John 5: Not Just A Guitarist

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.

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!

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 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.

John 1: Early God Sightings

A few years back my church’s small groups were going through a Bible study book that had us record “God-hunt sightings.” What qualified as a “God-hunt Sighting” was anytime in our day or week that we saw God at work. I always liked the term “God sighting.” When I taught a 10th grade class on God’s providential hand in Esther, I asked them to make “God-hunt Sightings” so they could see how God’s providential hand in their lives. This time around I’m going to use the term “God-hunt Sightings” slightly differently, and to differentiate, I’m going to shorten it to “God Sightings”. It’s not going to be God’s providence, although we could do that in the Gospel of John. Remember how I said the purpose of John was to portray Jesus Christ as the Son of God? Our goal for this Bible study of the book of John will be to see if John fulfills his purpose. So instead of “God Sightings” meaning God’s providential hand, we’re going to look for “God Sightings” in Jesus, or rather times we see the divine nature of God the Son in Jesus. So let’s begin!

Ah, but where do you begin? Where does one begin a story? Storytellers have started stories in all different places. Some start stories before the action takes place. In the first movie of the Back to the Future triology, Marty McFly merely goes on his day like a typical 80’s teenager: school and chores at Doc Brown’s house. Some other stories begin right in the middle of the action. Many movies of the Star Wars saga start in the middle of a fight. Episode One starts with negotiation talks gone violent; Episode Three begins with a battle in the Clone War; Episode Five begin with the Rebels desperately trying to defend their base on a frozen planet. Some even start after the action. These books, movies or TV series rely on flashbacks to tell the story in full. Think about Disney’s The Emperor’s New Groove. The movie begins with a sad llama, who seems to be very human-like, crawling in the rain. Why is the llama crawling through the rain? Why is the llama sad? How did it get there? These questions are answered through flashbacks full of action, but by this point, the action has passed. Stories can start at many different points, and where the story starts may even reflect the message the storyteller is getting across.

Let’s get back to the Bible. We have 4 Gospel books, 4 Gospel authors, and 4 different starts to the Gospel narrative. Let’s start with Mark, since his Gospel account came first. Remember Mark is writing to the Romans, who want an action packed story. So Mark starts right away with an adult Jesus preaching his authoritative message performing powerful miracles. Sure, there are quick blurbs on John the Baptist, as well as the baptism and temptation of Jesus, but they are literally short blurbs, quickly thrown in just to set a little background information. Matthew has, in a way, 2 starts. The first start goes all the way back to Abraham, and traces Jesus from Abraham through David (and ultimately tracing Jesus as a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant and David Covenant). The second start is in a more immediate context, with the announcement of Christ’s birth to both Mary and Joseph, followed by the birth itself. Luke wants begin further back than the birth or the annunciation of the birth of Jesus, but he doesn’t want his start go back as far as Matthew did (although he will put in his genealogy later, but we’ll talk about that later). So Luke believes the best way to begin an “orderly account” is to begin with annunciation and miraculous birth of the Preparer of the Christ, and how it interlinked with the annunciation and miraculous birth of the Christ. So where is John going to begin his Gospel narrative? In the beginning!

“In the beginning…” How would you complete that? Well, alright, most of you know this is a Bible study on John and have read John 1 to know where I’m going with this and how to complete, so never mind on how you would complete it. But if I were to do a Bible version of Jay Leno’s “Jay-walking” (if you don’t know what that is, go look it up on YouTube) among Christians in church, how do you think they would complete that phrase? Most of them probably would complete it, “In the beginning…God created the heavens and the earth.” There’s nothing wrong with that. It would be right. In fact, I bet if you were a 1st Century Jewish Christian, you would complete the phrase in the same exact way. Both of you are quoting Genesis 1:1, which both of you can recognize from learning it so young. So that is why John chose to begin his Gospel with those 3 words: “In the beginning.” He knew his Jewish Christian audience would immediately be thinking about Genesis and the Creation story. He wants his reader in that mindset. But read closely, and you’ll realize he’s actually bringing you further back than this. I won’t do this for every verse in John, but the important verse I really want to zoom in on and focus on I will put in this devotional commentary. So let’s take a close look.

John 1:1,2-
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.”

John’s beginning is not with a birth or the announcement of a birth. It doesn’t begin with someone preparing the way. It doesn’t begin with a Patriarch, like Abraham or David. It doesn’t begin with the fall of man and the need for a Savior. It doesn’t even begin with the creation of the earth. It begins with the Word. From further reading of this chapter, the reader understand that this Word is Jesus. Jesus is the Word incarnate. Look at the doctrine we get from these 2 verses alone. First of all, it explicitly states Jesus is God. That should be good enough alone, but in case you want more, you can find out more in these 2 verses alone. Second, Jesus was with God. This means that despite Jesus being God, He’s not the exact same as Yahweh because He is God and He is with God. Already we have signs of trinity. Third, these verses state Jesus was present at the beginning. Remember, we’ve already said this beginning is before creation. So this verse shows us Jesus is as eternally past, eternally present and eternally future as Yahweh is. Already in two verses, John has de-bunked many incorrect beliefs about Jesus that could have floating around in his time. Jesus was 100% God. While Jesus was a man, He was not just a man. He was God. Jesus did not have a beginning. He is as eternal as His father is. While Jesus is God, He is also with God. So much correct theology standing in the face of bad doctrine. So we have our first God sighting within the first 2 verses of John. I’m going to make a list of these God Sightings we have in John 1, but I encourage you to make your own list to hold on to.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)

Before I go on, if you’re still not convinced with the first passage, think about it as a genealogy and compare it to the other genealogies of the other Gospels. You’re probably thinking, “You’re crazy. Only Matthew and Luke has genealogy.” No, as a matter of fact, all of them have genealogies, and they all point back to how the author is portraying Jesus. Matthew’s genealogy goes back to Abraham, tracing it through all the kings of Israel/Judah, especially Jesus. This is important to the Jewish reader of Matthew because it will prove Jesus is the Messiah through the Patriarchs who were promised the blessed seed of the covenant, which is the Messiah. Luke traces the genealogy all the way back to Adam. This not only shows the Adamic and Noahic Covenant on top of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant, but it also shows Luke’s Greek Gentile audience that Jesus isn’t just for Jews, but for everyone because he’s just as human as the Gentiles are (and Luke does show us Jesus is the Son of God because he reminds us Adam is technically the Son of God too). What about Mark and John? Well, you’re right Mark doesn’t have a genealogy, but it’s not like Mark forgot it. Remember Mark is trying to display a servant to his Roman audience. Does anyone care about a servant’s lineage? No. A servant/slave (the Greek word is the same) is considered property of the master, and thus has no lineage. So there’s no need for a lineage for the servant Jesus. But there is indeed a genealogy in John, and it’s right there in the first 2 verses. It’s a simple as this: God –>Jesus. God is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God. But remember that “God the Father” and “Son of God” are not just title. Both are equally God and one in the same. So if it’s easier, replace the word “God” with “Yahweh.” Yahweh –> Jesus. Yahweh is the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is the Son of Yahweh.” John uses this simple genealogy to show his Christian audience Jesus is God.

