Category Archives: Gospel of John

It is told that Napoleon and a friend were talking of life as they walked along. It was dark; they walked to a window after they’d entered a room and looked out. There in the sky were distant stars, little more than pin-points of light.

Napoleon, who had sharp eyes while his friend was dim-sighted, pointed to the sky: “Do you see these stars?” he asked. “No,” his friend answered. “I can’t see them.” “That,” said Napoleon, “is the difference between you and me.

The man who is earthbound is living half a life. It is the man with vision, who looks at the horizon and sees the stars, who is truly alive.

As we continue our study of this marvelous sixth chapter of John, we see a group of people earthbound…with no vision of what lay before them.

The purpose of the sign was that Jesus might preach the sermon.  In grace, our Lord fed the hungry people; but in truth, He gave them the Word of God.

This is truly a unique sermon. The crowd asked several questions, some of which Jesus never answers directly. They moved from pseudo-sincerity to open hostility.

By the end of this sermon, Jesus accomplished a couple of things that most preachers try desperately to avoid. He confused his unbelieving audience and alienated all but his closest comrades. On a more positive note, he (a) moved from earth to heaven, (b) made a clarion call for commitment, and (c) came closer to a clear declaration of his identity than he did in his previous two years of ministry.

This section is a powerful teaching of Jesus. The first section deals with the multitudes (vs. 22-40) while the second deals with the Jews (vs. 41-59). The third section (vs. 60-71) contains an interview with the disciples and shows the effect of Jesus’ swords on the inner circle of His own followers.

Jesus tells us to work not “for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life…”(6:27a).

WE SEE FOUR RESPONSES BY THE PEOPLE

1. SEEKING (vs. 22-40).

“The next day the crowd that had stayed on the opposite shore of the lake realized that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. {23} Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. {24} Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus. {25} When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”

This multitude was determined to find Him and carry out their original plan to make Him king. Further, they did not wish to lose a “meal ticket.” The Jews, except for the rich, spent every waking moment toiling for the barest necessities–many were starving.

   “Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. {27} Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

  Jesus pointed out that there are two kinds of food: food for the body, which is necessary but not the most important; and food for the inner man, the spirit, which is essential! Food only gives sustains life, but Jesus gives eternal life.

  “Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” {29} Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

When Jesus spoke about the works of God, the Jews immediately thought in terms of “good” works.  It was their conviction that a man by living a good life could earn the favour of God.  They held that men could be divided into three classes-those who were good, those who were bad and those who were in between, who, by doing one more good work, could be transferred to the category of the good.  So when the Jews asked Jesus about the work of God they expected him to lay down lists of things to do.  But that is not what Jesus says at all.

“So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? {31} Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'” {32} Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. {33} For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

“Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.” {35} Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. {36} But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. {37} All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. {38} For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. {39} And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. {40} For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

2. MURMURING (vs. 41-51).

“At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” {42} They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” {43} “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. {44} “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. {45} It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. {46} No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. {47} I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. {48} I am the bread of life. {49} Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. {50} But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. {51} I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

This passage shows the reasons why the Jews rejected Jesus, and in rejecting him, rejected eternal life.

(i)  They judged things by human values and by external standards.  Their reaction in face of the claim of Jesus was to produce the fact that he was a carpenter’s son and that they had seen him grow up in Nazareth.  They were unable to understand how one who was a tradesman and who came from a poor home could possibly be a special messenger from God.

We must have a care that we never neglect a message from God because we despise or do not care for the messenger. 

(ii)  The Jews argued with each other.  They were so taken up with their private arguments that it never struck them to refer the decision to God.  They were exceedingly eager to let everyone know what they thought about the matter; but not in the least anxious to know what God thought. 

(iii)  The Jews listened, but they did not learn.  There are different kinds of listening.  There is the listening of criticism; there is the listening of resentment; there is the listening of superiority; there is the listening of indifference; there is the listening of the man who listens only because for the moment he cannot get the chance to speak.  The only listening that is worth while is that which hears and learns; and that is the only way to listen to God.

(iv)  The Jews resisted the drawing of God.  Only those accept Jesus whom God draws to him.  The word which John uses for to draw is helkuein.  The word used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew when Jeremiah hears God say as the Authorized Version has it:  “With loving-kindness have I drawn thee” (Jeremiah 31:3).  The interesting thing about the word is that it almost always implies some kind of resistance.  It is the word for drawing a heavily laden net to the shore (John 21:6, 11).  It is used of Paul and Silas being dragged before the magistrates in Philippi (Acts 16:19).  It is the word for drawing a sword from the belt or from its scabbard (John 18:10).  Always there is this idea of resistance.  God can draw men, but man’s resistance can defeat God’s pull.

Grumbling is offensive to God because it demonstrates a lack of trust. We justify it by saying, “I’m not grumbling against God but against the preacher/teacher/elder.” But as these passages show, God’s people have never grumbled against God per se, but against God’s spokesman. Nevertheless, God took it personally. If we reject God’s established authority in our lives we have rejected God, himself.

3. STRIVING (vs. 52-59).

“Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” {53} Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. {54} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. {55} For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. {56} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. {57} Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. {58} This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” {59} He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.”

During the early years of the Christian faith, the charge of cannibalism was often brought against Christians. Outsiders were often shocked by the language of Christians, particularly when they heard them repeating Jesus’ words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood! What had He meant by such an extreme statement?

Obviously, this is a figure of speech. He is talking about accepting him at the deepest levels. He is speaking of participation and incorporation of his character, purposes, and nature.

The Trans-substantiationists use these verses to support their doctrine of the actual presence of the flesh and the blood of Christ in the Loaf and in the cup. They contend that one must literally partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus, and they, therefore, sacrifice the body of Jesus anew each week at the Mass. 

The Sacramentalists teach that the Christian, by absenting himself from the Lord’s Supper, cuts himself off from any contact with the saving blood of Jesus Christ.

4. DEPARTING (vs. 60-71)

“On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” {61} Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? {62} What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!”

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. {64} Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. {65} He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

“From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. {67} “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. {68} Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. {69} We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” {70} Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” {71} (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)”

The Greek of verse 66 is much more explicit than the English translation. First, “From this time”  suggests not merely this time but this event. As a result of this sermon many of his disciples abandon ship. They go back home, back to work, back to their old habits, old ways of thinking, etc. For many, this is an abdication of the movement. They not only give up following Jesus, they give up what he represents and teaches. They are not fit for the kingdom (Lk 9:62).

This is perhaps the most “unsuccessful” sermon ever preached. Jesus started with thousands and finishes with a handful. Yet it is a significant turning point in Jesus’ ministry. While he moves closer to a self-revelation, he also shifts from a public ministry to thousands to a more private training of the Twelve. Jesus frames his question in v. 67 so as to expect a negative answer. This is not an invitation for them to leave, but a helpful reminder of why they have chosen to stay.

Characteristically, Peter answers for the group. “The emphatic use of the first person plural pronoun implies a contrast between the Twelve and those who had deserted Jesus” (Tenney, p. 80). And what an answer! Peter probably doesn’t understand the full significance of this sermon, but he gets the main point: Life comes through incorporating Jesus’ words.

(i)  There was defection.  Some turned back and walked with him no more.  They drifted away for various reasons.

(ii)  There was deterioration.  It is in Judas above all that we see this.  Jesus must have seen in him a man whom he could use for his purposes.  But Judas, who might have become the hero, became the villain; he who might have become a saint became a name of shame.

There is a terrible story about an artist who was painting the Last Supper.  It was a great picture and it took him many years.  As model for the face of Christ he used a young man with a face of transcendent loveliness and purity.  Bit by bit the picture was filled in and one after another the disciples were painted.  The day came when he needed a model for Judas whose face he had left to the last.  He went out and searched in the lowest haunts of the city and in the dens of vice.  At last he found a man with a face so depraved and vicious as matched his requirement.  When the sittings were at an end the man said to the artist:  “You painted me before.”  “Surely not,” said the artist.  “O yes,” said the man, “I sat for your Christ.”  The years had brought terrible deterioration.

(iii)  There was determination.  This is John’s version of Peter’s great confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27; Matthew 16:13; Luke 9:18).  It was just such a situation as this that called out the loyalty of Peter’s heart.  To him the simple fact was that there was just no one else to go to.  Jesus alone had the words of life.

Peter’s loyalty was based on a personal relationship to Jesus Christ.  There were many things he did not understand; he was just as bewildered and puzzled as anyone else.  But there was something about Jesus for which he would willingly die.  In the last analysis Christianity is not a philosophy which we accept, nor a theory to which we give allegiance.  It is a personal response to Jesus Christ.  It is the allegiance and the love which a man gives because his heart will not allow him to do anything else.

Francis Schaeffer believed that what Peter said in this passage is the key to bringing people to faith in God. When Schaeffer would talk with nonbelievers about God, he would force them to look at the alternatives to faith. He would ask if they were ready to live in a world with no absolute right or wrong, no hope, and no basis for human dignity.

He was convinced that human beings cannot live with such meaninglessness. Schaeffer would lead people to the brink of despair in order to bring them back to Peter’s realization: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.”

The preaching of the Word of God always leads to a sifting of the hearts of the listeners. God draws sinners to the Savior through the power of truth, His Word. Those who reject the Word reject the Savior and reject God.

Jesus was “crossing the Rubicon”!

As I approach our text, I am reminded of a story circulating among the outdoor types, which goes something like this. In the mountains of the Northwest, a man was sitting beside a campfire while he roasted some kind of bird over the fire with eager anticipation. About this time, a forest ranger came upon the camp and asked the camper what he was preparing for dinner. The camper replied that it was a seagull. A frown came over the ranger’s face as he informed this fellow that it was against the law to kill that particular bird, and that he would have to give him a citation.

The camper responded by telling the ranger how he had lost his way and had consumed all of his food. In desperation, he had managed to kill this seagull to maintain his strength. After listening sympathetically, the forest ranger told the fellow he would let him go this time with just a warning, and the camper thanked the ranger profusely. Just as the ranger was about to leave, he asked the camper, “Just out of curiosity, what does seagull taste like?” Thinking for a moment, the camper responded, “Well, I would place it somewhere between a spotted owl and a bald eagle.”

Needless to say, this camper’s words got him into even more trouble. He would have been better off not to say anything at all.

Some may think our Lord’s words in our text are something like this camper’s statement. At the outset, Jesus is deemed guilty of breaking the Sabbath, and of instructing the healed paralytic to do likewise. But after our Lord defends His actions to the Jewish authorities,[1] He is considered guilty of an even greater offense—claiming to be equal with God.

