Proud to be TJ's man

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.

Small Group Discussion Starters 1. What was the Samaritan woman really saying  in reply to Jesus’ question, “will you give me a drink?” a. do you know who I am (an outcast)? b. why would you talk to me? c. you’re giving me too much attention d. you’re threatening me  2. What was the woman’s response when Jesus said, “You 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?” a. stumbling for an answer at first b. arousing of a spiritual desire for something c. curious: “Is it possible this is the thing I’ve been looking for?” d. skeptical: “Who do you think you are?”  3. How does the woman respond when Jesus explains…”the water I give will become a spring of water welling up to eternal life?…” a. puzzled: “Are you kidding me?’ b. desirous: “I’d love to have it.” c. open: “I’m ready.” 4. Why didn’t the woman give up on his conversation when Jesus told her, “Go, call your husband and come back?” a. she was intrigued by His willingness to talk b. she realized she had nothing to hide c. what Jesus offered appealed to her d. he treated her with respect e. she knew he spoke the truth and that he could help her f. she didn’t want to lose the chance to get her questions answered

Here is a third reason 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). “The influence of the Pharisees was far greater in Judea than in Galilee, and the Sanhedrin would readily have arrested Jesus had he remained in Judea (Jn 7:1; 10:39)” (McGarvey, p. 140). Furthermore, with the arrest of John (Mt 4:12; Mk 1:14), Jesus is the sole target both of the Pharisees’ aggression and the disciples’ devotion.

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). This would avoid the very controversy which later embroiled Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17.

“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. {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.”

We know that John’s disciples were watching our Lord and His disciples. They resented our Lord’s ministry because it was overshadowing theirs (John 3:26). It looked as though Jesus was putting them out of business, and they didn’t like it. The Pharisees were also watching Jesus (Luke 5:17), just as they took careful note of John the Baptist (John 1:19-28), whose popularity they feared (Luke 20:4-6). Intent upon gaining their own following (see Matthew 23:15), the Pharisees were bitterly jealous of our Lord’s success (see John 11:47-48; compare Matthew 27:18).

But 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. You may remember that even Nathanael felt that no one important could come from Nazareth (John 1:45-46). The Pharisees seem to agree:

50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus before and who was one of the rulers, said, 51 “Our law does not condemn a man unless it first hears from him and learns what he is doing, does it?” 52 They replied, “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!” 53 And each one departed to his own house (John 7:50-53, emphasis mine).

It must be with a sigh of relief that the Pharisees receive the report that Jesus has left[1] Judea and returned to Galilee. Their relief will only be temporary.

In many ways, the encounter with this woman stands in comparison/contrast with Jesus’ interview with Nicodemus. She was an outsider, he was an insider. He was prestigious, she was an outcast. She was ignoble, he was held in honor. The similarity of both, however, is their eager expectation of the coming Messiah. In the remainder of this chapter, John will lay out three important themes: Living Water, True Worship, and Gentile Inclusion. All three of these find their fulfillment in the person of Jesus.

We would also do well to pay attention to the “water” talk thus far in John. In chapter 1 John used water for baptism of repentance as entrance into the kingdom. In chapter 2 Jesus turned the water in the purification jars into wine, a potential foreshadowing of the new kingdom he was inaugurating. In chapter three Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again of water and the Holy Spirit. And now, at the well of Samaria, Jesus offers himself, the living water, to this Samaritan woman.

Let us set the scene of this incident. Palestine is only 120 miles long from north to south. But within that 120 miles there were in the time of Jesus three definite divisions of territory:

– in the extreme north lay Galilee

– in the extreme south lay Judea

– in between lay Samaria

Jesus did not wish at this stage of his ministry to be involved in a controversy about baptism, so he decided to transfer His operations to Galilee. But Jesus also had the underlying compulsion of the Divine Will that sought out the lost “Samaritan sheep.” There was a soul to win!

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.

Moses was regarded as the only prophet and intercessor in the final judgment. They also believed that 6,000 years after creation, a Restorer would arise and would live on earth for 110 years. On the Judgment Day, the righteous would be resurrected in paradise and the wicked roasted in eternal fire.

In the days of Christ, the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans was greatly strained (Luke 9:52-54; 10:25-37; 17:11-19; John 8:48). The animosity was so great that the Jews bypassed Samaria as they traveled between Galilee and Judea.

They went an extra distance through the barren land of Perea on the eastern side of the Jordan to avoid going through Samaria. Yet Jesus rebuked His disciples for their hostility to the Samaritans (Luke 9:55-56), healed a Samaritan leper (Luke 17:16), honored a Samaritan for his neighborliness (Luke 10:30-37), praised a Samaritan for his gratitude (Luke 17:11-18), asked a drink of a Samaritan woman (John 4:7), and preached to the Samaritans (John 4:40-42). Then in Acts 1:8, Jesus challenged His disciples to witness in Samaria. Philip, a deacon, opened a mission in Samaria (Acts 8:5).

A small Samaritan community continues to this day to follow the traditional worship near Shechem. There was a century-old feud between the Jews and the Samaritans; but the quickest way from Judea to Galilee was through Samaria (the alternate route would take twice as long). As one approached Samaria, the town of Sychar; just short of Sychar the road to Samaria forks…and at this fork of the road stands to this day the well known as Jacob’s well:

– Jacob bought the ground in Genesis 33:18-19

– Jacob, at his deathbed, had bequested to land to Joseph (Gen. 48:22)

– On Joseph’s death in Egypt, his body had been taken back to Palestine and buried there (Joshua 24:32)

Nearly all archaeologists and scholars today can point to a definite place and say with certainty “Jesus sat on these stones.”