We’ve seen how John has used the phrase “In the beginning” to get his audience, mainly the Jewish Christian audience thinking about the beginning of the world. And he even brought us back further with before the beginning. But he’s not trying fool us or deceive us. He really wants to bring us back to the “In the beginning” that we know of: The Creation. And it will only take another 2 verses to do so. Let’s look at John 1:3,4.

John 1:3,4-
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.”

This is a Sunday School you were probably asked as early as preschool and it deserves a Sunday School answer. The question: “Who created the earth and everything in it?” The answer: “God.” Now let’s ask any Preschooler who has been well-raised in the church the question, “Is Jesus God?” and the church-raised Preschooler would probably be able to answer, “Yes.” Now put those 2 answers together, and you’ll probably get a true claim that you probably don’t think about a lot. It’s as simple as, “If X=Y, and Y=Z, then X=Z.” If we believe God created the world, and we believe Jesus is God, then we must believe that Jesus created the world. When we usually think about the creator of the universe, we uses think about Yahweh, or the Father, not Jesus. But it’s true, Jesus created the world. It’s not just a conclusion or an assumption out of logic. The Bible clearly defends Jesus as the creator of the universe. If you don’t know this out of memory, I would write the next sentence down, for it is important doctrine. There are 3 chapters in the New Testament that state Jesus as the creator of the universe: John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 (some would add Romans 1 as a 4th chapter, but that one takes a little bit of interpretation). But for John, simply stating Jesus as the creator is not enough. He also clearly states that Jesus is giver of life. No man can have life, whether it be physical life or spiritual life, without Him, God the Son. So we have our 2nd God Sighting, and that’s 2 God Sightings in 4 verses alone.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)

One way to do storytelling is to give a summary of everything that is going to happen in the introduction, and in the body, show all it all plays out, with all the details. William Shakespeare does this in several of his plays. It would seem as if John does this in his introduction as well. From reading John 1:5-14, it seem like John is starting his Gospel in the same way. John 1:5-14 spells out how the narrative of the book will turn out. It will start with John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus. Despite John’s preparations, the world did not recognize him, nor did it receive him. And we’ll see throughout the book of John people rejecting Jesus. But let’s get back to our immediate God Sightings.

John 1:15-34 zooms in and focuses on one character. It’s not Jesus, but rather it’s John the Baptist. You might remember in my John Introduction that I said the baptism of Jesus is not told in the book of John. So why have John the Baptist if we’re not going to talk about the baptism of Jesus? John (I hope you don’t get confused, but understand when I just say “John,” I mean John the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, the first cousin and disciples of Jesus) has an interesting way of telling us about John the Baptist. It’s almost like he talks about John the Baptist without Jesus. We’ll see John the Baptist before Jesus, preaching, teaching and answering questions. Then we see John the Baptist after Jesus, giving his testimony about Christ. Let me point out some key information. In John 1:19-28, priests and Levites are coming down to the Jordan River near Bethany to find out who this John the Baptist thinks he is and what authority John the Baptist thinks he can preach with. When they ask John the Baptist who he is, notice his answers get shorter every time: “I am not the Christ”…”I am not”…”No.” While John the Baptist has a very important role in preparing Christ’s arrival, John the Baptist is not interested in talking about himself. He much more rather talk about the Christ. His answers in verses 23 and 26 are very humble. He knows the importance of his position, but he humbly accepts his position.

John’s story telling gets interesting in John 1:29-34. Remember, there is no baptism story in John, but we get the before and after. In verses 29 to 30, John the Baptist sees Jesus coming and immediately recognizes who it is. But by the time we get to verse 31, all the action already happened. It’s almost like John the Baptist is saying to reader, “Aw man, you just missed it! It was so amazing!” and then John the Baptist goes on to describe what happened. Why doesn’t John just tell the story of the baptism of Jesus instead of John having someone tell the story after it happened? Because John is not focusing on the event itself, but rather the testimony that came from it. In fact, for the rest of the chapter, John is going to show the interactions between Jesus and people, and how each person testifies after meeting Jesus. The first one is John the Baptist. What is John the Baptist’s testimony? Not only does John the Baptist verify everything he said before Jesus was baptized, but then some more. In verse 29, John the Baptist calls Jesus “the Lamb of God,” recognizing Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. In verse 30, John the Baptist calls Jesus “a man who comes after me [who] has surpassed me.” The Gospels tell us in both Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:28 that John the Baptist is greater than any of the Patriarchs, Prophets or Kings of the Old Testament. For someone to come after John the Baptist to be greater, it’s got to be the ultimate Patriarch, Prophet and King, and that would be Jesus (this verse even hints at “messiah.”). Verses 32 and 33 acknowledge Jesus as the one with the greater baptism. But the key part of the testimony is last in verse 34, for it’s the whole reason John is writing the book. In verse 34, John the Baptist explicit calls Jesus the Son of God. With that, John the Baptist gives us our next God Sighting

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)
3. John the Baptist’s testimony: Lamb of God and Son of God (vs. 15-35)

