Addiction

Critics of video games have often tagged video games as addictive. Even teenagers playing video games admit that they have spent too much time playing video games while they should have been doing homework. Indeed, video game players may not be good stewards of their time if they use a lot of their playing video games. At the same time, while video games can be addicting, video games themselves are not addicting. Unlike drugs, nothing in video games draws the human to need to play video games. With self-discipline and self-control, any person can fight off a video game addiction.

Humanity in Video Games

In newer video games, players don’t have to pick a character already made for them, but can make their own character and play as that character. It doesn’t matter what kind of game, for even music video games, like the Rock Band franchise, utilize a character creator. These character creators would like to get their players to believe humans can have a perfect body, with the tweak of a bar on the game screen. The character creator reflects the culture’s attitude of the body. For example, in Rock Band and Rock Band 2, when a player increases “weight,” it does not add pounds to the body. For men, their muscle mass increases, and for women, their breast size increases. While players can use character creators to make the character look similar to themselves, most do no. Most gamers choose to make their character how they want to. One person recalled that his character in Rock Band started to look like himself, but as the game progressed and he unlocked new clothing and makeup, he ended up looking like a member of Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band with a ZZ Top beard. Character creation can leave a gamer unhappy about their bodies and their personalities. They could think that God made them incorrectly, which could lead them to deny any image of God in them altogether.

At the same time, perhaps video games help players experience the image of God even more. The image of God puts titles on both God and man. God is the creator and mankind is the creation. In the image of God, God gives humans the ability to create. When players make an avatar in their game, they have become the creators, and their avatar the creation. Gamers who make avatars get to share in the experience of creating, just like God did when he created man. Humans also experience the image of God when in community. In community, humans get relationship just like God gets in the trinity. Video games with multiplayer provide a chance to enhance community with other players locally and globally. While video games can give Christians a bad view of humanity by distorting the image of God, video games can help the Christian enhance the image of God in life.

Consummation

Opposite of condemning and criticizing, Christians can consume video games. Consummation of video games means playing video games and taking in everything about the video game, without filtering anything from the video game. Consummation of video games sees video games as mere entertainment, so video games shouldn’t be examined deeply or filtered for any reason. Consummation could also mean finding any good in video games, and that good would outweigh any kind of evil video games could contain. Therefore, liberal Christians would probably take the consummation side when it comes to video games. Other Christians should not jump quickly to consummation. Despite all said above, video games do indeed have escapism, violence, sex, addiction and bad views of humanity. These issues in video games should not stop a Christian from play video games, but a Christian should not ignore them either. If Christian gamers intake these issues the wrong way, they could fall into temptation and sin. Christians still need to guard themselves from temptation. Consuming video games blindly does not protect the Christian from the temptation they need to guard themselves from.

Copying

When it comes down to Andy Crouch’s views on how to handle culture, two remain to be discussed: copying and creating. When it comes to video games, copying and creating have become one and the same. Every time Christians attempt to make video games, they become a direct copy of a secular game or become a game similar to a secular game in the same genre. An early example would be Exodus, a game for the Nintendo Game Boy, created in 1991. Essentially, Exodus copied Pac-Man. Instead of Pac-Man, Moses marches through a maze. Instead of ghosts, Moses avoids Egyptians. In game play, Exodus only differs from Pac-Man by making the player answer questions about the book of Exodus. Exodus, simply, was a Christian Pac-Man. Many games would follow suit. When Guitar Hero and Rock Band become popular in 2008, Guitar Praise came out the same year. Virtually, Guitar Praise played just like Guitar Hero, except the players played Christian praise and worship songs. Once again, the game merely mirrored a secular game in a Christian way.

While not all Christian video games copy secular games by mirroring them and Christianizing them, Christian video games have tried to be unique by copying a video game genre. Catechumen, released on the PC in 2000, is a good example. The game starts out with an archangel declaring the Romans as pagans and demon-possessed. The archangel gives the player in the game a literal sword, which he calls “the sword of the spirit,” to fight the Romans. The game ultimately becomes a first person shooter, as the player, from the first person point of view, shoots blue beams from his sword to convert the Roman. While this game tries to provide an alternative to violent video games by replacing blood and bullets with beams, this game ends up giving a metaphorical view of Christianity. No Christian wields a literal sword to evangelize the gospel. Even in metaphorical terms, the game does not produce a positive message about Christians.