The sixth hour was midday. The Jewish day runs from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and the sixth hour was 12 o’clock. The heat was at its greatest and Jesus was weary and thirsty from His travels.

The Samaritans were a “mongrel” or “mixed” race grown up in Samaria from the importation of Assyrians after the deporting of the Israelites from the land after a defeat in battle, around 722 B.C. Imported Assyrians married within the poorer classes of Israelites, offering only formal worship to God while worshipping the gods of Assyria.

When the Jews were allowed to return to their homelands, 51 years later, by decree by Cyrus, the Samaritans asked to aid in rebuilding and restoring the temple…but were refused.

They were regarded as enemies and the Jews would not eat, drink, or engage in social activities with them, though they did trade with them. To make matters worse, the Samaritans could not trace their genealogy, which placed an even greater to the genealogy-conscious Jews (see 8:48).

As Jesus made His way from Judea to Galilee, he “had to” pass through Samaria. Politically, Samaria was not a distinct region, but its culture and religion were definitely distinct from that of Israel. We would do well to recall the historical relationship between Israel and Samaria.

Under Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, the United Kingdom of Israel split into two fragments (1 Kings 12): the northern kingdom of Israel, led by the rebel Jeroboam, and the southern kingdom of Judah, under Rehoboam. Because Jeroboam feared that the two kingdoms might reunite, he established a counterfeit religion, with its own place of worship—Bethel (1 Kings 12:25-33). Later, a wicked northern king named Omri built the city of Samaria, which he made his capital, the capital of the Northern Kingdom. He also built a temple and an altar to Baal, a heathen deity (1 Kings 16:24-34). Eventually, the name of this city became synonymous for the entire Northern Kingdom, and thus its name, Samaria.

After repeated warnings from God’s prophets, divine judgment finally came at the hand of the Assyrians, who defeated Israel and scattered the middle and upper classes throughout the other nations they had conquered. They replaced the dispersed Israelites with heathen from other lands (2 Kings 17:23ff.). These heathen intermarried with the remaining Israelites resulting in a nation of half-breeds, a most distasteful and evil thing for a devout Jew (see Ezra 9 and 10; Nehemiah 13). Worse yet, the true religion of Israel became intermingled with heathen idolatry.

When the Jews of the Southern Kingdom of Judah were later taken captive by the Babylonians, they were allowed to maintain their racial and religious identity. After their 70 years of captivity were completed and they were granted permission to return to their own land, a number did so. When these returning exiles set out to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem, the Samaritans offered to help them and were summarily refused (Ezra 4:2ff.). In about 400 B.C., the Samaritans constructed their own rival temple on Mount Gerizim. At the end of the second century B.C., this temple was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean ruler of Judea. This greatly increased hostilities between the Jews and the Samaritans.

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.

Having said this, I am not convinced things were as bad as some seem to think. It is often said that the Jews would not pass through Samaria. Instead, we are told, they would go East, cross the Jordan River, head north or south, bypassing Samaria, and then cross the River Jordan again when they neared their destination. D. A. Carson, citing Josephus, maintains that Jews much more commonly passed through Samaria.[2] It would therefore seem that only a few strict Jews refused to do so.

If John chapter 1 informs us of our Lord’s deity, this chapter speaks also of His humanity: Jesus was tired. It was just about high noon,[3] so that our Lord’s fatigue may have been partly related to the heat of the day. Weary from their journey, Jesus and His disciples come to a parcel of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph (Genesis 48:22?). On this land, a mile or so from the city of Sychar,[4] was Jacob’s well.[5] It was a deep well—a hundred feet deep or so—fed by a spring. Other water was available in the area, closer to town, but this well may have provided the best water. It was at this well that Jesus sat down to rest.

Why the emphasis on Jacob, and on this well which once belonged to him? It seems as though this woman (and perhaps the Samaritans more generally) took pride in claiming Jacob as their forefather. This is especially strange in the light of the way this patriarch is portrayed in the Book of Genesis. I don’t remember any self-respecting Jew boasting about being a descendant of Jacob, but only of being Abraham’s offspring (see Matthew 3:9). John sets the scene so that this woman will ask if Jesus is greater than Jacob, and the answer will be, “Yes” (see also John 6:30-36; 8:53).

Just as in the Book of Genesis,[6] the “well” in John 4 seems to be significant. One cannot help but be reminded of Abraham’s servant, who asks Rebekah for a drink of water at a well in Paddan-aram (Genesis 24:11f.). There, the character qualities of Rebekah were revealed at the well. In the case of our Lord, this woman’s presence at the well at this time of day may be further evidence of this woman’s lack of character, or at least her lack of popularity among the women of Sychar.

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. We are not left in doubt as to how the Pharisees would have dealt with such a woman:

36 Now one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 Then when a woman of that town, who was a sinner, learned that Jesus was dining at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster flask of perfumed oil. 38 As she stood behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. She wiped them with the hair of her head, kissed them, and anointed them with the perfumed oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner” (Luke 7:36-39).[7]

Neither should we be surprised that our Lord would deal with this woman in a very different manner, as seen by Luke’s conclusion to this story in his Gospel:

40 So Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” He replied, “Say it, Teacher.” 41 “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed him five hundred silver coins, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled.” Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then, turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I entered she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with perfumed oil. 47 Therefore I tell you, her sins (which were many) are forgiven, thus she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:40-50).

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. This is one reason they are so distressed when they see our Lord having such close contact with “sinners”:

27 After this Jesus went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, “Follow me.” 28 So Levi got up and followed him, leaving everything behind. 29 Then Levi gave a great banquet for Jesus in his house; and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them. 30 But the Pharisees and their experts in the law complained to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:27-32).