John 1:35 overlaps the stories a bit. In verse 35, we are still with John the Baptist, declaring Jesus is the messiah. This time, John the Baptist is standing with two of John the Baptist’s disciples, probably Andrew and John (the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, the cousin of Jesus, the author of this book). And it is like John the Baptist is saying to them, “Look, the Messiah is here. What are doing still doing following me? Follow him!” And so in John 1:37, when the book of John tells us that the two disciples “followed” Jesus, it has a double meaning. First, it is to be taken literally, as these 2 men went from walking behind John the Baptist to walking behind Jesus. Second, it is to be taken figuratively, as on this day the 2 men ceased to be John the Baptist’s disciples and they became disciples of Jesus. In John 1:38, when Jesus turns to talk to James and John, the 2 men call him, “Rabbi,” which simply translated to teacher, but means much more than our heads can wrap around. A Rabbi was a teacher, but he was greater and higher than the typical teacher. A rabbi was a master teacher, so much that disciples (which disciples are students with greater dedication) would call their rabbi “master” as much as they would call him “teacher.” Rabbis were watched carefully and listened to carefully, for their knowledge and wisdom was known to be great. John and Andrew calling Jesus Rabbi is a strong testimony to Jesus being the Son of God. John the Baptist’s testimony that Jesus was the Son of God and the Lamb of God was all the convincing these 2 brothers needed to follow Jesus. And between John the Baptist’s testimony and just walking behind Jesus, they already recognized Jesus was a Rabbi, without Jesus needing credentials from anyone else. So I believe James and John’s Testimony is good enough for a God Sighting.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)
3. John the Baptist’s testimony: Lamb of God and Son of God (vs. 15-35)
4. Andrew and John’s testimony: Rabbi (vs.35-39)

In John 1:40, we meet a new character: Andrew. Andrew is simply described as the brother of Simon Peter. From the New Testament, we know that Zebedee, the father of James and John, and John (yes, another John!), the father of Simon Peter and Andrew, worked together in the fishing business, in some kind of combined business. So obviously the 4 worked together fishing on a daily basis. It wouldn’t surprise me if one son of John got one son of Zebedee (or vice versa) interested in this John the Baptist, and then each brother got the other brother interested in John the Baptist. Well, the same is about to happen for Jesus. When Andrew gets back from spending a day with Jesus, the first thing he does is run to his brother Simon and excitedly declare, “We have found the messiah!” and he drags Simon to Jesus. At the first meeting, Jesus renames Simon to Peter, basically calling Peter to be his disciple. But let’s take a step back with Andrew. All Andrew needs is a testimony from John the Baptist to follow Jesus, and after spending one day with Jesus, combined with John the Baptist’s testimony, it’s enough for Andrew to believe Jesus is the Messiah. Andrew believes it so much that he drags his brother to Peter to go meet Jesus. And all Peter needs is his brother’s word to believe Jesus is the messiah. Andrew has a strong testimony for Jesus: messiah. Messiah is a Hebrew term. The Greek equivalent is Christ. No matter which word you choose, this person was suppose to be the one promised by God to save the people from sin and from evil. The children of Israel had been waiting over 2,000 years for this man, and now he’s finally come. If you remember our theme verse, John 20:31, John tells the reader he wrote this book to prove that Jesus is not only the Son of God, but also the Christ. Also remember how I said that the Jews believed that both titles went hand-in-hand. The messiah was to be the Son of God. So Andrew’s testimony, backed up by the reaction from Peter, is our next God Sighting in Jesus.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)
3. John the Baptist’s testimony: Lamb of God and Son of God (vs. 15-35)
4. Andrew and John’s testimony: Rabbi (vs.35-39)
5. Andrew’s testimony: Messiah (vs. 40-42)

Philip, our next character, is introduced in John 1:43. The meeting is simple. Jesus walks by Philip, Jesus says, “Follow me,” and Philip follows. And before you know it, Philip also has a strong a testimony: “the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote.” The Bible doesn’t exactly say how Philip came to this conclusion. It could have been through the authority that Jesus called Philip by. Maybe, just like John and Andrew, after spending the day with Jesus, Philip could just tell. Perhaps it was through talking to John, James, Andrew and Simon Peter that Philip came to faith. Either way, Philip is sure this is the man the Moses talked about and the prophets talked about. It’s hard to pin down exactly what prophets Philip was talking about. Maybe it was the suffering servant in Isaiah. Maybe it was the Ancient of Days in Daniel. Perhaps it was the ruler in Micah or the king in Zechariah. It could have been all of these or it could have been none of these. Since we don’t know exactly, let’s focus less on the prophets and more on the one we know of the Lawgiver: Moses. It takes place in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites’ time of wandering is almost up, which also means the life of Moses is almost up. So for his last instruction, Moses is re-instructing the Law which he has already given (hence the book name Deuteronomy, meaning “Second Law”). In Deuteronomy 18:18,19, Moses foretells of a prophet that will be like him. Moses was a ruler, judge, Lawgiver, law-enforcer, priest and all around leader to the Israelite people. The prophet Moses foretells of will be like all of these things, clearly making him the Messiah. Since Deuteronomy, Israel has been waiting for this prophet. Philip recognizes Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Moses, and he’s got to tell everybody.

Before we check off Philip’s testimony on our list, let’s see the reaction of the testimony, just in case it’s significant to his testimony. Philip is so excited he tells Nathanael. Nathanael does not receive his friend’s testimony as willingly as everyone else. His reaction comes with skepticism. He yells, “Nazareth! What good could come from there?!” Although Galilee is north of Judea, the people of Galilee were like the “southerners” of Israel. They even had an accent to go along with it. And if Nathanael was told that the Messiah was coming from Nazareth, the epitome of the Galilean stereotype, it was like Nathanel was being told that his Messiah was a redneck, a hick! Nathanael would have nothing to do with that. But Jesus was about to turn that.

In verses 48 and 49 of John 1, Jesus reveals to Nathanael that He saw him before Nathanael knew Jesus or even before Philip knew Jesus. How can this be? Two words: Omnipresence and omniscience. Omnipresence is being all places at all times. Omniscience is being all-knowing. Jews and Christians alike ascribe omnipresence and omniscience to God. When Jesus shows he is omnipresent and omniscience by knowing where Nathanael is, He has proved to Nathanael, as well as the reader, that He is God. But to Nathanael He is not just God the Son or the Son of God, but also a Rabbi and the king of Israel.

Let me close with the closing verse of the chapter, John 1:51.

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

John 1:51-
He then added, “I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

There’s a couple interesting points to point out. First, you might note your Bible has a footnote connected to the word “you” that says, “The Greek [you] is plural.” I never understood that…until I took Greek and now I get it! While English has a second person, the word “you,” for both singular and plural, the word “you” in Greek changes, based on whether it is singular or plural. The difference between the singular version of “you” and the plural version of “you” is, as the Southerners would say, “you and you all (y’all).” Why is this significant? If Jesus was simply talking to Nathanael, the singular form of you would be in there. But instead, we have a plural form. He must be talking to more than one. In the immediate context, it’s most likely his small crowd of followers: James, John, Andrew, Simon Peter and Philip. But maybe he’s almost addressing us, the reader, directly. And he viritually says, “This is nothing. You’re going to see greater things than this.” And he uses a certain term that sticks out: Son of Man. In Bible terms, as well as our terms, it is a reminder of the humanity of Jesus. But “Son of Man” has links to a lot of apocryphal works. The Old Testament prophets, like Daniel, give the title “Son of Man” to the Messiah in the end times. This is the first time in John we hear the term “Son of Man,” and it’s Jesus himself using that term. With such strong links to eschatological works in the Old Testament, I believe that Jesus has given us a self-testimony that He is God. If that’s not enough proof, I believe heaven opening and angels ascending and descending would be. So our list moves up to 8 God Sightings.