Our text is our Lord’s response to the accusations made against Him. Some may be tempted to think it is less than spectacular, for no debate is actually recorded, and there is no interchange between our Lord and the Jewish authorities. Only our Lord’s words are recorded.[2] Our text contains a three-fold use of the (King James) expression, “Verily, verily, I say unto you …” (verses 19, 24, 25).[3] Surely this tells us that the words spoken here are vitally important, both to be heard and to be heeded.

Listen to what others have said about our text:

“Nowhere else in the Gospels do we find our Lord making such a formal, systematic, orderly, regular statement of His own unity with the Father, His divine commission and authority, and the proofs of His Messiahship, as we find in this discourse” (Ryle).[4]

Ryle adds: ‘To me it seems one of the deepest things in the Bible.’ Similarly Phillips in his translation inserts a sub-heading ‘Jesus makes His tremendous claim.’[5]

It is, as Barclay says, ‘an act of the most extraordinary and unique courage … He must have known that to speak like this was to court death. It is His claim to be King; and He knew well that the man who listened to words like this had only two alternatives—the listener must either accept Jesus as the Son of God, or he must hate Him as a blasphemer and seek to destroy Him. There is hardly any passage where Jesus appeals for men’s love and defies men’s hatred as He does here.’[6]

Our Lord’s words are a bold stroke. If Jesus wishes to avoid trouble with the Jews, this is the time for Him to deny, to “clarify,” or to minimize, His previous claim to be equal with God. Instead, He makes His claim even more emphatically.

This is one of the great texts in the Gospel of John and in the entire New Testament. The truths set down here are the very foundation of the gospel and of our faith.

By 49 B.C., Julius Caesar had become the most powerful man in Rome. For two years he had been away from the city, fighting warring tribes and demonstrating his tremendous skills as a general and an administrator. Much to the dismay of his political opponents, his time in Gaul had only made Caesar more powerful back in Rome.

When Caesar was ordered home by the Roman Senate, he became aware that his enemies were trying to destroy him. To return home he would have to cross the Rubicon River and leave his loyal army behind. For years that river had served as an absolute boundary, beyond which a general could not bring his army.

Because his enemies would be allowed to keep their armies, Caesar knew that to enter Rome alone would be walking into a death sentence. Consequently, he made the bold decision to bring his army across the Rubicon and with him to Rome!

When word arrived in the city that Caesar had “crossed the Rubicon,” everyone knew that civil war had begun. He was acting in defiance of the Roman Senate, and his enemies quickly fled the city. Within two months, Julius Caesar had crushed all opposition and had all of Italy under his power.

Because of this story, “crossing the Rubicon” is an expression used even today to describe a decision that cannot be revoked or a decisive action that cannot be changed. We must not skip this section in our haste to find another narrative section, because something of critical importance was happening here: Jesus was “crossing the Rubicon”!

  Preceding Christ’s remarkable of verses 17-18 was the miraculous healing of a man who had been sick for 38 years! But the Jews’ reactions scandalized His merciful act because it took place on the Sabbath. In His response, Jesus claims equality with the Father and incurs a whirlwind of religious wrath!

This is the first of the long discourses of this gospel. When we read passages like this we must remember that John is not seeking so much to give us the words that Jesus spoke as the things which Jesus meant. He was writing around 100 A.D., so he had some 70 years to think about Jesus and the wonderful things which Jesus said.

1. He claimed to be Equal with God. (5:19-21)

Throughout the passage, Jesus never refers to God generically as our Father. It is always MY Father or the Father. Instead of denying their accusation, He endorsed it!  If today a man made this kind of a claim, we would conclude that he was joking or mentally disturbed. Jesus was certainly not insane, and neither was He a liar!

* Jesus claimed to be one with His Father in His works— (“I’m the giver of life” vs. 19-20).

“Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. {20} For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these.”

Here we come to the first of the long discourses of the Fourth Gospel.  When we read passages like this we must remember that John is not seeking so much to give us the words that Jesus spoke as the things which Jesus meant.  He was writing somewhere round about a.d. 100.  For seventy years he had thought about Jesus and the wonderful things which Jesus had said. 

* Jesus claimed to be equal with the Father in executing judgment—(“I am the final judge” vs. 21, 26).

“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.  {26} For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.”

To orthodox Jew, Jehovah God was “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25); and no one dared to apply that august title to himself. But Jesus did! By claiming to be the Judge, He claimed to be God.

Most people mistakenly believe that God the Father is the final judge of mankind. But this verse, along with several others, indicates that Jesus will be the judge:

Acts 10:42: “He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.”

2 Corinthians 5:11: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

 * Jesus claimed to be equal to the Father in honor—(vs. 22-23).

 “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, {23} that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him…. {27} And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.”

He claimed that there are valid witnesses who support His claim to Deity (5:30-47).

Jesus calls six witnesses to testify on His behalf.  We might seek to put these verses in a courtroom scene…Jesus, in essence, is on trial…but really it’s the hearers who are on trial!

The word “witness” is a key word in John’s gospel; it is used 47 times. Jesus did bear witness to Himself but He knew they would not accept it; so He called in other witnesses.

WITNESS #1: HIS WITNESS CONCERNING HIMSELF (vs. 30-31).

“By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. {31} “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.”

WITNESS #2: THE WITNESS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST (vs. 32-35).

“There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid. {33} “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. {34} Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. {35} John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.”

WITNESS #3: THE WITNESS OF HIS WORK (S) (vs. 36).

“I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me.”

Remember Nicodemus in John 3:2? “He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Remember the brothers of our Lord in John 7:3? “Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do.”

Remember the Jewish leaders in Acts 4:16 when describing the apostles? “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it.”

Jesus had used His works to convince the disciples of John the Baptist, who had been put in prison. Matthew 11:1-6: “After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee. {2} When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples {3} to ask him, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” {4} Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: {5} The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. {6} Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.”

WITNESS #4: THE WITNESS OF THE FATHER (vs. 37-38).

“And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, {38} nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.”

Verse 37 is a connecting verse between Jesus’ miracles (vs. 36) and the scriptures (vs. 38-39). The direct testimony of the Father is referred to here, and it’s unsure if Jesus was talking about the three voices from heaven:

– at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22)

– at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:5-6; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35)

– after the triumphal entry (John 12:28)

The gospel of John does not even give two of them!…and verse 37 says that “you have never heard his voice nor seen his form.”

WITNESS #5: THE WITNESS OF THE SCRIPTURES (vs. 39-44).

“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, {40} yet you refuse to come to me to have life. {41} “I do not accept praise from men, {42} but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. {43} I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. {44} How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God ?”

At least 18 unmistakable references to the Old Testament are found in John. There is little doubt that Christ was coming and that He had now come.

The practice of the Jews at that time was to study each word minutely, and to build absurd mystical and allegorical interpretations around those word studies. As a result, they rejected the Messiah, because their minds were made up as to what the Messiah must be before they read the Scriptures

   They were BIBLIOTRISTS (Bible worshippers)! They worshipped the words of the Bible, but not the Christ of the Bible.

WITNESS #6: THE WITNESS OF MOSES (vs. 45-47).

“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. {46} If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. {47} But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?””

* There are two more witnesses which we have, which were not available for the Jews.

– the Holy Spirit (15:26) dwelling within each Christian

– the witness of individual apostles (15:27), who would be ready to speak on His behalf only after being empowered by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8)

Certainly, today, we are without excuse!

[1] In the Greek text, John simply refers to these folks as “the Jews.” From the context, we would infer they are the “Jewish religious authorities.”

[2] This is not at all to suggest that the Jews said nothing. It is to say that John did not find their words profitable for us, and thus included only our Lord’s words.

[3] In the NET Bible this expression is rendered, “I tell you the solemn truth.”

[4] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 311.

[5] Morris, p. 311, fn. 52.

[6] Morris, p. 311, fn. 53.

The first period in the life of Jesus recorded in this gospel contained His claims. He Himself presented some of them through an explicit avowal of Messiahship, some were implicit in the titles ascribed to Him by His friends, and still others were latent in the miracles that He performed.

He claimed nothing less for Himself than Deity. He demanded nothing less from His followers than obedient faith.

Between chapters 4 and 5:1, the following incidents occurred in Jesus’ life:

1. Returned to Nazareth, taught in the synagogue, and was rejected (Luke 4).
2. Called four fishermen the second time, and healed many (Matt. 4; Mark 1; Luke 5).
3. Made the Galilean tour among crowds (Matt. 9).
4. Healed a leper (Matt. 8).
5. Healed a paralytic (Matt. 9).
6. Called Matthew (Matt. 9).
7. Ran into controversies about eating and fasting (Matt. 9; Mark 2; Luke 5).

Because of His claims, He met opposition. Chapters 6 and 7 will show the development of this opposition in debate and controversy before it broke into deadly conflict.

The subject matter in this Period of Controversy was centered around two events: the healing of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda and the feeding of 5,000 men in Galilee.

These two differ in character, in scope, in locality, and in response:

– One was negative, for it removed the handicap of a long standing disease. The other was positive, for it provided nourishment for the healthy crowd.

– One pertained to one individual, the other to 5,000 men.

– One took place in Galilee, the other in Jerusalem.

– One evoked the enmity of the Jews; the other brought acclamation of the multitude.

BOTH PRODUCED CONTROVERSY!

* THE NEED (5:1-5)

“Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. {2} Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. {3} Here a great number of disabled people used to lie–the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. [and they waited for the moving of the waters. {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.]  {5} One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years

There were three Jewish feasts which were feasts of obligation– Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Every adult male Jew who lived within 15 miles of Jerusalem was legally bound to attend them.

It’s most likely that this feast was Pentecost, since the events of John 6 occur when the Passover was near.  The Passover was in mid- April, and Pentecost was seven weeks later.

Make this special note: Verses 3b and 4 are not found in the latest translations of the original Greek…they aren’t even found in most translations except as a footnote. They were added in the later centuries to explain why the sick were gathered, and listed the superstitious feelings of the people.

Beneath the pool was a subterranean stream which every now and again bubbled up and disturbed the waters. The belief  was that the disturbance was caused by an angel, and that the first person to get into the pool after the troubling of the water would be healed from any illness from which he was suffering.

For 38 years, this pathetic man has lain here in the poverty, the repulsion, and the despair. To us this is mere superstition.  But it was the kind of belief which was spread all over the world in ancient days and which still exists in certain places.