Left Behind: Eternal Forces attempted to become a unique Christian game in 2006. Tim LaHaye fully funded the game based off his book, hoping to turn Christians from secular video games to a more Christian video game. While LaHaye might have thought the game was a good idea, both pastors and video game critics found faults with the game. The game starts out with the goal to convert followers of the Antichrist to Christianity. To tell which characters are Christian, antichristian, or neutral, a “health bar” appears the head of every character. Christians get green bars, the neutral get gray bars and those who side with the Antichrist get red bars. In order to convert a person to Christianity, the player must lower the red bar or gray bar. First, no one should turn converting people to the Christian faith a game. The world contains millions of people suffering in their sin, needing to know Jesus. Second, even if evangelism became a game, no one can measure a person’s spiritual life with a health bar. Naturally, after evangelism comes discipleship. The game provides five roles for the player and the characters he has converted: evangelist, soldier, builder, healer and worshipper. In the original game, however, women could not become evangelists or soldiers. Tim LaHaye, coming from a fundamentalist Baptist background, believed strongly that women should not become leaders in the church or state, even if it meant becoming an evangelist or a solider. Later patches of the game allowed women to become all five occupations, but by that time, the game already damaged its reputation in the country. While Christians can debate on women leadership, they should not bring the debate into the secular community. When the soldiers mature spiritually, their job becomes fighting the Antichrist’s army, in the form of the police. Now the Christians understand that the “police” here represent the minions of an evil man bring evil upon the earth, like Hitler and the Nazi party. In the secular mind, however, the non-Christian simply sees another game like Grand Theft Auto, teaching children to fight and mistreat the police. Once again, this game makes sense in the Christian community, but fails in the secular community.

Not all Christian video games merely copy a game or copy a game genre. Bible Champions: The Resurrection created a video game which cannot easily be placed in a category. Players choose either a boy character or a girl character. The character becomes a citizen of first century Israel. They follow Jesus around, watching animated Bible stories, and exploring the 1^st century towns and cities. While the game play stands as unique, the theology still suffers. Since the game creators aimed to have a child audience, and the game creators didn’t want to incorporate graphic violence in a children’s game, the story skips over the Crucifixion, going from the Last Supper to the Resurrection. Also, the game tries to put a quantity on faith and love. Most people wouldn’t measure faith and love in quantity. Even the best attempts to create a unique Christian video game end up with theological problems.

When Christians try to copy video games, either quite literally or merely the genre, problems occur, as listed above. Therefore, most Christians resort to simply making Bible trivia video games. The video game simply asks the player questions on the Bible, and the player tries to answer correctly. The Bible Game, created for the Play Station 2 in 2005, stands above the rest as an exceptional example. Not only does the game include Bible trivia, but also fun mini-games that incorporate Bible stories with contemporary Christian music.

Creating Video Game Theology

Christians shouldn’t condemn or criticize video games because every game has a silver lining. Christians shouldn’t consume video games blindly because video games have escapism, violence, sex, addiction and bad views of humanity, which can corrupt a Christian who is not on guard. Christians try to create their own games, but every time, they end up becoming mere copies of secular video games. Therefore, none of these approaches work. Instead, Christians should try less to put their theology into video games and should develop theology that comes out of video games. Instead of video games and the Bible clashing, the Bible should correlate and correct what video games teach in their stories. The correct process first looks at what the video game teaches, then compares it to the Bible. In the places the Bible agrees with the video game, the Christian should support it, but then when the Bible disagrees with the video game, the Christian should be cautious about it. This process can be best done through the stories and the moral choices presented in games.

Most Games Have Narrative

Not all games have stories. Most games that do not have stories usually are quiz games or puzzle, but being a puzzle game or quiz does not automatically mean a game does not have a story. Puzzle Quest, a simple puzzle game, has a fantasy story. Most games do have stories. With the advance in technology, such as cut scenes, video game stories have become more obvious in video games. This does not mean older video games did not have stories. The original Super Mario Bros., created in 1985, tells a story about a plumber trying to save a princess while he survives in a changed world. The 1980 game Missile Command tells a story about defending the home country from a nuclear war. As simple as these stories are, these games still have stories, and the stories enrich the game.

Not an Allegory

When a Christian wants to make a theology about a video game, he may be tempted to make an allegorical interpretation. In an allegorical interpretation of Pac-Man, Pac-Man represents the Christian, the maze represents life, and the dots represent the days of that life. Just as Pac-Man munches down on the dots, Christians chomp by at the days that go by. The ghosts represent demons, both literally and metaphorically for the demons in life each person faces. The power-up dots represent the spiritual high because they can help fight off demons and only last a short time. While this allegory might seem to work, it ignores a serious hermeneutical rule. In Bible hermeneutics, the Christian reading the Bible needs to consider the author’s original intent in the Bible book. In the same way, Christians should not force a theology into a video game that the video game creator did not intend. A correct video game hermeneutic looks at how the creator viewed the game, and then compares to Biblical theology.