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

So 51 verses later, we have 8 God Sightings, or 8 times/ways we can see Jesus as God the Son. 6 of which are explicitly spoken testimonies, but if you really think about it, John is writing this book, and this Gospel book is the closest we’ll get to a 1st person testimony, so the first 2 God Sightings could be considered a testimony from John. So far, not only does Jesus Himself declare He is God, but John the Baptist, John, Andrew, Philip and Nathanael all claim Jesus is God. By the end of the first chapter alone, John already has a convincing argument that Jesus is indeed God the Son, and someone might already believe by just reading only the first chapter of John. But we can’t quit now, we got 20 more chapters to go! Stay tuned for John 2 to see how Jesus continues to reveal himself as God.

John 0: An Introduction

In accordance with my New Year’s Resolution, this post will officially begin my devotional commentary on the Gospel of John. But we’re not going to dive into the chapters just yet. Consider this a “prequel,” or better stated, an introduction. I believe it is appropriate to go over the background information to set the scene. Yeah, it’s not absolutely necessary to know all these facts, but to quote the title of a Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart book on Bible Hermeneutics, if we really want to read the Bible for all its worth, the background information can really open up our eyes to smaller details we may not have noticed. We can learn a lot more about our God and apply the Scriptures for a deeper use then.

When I would teach Bible class, I would tell my students to discover the background information, we must be like good reporters and ask the right questions. You know what I’m talking about. Those question words, like, who, whom, what, where, when, why and how. You might have noticed I included in another word: whom. And technically, the difference between “who” and “whom” is the subject and the object. But the difference is important. Let me make it short and simple for you

WHO = AUTHOR of the book
WHOM = AUDIENCE, the original one, the first readers of the book
WHEN = THE DATE the book was written
WHERE = THE LOCATION of where the book was written and where it takes place
WHAT = HISTORICAL OCCASION, or what happened to cause the author to write
WHY = THE PURPOSE of the author writing to the audience
HOW = THE STRUCTURE, which could be an outline or writing methods

All 7 pieces are key to understanding the basic background information for any book of the Bible. For the Gospels, there needs to be another key aspect to look at. There’s no question word that would cover it, but if there is a non-question word, it would be PORTRAYAL, which is how the Gospel book portrays the character of Jesus. It could technically be a combination of the purpose and the structure, for the portrayal will be seen in both of them. We’ll talk more about it when we get to it. So which one shall we start off with? Well, if you remember your elementary English/Literature class, the setting of the story is where and when it happened. So let’s start with the setting, since the setting will place the characters in context.

THE LOCATION WHERE the Gospel of John was written was most likely Ephesus, but other scholars have suggested Alexandria and Antioch. But what’s more important than where the book was written is where the stories in the book take place. Most of the synoptic books simply show a steady path from Galilee to Samaria, to Judea, and then more specifically Jerusalem for the Passion Week. But John’s Gospel is not as simple as that. John has Jesus all over the place. For example, on top of having Jesus in Galilee, Samaria and Judea, he has Jesus in areas east of the Jordan River, such as Perea and Decapolis. And sometimes he’ll even be more specific on locations than the other Gospel writers are. Where Matthew, Mark, or Luke will just say what region Jesus is in, John will give the specific town. John will also spend more time in some regions that the other Gospel writers have. Whereas the synoptic gospel writers show Jesus mostly in Galilee, John has Jesus mostly in Judea, or more specifically, Jerusalem.

THE DATE WHEN the Gospel of John was written was between 85 to 95 A.D. Some scholars have tried to place the Gospel of John before 70 A.D. because one would assume that John would mention the Destruction of the Temple or the Fall of Jerusalem if the book was written after these events. While John does not explicitly mention these events, it doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t happen. Someone could argue that they did happen because John does focus a lot on the time that Jesus and His Disciples were in Jerusalem, and John also includes much dialogue about the temple. John may not explicitly record, “And this was in fulfillment of the prophecy that the temple would be destroyed and the city would fall,” but mentioning both the city and the temple implicitly gives almost a spooky irony to its fate. So it has to be after 70 A.D. It can’t be later than 95 A.D. because John is believed to have died in 98 A.D. But let’s not linger any more on the debate of the date, but instead accept 85-95 AD as the date, and discuss its importance.

The date does have great significance. Being written in the late 80s or early 90s, the Gospel of John is the last Gospel to be written. It is safe to say that Matthew and Luke have been written for at least 5 years and Mark for at least 20 years. Each of those gospels have been floating around to several churches in the Roman Empire. So John is well aware that the Christians in these churches know well the more famous stories of Jesus, like the feeding of the 5,000 and the calming of the storm. So instead of repeating them in synoptic gospel like Matthew, Mark and Luke did, John will write a supplemental gospel. What is a supplemental gospel? For that, we must talk about how John structured his Gospel book. But we don’t have quite enough information yet. The structure won’t make any sense until we know whom the audience was, what was the historical occasion that caused John to write was, or why John chose the purpose He did. But before we get to that, let’s talk about this John man whose name I keep throwing around.