Suddenly, the waters of the pool begin to boil, or bubble, or froth in some way, and pandemonium breaks out. Only one person will be healed per “stirring”—the first one into the pool. Every ailing person there at the pool is in competition with the rest of the multitude who are also hoping for a healing. If and when the waters are actually troubled, no one dares to tell anyone else, for fear they might reach the pool first. Can you imagine the pushing, shoving, and tripping that takes place as every ailing person desperately strives to be the first into the water?

What a pathetic sight, to see cripples crawling, hopping, rolling, clawing their way to the water’s edge. What chaos there would be! And then, even if one person was healed, it would not be the most needy person, because the one with the smallest ailment would be the most likely one to reach the pool first. The most needy person would be the least likely to get into the water first. Therefore, the least needy would probably be the one cured, while all the rest struggle to get out of the pool, get back to their “stations,” and await their next chance. What a very pathetic scene.

In this story we see very clearly the conditions under which the power of Jesus operated.  He gave his orders to men and, in proportion as they tried to obey, power came to them.

(i)  Jesus began by asking the man if he wanted to be cured.  It was not so foolish a question as it may sound.  The man had waited for thirty-eight years and it might well have been that hope had died and left behind a passive and dull despair.  In his heart of heart the man might be well content to remain an invalid for, if he was cured, he would have to shoulder all the burden of making a living.  There are invalids for whom invalidism is not unpleasant, because someone else does all the working and all the worrying.  But this man’s response was immediate.  He wanted to be healed, though he did not see how he ever could be since he had no one to help him.

The first essential towards receiving the power of Jesus is to have intense desire for it.  Jesus says:  “Do you really want to be changed?”  If in our inmost hearts we are well content to stay as we are, there can be no change for us.

(ii)  Jesus went on to tell the man to get up.  It is as if he said to him:  “Man, bend your will to it and you and I will do this thing together!”  The power of God never dispenses with the effort of man.  Nothing is truer than that we must realize our own helplessness; but in a very real sense it is true that miracles happen when our will and God’s power co-operate to make them possible.

(iii)  In effect Jesus was commanding the man to attempt the impossible.  “Get up!”  he said.  His bed would simply be a light stretcher-like frame-the Greek is krabbatos, a colloquial word which really means a pallet-and Jesus told him to pick it up and carry it away.  The man might well have said with a kind of injured resentment that for thirty-eight years his bed had been carrying him and there was not much sense in telling him to carry it.  But he made the effort along with Christ-and the thing was done.

(iv)  Here is the road to achievement.  There are so many things in this world which defeat us.  When we have intensity of desire and determination to make the effort, hopeless though it may seem, the power of Christ gets its opportunity, and with him we can conquer what for long has conquered us.

* THE MIRACLE (5:6-9a)

“When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?” {7} “Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.” {8} Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” {9} At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.”

Not only would this man’s plight be seemingly hopeless, but the man himself seemed resigned to his fate and had accepted the inevitable. Verse 7 is a further explanation of their superstition: the people believed the angels stirred the water, and the first one in would be healed.

Just think: 38 years of misery, shame, embarrassment and despair; in a split second, it was all history!

No matter how long we have been struggling with some particular sin or situation from our past, Jesus can change it! The real question is: do you wish to get well?

* THE CONFRONTATION (5:9b-17)

“The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, {10} and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.”

Undoubtedly, the witnesses around the pool were bustling with excitement. But the miracle leaves the legalists bristling with anger. When they should have been on their knees in praise, the only thing these Pharisees can do is pull out their principle-book and quote condemnation, chapter and verse.

The law said simply that the Sabbath Day must be different from other days and that on it neither a man nor his servants nor his animals must work; the Jews set out 39 different classifications of work, one of which was that it consisted in carrying a burden.

The Rabbis of Jesus’s day solemnly argued that a man was sinning if:

– he carried a needle in his robe

– if he wore artificial teeth or his wooden leg

– if a woman wore a broach

The authorities levelled their accusations against Jesus.  The verbs in verse 18 are imperfect tense, which describes repeated action in past time.  Clearly this story is only a sample of what Jesus habitually did.

His defense was shattering.  God did not stop working on the Sabbath day and neither did he.  Any scholarly Jew would grasp its full force.

Jesus said:  “Even on the Sabbath God’s love and mercy and compassion act; and so do mine.”  It was this last passage which shattered the Jews, for it meant nothing less than that the work of Jesus and the work of God were the same.  It seemed that Jesus was putting himself on an equality with God.  What Jesus really was saying we shall see in our next section; but at the moment we must note this-Jesus teaches that human need must always be helped; that there is no greater task than to relieve someone’s pain and distress and that the Christian’s compassion must be like God’s-unceasing.  Other work may be laid aside but the work of compassion never.

“But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.'” {12} So they asked him, “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?” {13} The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there. {14} Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” {15} The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. {16} So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. {17} Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.”

The Pharisees took this occasion (vs. 16) as one excuse to persecute Him. They disliked Jesus when here the first time (2:18) and were suspicious of His popularity (4:1).

Now they have cause for an open breach. They would watch His conduct on the Sabbath from now on (Mark 2:23; 3:2, 6). Of course, the penalty for blasphemy was death. It is here that the “official persecution” of Jesus began!

* THE REACTION (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.”

The reply of Jesus to these accusations contained not only a new ethical concept of the Sabbath, but also a new theology. Jesus indicated that He made the Father His pattern, and that He felt that the Father’s work constituted sufficient precedent and reason for Him. They understood what He meant, because they sought to kill Him.

Essentially, the indictments of the legalists were two fold:

1. Jesus broke the Sabbath (vs. 16, 18)
2. Jesus claimed equality with God by claiming Him as His Father (vs. 17-18).

Ironically, the Pharisees were the guilty ones: they judged Jesus, refused to rejoice or give praise at the healing, and even went so far as to plot Christ’s assassination.

These Jewish leaders are seen for who they are. They suppose that they love God and their fellow man, in obedience to the law of Moses. They think themselves pious, and expect to be the first to enter the kingdom of God. Indeed, they expect a prominent leadership role in that kingdom. And yet when Jesus comes to town and heals a paralytic, their only concern is that the healed man is “walking illegally” (with his mat). They hardly seem to notice or care that the man is “walking”—the paralytic has been healed! And then, because Jesus has performed such a miracle, they begin to persecute the Son of God. When Jesus points out that this is exactly who He is, they redouble their efforts to kill Him. The wickedness of man never ceases to amaze us.

The second thing this incident in John’s Gospel does is to provide the occasion for Jesus to state very clearly (and very early in this Gospel) just who He is.

The most important question you will ever answer is this: “Who is Jesus Christ?” John gives us the answer, clearly. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who speaks and acts for God, and as God. Jesus Christ is the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” He is the only One through whom your sins can be forgiven, the only way to heaven (John 14:6). Do you believe this?

   #Thou shalt.”

   “Thou shalt not.”

   “Thou shalt.”

   “Thou shalt not.”

   “Shalt.”

   “Shalt not.”

   “SHALT!” “SHALT NOT!”

Sounds like angry children arguing on the playground, doesn’t it? But what you’re hearing is the insistent bickering of adult Christians entrenched in legalism.

* LEGALISM: LET’S UNDERSTAND IT.

When we lift the veil on legalism, we find hypocrisy instead of holiness.

What is it? Legalism is conforming to a code of behavior for the purpose of exalting self. Legalists make lists of “dos” and “don’t” based not on Scripture but on tradition or personal preference. Then they judge themselves and others on their performance. In a nutshell, it’s a “checklist Christianity.”

How does it appear? It slips into a congregation unnoticed and usually preys especially on young, naive believers. Paul describes legalists in Galatians 2:4: “<This matter arose> because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.”

Why is it wrong? First and foremost, legalism is unbiblical. Grace and freedom are the hallmarks of the Christian life, not law and bondage. Second, it promotes the flesh, which cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). Third, it is based on pride, a prime example of which is the parable of the Pharisee and the tax gatherer in Luke 18:9-14.

When did it start? Legalism is an ancient art, begun by the Pharisees and implemented by subsequent generations of apprentices who have been narrow, rigid, and often intolerably religious.

Legalists have refused to accept the doctrine of grace. Instead, they have sought to supplement grace with their own works or ideas.

I was made aware of a book which records some very strange laws still on the books in our country. Some of these “whacky laws” are listed below:

• “In Pennsylvania, the penalty for cursing is a forty-cent fine. However, if God is mentioned in the curse, the fine is sixty-seven cents.”
• “It is illegal to mispronounce the name of the city of Joliet, Illinois.”
• “In San Francisco, you are not permitted to carry a basket suspended from a pole.”
• “It is unlawful for goldfish to ride on a Seattle, Washington, bus unless they lie still.”
• “Michigan law once required taking a census of bees every winter.”
• “In Natchez, Mississippi, it is against the law for elephants to drink beer.”
• “An old Hollywood, California, ordinance forbids driving more than two thousand sheep down Hollywood Boulevard at one time.”
• “In Muncie, Indiana, you cannot bring fishing tackle into a cemetery.”
• “The California penal code prohibits the shooting of any animal, except a whale, from an automobile.”
• “In Kansas City, Missouri, children are prohibited by law from buying cap pistols. However, the law does not restrict them from buying shotguns.”
• “A Minnesota law requires that men’s and women’s underwear not be hung on the same clothesline at the same time.”
• “In Joliet, Illinois, women are not allowed to try on more than six dresses in one store.”[1]

I mention these “whacky laws” of our own land because I am about to point out some of the “whacky Jewish laws” of Jesus’ day. We are inclined to look at these laws and laugh, amazed at how ridiculous they seem. Before getting too carried away with our laughter, let me say this. Every one of these apparently ridiculous laws made sense to the lawmakers at the time they became law. These “whacky laws” did not come about in a vacuum; they were a legislative attempt to prevent or solve a real problem of some kind. Lest we think lawmakers wish to spend all their time making up silly laws, let me suggest that they must do so because of “whacky” folks like you and me.

As parents, we should be able to understand how this happens. We would love to be able to give our children a very general principle or guideline, and trust them to follow it. For example, we wish we could say to our child, “Just be home at a reasonable hour.” The trouble is that they do not agree with us about what “reasonable” means, and so we have to give an exact time.