I must admit that I have come to view the “woman at the well” differently than I once did. I have also come to feel compassion toward her, as our Lord did. Here in chapter 4 and again in chapter 8 (the woman caught committing adultery), we see that the Jews were inclined to look down upon these two women as “loose women,” which indeed they were.

On the other hand, they were certainly no more guilty than the men with whom they committed sexual immorality. In John chapter 8 only the woman is accused before our Lord. The couple was caught in the very act of adultery (8:4), and yet only the woman was apprehended and brought to Jesus. Why was the man not brought before our Lord as well? There was obviously a double standard—one for men, and another for women.

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.[8] 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 third thing which puts the “woman at the well” at a disadvantage is the fact that she is a woman. John does not tell us the disciples are shocked to find Jesus talking to this Samaritan woman because she is a Samaritan, or because she is sinful (they don’t know this). They are surprised to see Him talking with her because she is a woman. There may be a race issue here, but there is also a gender issue. The Jews were inclined to hold a very demeaning view of women.[9] The disciples seem to embrace this view.[10] They cannot fathom why Jesus would be “wasting His time” talking to a woman.

With this background in mind, let us consider the process by which the woman at the well is brought to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. You will see by the way the text is formatted at the beginning of this lesson that I have highlighted the interchange between Jesus and this woman. A similar interchange occurs between Jesus and Nicodemus in chapter 3. There is a significant difference, however. The more Jesus tells Nicodemus about Himself and His teaching, the more uneasy Nicodemus becomes. His questions and comments become shorter and shorter, until he simply disappears from the text.

The conversation with the Samaritan woman is quite different. Each interchange brings her closer to faith. The conversation moves from literal drinking water to the spiritual “water” of salvation. Her grasp of who Jesus is continues to grow, until she eventually trusts in Him as the Messiah. While Nicodemus comes to faith very slowly and somewhat reluctantly, the woman at the well seems to much more quickly grasp the issues and trust in Jesus as the Messiah. While Nicodemus, an influential leader among the Jews, brings no one to Christ, the woman at the well brings the whole town out to hear Jesus, and eventually to trust in Him. Let us consider the conversion of this Samaritan woman in terms of the process by which she is drawn to faith.

This woman was everything that Nicodemus was not:

– he was a Jew; she was a Samaritan

– He was a man; she was a woman

– He was learned; she was ignorant

– He was morally upright; she was sinful

– He was wealthy and from the upper class of society; she was poor, and probably an outcast

– He recognized Jesus’ merits and sought Him out; she saw Him as a curious traveler and was quite indifferent to Him initially

– He was serious and dignified; she was flippant and possibly boisterous

A Rabbi could not speak to a woman in public–not even his own wife or daughter! 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!

She responded to Jesus but couldn’t resist the opportunity to apparently “have some fun” with Him. In essence she said: “We Samaritans are to you the scum of the earth, but we will serve well enough when you are thirsty.”

– 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?

Whatever his motives [we understand here the tenuous nature of psychoanalyzing a historical figure], Jesus effectively grabs her attention and draws her to himself. Because Jesus knew her previous life, she was convinced that he could deliver on this living water stuff.

Very abrupt is the woman’s answer. She, who has been so very talkative (note 4:11, 12, 15), suddenly becomes close-mouthed. It is interesting to count the number of words in her various replies: according to the Greek in verse nine she uses 11 words … in verse fifteen, 13 words … in verses eleven and twelve, 42 words … but in verse seventeen, only 3 words: “not I-have husband” (Hendriksen, p. 164).

Jesus apparently hit a sensitive button. Then he calls further attention to it by placing the word “husband” at the beginning of the sentence, giving it an extra punch.

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.

Their ancestors had worshipped there since the time of Nehemiah and a temple had been erected long before. It was so holy to them that the Samaritans could not conceive of worship anywhere else! We also need to realize that the Samaritans recognized only the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, as authoritative.

How could they know of the prophetic promises concerning salvation from the Jews through God’s suffering Servant?

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).

We might stop here and ask why did she believe all this, with no scriptural basis? Because it was tradition. Her fathers and grandfathers had always believed this..and she did as well.

‘Food’ For The Future 1. How do you respond when someone speaks to you unepectedly? a. pretend I didn’t hear b. try to be courteous c. look around at who’s there d. move away quickly e. answer any questions  2. How would you compare your own spiritual beginnings with God to that of the woman at the well? a. more intellectual b. different, but just as real c. even more crazy d. I’ll have to think about that  3. In your own experience, do you think the circumstances surrounding your own encounter were coincidental or part of the plan and purpose of God? a. purely coincidental b. more than coincidental c. still trying to figure this out  4. If Jesus were to stop by the “watering hole” where you hang out, what would you probably ask you right now? (be honest) a. what are you doing with your life? b. are you satisfied with what you’re doing? c. are you looking for the real thing? d. other: ___________________________  5. How would you describe the way God is working in your life right now? a. master architect b. construction foreman c. coach on the sidelines d. big boss in the grandstands e. trainer f. cheerleader g.     sculptor h.     h. other:_________________

– 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).

Indeed, salvation is from the Jews: Psalm 147:19-20; Isaiah 2:3; Amos 3:2; Micah 4:1-2; Romans 3:1-2; 9:3-5, 18. A time is coming quickly, however, when the temple veil will be torn asunder (Mt 27:51), and salvation will be for all peoples (Acts 10:34-35). The emphasis will shift from the place to a person. The people of God will realize that God does not need a temple built with human hands (Acts 7:48; 17:24).

“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.

– 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, but, then, that’s what Paul said would happen in Romans 10:17: “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”

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.

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.

“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.