THE AUTHOR WHO wrote the book was John, just like the title of the book tells us. But there are quite a few Johns. No, this is not John, also known as Mark. If you read the post I made in December, we already talked about him. No, this is not John, the father of Peter. No, this is not the John in Acts 4:8 who is in the family of the high priests. And this is definitely not John the Baptist, the son of Zechariah, the second cousin of Jesus. This is John, the son of Zebedee, the first cousin of Jesus. And with that last statement, you got two facts about his family history. Let me throw in a third: his brother was James (and there’s 4 men named James in the Bible, but that’s a different discussion for a different day). John started out his life in the family trade of fishing with his father Zebedee and his brother James. Everyone knows John and James were disciples of Jesus, but not everyone remembers that John and James were first disciples of John the Baptist. Being disciples of John the Baptist, they were probably baptized by John the Baptist and they probably listened carefully to his preaching about repentance and the coming Messiah. Yet their following wasn’t too serious, as it seems like they followed him on the side and stayed focus on their job trade. This seems also true of being disciples to Jesus. When John points the two of them out to Jesus Christ in John 1, they follow him a bit and even acknowledged Jesus as a Rabbi, but then they went back to fishing. It wasn’t until Matthew 4 that Jesus needs to call them to follow to get through their thick skulls to stay with him longer. John, along with his brother James and Peter, were among the 3 disciples in the inner circle of disciples, who were the closest of Jesus, perhaps because they were the first ones called to be disciples. They got to see special events, like the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the transfiguration, and they got to be closer to Jesus in Gethsemane. John seems to go a bit further in and say he was the closest of even the three of them, calling himself in his Gospel book, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” A lot of people have brought criticism towards John and the inspiration of this book, claiming it’s falsely representing Jesus showing favoritism. But all 4 Gospels clearly show Jesus had the inner group of Peter, James and John, and no one criticizes those books for that. Instead, I like to say that really shows us the humanity side of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Remember, the Scriptures were written by men just as much as they were written by God, and it can be seen through the different books and different authors. The title is merely showing John’s flavor in his writing. We’ll talk more about that “flavor” in the structure, but let’s go back to the inner circle of 3. This inner circle of 3 will stay tight until the end. When we see John in Acts, he’ll always be with Peter. From Acts, John will go on to write this Gospel book, 3 epistles, and he’ll write the apocalyptic book of Revelation when he exiled to Patmos. There are other small details I could go through, but we’ll hit them when we actually read through the book.

THE AUDIENCE WHOM John originally intended was Christians. Yes, Christians. Not a certain gender, race, ethnic group, culture or religion, but Christians This is interesting because John is considered a evangelistic book, or a good book to use to evangelize, or share the gospel message. While I do believe this is true, I do believe this book is more intended for discipleship reasons. Many of the reasons I will talk about in the structure, but one reason I will hit on I already mentioned in the date. This Gospel book was one of the last Gospel books written. John assumes that the reader has already read or heard about the stories of Jesus from that book. So John also assumes (and some would say this is a big assumption) that through reading or hearing those stories, you have made a decision to follow Jesus and have become a Christian (seriously, John believes the gospel message is so powerful it will do that). Once again, John knows the reader knows the popular stories. So he will leave most of them out (unless they pertain to his message) and put in new stories, which will only be beneficial for someone who wants to continue and advance his or her faith. Now if you remember, Matthew is written to Jews, Mark is written to Romans, and Luke is written to Greeks. John is well aware that the converts to Christianity are not only Jews, but Roman, Greek and other Gentiles. So John is going to reach out to those 3 main groups in the same way the synoptic authors did. We’ll talk more about that in the structure, but first you have to wonder, “Why would John write a Gospel for Christians if they already know the stories of Jesus, the gospel message, and they are already saved?” That will be answered next, in the historical occasion.

THE HISTORICAL OCCASION is WHAT was happening in that setting that caused the author (John) to write his book. The best way to explain this is to use Family Guy (who would ever think Family Guy could be used in a commentary, devotional or Bible introduction?) In an episode of Family Guy, Peter Griffin invents his own religion of Happy Days-ism, where the Fonz is worshipped. The rest of the Griffin family tries to get Peter to stop, but only the dog Brian is successful. How is he successful? To loosely quote him, he tells Peter, “Whenever a new religion becomes popular, copycats always follow,” and he brings in copycats to take Peter’s congregation away (for example, Brian brings in Gavin McCloud to lead the parishioners to Love Boat-ism). Well, it was true 2000 years earlier. Even though Christianity was still a minority and still facing persecution, it was growing in popularity. With growth like that, copycats jumped on board to make Christian-like cults to get people to join. The biggest one was Gnosticism, a cult which name comes from the Greek word gnosko, which means “to know.” Gnosticism combined two popular beliefs systems of the day: Christianity and Greek philosophy. The popular Greek philosophy of the day was that the body was bad, but the spirit/soul was good. Let me simplify that for you. Body = Bad, Soul/Spirit = Good. So the goal in Gnosticism was to free your soul from your body. Your first reaction might be, “Well, that’s easy, just commit suicide!” which might be followed by your second reaction, “Well, that’s stupid, a religion that convinces you to commit suicide.” But it’s not that easy, and they thought up a way that wasn’t stupid to them. You had to find a way to free your soul from your body while your body was alive. You couldn’t just commit suicide, for if you died before you figured out how to free your soul, your soul would be eternally stuck in your body. After all, a dead body is useless for anything, so there’s no way your spirit could find a way out. So how do you free your soul from your body? By learning a secret knowledge (hence the name Gnosticism). This where the Christianity side of Gnosticism steps in. The Gnostics believed that Jesus knew this secret knowledge. Jesus learned this secret knowledge and taught His disciples this secret knowledge. Now, of course, if you ask them, Jesus taught the secret knowledge, well, in secret, to his disciples. And the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke only record the public teachings of Jesus. So if you want to use those books to learn the secret knowledge, you have read into the text deeper. You have to take everything Jesus says as a metaphor, with some kind of symbolic meaning (in Bible hermeneutics, we call this the allegorical approach to the Scriptures). Some Gnostics were even going as far writing their own gospels, claiming that they were from people close to Jesus, like Thomas, Judas and Mary, who heard this secret knowledge being taught by Jesus when they were in secret meetings. But the real kicker is what they claimed about Jesus and His being. To be the ultimate example to humans on how to use this secret knowledge to free your soul from your body, Jesus was only human. They believed that Jesus was not God at all, but just a human. Furthermore, they believe when Jesus died on the cross, He freed his soul from his body. Therefore, they believe it was only in spirit Jesus raised from the dead. You can already see two big contradictions from true Christianity. Christianity believes Jesus is fully God and fully man, while Gnosticism believes Jesus was only a man who ultimately achieved perfection by being a body-less spirit on earth. Christianity believes Christ’s resurrection was a bodily one, but Gnosticism says it was only a spirit resurrection. The differences are huge, and they are confusing the people. Some Christians are having doubts, while other Christians are going to Gnosticism, believing it’s the true faith. A Christian’s faith is not meant to be an unsteady one. John doesn’t want Christians to convert to Gnosticism. In fact, he wants Christians to avoid Gnosticism. John doesn’t want Christians to be shaky or unsteady in their beliefs. He doesn’t want them to doubt or question their faith. He wants to believe. After all, the word “believe” appears 98 times in the book. John has to take down Gnosticism.