Types of Narrative

Video games tell narrative not only through cut scenes, but also through game play. The type of narrative depends on how the game tells its story through game play. Video game narrative can be placed in three categories: linear, binary and embodies games. Linear games have a set story from beginning to end, with little to nothing that the player can do to change the story, such as the Call of Duty games. Binary stories give the player two choices. The game already determines the good choice and the evil choice, and the player merely chooses good or evil. Good choices bring about a good ending, while evil choices bring about an evil ending. A binary game, as the name hints, gives a game narrative only two endings in the narrative. Bioshock and Dragon Age II are a couple binary story games. The most endings come in embodied games. Embodied games give players multiple choices. The game does not tell the player which choices are good or evil, but lets the player decide for himself. The game, in turn, has multiple endings. Endings do not get labeled “good” or “evil.” Endings simply change based on choice. While binary stories are better than linear stories, embodied stories are the best stories because the game personally connects with the player. What makes a narrative so great is the choices the gamer makes in the game, especially moral choices.

Most Games Have Choices

Not all video games have moral choices, but more games might have moral choices than a person thinks. Even the oldest video games have choices. The original Super Mario Bros. makes player choose between the short term goal of surviving each level and the long term goal of saving the princess. Missile Commands makes players choose which cities to defend. Players can focus all their defense on one city, or they can choose to split their defense power on all cities. Good games have choices, but the better games have moral choices. Players would play Missile Command differently if the game told players one city was a penal colony, the second city was a rehab for those addicted to drugs and alcohol, and the third city was a shelter for abused and neglected women and children. Video games have utilized this moral decision making for its benefits. In Bioshock, every level has a “little sister,” a girl with special powers. The player can choose, to rescue the little sister, freeing her from her powers and the plagues that come with them, or the player can harvest the little sister, killing her. While freeing the little sister is the right thing to do, the right choice doesn’t come without temptation. Players who harvest little girls get a lot of special power, while those who rescue little sisters only get a little power. The game separates the adjectives “moral” and “beneficial” in its game choices. Many of the best video games do so.

The Fable Trilogy

The Fable trilogy harnesses moral choices the best for a video game. When Peter Molyneux set out to make a video game, he concentrated on making his video game have moral choices. In the first Fable game, players made moral choices through their quests. For example, helping raiders attack a caravan would be an evil choice, but defending the caravan from raiders would be a good choice. The choice didn’t matter in terms of game play, for either way, the game rewarded the player the same way. On the positive side, players could make moral choices without the game swaying their decision on mere game play. On the negative side, by not giving a game play lean towards the evil side, players had no temptation to go to the evil, unless they wanted to be evil for the sake of being evil. Fable II fixed that problem, or so they game thought. Fable II provided plenty of temptation by giving advantages for going to the evil side, such as more money or more experience points, for example. Fable II forces the player to truly consider moral choices. The player must realize that sometimes being the good guy does not get a person ahead in life. While Fable II made the moral choices closer to the heart, the game still missed it by a bit. While watching test audiences, the game creators realized that some gamers would choose the evil choice merely because it gave a game play advantage. When the sequel came around, the creators set out to fix it once more, and their idea was genius. In Fable III, players play as a member of the royal family seeking to become king. Instead of merely measuring actions by good and evil, the game also measured acts as “popular” and “unpopular.” Good acts could be both popular and unpopular, and evil acts could be both popular and popular. In this way, both good and evil acts had separate yet equal advantages in disadvantages. By the end of this game, the game leaves the player asking if they truly did the right thing, despite the how popular their character was in the Fable world.

Conclusion

Indeed, video games are becoming part of the culture around world. Since video games are a part of culture, they penetrate the lives of all people as individuals. Because of video games, people can live out different lives in worlds foreign to them. With video games impacting the people in the world so strongly, Christians need to analyze video games and synthesize a doctrine theology about them. Christians shouldn’t condemn or criticize video games, for when they do, they cannot see the good in video games. Christians should blindly consume video games, for when they do, they will be caught off guard by temptation and sin. Christians shouldn’t attempt to create Christian video games, for when they do, they create bad video games and bad theology alongside it. Instead of creating video games, Christians should create a theology about the video games. When a Christian plays a video game, the Christian should first think about what messages the game conveys to the player. Then, the Christian needs to ask himself if those messages agree with the Bible. If they do, the player should use the game to engage discussion with both the unsaved and the saved, for both evangelism and discipleship reasons. If the games does not agree with the Bible, the player should figure out what the Bible says is the right thing to do in that situation. Either way, the Christian should try to live out a Christian life in the game that they play. If the game does not provide any chance to live out that Christian life with good Christian morals, then maybe the Christian should avoid playing that game. Sex, violence, addiction and escapism do not make a video game bad. What makes a video game bad is a game that forces a player to sin. What makes a video good is a good story is the narrative, and the choices that come within the narrative.

John 8: I AM and I AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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