Let me attempt to paint this picture as I see it. Jesus and His disciples stop at the well. Jesus is tired and remains there while His disciples go into town to buy food. After they leave, the Samaritan woman arrives, and a conversation begins which John records for us. The conversation ends just as the disciples return from Sychar. The woman leaves her waterpot behind and rushes back to town. The disciples then urge Jesus to eat what they have just brought from town. In the background, just over the shoulders of the disciples, the people of Sychar are approaching en masse, to see and hear the One of whom the woman has testified.

The disciples arrive from Sychar just in time to observe the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman end. They are astounded that Jesus has been talking with her. This is not because she is a Samaritan, nor because she is a sinner (they don’t know about her moral life, as Jesus does), but simply because she is a woman. This is not so much a case of racial bias as a manifestation of gender bias on the part of the disciples. They cannot think of a good reason why Jesus would be talking to a woman. Morris helps us understand why, from the Jewish point of view:

Perhaps the greatest blot on the Rabbinic attitude to women was that, though the Rabbis held the study of the Law to be the greatest good in life, they discouraged women from studying it at all. When Ben Azzai suggested that women be taught the Law for certain purposes R. Eliezer replied: ‘If any man gives his daughter a knowledge of the Law it is as though he taught her lechery’ (Sot. 3:4).[11]

In spite of their amazement that Jesus would talk to a woman, the Lord’s disciples do not bring it up. Perhaps they have put their foot in their mouth one too many times lately, so that none wishes to be embarrassed by being the one to ask another stupid question. They are at least beginning to learn that what our Lord does is always right, even if Judaism calls it wrong.[12] Perhaps the disciples simply set their question aside because of a more important matter—lunch. It sounds silly, doesn’t it? But is it not the case? Are the disciples not preoccupied with getting our Lord to eat? Why would this be?

Several reasons come to mind, none of which are particularly pious. The best reading one could give the disciples’ words would be something like: “Jesus, You’re tired, and You need to regain Your strength. Please eat because You need the nourishment if we are to continue our journey.” There may be some of that here. It may also be that the disciples have been waiting to eat until Jesus can eat with them. They may wish that He would eat so they can eat also. (Or, perhaps Peter has already wolfed down half a sandwich, and with his mouth full, urges Jesus to do likewise: “Com’ on, Jesus, eat up.”) Finally, the disciples may be preoccupied with lunch because this is what they have worked so hard to provide, walking all the way into town and back. They went to town to purchase food. Having gone to all this effort to obtain lunch for our Lord, the least He can do is to take time to eat it. The disciples might have been a collective, male version of Martha (see Luke 10:38-42).

Once again, our Lord’s response to His disciples’ prodding is not what we expect. Instead of speaking of literal food, He talks of spiritual “food.” Our Lord’s response to His disciples sets down some very important principles, principles which not only governed His life and ministry, but which should guide His disciples as well—and we are to be included among such “disciples.”

(1) Our Lord’s most essential “food” is doing the Father’s will by completing His work (verse 34). Why does Jesus refer to His “work” as His “food”? I wonder if the answer is not suggested in the temptation of our Lord:

1 Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days; and when they were completed, he was hungry. 3 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” 4 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone’” (Luke 4:1-4).

Jesus is hungry because He has been fasting for 40 days. Satan seeks to persuade Him to command a stone to become bread. Of course, Jesus has the power to do so. But Jesus refuses, citing from Deuteronomy 8:

1 “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers. 2 And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD” (Deuteronomy 8:1-3, NKJV).

God allowed the Israelites to experience hunger as a test, to show what was in their hearts. Even Satan believes that men will worship God if He blesses them with everything they want (see Job 1:6-12). The real test of men’s faith and obedience to God comes in the midst of adversity and affliction. Thus, God allowed the Israelites to experience hunger and thirst so that the condition of their hearts would be made evident, either by their obedience or by their rebellion.

Our Lord undergoes a similar testing in the wilderness, which involves His fasting for 40 days. Satan seeks to tempt our Lord to “create” bread to satisfy His hunger. Jesus refuses, pointing to this text in Deuteronomy, which parallels His circumstances. “Man does not live by bread alone,” Jesus reminds Satan, “but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.” It is not just physical bread that sustains our Lord (or anyone else); it is God’s Word, and specifically obedience to it.[13]

When Jesus is pressed by His disciples to eat, He refuses to do so, telling them that He has other “food” to eat, of which they are unaware. In so doing, He is expressing the same truth He spoke to Satan, which God, through Moses, spoke to the Israelites. It is not just eating physical food that sustains us; it is doing the will of God. If eating interferes with doing the will of God, eating must be set aside, not obedience to God. Fulfilling God’s will—providing and proclaiming salvation (even to the Gentiles!)—was our Lord’s primary purpose and calling. He would not allow a meal to keep Him from it. There is work to be done at this very moment—the people of the city are almost there. This is no time for lunch.

Is this not the truth that underlies the practice of fasting? I know some may make more of fasting than they should. Fasting is not magic; it does not manipulate God to do our will. It is our submission to His will, as evidenced by the fact that our time is better spent in prayer or in some specific ministry than in eating a meal. Is this not also evident on less frequent occasions, when a husband and wife voluntarily agree to abstain from sexual relations, so that they can devote themselves to prayer (see 1 Corinthians 7:5)?

I must confess that very few things keep me from a meal. Jesus subordinated eating to doing the will of God. Usually, we should eat, so that we have the strength to do His will (see 1 Samuel 14:24-30). But there are times when we must let nothing keep us from full devotion to our duty. Doing God’s will is more important than downing a meal. I wonder what we are willing to do without so that the gospel can be shared with those who are lost and destined for an eternity in hell?