THE PURPOSE is WHY John wrote the book. You’re probably thinking, “He just explained it! John had to take down Gnosticism. That’s why he wrote it.” Yes, John did have to take down Gnosticism, and he did use this book to do it, but last time I checked, I’m pretty sure Gnosticism doesn’t exist anymore, and if does, it’s a very small minority that has no power in the world (although some people still insist on reading the Bible allegorically, as they did). So what’s the purpose for the Gospel of John today? When an author writes a book of the Bible, he’s not only thinking about his immediate audience, but also thinking about a bigger, grander audience. So he needs to express a truth that’s meaningful to them, too. So what truth is John going to teach us that will applicable everywhere for all time, and will also take down Gnosticism?

When it comes to 4 Gospels, we need to look out for an important piece that we wouldn’t look at with other books of the Bible. Have you ever wondered, “Why do we have 4 Gospel accounts? Wouldn’t it just be better with 1? After all, if there are 4 Gospel accounts, we have to worry about contradictions. If there was only 1 Gospel account, we wouldn’t have to worry about this.” The reason there are 4 Gospel accounts is to show 4 perspectives of Jesus. Each Gospel has a different perspective, and each perspective is a perspective for a different people group. Matthew is a perspective for Jews, Mark is a perspective for Romans, and Luke is a perspective for Greeks. Each different perspective gives us a different portrayal of Jesus, yet each portrayal is a true one. Matthew portrays Jesus as the Messiah for the Jews. Luke portrays Jesus as the Perfect [Son of] Man for the Greeks. Mark portrays Jesus as a suffering servant to show the upside kingdom to the Romans. So what’s John going to portray Jesus as? For the portrayal is an important part of the purpose. Lucky for us, John gives us a verse we can call a “theme verse” for our purpose and our portrayal of Jesus. It’s John 20:31.

John 20:31-
“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Ah, there it is. It doesn’t get any more explicit than that. While in I do strongly believe in the inspiration of the Bible, I don’t think we should simply say, “Well, the Bible says that’s the purpose, and since the Bible is God’s Word, God is saying that’s the purpose. End of discussion.” Let’s look into why it’s right in saying this is the purpose. Some key words and key phrases I see in this verse is “Believe,” “Christ” and “Son of God.” Let’s start with the last one and go backwards.

As we talked about in the historical occasion, it was of the utmost importance John portrays Jesus as the Son of God. The Gnostic’s powerful voice was claiming Jesus was not God, and it was throwing true followers of Jesus into confusion, causing some to doubt and even lose faith. John had to stop this destruction the Gnostic doctrine was causing. I may have listed this key phrase last, but it’s definitely not least. Actually, I think it’s the most important. Why? Tell me, what do you think of when you hear the phrase “Son of God”? I bet you pay more attention to the word “son” than the word “God.” You might think this is nitpicky, but it’s not. When the Bible says Jesus is the Son of God, it’s also saying Jesus is God the Son. That’s not just a re-ordering of the words, but it has a big implication, in both the ancient context and the modern context. Let’s start with the older context, the ancient context. In the polytheistic religions of the ancient world, gods could indeed have children. They could have children either with goddesses or human women. If the god had a child with a human woman, the son would still be considered a god (or daughter a goddess), but it was a demigod, or half-god, half-human. This god was considered 50% divine and 50% human. All its strengths would be credited to its divinity, but all its weaknesses would be blamed on its humanity. I wouldn’t be surprised if at first people were claiming Jesus was 50% god and 50% man, and the apostles had to go around correcting that, teaching that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. A god could also have a child through a goddess, and in that case, it would be considered 100% god, but still it would be considered a lesser god, or a minor god, nowhere near the glory and majesty of his parents. I think that’s the one that modern day people would struggle with the most. This past Christmas season, I was in church and we singing the famous Christmas carol “Come All Ye Faithful.” While singing, I noticed the line, “Son of God, begotten, not created.” At first chuckled a bit, thinking to myself, “Way to make sure you’re theologically covered on all sides,” but after thinking more, I realized we don’t always realize this. We do sometimes think Jesus was birthed from God. This is theological mess. First, it says that Jesus is not as eternal as God the Father, which means he does have a beginning, and would ultimately deny Him His deity. But Jesus is eternal, both eternally past and eternally future. Second, if Jesus was just God’s offspring and not God himself, it would mean God the creator has not been on earth since the creation. It would almost sound like God thought of Himself as so holy that he did not want to deal with sinful man. So God sent down the next best thing: His Son Jesus. No, that’s not true either. Jesus was God incarnate, walking on earth, among the people He created, no matter how sinful. Jesus was not a lesser God, or a minor God, but was God just as much as His Father. We have to remember that when we see “Son of God” we must also see “God the Son.” Simply put: Son of God = God the Son. Maybe another way to put it is the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus was the same relationship between a Father and Son. But both are the same God, the One God, the Only God. (John 1:14,18).

The second word is “Christ.” I’m not going to dwell on this one too long because I’ll talk more about it in the structure (yeah, I know I keep saying that, but I seriously am!). All you have to know is John was a Jew, so John knew how to communicate to Jews. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of Christians at this point in time were Jews, so it would make sense that John is trying to connect to a majority of Christians. This will be helpful to remember when critics will claim that John is being anti-Semitic in calling out the Jews as the enemies of Jesus. Why would a Jew who is writing to Jews call Jews evil? Another thing I will note is that I believe a careful inspection of Old Testament prophecies will reveal that the Messiah, or the Christ, was to be divine in nature. So proving Jesus is the Christ is also proving Jesus is the Son of God.

And then there’s the word “believe.” In that verse alone, 2 forms of the root word “believe” appears twice: “believe” and “believing.” If we were to count up all the times the noun “belief” and the verb “believe” are used in the 21 chapters of John, we’d have 98 occurrences. Obviously we can see the action John is calling us to: believe. If you’re still following me so far, you’re probably wondering, “How can you call this a discipleship book and not an evangelistic book? Aren’t Christians already believing?” Well, I’m not denying that this book can be used as an evangelistic tool. In fact, by the end of this, I’ll show you how to use it as an evangelistic tool. But I don’t think it’s any more evangelistic that the other Gospel accounts. As you were thinking, I’ll repeat it again. We clearly established Christians as the audience. And you’re right, Christians do already believe. But I learned something while reading the Holman Concise Bible Commentary. According to the Holman Concise Bible Commentary, the first Greek form most commonly translated, “you may believe” can also be translated “you may continue to believe.” I do believe this would make sense in light of the historical occasion. Many Christians, although they still believe Jesus was the perfect man who died for their sins and rose again, are giving up believing on a divine Jesus being God. John clearly is presenting evidence to show that it is logical and rational to believe Jesus is God. So the Christians can continue believing Jesus is God. They don’t have to doubt. With that in mind, we can write out a purpose with all the information above in one statement.