Our child says, “Mom, can I go down the street and play with Charlie?” We say, “No, I don’t want you to play with Charlie at his house.” So our child goes down the street and plays with Charlie out in the yard (to keep our rules), or he plays with Charlie’s brother in his house. We therefore learn to make our rules more and more specific, lest our child fail to behave as we intended. The more specific we make these rules, the sillier they appear to others.

I am not defending Pharisaism or the legalism of the Jews of Jesus’ day. Many of their rules would be very difficult to defend. Nevertheless, I must also say that most of the regulations I am about to call to your attention were probably necessitated by people who were unwilling to abide by principles; thus, religious leaders were forced to become more and more specific, to the point of unbelievable gnat-straining. Here are some of the regulations of the Jews in our Lord’s time:

Some of the detailed regulations are passing wonderful. For example, ‘(On the Sabbath) a man may borrow of his fellow jars of wine or jars of oil, provided that he does not say to him, ‘Lend me them’ (Shab. 23:1). This would imply a transaction, and a transaction might involve writing, and writing was forbidden. Or again, ‘If a man put out the lamp (on the night of the Sabbath) from fear of the gentiles or of thieves or of an evil spirit, or to suffer one that was sick to sleep, he is not culpable; (but if he did it with a mind) to spare the lamp or to spare the oil or to spare the wick, he is culpable’ (Shab. 2:5). The attitude to healing on the sabbath is illustrated by a curious provision that a man may not put vinegar on his teeth to alleviate toothache. But he may take vinegar with his food in the ordinary course of affairs, and the Rabbis philosophically concluded, ‘if he is healed he is healed’ (Shab. 14:4)![2]

The Mishna says: ‘He that reapeth corn on the Sabbath to the quantity of a fig is guilty; and plucking corn is reaping.’ Rubbing the grain out was threshing. Even to walk on the grass on the Sabbath was forbidden because it was a species of threshing. Another Talmudic passage says: ‘In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered sifting; if she rubs the head of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing’ [Jer. Shabt, page 10a]. The scrupulosity of these Jews about the Sabbath was ridiculously extreme. A Jewish sailor caught in a storm after sunset on Friday refused to touch the helm though threatened with death. Thousands had suffered themselves to be butchered in the streets of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes rather than lift a weapon in self-defense on the Sabbath! To these purists, the act of the disciples was a gross desecration of the Sabbath law. The worst of all was that Jesus permitted and approved it.[3]

In the above citations, J. W. Shepard is referring to the Sabbath laws of Jesus’ day, but we would be incorrect to suppose things have improved with time. A friend loaned me a book by Rav Yehoshua Y. Neuwirth entitled, Shemirath Shabbath: A Guide to the Practical Observance of Shabbath.[4] This volume (my friend reminds me that it is the first volume) goes into great detail concerning the interpretation and application of the Sabbath for contemporary Judaism. In the preface to this work the author writes, “The Mishna (Chagiga: Chapter 1, Mishna 8) likens the laws of Shabbath to ‘mountains hanging by a hair,’ in that a multitude of precepts and rules, entailing the most severe penalties for their breach, depend on the slightest of indications given by a biblical verse.”[5]

He also reminds us of the importance which Judaism has placed, and continues to place, on the keeping of the Sabbath:

May we be privileged, by virtue of the proper observance of the Shabbath, to see the final redemption of Israel. Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, “Were Israel properly to observe two Shabbathoth, they would immediately be redeemed” (Shabbath 118b). Until such time, God’s only dwelling-place on this earth is within the four walls of the Halacha (Berachoth 8a).[6]

The book contains many instructions about the keeping of the Sabbath, but I will mention only a few:

Cooking in most all forms (boiling, roasting, baking, frying, etc.) is forbidden on the Sabbath, in particular when the temperature is raised above 45 degrees centigrade (113 Fahrenheit).[7]

If the hot water tap is accidentally left on, it cannot be turned off on the Sabbath.[8]

Escaping gas can be turned off, but not in the normal way. One must turn off the tap of a gas burner with the back of the hand or the elbow.[9]

The preparation of food is greatly affected by the Sabbath. One cannot squeeze a lemon into a glass of ice tea, but one can squeeze lemon on a piece of fish.[10]

That one cannot light a fire on the Sabbath is taught in the Old Testament law (cf. Exod. 35:3). Strict Judaism views this to prohibit turning electric lights on or off on the Sabbath. The problem can be solved, however, by using a timer, which automatically handles this task.[11]

So, too, an air conditioner cannot be turned on by a Jew on the Sabbath, although a Gentile might be persuaded to do so.[12]

One cannot bathe with a bar of soap on the Sabbath, but liquid detergent is acceptable.[13]

I find the section dealing with “discovered articles” (pp. 233-235) most interesting. One is prohibited from transporting goods on the Sabbath. This would prevent merchants from conducting business on the Sabbath. It has been so highly refined that now one cannot carry something which he unknowingly took with him. If one is walking along on the Sabbath and discovers that he is carrying something in his pocket, he has several courses of action so as not to violate the Sabbath.

He may, for example, drop the item out of his pocket, but not in the normal or usual fashion (by grasping it, removing it from the pocket, and dropping it on the floor). He can, however, reverse his pocket, expelling the object unnaturally, and thus legitimately. If the item is valuable, and he does not wish to leave it on the ground, he can ask a Gentile to watch the item for him.

Otherwise, the item could be carried, but not in the usual way. He can carry it for a prescribed distance (just under four amoth), put it down, then take it up, and so on. Or, the man could relay it between himself and a fellow-Israelite, each one carrying the object for no more than the prescribed distance. If this is not advisable, the object can be carried in an unusual way, such as placing it in the shoe, tying it to his leg, or managing to suspend it between his clothing and his body.

Morris adds this regulation regarding work on the Sabbath: Mishnah, Shab. 7:2 lists thirty-nine classes of work forbidden on a sabbath, the last being ‘taking out aught from one domain into another.’ An interesting regulation provides that if a man took out ‘a living man on a couch he is not culpable by reason of the couch, since the couch is secondary’ (Shab. 10:5). This clearly implies that the carrying of the ‘couch’ by itself is culpable.[14]

This information is not supplied to amuse you, but to prepare you for the issues that arise in our study of John chapter 5, as well as later on in John’s Gospel. A decisive change takes place here. Until now, signs and miracles may not have convinced all, but they definitely were instrumental in drawing some to faith. When Jesus turned the water into wine, a few realized what had happened, but only the disciples of our Lord are said to have “believed” (John 2:11).

When our Lord went to Jerusalem and cleansed the temple (John 2:12-22), He also performed a number of signs, which caused a number to “believe in His name” (2:23-25). Nicodemus was at least impressed by the signs Jesus performed (3:2). The Samaritans did not require a sign, but many believed in Jesus when they heard His words (4:4ff.). The royal official who came to Jesus was forced to believe the word which Jesus spoke to him, and the miracle that resulted was instrumental in his coming to faith, along with his whole house (4:43-54).

What is the main issue with legalism? It leaves us uncertain about our relationship with God! We never quite know ‘how we stand’ with our Redeemer, Lord, and Savior!

And any system that diminishes the work of grace on our behalf is wrong! It is just wrong!

——————————————

[1] Barbara Seuling, More Whacky Laws (New York: Scholastic Inc., 1975).

[2] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 305, fn. 25.

[3] J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939), p. 161.

[4] Rav Yehoshua Y. Neuwirth, Shemirath Shabbath: A Guide to the Practical Observance of Shabbath, English edition, prepared by W. Grangewood (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1984).

[5] Ibid, p. xxx.

[6] Ibid, p. xxxii.

[7] Ibid, p. 1.

[8] Ibid, p. 17.

[9] Ibid, p. 11.

[10] This is my understanding of the view expressed on pages 66-67.

[11] Ibid, pp. 141-142.

[12] Ibid, p. 146.

[13] Ibid, p. 154.

[14] Morris, p. 306, fn. 28.

“The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, {2} although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. {3} When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.

This chapter is filled with many “nuggets” of information about our Lord:

 – we see the humanity of Jesus (“tired”)

 – we see the Deity of Jesus

 – we see the universality of the gospel

 – we see spontaneous evangelism

 – we see true worship defined

Beginning with His cleansing of the temple at Jerusalem (John 2:13-22), including a considerable public ministry in the environs of Jerusalem and ending with the Lord’s departure into Galilee, a period of approximately 8-9 months have transpired.

Jesus made the move from Judea to Galilee. He is likely avoiding an imminent confrontation with the Pharisees. Jesus’ popularity is swelling (John 3:26). The crowds are growing, even more than they had for John. This irritated the competitive, jealous spirits of the Pharisees (cf. Mt 27:18).

Meanwhile, Jesus is practicing immersion. This is obviously not Christian baptism since Jesus has neither died nor risen again (cf. Rom 6:1-6). It is simply the continuation of John’s baptism for remission of sins (Mk 1:4) as the entrance into the kingdom (Jn 3:5). But for now, it marks those who are willing to become like children (Lk 18:16-17) and be born again (Jn 3:5).

In a typical parenthetical comment (cf. Jn 3:24; 4:8,9b), we learn that Jesus delegates the baptismal act to his disciples (Jn 4:2).

It was not yet time for our Lord to take on the Pharisees. That time would come soon enough. To let the situation cool a bit, Jesus left Judea and returned north to Galilee, no doubt relieving the fears of the Pharisees. They must have felt that Jesus could cause them little trouble there.

{4} Now he had to go through Samaria. {5} So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. {6} Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.”

The name Samaritans originally was identified with the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 17:29). When the Assyrians conquered Israel and exiled 27,290 Israelites, a “remnant of Israel” remained in the land. Assyrian captives from distant places also settled there (2 Kings 17:24).

This led to the intermarriage of some though not all, Jews with Gentiles and to widespread worship of foreign gods. By the time the Jews returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem, Ezra and Nehemiah refused to let the Samaritans share in the experience (Ezra 4:1-3; Neh. 4:7). The old antagonism between Israel to the north and Judah to the south intensified the quarrel.

The Jewish inhabitants of Samaria identified Mount Gerizim as the chosen place of God and the only center of worship, calling it the “navel of the earth” because of a tradition that Adam sacrificed there. Their scriptures were limited to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible.

      The Samaritans professed to believe in the God of Israel and awaited the coming of Messiah (see John 4:25). They accepted only the first five books of the Law, but rejected the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures. Wherever they found it necessary to justify their religion and their place of worship, they modified the Law. The relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans was definitely strained.