(2) Our Lord’s mission was all the more urgent because His time on earth was short (verses 35ff.). Does Jesus not have the time to sit down and eat a sandwich? Jesus has a sensitivity to the proper time for things to be done (see John 2:4; 7:6)—His time really is limited. And because He has so little time, He will not take the time which eating a meal requires.

Surely the application to saints today is obvious. Do we realize how short the time may be? Do we have a sense of urgency about our mission? It is the wicked servant who feels there is much time, and therefore no need for urgency (Luke 12:35-48). The Word of God consistently challenges us to redeem the time, for our time is short.

15 Therefore, be very careful how you live, not as unwise, but as wise, 16 taking advantage of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 For this reason do not be foolish, but be wise by understanding what the will of the Lord is (Ephesians 5:15-17).

29 And I say this, brothers and sisters: the time is short. So then those who have wives should be as those who have none, 30 those with tears like those not weeping, those who rejoice like those not rejoicing, those who buy like those without possessions, 31 those who use the world as though they were not using it to the full. For the present shape of this world is passing away (1 Corinthians 7:29-31).

Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunities (Colossians 4:5).

You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes (James 4:14).

Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near (Revelation 1:3).

The time for the harvest is now— not later. It seems that the statement, “There are four more months and then comes the harvest” is a way of saying that harvest time is still a ways off. That may be true for the grain harvest, but it is not true for the harvest of souls about to take place right there, within moments. There is no time to lose, no time to waste. Harvest time has come.

(3) Our Lord fulfilled His mission, but He has given us the task of proclaiming the gospel to a lost world before He returns. The time is short, and a team of workers is required to complete the task (verses 36-38). It would seem that a different group of individuals had sown the fields than those who were to reap the harvest. I believe this is still true today. Where wheat is grown in the United States today, the farmers may plant their own crops, but the time to harvest is so short that a caravan of professional harvesters is often employed. Trucks and combines are brought in, and the fields are harvested within hours. If there is undue delay in the harvest, much of the grain is lost.

The disciples have no idea that a great “harvest” is about to take place, and that they are the harvesters. They have been so preoccupied with lunch, while others have been at work sowing the gospel. In the past, the prophets had sown the seed through their words and the Scriptures. Men like John the Baptist[14] had also sown the seed of the gospel. And this very day the Samaritan woman has gone into the town, bearing testimony that Jesus is at the well, and that He has “told her all she had done.” She did the sowing; now it is time for Jesus and His disciples to reap. No wonder there is no time for lunch. The “fields are already white for harvest.”[15]

In our country, individual effort is highly prized and rewarded. Competition seems more appropriate than cooperation. Jesus tells His disciples that they are about to reap a harvest, but He also reminds them that they are reaping where others have sown. It is not their work alone. They are completing what others have begun. Evangelism in not a one man-show, but a team effort.

SHARING THE WONDER

There is little wonder that the disciples were in a state of bewildered amazement when they returned from their errand to the town of Sychar and found Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman.  We have already seen the Jewish idea of women.  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.”  By Rabbinic standards Jesus could hardly have done a more shatteringly unconventional thing than to talk to this woman.  Here is Jesus taking the barriers down.

There follows a curiously revealing touch.  It is the kind which could hardly have come from anyone except from one who had actually shared in this scene.  However staggered the disciples might be, it did not occur to them to ask the woman what she was looking for or to ask Jesus why he was talking to her.  They were beginning to know him; and they had already arrived at the conclusion that, however surprising his actions were, they were not to be questioned.  A man has taken a great step to real discipleship when he learns to say:  “It is not for me to question the actions and the demands of Jesus.  My prejudices and my conventions must go down before them.”

By this time the woman was on her way back to the village without her water-pot.  The fact that she left her water-pot showed two things.  It showed that she was in a hurry to share this extraordinary experience, and it showed that she never dreamed of doing anything else but come back.  Her whole action has much to tell us of real Christian experience.

(i)  Her experience began with being compelled to face herself and to see herself as she was.  The same thing happened to Peter.  After the draft of fishes, when Peter suddenly discovered something of the majesty of Jesus, all he could say was:  “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Luke 5:8).  Our Christian experience will often begin with a humiliating wave of self-disgust.  It usually happens that the last thing a man sees is himself.  And it often happens that the first thing Christ does for a man is to compel him to do what he has spent his life refusing to do-look at himself.

(ii)  The Samaritan woman was staggered by Christ’s ability to see into her inmost being.  She was amazed at his intimate knowledge of the human heart, and of her heart in particular.  The Psalmist was awed by that same thought.  “Thou discernest my thoughts from afar….  Even before a word is on my tongue, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether” (Psalm 139:1-4).  It is told that once a small girl heard a sermon by C. H.  Spurgeon, and whispered to her mother at the end of it:  “Mother, how does he know what goes on in our house?” There are no wrappings and disguises which are proof against the gaze of Christ.  It is his power to see into the depths of the human heart.  It is not that he sees only the evil there; he sees also the sleeping hero in the soul of every man.  He is like the surgeon who sees the diseased thing, but who also sees the health which will follow when the evil thing is taken away.

(iii)  The first instinct of the Samaritan woman was to share her discovery.  Having found this amazing person, she was compelled to share her find with others.  The Christian life is based on the twin pillars of discovery and communication.  No discovery is complete until the desire to share it fills our hearts; and we cannot communicate Christ to others until we have discovered him for ourselves.  First to find, then to tell, are the two great steps of the Christian life.

(iv)  This very desire to tell others of her discovery killed in this woman the feeling of shame.  She was no doubt an outcast; she was no doubt a byword; the very fact that she was drawing water from this distant well shows how she avoided her neighbours and how they avoided her.  But now she ran to tell them of her discovery.  A person may have some trouble which he is embarrassed to mention and which he tries to keep secret, but once he is cured he is often so filled with wonder and gratitude that he tells everyone about it.  A man may hide his sin; but once he discovers Jesus Christ as Saviour, his first instinct is to say to men:  “Look at what I was and look at what I am; this is what Christ has done for me.”