John wrote the book of John to persuade Christians to continue believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

THE STRUCTURE is HOW John wrote the book to get his message or his purpose across. Short review: The message or the purpose John is trying to get across is that Christians need to believe that Jesus is the Son God AKA God the Son.

Let’s start with what I promised you first all the way back at the date. John is supplemental Gospel, unlike Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are synoptic Gospel. What’s the difference? The difference is in the name. The word synoptic is the adjective forms of synopsis, which is a synonym of the word summary. The Gospel books of Matthew, Mark and Luke simply summarize the stories of Jesus, which are picked and chosen based on how they will answer the purpose of the Gospel book. Through these summaries, the author assumes the reader will be able to pick up the message the author is trying to convey. John’s Gospel is not like this. John’s Gospel is a supplemental Gospel. You might know the word supplemental if you have ever had a book with supplemental pages in it. You might know that the supplemental pages give extra information or extra detail to the book. Well, that’s exactly what John is trying to do. Remember when we talked about the date and the audience, I told you John assumes that the reader has already read the other Gospel accounts and is well acquainted with the stories, especially the popular ones, like Jesus feeding the 5,000 or Jesus calming the storm. So first, John will leave at many stories that the synoptic Gospels have in them. For example, John leaves out many important stories, such as the birth, baptism, temptation, and transfiguration of Jesus. Another good example is John only has 7 miracles, and from the other gospel accounts (and John 20:30!), we know Jesus performed more than 7 miracles (it also could be noted that none of these 7 miracles are casting out demons). Second, John will use the space he made omitting stories to put in new stories. In fact, 85% of John is unique and cannot be found in any other Gospel narrative. Third, in both new stories and old stories, John will give more details. For example, John will not only tell us about the Feeding of 5,000, but will tell you what resulted after the feeding of the 5,000. Another good example is the Lord’s Supper. Each synoptic Gospel author will only have 1 chapter on that Maundy Thursday, and it mostly talks about the Passover meal. John will spend 5 chapters in the Upper Room where the Last Supper is taking place, making sure to carefully record every word of Christ’s last instructions before He dies.

Speaking of detail, you’ll find John, writing a supplemental gospel, will be more keen on details. He will give names that previously weren’t given. From John, we learn the man whose ear got cut off by Peter was named Malchus. On that note, it will seem that John will “pick on people” by zeroing them out in certain stories. For example, where the synoptic gospels all the disciples doubted the resurrected Jesus, John’s Gospel will point out Thomas as the doubter. Another good example is when the woman poured perfume on the feet of Jesus. The synoptic gospels that tell this story will say all the disciples will indignant about this move. Yet John only records Judas Iscariot complaining about it. This is no reason to say the Gospel accounts contradict one another. For the first example, all the disciples did doubt Jesus rose from the dead, but one by one, each disciple came to faith, and Thomas was the last one to do so. For the second example, all the disciples were indignant about the woman pouring the perfume on the feet of Jesus, but they kept their thoughts to themselves or they grumbled to one another quietly; only Judas Iscariot had to guts to speak what was on everyone’s mind. If anything, John is using a good story writing device: character development. By pinning certain action to certain people, instead of a group of people, we can see if the disciple is static or if he dynamically changes, and if he does change, does he change for the better or for the worse? And it’s not all bad. For example, in the feeding of the 5,000, Andrew is credited for finding the boy with 2 fishes and 5 loaves. And the ultimate example is when John calls himself the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” Once again, this is not to show John lifting himself above the other disciples. It is merely tells us that Jesus had an inner circle of 3 disciples, and of those 3, John might have been the closest. And once again, it’s all for the purpose of character development. Reading John, we can see the relationship John had with Jesus. And if it really is John trying to lift himself above the other disciples, it’s John’s humanity in writing the Scriptures

Another note to make on the structure goes back to the audience whom John wrote his book to. Remember John wrote to Christians. Being Christian does not hold you to a certain race, nationality or ethnic group. Actually, the Christian audience is made up of people of all kinds of tribes and nations. But if I had to pick the top 3, I would say it’s probably the Jews, the Romans and the Greeks (and yes, in that order). That list of 3 should sound familiar. Oh yeah! It’s the 3 audiences the other 3 Gospels are written to. Matthew is written to Jews, Mark is written to Romans, and Luke is written to Greeks. Each of those Gospel authors knew their audience and knew how to structure their book to appease to each audience. Matthew used Old Testament Scriptures for the Jews. Mark used miracles to appease to the Romans. Luke used parables to attract the Greeks. John is well aware Christians from all 3 of these groups are reading his book. So he uses similar pieces for his Gospel. For the Jews, John uses Old Testament Scriptures. For the Romans, John remembers to include 7 miracles. When it comes to the Greeks, John does not use parables as Luke does (in fact, there are no parables in John), but uses long discourses and lectures of logic and reasoning, which would also attract the Greek thinkers. John’s Gospel appeals to Jewish Christians, Roman Christians and Greek Christians, and all of them get the message that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.

One last note on the structure. When John narrates his book, he’s not doing it from the third person, as the synoptic Gospel writers will. John will do it from his perspective. Thus, John will include his own commentary in the narration of the book. Besides the books of 1 & 2 Chronicles, this is the only God-inspired commentary we have.

Let me close by showing you how to use this Gospel book as an evangelistic tool, just as I promised, but I’m showing it to not just for the sake of showing you, but to outline how my devotional commentary will go. Here’s what you do to evangelize to someone the gospel using the book of John. First, give the person a copy of the book of John. Next, have the person read through the book of John. Then, have the person answer these 3 questions…

1. Who does Jesus claim He is?
2. Who does those pro-Jesus, or for Jesus, claim Jesus is?
3. Who does those anti-Jesus, or against Jesus, claim Jesus is?

Now as you can guess, based on what we talked about the purpose, the answer is “The Son of God.” But truthfully, there are only a couple explicit instances of where this happens. So what you would need to do is give a hint. For a hint, give them two verses from the Bible. No, not John 3:16 and John 20:31. That’s not a hint; that’s giving away the answer. Instead, give them Exodus 3:13-14.