Notice Jesus’s tact and persistence—and her growth.

– He began on the ground of her kindness…she saw Jesus as a Jew (vs. 7-9).

“When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” {8} (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) {9} The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)”

Three things about this woman seem to put her at a distinct disadvantage. First, she is a Samaritan. Second, she is guilty of sexual immorality, and third, she is a woman. We have already commented about the way the Jews felt toward the Samaritans.

The Pharisees had a very simple system for being holy—they simply kept their (physical) distance from sinners. They thought sin was contagious, and that one could catch it by merely being close to sinners.

The “woman at the well” is a woman whose sins are apparent, but she has not sinned alone. In those days, husbands divorced their wives, but wives did not divorce their husbands. If this woman was married and divorced five times, then five men divorced her.

“A woman could not divorce her husband in Jewish law. But under certain circumstances she could approach the court which would, if it thought fit, compel the husband to divorce her (see for example, Mishnah, Ket. 7:9, 10). Or she might pay him or render services to induce him to divorce her (Git. 7:5, 6). In theory there was no limit to the number of marriages that might be contracted after valid divorces, but the Rabbis regarded two, or at the most three marriages as the maximum for a woman (SBk, II, p. 437).” Morris, p. 264, fn. 43.

This woman was “put away” five times. Think of how she must feel about herself. And the man she is now living with is not her husband. She isn’t even married this time, but just living with (or sleeping with) a man, perhaps another woman’s husband. This woman has been passed around by some of the male population of Sychar. Jesus’ words not only call the woman’s attention to her sins; they call our attention to the sins of the men of that city.

The Rabbinic precept ran:  “Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no, not with his own wife.”  The Rabbis so despised women and so thought them incapable of receiving any real teaching that they said:  “Better that the words of the law should be burned than deliver to women.” 

They had a saying:  “Each time that a man prolongs converse with a woman he causes evil to himself, and desists from the law, and in the end inherits Gehinnom.” 

One of their sayings ran: ‘A man shall not be alone with a woman in an inn, not even with his sister or his daughter, on account of what men may think. A man shall not talk with a woman in the street, not even with his own wife, and especially not with another woman, on account of what men may say.’” Morris, p. 274, citing SBk, II, p. 438.

Here is Jesus taking the barriers down. The disciples seem to embrace this view. They cannot fathom why Jesus would be “wasting His time” talking to a woman.

There were several different kinds of Pharisees. One of the groups was called the “bruised and bleeding” Pharisees because they closed their eyes when they saw a woman approaching and would then walk into walls, houses, etc., and hurting themselves. They were bruised and bleeding because they were always running into things to avoid seeing a woman in public!

– Jesus took no offense..and appealed to her curiosity (vs. 10-12).

“Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” {11} “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? {12} Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?”

Like all good personal workers, Jesus refused to get involved with needless discussion. She was doing what many people do when truth comes into the picture…she was using “scripture (her beliefs, etc.) to avoid truth.” Her reference in verses 11-12 showed that the wall was broken down and she was ready for serious conversation.

 The Samaritans claimed descent from Jacob through Joseph and the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

– Jesus appealed to her desire for physical satisfaction…she saw Jesus as greater than Jacob (vs. 13-15)

“Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, {14} but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” {15} The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

She did not realize Jesus was speaking of spiritual things. To her, His promise was a gratification of common human laziness. She made the mistake great crowds made later in John 6:26: she sought Jesus for the physical good she could get from Him, not the signs.

– Jesus appealed to her ambition (vs. 16).

“He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”

If she wanted badly enough what He had to offer, she would be willing to exert herself to obtain it. It would require a walk of a mile in the hot sun with only the word of a stranger to make it worthwhile. But the command had a double edge for it cut sharply at her heart: she must disclose some of her personal life. Her reply: “I’m not ready for that, least of all an investigation by a Jew.”

Why would Jesus now ask her to go call her husband? Is Jesus calling her to submit to her husband’s spiritual leadership? Is he calling her to repent of her sinfulness? Is he allowing the reader to understand his love for the sinful? Is he seizing the opportunity to demonstrate his omniscience?

It is not so surprising that she has had five husbands. Divorce was especially common among the Romans of the day who generally kept a wife at home and a mistress for social events. Even the Jews, following the liberal teachings of Hillel, divorced their wives with alarming regularity. Hillel even permitted divorce “if she burnt his dinner while cooking.” The Samaritan ethic of marriage was likely somewhere in between that of the Romans and that of the Jews.

– Jesus appealed to her moral sense…she recognized him as a prophet (vs. 17-20).

“I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. {18} The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” {19} “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. {20} Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

Jesus turned her life inside out before her very eyes! It shocked her and put her on the defensive. It’s been accurately observed that “like many others whose moral position is challenged, she took refuge in arguing impersonally about religion. She used “religion” to avoid truth!”

Jesus, by His power to search her heart and reveal her past sins, has revealed her sin and made her desirous of righteousness and also manifested, to some extent, His omniscient and divine nature, and thus provided the way to righteousness.

Her response in verse 20 had to do with a long-standing fight between the Jews and the Samaritans. This was a “hot-button” for her people.

According to the Jews, Jerusalem was the only God-ordained place of worship (Deut 12:5-11; 1 Kgs 9:3; 2 Chr 3:1). According to the Samaritans it was Gerizim. The Samaritans taught that Adam was created from the dust of Mount Gerizim, that the flood never covered it, that the ark came to rest there, and that Jacob wrestled with the angel there. They also felt that Abraham offered Isaac on Gerizim.

Because he was a Jew, she assumed that Jesus would “fight” that Mount Moriah in Jerusalem was the acceptable place; she sought to involve him in this age-long controversy.

Jesus skillfully dealt with both the controversial issue and the deeper personal need concealed behind it ( was a sensitive issue, and He spoke only the truth).

  – Jesus appealed to her religious sense…she recognized him as the Christ (vs. 21-25).

  “Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. {22} You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. {23} Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. {24} God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” {25} The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

Jesus begins with a tremendous statement: “Salvation is from the Jews.” He made no concession to her position, and He was blunt. But He also very quickly made the matter not of time or space, but of the heart.

God is spirit, and not confined to things or places. And here reply showed a measure of sincerity in her heart. They revealed both hope and ignorance.

Both Jews and Samaritans erred in thinking that worship was a specific deed done with the body at a certain locale rather than a heart bent on knowing and loving God. Jesus now introduces a new relationship with God (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:8-12), where the Spirit of God and the spirit of man commingle (1 Cor 2:10-14; 6:19).

“God is Spirit.”  Theology flows from the lips of Jesus in simple chunks that children can get a hold of but that theologians cannot fathom. Such is this little nugget of truth. It answers so many questions about the nature of God and yet leads us to just as many more.

She doesn’t know how to respond to Jesus. He has her pinned. So she just blows it off saying, “Well, the Messiah will make it all clear to us.” So Jesus said: “Lady, I am the Messiah.” It would be another two years before Jesus is this clear again about his identity (Mt 16:16-18). He knows the Samaritans are not going to force him to be a political Messiah (cf. Jn 6:15). Furthermore, since he is only going to be there for two days he is able to be a bit more forward. The Samaritans did, indeed, have a high Messianic expectation (Acts 8:9; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18. 85), as is evidenced by their response.

 – Jesus appealed to her faith (vs. 26).

“Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”

Hearing His words created faith in her heart.

Jesus wasted no words: He revealed Himself more openly to her than He had even to Nicodemus. In this one instance Jesus had overcome the woman’s indifference, materialism, selfishness, moral turpitude, and religious prejudice, ignorance, and indefiniteness.

   “Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?” {28} Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, {29} “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” “ They came out of the town and made their way toward him.”

These verses reveal to us the consciousness Jesus had of His mission and verse 30 implies that the people from the town were not skeptical but were looking for the Deliverer. Her leaving the water pots indicated her excitement and plans to come back.

 Note the lessons, or steps here:

– The experience to face herself and see herself as she really was. It was similar to Peter when he caught the many fish in Luke 5:8: “When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”

– She staggered at Christ’s ability to see into her heart. He is like the surgeon who sees the evil and diseased, and takes it away.

‘Her first instinct? To share her discovery? “First to find, then find, then to tell” are two great steps of the Christian life.

    “Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.” {32} But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” {33} Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” {34} “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work”

   The disciples also got involved with the physical, rather than the spiritual. They couldn’t figure out why Jesus was not hungry and thirsty.

It is his great desire that we should be as he was.

(i)  To do the will of God is the only way to peace.  There can be no peace when we are at variance with the king of the universe.

(ii)  To do the will of God is the only way to happiness.  There can be no happiness when we set our human ignorance against the divine wisdom of God.

(iii)  To do the will of God is the only way to power.  When we go our own way, we have nothing to call on but our own power, and therefore collapse is inevitable.  When we go God’s way, we go in his power, and therefore victory is secure.

“Do you not say, ‘Four months more and then the harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. {36} Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. {37} Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. {38} I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.” {39} Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” {40} So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. {41} And because of his words many more became believers.”

John 4:39-42: “Many of the Samaritans from that city believed on him, because of the woman’s story, for she testified:  “He told me all things that I have done.”  So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay amongst them, and he stayed there two days.  And many more believed when they heard his word, and they said to the woman:  “No longer do we believe because of your talk.  We ourselves have listened to him, and we know that this is really the Saviour of the World.”

God cannot deliver his message to those who have never heard it unless there is someone to deliver it.

      A song: “He has no hands but our hands To do his work today: He has no feet but our feet To lead men in his way: He has no voice but our voice To tell men how he died: He has no help but our help To lead them to his side.”

It is our precious privilege and our terrible responsibility to bring men to Christ.  The introduction cannot be made unless there is a man to make it.

We often wonder how we can begin a conversation on spiritual things when we find someone ‘who thinks of spiritual things.’ We have the beginning point: “Look what he has done for me and to me.” 

 

Getting between God and the worshiper a good reason for anger

The text of this study, John 2:12-22, allows us to watch Jesus in another setting. This time it is at a place which is larger, more intimidating, and more impersonal than the wedding scene in Cana. This passage takes us to the temple in Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish faith and the place where Jesus would later be sentenced to crucifixion.

Watching and listening to Jesus in this hostile setting allows us to see yet another side of the one who claimed to be the Son of  God. What we see in this text will allow us all to know Jesus better than we did before.

The focus of this incident is on the temple and its corruption as much as it is on Jesus and His person.

“After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.”