THE MOST SATISFYING FOOD

This passage follows the normal pattern of the conversations of the Fourth Gospel.  Jesus says something which is misunderstood.  He says something which has a spiritual meaning.  It is at first taken with an uncomprehending literalism and then slowly he unfolds the meaning until it is grasped and realized.  It is exactly the same as Jesus did when he talked to Nicodemus about being born again, and when he talked to the woman about the water which quenched the thirst of the heart for ever.

By this time the disciples had come back with food, and they asked Jesus to eat.  They had left him so tired and exhausted that they were worried that he did not seem to want to eat any of the provisions which they had brought back.  It is strange how a great task can lift a man above and beyond bodily needs.  All his life Wilberforce, who freed the slaves, was a little, insignificant, ailing creature.  When he rose to address the House of Commons, the members at first used to smile at this queer little figure; but as the fire and the power came from the man, they used to crowd the benches whenever he rose to speak.  As it was put:  “The little minnow became a whale.”  His message, his task, the flame of truth and the dynamic of power conquered his physical weakness.  There is a picture of John Knox preaching in his old age.  He was a done old man; he was so weak that he had to be half lifted up the pulpit steps and left supporting himself on the book-board; but before he had long begun his sermon the voice had regained its old trumpet-call and he was like “to ding the pulpit into blads (to knock the pulpit into splinters) and leap out of it.”  The message filled the man with a kind of supernatural strength.

Jesus’s answer to his disciples was that he had food of which they knew nothing.  In their simplicity they wondered if someone had brought him food to eat.  Then he told them:  “My food is to do the will of him who sent me.”

The great keynote of Jesus’s life is submission to the will of God.  His uniqueness lies in the very fact that he was the only person who ever was or who ever will be perfectly obedient to God’s will.  It can be truly said that Jesus is the only person in all the world who never did what he liked but always what God liked.

He was God-sent.  Again and again the Fourth Gospel speaks of Jesus being sent by God.  There are two Greek words used in the Fourth Gospel for this sending.  There is apostellein which is used seventeen times and pempein which is used twenty-seven times.  That is to say, no fewer than forty-four times the Fourth Gospel speaks, or shows us Jesus speaking, about his being sent by God.  Jesus was one who was under orders.  He was God’s man.

Then once Jesus had come, again and again he spoke of the work that was given him to do.  In John 5:36 he speaks of the works which his Father has given him to do.  In 17:4 his only claim is that he has finished the work his Father gave him to do.  When he speaks of taking up and laying down his life, of living and of dying, he says:  “This commandment have I received of my Father” (10:18).  He speaks continually, as he speaks here, of the will of God.  “I have come down from heaven,” he says, “not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (6:38).  “I always do,” he says, “what is pleasing to him” (8:29).  In 14:23 he lays it down, out of his personal experience and on his personal example, that the only proof of love lies in the keeping of the commandments of the one a man claims to love.  This obedience of Jesus was not as it is with us, a spasmodic thing.  It was the very essence and being, the mainspring and the core, the dynamic and the moving power of his life.

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 uerse.

(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.

– Jesus had two main objectives in His ministry:

1. He came to do the will of His Father. Never did He deviate from that mission.
2. He came to finish the work on this earth. It did not mean to finish all that could be done…but to consummate the work of salvation.

“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.”

All this that was happening in Samaria had given Jesus a vision of a world to be harvested for God.  When he said:  “Four months, and the harvest will come,” we are not to think that he was speaking of the actual time of year that it was in Samaria at that time.  If that were so, it would have been somewhere round about January.  There would have been no exhausting heat; and there would have been no scarcity of water.  One would not have needed a well to find water; it would have been the rainy season, and there would have been plenty of water.

What Jesus is doing is quoting a proverb.  The Jews had a sixfold division of the agricultural year.  Each division was held to last two months-seedtime, winter, spring, harvest, summer and the season of extreme heat.  Jesus is saying:  “You have got a proverb; if you sow the seed, you must wait for at least four months before you can hope to begin to reap the harvest.”  Then Jesus looked up.  Sychar is in the midst of a region that is still famous for its corn.  Agricultural land was very limited in stony, rocky Palestine; practically nowhere else in the country could a man look up and see the waving fields of golden corn.  Jesus swept his gaze and his hand round.  “Look,” he said, “the fields are white and ready for the harvest.  They took four months to grow; but in Samaria there is a harvest for the reaping now.”

For once, it is the contrast between nature and grace of which Jesus is thinking.  In the ordinary harvest men sowed and waited; in Samaria things had happened with such divine suddenness that the word was sown and on the spot the harvest waited.  H. V. Morton has a specially interesting suggestion about the fields white for the harvest.  He himself was sitting at this very spot where Jacob’s well is.  As he sat, he saw the people come out from the village and start to climb the hill.  They came in little batches; and they were all wearing white robes and the white robes stood out against the ground and the sky.  It may well be that just at this moment the people started to flock out to Jesus in response to the woman’s story.  As they streamed out in their white robes across the fields, perhaps Jesus said:  “Look at the fields!  See them now!  They are white to the harvest!”  The white-robed crowd was the harvest which he was eager to reap for God.

Jesus went on to show that the incredible had happened.  The sower and the harvester could rejoice at the same time.  Here was something no man might expect.  To the Jew sowing was a sad and a laborious time; it was harvest which was the time of joy.  “May those who sow in tears reap with shouts of joy!  He that goes forth weeping, bearing the seed for sowing, shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him” (Psalm 136:5, 6).