Exodus 3:13-14-
13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

Now you’re probably thinking to yourself, “Why are we giving them a couple verses from Exodus? They’re not even from the same testament!” Note what God says his name is: “I AM.” In the book of John, Jesus makes 7 I AM statements. And when Jesus makes those 7 I AM statements, the Jewish audience is immediately thinking about this Exodus passage and is making the connection. Every time Jesus says “I am,” He is making the claim He is God. I hope you will join me in finding all these claims.

New Year’s Resolution…A Real One

I was never one for New Year’s Resolutions. I always joke, “My New Year’s Resolution is to not make any resolutions this year.” If I did, it was more like a goal for Bible Quizzing. But this year, with little to no involvement in quizzing, I thought I would make a real New Year’s Resolution. And there might be another reason.

During my lunch breaks at work, when I got too tired of studying Greek over and over, I would read a book. I was reading The Naked Anabaptist, but I for a short time misplaced the book, so I moved onto Dr. Foster’s famous book The Celebration of Disciplines, a book on spiritual disciplines. I was amazed on how spiritually disciplined Dr. Foster was. He was so disciplined, some people would probably claim it’s impossible, without seeing him practice them in action. But that’s not what I reflected on the most. I merely reflected on the general subject of “spiritual discipline,” or even more on the phrase “spiritual discipline.”

See, I had no problem with the spritual part. I was being spiritual. I read my Bible. I prayed. I went to church. But it was the discipled part that I was struggling with. I prayed when it was convenient. I read my Bible in the spare time of my spare time, when I had nothing else to do. I went to church only if I was naturally up Sunday morning and had nothing to do in the early afternoon. Nothing was regular, and when nothing was regular, it seemed to be as if my faith was on the side. Well, I can’t say I was pleased with myself. Actually, the opposite was true. I was unhappy and miserable with myself. While the irregular Bible study, prayer and church fellowship might be fine for a spiritually newborn Christian, it’s not okay for someone who has been a Christian for some time, and especially not okay for someone who has been through 4 years of Bible college. It was like a professional portrait artist settling on drawing stick people. That’s just not right. And something had to be done. That’s where my New Year’s Resolution will come into the picture.

But first, some of this lack of spiritual discipline just couldn’t wait until 2012. It was the church part. This came especially crucial with meeting with my small group less and less. I need that Christian fellowship, some people to meet with and worship with, some people to talk about the Lord, as well as listening. So I made it my priority that the week I moved out to Dover, the next Sunday I would start going to church out here as well. And so far, so good. I’ve been faithfully attending Stony Brook Mennonite Church. I’m still not as involved as I would like to be, and maybe that could be my New Year’s Resolution when it comes to Church Fellowship. But it seems like the congregation has embraced me there at least. I think for my New Year’s Resolution when it comes to church, I’m going to start going to Sunday School.

Now that we got the communal discipline out of there, now onto the more inward disciplines. The first one was the Bible reading. My eyes became open to this one when I realized that I was once again behind on quizzing questions, as I was last year. I had 9 months to finish one chapter, or 51 verses, worth of questions, and I only got half way there. But I realized what might have been my problem was relativeness. The last time I full did a chapter worth of questions (actually it was 2 chapters) is when I got to be the quiz coach for Conestoga. Since I used my questions for my quizzers, I strived to get them done for them. But last year, only doing timekeeping and not having a team of my own, there was no urge to write the quizzing questions. And this year, with not even having a role in the staff, there’s no rush to complete this set. But when I was at work, to keep my mind from not being bored to death doing menial tasks, I would think about the theological implications of what little I was reading in the Bible. And I would have good thoughts. So when I had a little spare time back at my apartment, I would type of these ideas on a Word documents, and I kind of liked it. You might have seen one. I called it “Mark: A Story About A Suffering Servant.” I hope you liked it as much as I did. It motivated me to read my Bible more, and study my Bible more.

So I’ve decided for part of my New Year’s Resolution is to follow along with quizzing in John, and write a devotional commentary on it. Now I have to be smart and reasonable with this goal. Halfway through January I’m going to begin taking 2 Grad courses, so I can’t overwhelm myself. So for January, I will write a devotional commentary, 1 chapter, 1 week. When I hit February and March, I’m going to switch to a couple chapters per week, but still with the same amount of reading and studying. That will get me to April. We’ll see how effective it is, and how on task I can stay, and we’ll go from there.

But I know I don’t want to go to a reading schedules. Whether it has been Read the Bible in a Year, Half a Year, 3 months, whatever, never a fan of it. Why? Well, if a reading schedule could speak, this would the conversation you’d be having with it…

Reading schedule: “Today, please read John 1.”
You: “Ok, got it.”
*You read John 1*
Reading schedule: “You read John 1 today?”
You: “Yes, but I really didn’t get it. Nothing made sense”
Reading schedule: “Tough luck, we got to stick to the schedule. Move on to John 2 tomorrow.”

See, I never thought that made any sense. What’s the point of reading it if you’re not going to understand it or get anything out of it, or even vaguely remember it? Then it’s no more than a chore, or a good luck charm (“If I read the Bible, I’ll get blessed!”). The call to read and study the Bible is to serve as a mirror where we can reflect on ourselves. And if that reflection takes a while, so be it. I remember once spending one week on one verse alone! I did not get it at first, and I had to read it over and over, as well as just step back and reflect on it. And once I did that for a week, I got it and I came out a better man. I want my Bible study to be one that makes a better man, for not only my sake, but the sake of the people around me.

The other spiritual discipline I want to work on is prayer. I don’t know why I let this one go. My God desires to meet with me and talk with me. It is such a privilege that a holy God would want to meet with a sinner like me! Why would I give it up? So My New Year’s Resolution is as simple as this: I will pray at least once a day. And just in general, I will pray more. Once again, I don’t want to be held down by a schedule and I want to allow room to be spontaneous. So maybe prayer will come twice a day, or three times, or more! But it will definitely happen at least once.

So here’s the official list of 2012 New Year’s Resolution, with what I mentioned above, as well some other things I would like to have:

2012 New Year’s Resolution

1. Read a couple chapters of the Bible once a day
2. Write a devotional commentary once a week from January to March
3. Pray at least once a day, but allow room to be spontaneous for more
4. Continue to go to church weekly, and eventually add Sunday School to it.
5. Talk more openly to my girlfriend
6. have more fun in life!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7. Complete hard vocals on all Rock Band games
8. Learn to play a real guitar. Really
9. take voice lessons so i can seranade my girlfriend 🙂 (she wrote that one)
10. Keep my 4.0 GPA strong in grad school.