The “temple” of our text is the temple in Jerusalem. It was not the first temple, built by Solomon (see 1 Kings 6-7), nor the second temple, rebuilt by the Jews returning from their Babylonian captivity (Ezra 6:15). It was the third temple, known as “Herod’s Temple.”

In His early infancy, Jesus had been taken to the temple in Jerusalem for His purification, and there both Simeon and Anna worshipped Him as the promised Messiah (Luke 2:21-38). When our Lord was 12 years of age, He accompanied His parents to Jerusalem, where He absolutely amazed them and others.

Our Lord’s parents certainly found Jesus a model child, a young man whom they could trust. They felt no need to check on Him, and as they were traveling in a caravan, they didn’t even miss Him on their return from Jerusalem. Eventually, they realized He was not with them and made their way back to Jerusalem, where they found Him in the temple.

There He was, sitting in the midst of the Old Testament scholars, not only asking intelligent questions, but giving answers to their questions The scholars were amazed, and most certainly so were our Lord’s parents.

Nevertheless, Jesus caused them considerable inconvenience by not telling them He was staying behind. His absence caused them to leave the caravan of worshippers and return to Jerusalem, a day’s journey away. There was certainly a hint of frustration in their rebuke when they scolded Him for staying behind, but Jesus was not taken aback. He was surprised they had to look for Him. Did they not know where He would be? Did they think it was wrong for Him to be there? He was in His Father’s house, doing “His Father’s business” (verse 49).

It was not He who was wrong, but they, for not seeing this situation for what it was. Even at the age of 12, our Lord had a good grasp of who He was and what He was sent to do. The “temple” Jesus visited in Luke 2 was the kind of place it should have been, a place to worship God and to study His Word. The “temple” Jesus finds nearly 20 years later seems to have greatly changed, and thus the need for its cleansing.

One may wonder about John’s reasons for including this verse. John is not a man to waste time or space. His words are carefully selected (John 20:30-31; 21:25). Why then does he include them? One reason is that we know Capernaum will become our Lord’s headquarters for His ministry. His family appears to have relocated there.

It is where the centurion (and others—see John 6:24) come to find Jesus, to plead with Him to heal his servant (Matthew 8:5-13). Capernaum is deemed worthy of greater condemnation, because the people of this city have seen more of our Lord and His miracles (Matthew 11:23; see Luke 4:23). Another reason is that this seems to have been our Lord’s final stay with His family. His “family” is about to change (see Mark 3:31-35).

John wants us to see these events as closely following one upon the other. He is maintaining a rather precise account of the timing of the crucial events at the outset of our Lord’s ministry. John therefore describes the first few days of our Lord’s public ministry in chapter 1 and the first 11 verses of chapter 2. Then, he tells us that after the wedding, Jesus, His disciples, and His family make their way down to Capernaum.

There were at least three reasons why Jesus acted as he did, and why anger was in his heart.

(i)  He acted as he did because God’s house was being desecrated.  In the Temple there was worship without reverence.  Reverence is an instinctive thing.

Worship without reverence can be a terrible thing.  It may be worship which is formalized and pushed through anyhow; the most dignified prayers on earth can be read like a passage from an auctioneer’s catalogue.  It may be worship which does not realize the holiness of God.

It may be worship in which leader or congregation are completely unprepared.  It may be the use of the house of God for purposes and in a way where reverence and the true function of God’s house are forgotten.  In that court of God’s house at Jerusalem there would be arguments about prices, disputes about coins that were worn and thin, the clatter of the market place.  That particular form of irreverence may not be common now, but there are other ways of offering an irreverent worship to God.

(ii)  Jesus acted as he did in order to show that the whole paraphernalia of animal sacrifice was completely irrelevant.  For centuries the prophets had been saying exactly that.

“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?  says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. . . .  Bring no more vain offerings” (Isaiah 1:11-17). 

“For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Jeremiah 7:22). 

“With their flocks and herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they will not find him” (Hosea 5:6). 

“They love sacrifice; they sacrifice flesh and eat it; but the Lord has no delight in them” (Hosea 8:13). 

There was a chorus of prophetic voices telling men of the sheer irrelevancy of the burnt offerings and the animal sacrifices which smoked continuously upon the altar at Jerusalem.  Jesus acted as he did to show that no sacrifice of any animal can ever put a man right with God.

We are not totally free from this very tendency today.  True, we will not offer animal sacrifice to God.  But we can identify his service with the installation of stained glass windows, the lavishing of money on stone and lime and carved wood, while real worship is far away.

It is not that these things are to be condemned-far from it.  They are often-thank God-the lovely offerings of the loving heart.  When they are aids to true devotion they are God-blessed things; but when they are substitutes for true devotion they make God sick at heart.

“In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.”

The Jewish Passover celebration commemorates the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, when the death angel passed over every home where the first Passover was observed and the blood of the paschal lamb was placed on the two door posts and the lintel (see Exodus 12 and 13). The celebration of the Passover also commenced the Feast of Unleavened bread, so that the entire Passover celebration took a week.

Attendance for adult Israelite males was compulsory: Every male Jew, from the age of twelve and up, was expected to attend the Passover at Jerusalem, a feast celebrated to commemorate the deliverance of the people of Israel from Egyptian bondage. On the tenth of the month Abib or Nisan (which generally corresponds to our March, though its closing days sometimes extend into our April) a male lamb, of the first year, without blemish, was taken, and on the fourteenth day, between three and six o’clock in the afternoon, it was killed.[1]

It is very difficult to imagine the scene that our Lord’s eyes fall upon as He enters Jerusalem and approaches the temple. We know from the scene at Pentecost, described in Acts 2, that a great many people thronged to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, as they also did to the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Pentecost (or, the Feast of Weeks).

It is very difficult to estimate the influx of people to Jerusalem, not only from other parts of Israel, but from all over the world (see Acts 2:5-12). These Jews and proselytes would have to pay the half-shekel temple tax in the coinage of the temple, and thus foreign monies were unacceptable and had to be exchanged for the proper coins. These worshippers also had to offer up their sacrifices, and for many of these travelers, the only solution was to buy a sacrificial animal there in Jerusalem.

In days gone by, they would have been able to purchase these animals and exchange their money in a place outside the temple courts: “At one time the animal merchants set up their stalls across the Kidron Valley on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, but at this point they were in the temple courts, doubtless in the Court of the Gentiles (the outermost court).”[2] For some reason, the animals have now been brought into the temple courts. It is certainly more “convenient.” People can purchase their sacrificial animals right at the temple, and they can also exchange their money. It is very difficult to believe that this is the real reason this is done, however.

It is true, in the abstract, that each worshipper was allowed to bring to the temple an animal of his own selection. But let him try it! In all likelihood it would not be approved by the judges, the privileged venders who filled the money-chests of Annas! Hence, to save trouble and disappointment, animals for sacrifice were bought right here in the outer court, which was called the court of the Gentiles because they were permitted to enter it. Of course, the dealers in cattle and sheep would be tempted to charge exorbitant prices for such animals. They would exploit the worshippers. And those who sold pigeons would do likewise, charging, perhaps, $4 for a pair of doves worth a nickel (A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, New York, 1897, vol. I, p. 370). And then there were the money-changers, sitting cross-legged behind their little coin-covered tables. They gave the worshipper lawful, Jewish coin in exchange for foreign currency. It must be borne in mind that only Jewish coins were allowed to be offered in the temple, and every worshipper—women, slaves, and minors excepted—had to pay the annual temple tribute of half a shekel (cf. Ex. 30:13). The money-changers would charge a certain fee for every exchange-transaction. Here, too, there were abundant opportunities for deception and abuse. And in view of these conditions the Holy Temple, intended as a house of prayer for all people, had become a den of robbers (cf. Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11; Mark 11:17).[3]

The view represented here is one commonly accepted by students of the New Testament Gospels. Those who attempted to bring their own sacrificial animals may very well have had them “rejected” by the temple priests, and thereby were forced to purchase “approved” animals at much higher prices. The same gouging no doubt took place at the money-exchangers’ tables.

I doubt very much that our Lord later called the temple a “robbers’ den” (Mark 11:17) without having such corruption in mind. In our text, however, John does not focus on the way in which these merchandisers go about their business, but rather on where they are conducting their business—in the temple courts.

Mark’s Gospel seems to take up this theme as well, pointing out that “where” these businessmen are doing business interferes with an essential purpose of the temple. The temple was to be a “house of prayer for all nations” (Mark 11:17).

The outer courts of the temple are the only places where Gentiles could worship. They are not allowed to pass beyond a certain point (see Acts 21:27-30). If the outer courts are filled with oxen and lambs and doves, there is no place for the Gentiles to pray and to worship God.

Can you imagine trying to pray in the midst of a virtual stockyard, with all the noises of the animals and the bickering businessmen? Can you conceive of trying to squeeze in between cattle who are tied up in the courts? Think of what it would be like to have to watch where you walked, lest you step in something undesirable?[4] It appears that Gentile worship is functionally prohibited, and I doubt this troubled many of the Jews, who are not all that excited about including the Gentiles in their worship in the first place.

What Jesus sees going on in the temple courts troubles Him a great deal! The place of prayer has become a place of profit-taking. It sounds more like the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange than the outer courts of the temple of God. It smells more like a barnyard than the place where one would seek God’s presence.[5] Jesus enters the outer court of the temple, fashioning a whip from materials at hand (probably from the cords used to tie up the animals). He then drives them all out of the temple area. By the word “all,” I understand Him to have driven out not only the animals, but also those who are selling them as well. The coins of the moneychangers are poured out and scattered on the ground and their tables overturned. To those selling the doves, Jesus says, “Take these things away from here! Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!”[6]

Several things catch my attention in these two verses. The first is that this Messianic Psalm speaks of the alienation of the Messiah from his “mother’s children.” Could this be part of the reason for John’s mention of the brief family gathering in Capernaum (John 2:12)? Our Lord’s mother is not mentioned again until the cross, and the reference to our Lord’s “brothers” in John 7:3-5 reveals their skepticism about Jesus and His ministry. Has Jesus already begun to feel alienated from His own brothers?

In addition, you will notice that in Psalm 69:9 David writes in the past tense: “Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up.” There are some differences in the Greek texts of John, so that the KJV and the NKJV employ the past tense: “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.” As a rule, the other versions render it in the future tense, following what appear to be the best Greek texts.[7] I like the way the New English Bible renders it best:

“Zeal for thy house shall destroy me.”