There is something else hidden below the surface here.  The Jews had their dreams of the golden age, the age to come, the age of God, when the world would be God’s world, when sin and sorrow would be done away with and God would reign supreme.  Amos paints his picture of it:  “Behold the days are coming, saith the Lord, when the ploughman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed” (Amos 9:13).  “Your threshing shall last the time of vintage, and the vintage shall last the time for sowing” (Leviticus 26:5).  It was the dream of that golden age that sowing and reaping, planting and harvesting, would follow hard upon the heels of each other.  There would be such fertility that the old days of waiting would be at an end.  We can see what Jesus is gently doing here.  His words are nothing less than a claim that with him the golden age has dawned; God’s time is here; the time when the word is spoken and the seed is sown and the harvest waits.

There was another side to that-and Jesus knew it.  “There is another proverb,” he said, “and it too is true-one sows and another harvests.”  Then he went on to make two applications of that.

(a)  He told his disciples that they would reap a crop which had been produced not by their labour.  He meant that he was sowing the seed, that in his Cross, above all, the seed of the love and the power of God would be sown, and that the day would come when the disciples would go out into the world and reap the harvest that his life and death had sown.

(b)  He told his disciples that the day would come when they would sow and others would reap.  There would be a time when the Christian Church sent out its evangelists; they would never see the harvest; some of them would die as martyrs, but the blood of the martyrs would be the seed of the church.  It is as if he said:  “Some day you will labour and you will see nothing for it.  Some day you will sow and you will pass from the scene before the harvest is reaped.  Never fear!  Never be discouraged!  The sowing is not in vain; the seed is not wasted!  Others will see the harvest which it was not given to you to see.”

So in this passage there are two things.

(i)  There is the reminder of an opportunity.  The harvest waits to be reaped for God.  There come times in history when men are curiously and strangely sensitive to God.  What a tragedy it is if Christ’s Church at such a time fails to reap Christ’s harvest!

(ii)  There is the reminder of a challenge.  It is given to many a man to sow but not to reap.  Many a ministry succeeds, not by its own force and merits, but because of some saintly man who lived and preached and died and left an influence which was greater in his absence than in his presence.  Many a man has to work and never sees the results of his labours.  I was once taken round an estate which was famous for its rhododendrons.  Its owner loved their acres and knew them all by name.  He showed me certain seedlings which would take twenty-five years to flower.  He was nearly seventy-five and would never see their beauty-but someone would.  No work for Christ and no great undertaking ever fail.  If we do not see the result of our labours, others will.  There is no room for despair in the Christian life.

Jesus wanted His disciples also to be laborers. It didn’t matter whether they were sowers or reapers…so long as they were working. It was December (or early January), and the spring harvest was still four months away.  But Jesus says “Look, the fields are white.” As they did, perhaps they saw the white cloaked Samaritans marching across the green fields to meet this potential Messiah. The harvest indeed was plentiful (cf. Mt 9:37-38; Lk 10:2).

“He who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together” is an allusion to Amos 9:13. This passage describes the joy of the Messianic era when the harvest is so fruitful and so sudden that the sower and the reaper work alongside one another.  “One sows, and another reaps.” Jesus is clearly calling the disciples to reap, but who have been the sowers? Answer: Moses, Prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, and even the Samaritan woman.

And verse 35 gives us a glimpse into the missionary vision of our Lord…for the Samaritans were “harvested” in Acts 8:5-8: “Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there. {6} When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said. {7} With shrieks, evil spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed. {8} So there was great joy in that city.”

It is significant that these “signs” were more fruitful among those who lived at some distance from the holy city than for its inhabitants, the former being less blinded by tradition.  The Samaritans accepted the Lord because of what he said, the Galileans by what they saw Him do.

The disciples must have thought there were “no prospects” as they approached the city of Sychar; but just the opposite was true!  The harvest was ready and needed only faithful workers to claim it!

For some reason, when it comes to witnessing for Christ, it is always the “wrong time and the wrong place.” It takes faith to sow the seed, and we must do it even when the circumstances look discouraging.

We don’t know just how deep and how mature their faith is, but they do call him the “Savior of the world” (cf. Mt 1:21; Lk 2:11; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Phil 3:20; Eph 5:23; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Tim 1:10; 2 Peter 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18).

There will be others who apprehend the Christ in such a short period of time. When your heart is open, it does not take long to see Jesus for who he is (Mt 8:5-13; Mk 15:39; Lk 1:42; Jn 1:49; Acts 16:31-34).

McGarvey notes that this text breaks down three formidable walls: (1) Racial prejudice; (2) Gender—Jesus endorses this woman’s fitness to receive spiritual instruction and even her suitability to announce his presence and position; (3) Moral rectitude. Jesus has indeed come to save the least and the lost.

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.”

In the events which happened at Samaria we have the pattern by which the gospel so often spreads.  In the rise of belief among the Samaritans there were three stages.

(i)  There was introduction.  The Samaritans were introduced to Christ by the woman.  Here we see full-displayed God’s need of us.  Paul said:  “How are they to hear without a preacher?”  (Romans 10:14).  The word of God must be transmitted by man to man.  God cannot deliver his message to those who have never heard it unless there is someone to deliver it.

“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 at once 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.

Further, that introduction is made on the strength of personal witness.  The cry of the Samaritan woman was:  “Look what he has done for me and to me.”  It was not to a theory that she called her neighbours; it was to a dynamic and changing power.  The church can expand until the kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms of the Lord only when men and women themselves experience the power of Christ, and then transmit that experience to others.