When Jesus walked into the temple, He saw what was going on differently than everyone else there.

“So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. {16} To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”

Jesus revealed His zeal for God first of all by cleaning the temple. The tragedy, of course, is that the business being conducted was in the court of Gentiles, the place where the Jews should have been meeting the Gentiles and telling them about the true God. Any Gentile searching for truth would not likely find it among the religious leaders in the temple.

Jesus had come to assert the claims of God upon His own nation, and He felt keenly the spiritual indifference which had turned worship into a means of profit!  His act presupposed authority as the representative of God. His resurrection would be the chief proof of His ministry!

Jesus was careful not to destroy anyone’s property (He did not release the doves, for instance); but He made it clear that He was in command.

How is it that Jesus got away with this when he is so totally outnumbered? There may be several explanations:

• Even in his incarnate state, Jesus’ purity and passion were divine. That, in itself, is intimidating.
• The money changers are hirelings. They run in the face of danger. Besides, some of them likely have a deep sense of guilt about what they are doing—they know it is not right.
• The people must have been cheering as Jesus turned over tables and spilled change all over the floor. It was a popular move and in his angry zeal the people would no doubt support him.
• There is a Roman garrison watching the proceedings of the feast from the Tower of Antonia. Jesus has already captured their attention. The last thing the Sadducees want to do is to fan it into flame. They could lose their positions and possibly even their lives. These are perilous times. People are looking for a savior and are willing to fight if they find one.

The temple (church) can be abused by…

• forgetting what worship is all about and putting something between the worshipper and God.
• misusing the facilities and buildings of God’s house.
• ignoring God’s holiness and forgetting one’s duty to reverence God.
• allowing questionable, non-worshipful activities.

He says to them “Stop making my Father’s house a house of commerce.” John weaves into the narrative his own commentary in v. 17. The disciples remember Psalm 69:9a, “Zeal for thy house will consume me.”

That is an interesting quotation for several reasons.

First, Psalm 69 is Messianic (cf. v. 21). This is part of their very early understanding of Jesus.

Second, the word “consume” is literally “eaten up.” This verse does not merely mean to suggest that Jesus had a driving passion for the temple. In its original context it is a cry of pain and desperation. Like David, Jesus’ passion for God is going to get him into trouble.

Third, the verb tense of this word “consume” has been changed from the past in the LXX to the future here in John.

Historically, as David wrote Psalm 69, he had already experienced suffering because of his zeal for God. Jesus, however, was looking for it in the future. Even now, he was challenging the authority of both the High Priest and the Procurator, both of whom claimed control of the central bank of the temple.

The condition of the temple was a vivid indication of the spiritual condition of the nation. Their religion was a dull routine, presided over by worldly minded men whose main desire was to exercise authority and get rich.

This was the beginning of a struggle that continued for three years. The rulers hardly let it rest for a moment from this time forth!

When Matthew, Mark, and Luke related the story of the cleansing of the temple, they indicated that Jesus objected to the way the merchants had made the temple a “robbers’ den,” indicating that Jesus was angry about dishonest business.

John, however, indicated that Jesus was objecting to the presence of any business in the temple. The temple was designed as a house of prayer, a place where people from all nations could come and worship God.

What Jesus saw looked more like an emporium or a marketplace than a spiritual retreat. He must have been impressive, even frightening, as He took control of the situation and ran the merchants and the animals out of the temple.

Anger as a way of life is condemned by both Jesus and Paul; but Jesus, on occasion, did become angry–and was able to do so without sinning.”

   What is the difference between these two types of anger? One apparently is anger that springs from human pettiness, insecurity, or frustration. Godly anger, on the other hand, is anger that arises when people are being hurt or kept from God by the actions of others.

Jesus saw that the transactions in the temple were keeping people away from God, and that could not be tolerated!

Periodically, we all need to be reminded to leave business outside our church assemblies so that everyone can worship unhindered.

In our lives, the major application of Jesus’ behavior in the temple comes from asking ourselves, “Do we get angry over the situations that would anger Jesus'”

The temptation is for us to become angry over matters that do not anger Jesus and then to be calm over problems such as the one that led Jesus to cleanse the temple. Jesus’ anger was appropriate, positive, and focused. It was always an outgrowth of His love, leading Him to act in the interest of others.

The temple is not to be used as a commercial center. It is not to be a place for buying and selling, marketing and retailing, stealing and cheating. It is not to be profaned. The temple is the House of God, God’s House of worship. It is to be a place of sanctity, refined and purified by God Himself. It is to be a place of quietness and meditation, a place set aside for worship, not for buying and selling where man gets gain.

“His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” {18} Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” {19} Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” {20} The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” {21} But the temple he had spoken of was his body. {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.”

Jesus does not give them a sign. He does not even refer to any of the signs He seems to have already performed in Jerusalem (see 2:23; 3:2). He is not about to jump through their hoops. He does not even try to convince them who He is. Instead, He speaks to them of the “ultimate sign,” His death and resurrection: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again” (verse 19). Typically, the Jews can think only in the most literal terms (see Nicodemus in chapter 3). They assume Jesus is referring to Herod’s temple, a temple which has been under construction for “forty-six years.” Does Jesus think He can build a temple in three days that has already been under construction for forty-six years and is not yet complete?

John tells his readers what we already know. Jesus is not speaking of that earthly temple; He knows that it, too, will soon be destroyed (Mark 13:1-2). But He is speaking of Himself as the temple of God, and of His coming crucifixion. He is not trying to persuade these Jews to believe in Him, but rather to prophesy that they will not believe, and that they will put Him to death on Calvary. His triumph will be evident in three days, when He will be “raised up” from the dead.[8]

Jesus doesn’t want to play their game. The only sign Jesus offers is the resurrection. They misunderstand him because they take his words literally (cf. Jn 3:3-4; 4:14-15; 4:32-33; 6:51-52; 7:34-35; 8:51-52; 11:11-12; 14:4-5). They can’t see how Jesus could rebuild an edifice in three days that it took construction crews forty-six years to build.

This will come up again at Jesus’ trial (Mt 26:61; Mk 14:58) as well as at Stephen’s (Acts 6:14), when they are charged with threatening to destroy the temple. And yet it would appear that the Pharisees understood what Jesus intended when they put guards at the tomb (Mt 27:62-66).

When He cleared the temple, Jesus declared ‘war’ on the hypocritical religious leaders (Matt. 23), and this ultimately led to His death.

Conclusion

The cleansing of the temple does not permanently eliminate the abuses described in our text. We know that conditions in the temple were the same at the time of the second cleansing (described in the Synoptic Gospels) as they were in the first cleansing (as described by John).

The temple is being abused, and Jesus rightly responds to such abuse. Even the hard-hearted Jewish religious leaders realize that more is going on here than this. They understand that Jesus is making a claim. He is claiming to have the authority to correct evils performed in the temple.

God has the right to possess what is His. Here, Jesus claims the right to possess the temple because it is His. This incident may seem very distant and detached from us today. We live in a place very distant from Jerusalem, where no temple (like Herod’s temple, which was destroyed) exists. How can this event possibly relate to us? It does, my friend; it really does.

Finally, let me say a word about Jesus and judgment. Many like to think of Jesus as a “God of love,” who never criticizes, never judges, never condemns, whose calling is to affirm everyone and to make them happy. I must remind you that the way our Lord chose to publicly reveal Himself to the world was not by the turning of water into wine, or by raising the dead or healing the sick; Jesus revealed Himself to Israel as her Messiah by His cleansing of the temple.

I would remind you that while John the Baptist foretold the coming of one who was the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” he likewise urged men and women to repent, because the Messiah was coming to judge the world. The Jesus of the Bible, the “real Jesus,” is the One who is merciful and gracious to those who trust and obey and the One who will judge those who resist and reject Him.

[1] Hendriksen, p. 121. Hendriksen then goes on to detail the events of the Passover meal itself.

[2] Carson, p. 178.

[3] Hendriksen, p. 122.

[4] “Now at this occasion Jesus, entering Jerusalem’s temple, notices that the court of the Gentiles had been changed into what must have resembled a stockyard. There was the stench and the filth, the bleating and the lowing of animals, destined for sacrifice.” Hendriksen, p. 122.

[5] Grocery stores very often have a bakery, and the smell of freshly baked goods beckons one to the bakery to buy something. As one came to the temple, one would smell the aroma of the sacrificial offerings, and the fragrance of the incense (Luke 1:9-11). It would surely be a pleasant aroma, but not when the temple courts were turned into a stock market.

[6] The Greek word John uses here could be transliterated “emporium.” The temple courts had been transformed into a shopping mall.

[7] “It was the failure to understand that the disciples regarded the Psalmist’s words as prophetic of Christ’s death and the assumption that they referred to the energy and fearlessness of Jesus on this occasion, that gave rise to the later and poorly attested reading followed by AV hath eaten me up in verse 17.” R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980 [tenth printing]), p. 63.

[8] In our text, it is our Lord who raises Himself from the dead: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again” (verse 19; see also John 10:18). Elsewhere, the resurrection of our Lord is viewed as the work of the Father (Acts 2:24, etc.) and of the Spirit (Romans 8:11). The resurrection, like creation, is the work of the Trinity.

“Open our eyes, Lord, we want to see Jesus, To reach out and touch Him, and say that we love Him. Open our eyes, Lord, and help us to listen. Open our eyes, Lord, we want to see Jesus.”

—————————–

The cover of an issue of U.S. News and World Report asked the question “Who was Jesus?”

Inside it reported on some academic discussions about the identity of the one we call “Lord.” Listen to some of their confusing conclusions: “In just the past two years, Jesus has been depicted variously as a magician and healer, as a religious and social revolutionary and as a radical peasant philosopher. One author has even theorized that Jesus was the leader of the Dead Sea Scrolls community in Qumran, that he survived the Crucifixion and went on to marry twice and father three children.”

Newsweek magazine ran a similar cover story, this one on “The Death of Jesus.” One of the articles focused on a group of seventy-seven liberal scholars known as the “Jesus Seminar.” These people meet twice a year to talk about their opinions regarding who Jesus was and what He actually did.

One of their most curious practices is that of voting about the authenticity of specific passages in the Gospels. Every person is given four beads; when it is time to vote, they simply drop in the appropriate beads. Red beads mean they believe Jesus certainly said or did what the text says. Pink beads indicate that they think Jesus said or did something close to what the text describes. Gray beads signify their doubt that Jesus said or did what the text relates, and black beads represent their certainty that Jesus never thought or did anything like what the text declares.

The following conclusions by the majority in the “Jesus Seminar” are shocking and, I believe, blasphemous! “This “historical” Jesus performed no miracles, but he did have a healer’s touch, a gift for alleviating emotional ills through acceptance and love. He called for an utterly egalitarian Kingdom of God—not on some day of judgment, but in the here and now. He wanted people to experience God directly, unimpeded by hierarchy of temple or state. The authorities executed him, almost casually, after he caused a disturbance in Jerusalem during Passover. Jesus lived on in the hearts of followers old and new, but he did not physically rise from the dead. Taken down from the cross, his body was probably buried in a shallow grave–and may have been eaten by dogs.’”

The identity of Jesus is a topic of discussion not only in scholarly circles today, but also in homes, at coffee shops, and on street corners all around the world!

Some hold that He was “a nice man.” Others believe that He was “an outstanding teacher.” Still others contend that He was “the wisest man who ever lived.” Most people in the world have some opinion of who Jesus of Nazareth really was.

What are we to make of this discussion? While I disagree strongly with the conclusions expressed in the above-mentioned news magazines and am deeply concerned with many popular notions about Jesus, I am fascinated by the fact that 2,000+ years after He lived on the earth, people are still asking about Jesus. The good news for us is that the Gospel of John begins with a definite answer to the question.

————————————

It was not long before the Christian church was confronted with a very basic problem.  It had begun in Judaism.  In the beginning all its members had been Jews.  By human descent Jesus was a Jew, and, to all intents and purposes, except for brief visits to the districts of Tyre and Sidon, and to the Decapolis, he was never outside Palestine. 

Christianity began amongst the Jews; and therefore inevitably it in spoke in the Jewish language and used Jewish categories of thought.

But although it was cradled in Judaism, it very soon went out into the wider world.  Within thirty years of Jesus’s death it had travelled all over Asia Minor and Greece and had arrived in Rome.  By A.D. 60 there must have been a 100,000 Greeks in the church for every Jew who was a Christian. 

Jewish ideas were completely strange to the Greeks.  One outstanding example, the Greeks had never heard of the Messiah.  The very center of Jewish expectation, the coming of the Messiah, was an idea that was quite alien to the Greeks.  The very category in which the Jewish Christians conceived and presented Jesus meant nothing to them.  Here then was the problem-how was Christianity to be presented to the Greek world?

The task of the Christian church was to create in the Greek world a predisposition to receive the Christian message.  As E. J. Goodspeed put it, the question was, “Must a Greek who was interested in Christianity be routed through Jewish Messianic ideas and through Jewish ways of thinking, or could some new approach be found which would speak out of his background to his mind and heart?”  The problem was how to present Christianity in such a way that a Greek would understand.

About the year A.D. 98 there was a man in Ephesus who was fascinated by that problem.  His name was John.  He lived in a Greek city.  He dealt with Greeks to whom Jewish ideas were strange and unintelligible and even uncouth.  How could he find a way to present Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they would welcome and understand? 

Suddenly the solution flashed upon him.  In both Greek and Jewish thought there existed the conception of the word.  Here was something which could be worked out to meet the double world of Greek Jew.  Here was something which belonged to the heritage of both races and that both could understand.

Where the Book Begins

The way John began his Gospel is significant. First, he did not “quietly slip in the back door.” He ‘put it out there at the outset.

Second, John did not begin with the easiest matters and then slowly work toward the more difficult.

Third, John did not introduce his Gospel with an area of universal agreement and then move toward more divisive topics.

Politicians are often masters of saying what people want to hear. They know their crowds and say whatever will please and excite them. Later, when faced with different crowds, they alter their messages to please their new listeners. They try to avoid, or at least delay, any mention of matters that may be controversial. John, as he began his Gospel, demonstrated that he had absolutely no political instincts!

The Gospel of John storms up the sidewalk, bangs on the front door of our hearts, and immediately confronts us with the most demanding and potentially divisive message ever heard! We should brace ourselves, for John begins with an earthshaking declaration! 

John 1:1-2 (ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²  He was in the beginning with God.

God’s glory had dwelt in the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34) and in the temple (1 Kings 8:10-11); but that glory had departed from the disobedient Israel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4, 18; 11:22-23).

When Solomon dedicated the temple, he asked this question in 1 Kings 8:27: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth?”

Then this marvelous thing happened: the glory of God came to His people again, in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ! It was John’s task to write to both Jews and Gentiles.

John’s prologue gives us a glimmer of the book’s major themes: the deity of Christ; Christ as light and life, the word shrouded in darkness, the witness of John the Baptist, Israel’s rejection of their Savior, Gentile acceptance, and examples of the glory, grace, and truth of Christ.

In this prologue, John establishes five arguments as to why Jesus was, in fact, divine:

   1. He was eternal (vs. 1-2)

   2. He was the Creator (vs. 3-5, 9)

   3. He gave spiritual life (vs. 10-13)

   4. He manifested glory (vs. 14-17)

   5. He explained God (vs. 18)

We will look at the first one today…and Lord willing, the others in coming weeks.

Jesus is the eternal word, the creative word, and the incarnate word.

The LOGOS, or Word, is the subject here of main discussion. It means “to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion.” It implies the intelligence behind the idea, the idea itself, and the transmissible expression of it.

To the Jew, a word was far more than a sound. It had an active and independent existence and which actually did things. “The spoken word to the Hebrew was fearfully alive…It was a unit of energy charged with power.

“It flies like a bullet to its billet,” one writer said. For that very reason the Hebrew was sparing of words. Hebrew speech has fewer than 10,000 words…Greek speech has 200,000.

The words “God said…” in the creative chapters of Genesis remind us of God’s power. In fact, whenever it (logos) is used, it brought to mind the Word of God and the Reason of God:

The Old Testament depicted God’s utterance, the actual statement of His purpose, as having power in itself to effect the thing purposed. Genesis 1 tells us how at creation ‘God said, Let there be …and there was …’ (Gen. 1:3). ‘By the word of the LORD were the heavens made … he spake, and it was done’ (Ps. 33:6, 9). The Word of God is thus God at work.” J. I. Packer, p. 48.

³  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ⁴  And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. ⁵  God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

 ⁶  And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” ⁷  And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.

⁹  And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

¹¹  And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.

¹⁴  And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, ¹⁵  and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

²⁰  And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” ²¹  So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

²²  And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” ²³  And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

²⁴  And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.

²⁶  Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ²⁷  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

²⁸  And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

²⁹  And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. ³⁰  And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. ³¹  

    The Son of God in Eternity

Matthew and Luke begin with the birth of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus, and Mark begins with the ministry of John the Baptist.

The first words of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning … ,” bring to mind the account of creation in Genesis 1. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the phrase in Genesis 1:1 is the same as the phrase in the Greek text of John 1:1.

This cannot be merely coincidental; it must be intentional. When Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, he began, “In the beginning God …” John is doing virtually the same thing in the first two verses of his Gospel.

As we step into John’s gospel, we immediately slide through a time tunnel that transports us to eternity past. In eternity–before man, before creation, before time itself–there existed the everlasting, triune God.

The first predicate of the LOGOS is eternity. This passage is one of the summits of Scripture. In fact, it probably reaches the highest of human thought. What is the thought that reaches the height of human concepts? It is this: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is…

• the Word of God
• the Creator of Life
• the Very Being and Essence of Life.

If Jesus Christ is the Word of God, then men must hear and understand that Word or else be lost forever in ignorance of God Himself.

Christ was preexistent. This means He was there before creation. He had always existed.

“In the beginning [en archei]” does not mean from the beginning. Jesus Christ was already there. He did not become; He was not created; He never had a beginning. He “was in the beginning with God” (cp. John 17:5; John 8:58).

The word “was” (en) is the Greek imperfect tense of eimi which is the word so often used for deity. It means to be or I am. To be means continuous existence, without beginning or origin.

The phrase “In the beginning” is essentially the same as that of Genesis 1:1. The expression does not refer to the beginning of some particular process, a definite localized point of time, but rather to the indefinite eternity which preceded all time, the immeasurable past.

In this first chapter of his Gospel, John does not mention the name “Jesus” until verse 17, and then not again until verse 29. He does not say, nor can he, that “Jesus” was in the beginning. “Jesus” is the name given to the God-man, born of the virgin Mary. It is His human name, which is given Him only after His incarnation.

In John 1:1-3, John is speaking of our Lord’s pre-existence as “the second person of the Godhead.” When John refers to our Lord here, he calls Him “the Word.”

There was no danger of this being misunderstood; Old Testament readers would pick up the reference at once. God’s Word in the Old Testament is His creative utterance, His power in action fulfilling His purpose.

By and large, the terms “Messiah,” “Son of God,” and “Jesus” are only appropriate when referring to our Lord after His incarnation.  Our Lord has always existed as God, and He has always existed in unity and fellowship with God the Father. But He did not become God incarnate (Jesus) until the incarnation, described by Matthew and Luke.

The most obvious and important connection John makes is this: The God who created the universe is the One who was found lying in a Bethlehem manger.  

This affirmation of the deity of Jesus Christ is constantly made in the Gospel of John. Jesus claims not only to be God, but to have come down from the Father in heaven. This is what those who trust in Him come to believe. This is what His enemies seek to deny:

 “The one who comes from above is superior to all. The one who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is superior to all” (John 3:31).

For this reason the Jewish authorities were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God (John 5:18).

31 “Our ancestors ate the manna in the desert, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”[1] 32 Then Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but my Father is giving you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (John 6:31-33).

“For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me” (John 6:38).

47 I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, and they died. 50 This is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that a person may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” … 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like your ancestors ate and died. The one who eats this bread will live forever” (John 6:47-51,58)

28 Then Jesus shouted out while teaching in the temple, “You both know me and know where I come from! And I have not come on my own initiative, but the one who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him, because I have come from him and he sent me” (John 7:28-29).

Jesus answered, “Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true, because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you people do not know where I came from or where I am going” (John 8:14).

Jesus replied, “You people are from below; I am from above. You people are from this world; I am not from this world” (John 8:23).

40 But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God. Abraham did not do this! 41 You people are doing the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Jesus, “We were not born as a result of sexual immorality! We have only one Father, God himself. 42 Jesus replied, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here. I have not come on my own initiative, but he sent me” (John 8:40-42).

56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 Then the Jewish people who had been listening to him replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?”