(ii)  There was nearer intimacy and growing knowledge.  Once the Samaritans had been introduced to Christ, they sought his company.  They asked him to stay with them that they might learn of him and come to know him better.  It is true that a man must be introduced to Christ, but it is equally true that once he has been introduced he must himself go on to live in the presence of Christ.  No man can go through an experience for another man.  Others may lead us to the friendship of Christ, but we must claim and enjoy that friendship ourselves.

 

(iii)  There came discovery and surrender.  The Samaritans discovered in Christ the Saviour of the world.  It is not likely that they themselves put it exactly that way.  John was writing years afterwards, and was putting the discovery of the Samaritans into his own words, words which enshrine a life-time’s living with and thinking about Jesus Christ.  It is only in John that we find this tremendous title.  We find it here and in 1 John 4:14.  To him it was the title par excellence for Christ.

John did not invent the title.  In the Old Testament God had often been called the God of salvation, the Saviour, the saving God.  Many of the Greek gods had acquired this title.  At the time John was writing the Roman Emperor was invested with the title Saviour of the World.  It is as if John said:  “All that you have dreamed of has at last in Jesus come true.”

We do well to remember this title.  Jesus was not simply a prophet, who came with a message in words from God.  He was not simply an expert psychologist with an uncanny faculty for seeing into the human mind.  True, he showed that very skill in the case of the Samaritan woman, but he showed more than that.  He was not simply an example.  He did not come simply to show men the way in which life ought to be lived.  A great example can be merely heart-breaking and frustrating when we find ourselves powerless to follow it.

Jesus was Saviour.  He rescued men from the evil and hopeless situation in which they found themselves; he broke the chains that bound them to the past and gave them a power which enabled them to meet the future.  The Samaritan woman is in fact the great example of his saving power.  The town where she stayed would no doubt have labelled her a character beyond reformation; and she herself would no doubt have agreed that a respectable life was beyond her.  But Jesus came and doubly rescued her; he enabled her to break away from the past and he opened a new future to her.  There is no title adequate to describe Jesus except Saviour of the World.

John 4:43-45: “Two days after Jesus left there and went to Galilee.  Jesus himself declared that a prophet has no honour in his own country.  But when he came into Galilee, the Galilaeans welcomed him, because they had seen all that he had done at Jerusalem at the Feast, for they too had gone to the Feast.”

All three synoptic gospels tell of the saying of Jesus that a prophet has no honour in his own country (Mark 6:4; Matthew 13:57; Luke 4:24).  It was an ancient proverb with much the same meaning as our own “familiarity breeds contempt.”  But John introduces it in a very strange place.  The other gospels introduce it on occasions when Jesus was rejected by his own countrymen; John introduces it on an occasion when he was accepted.

It may be that John is reading the mind of Jesus.  We have already seen that Jesus had left Judaea and set out for Galilee to avoid the controversy that an increasing publicity was bringing to him.  The hour of conflict had not yet come (John 4:1-4).  It may be that his astonishing success in Samaria had actually surprised him; his words about the astonishing harvest have the ring of glad surprise about them.

It may well be that Jesus set out for Galilee hoping to find rest and retirement there, because he did not expect those of his native country to respond to him.  And it may be that exactly the same happened in Galilee as happened in Samaria, that against all expectations there was a surge of response to his teaching.  We must either explain the saying in this way or assume that somehow it has crept into the wrong place.

However that may be, this passage and the one before give us the unanswerable argument for Christ.  The Samaritans believed in Jesus, not because of someone else’s story but because they themselves had heard him speak things whose like they had never heard.  The Galilaeans believed in him, not because someone had told them about him but because they had seen him do in Jerusalem things whose like they had never seen.  The words he spoke and the deeds he did were arguments to which there was no answer.

Here we have one of the great truths of the Christian life.  The only real argument for Christianity is a Christian experience.  It may be that sometimes we have to argue with people until the intellectual barriers which they have erected are battered down and the citadel of their mind capitulates.  But in the great majority of cases the only persuasion we can use is to say:  “I know what Jesus is like and I know what Jesus can do.  All that I can ask you to do is to try him yourself and to see what happens.”  Effective Christian evangelism really begins when we can say:  “I know what Christ has done for me,” and go on to say:  “Try him, and see what he can do for you.”

Here again tremendous personal responsibility is laid upon us.  No one is likely to attempt the experience unless our own lives show its value.  There is little use in telling people that Christ will bring them joy and peace and power, if our own lives are gloomy, worried and defeated.  Men will be persuaded to try the experiment only when they see that for us it has ended in an experience which is much to be desired.

FAITH IS TIED TO BEHAVIOR

At a critical point in His conversation with the woman, Jesus asked her to go and bring her husband. When she said that she had no husband, Jesus said, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly” (4:17, 18).

At first it seems like a strange interruption in a deeply spiritual conversation. Why would Jesus jump from talking about “living water” to asking her to bring her husband? The response of the woman and Jesus’ reaction to that response indicate that Jesus changed the subject for the very purpose of making sure she brought her whole life to the Lord, not just her curiosity. Until she reevaluated her personal life, her faith would be a fraud.

It is possible that some of her husbands could have died. However, the context seems to indicate that the marriages ended in divorce.

While faith is not tied to circumstances, it is crucially important that we connect our faith with our behavior. It is possible for one to express belief in Jesus but refuse Him entry into his life.

When one comes seeking the way of faith, it is essential that he bring his whole life to the Lord. You may have heard of the soldiers who fought years ago in an army that was “Christian.” When the soldiers were baptized, they would keep their right arms out of the water. In this way they could do with their right arms whatever they pleased in battle, declaring, “This arm hasn’t been baptized!”

Jesus’ question to the woman was His way of saying that she had to give the Lord her whole life or nothing at all.

The association of obedience with real faith is expressed in numerous places in the New Testament. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.” Years later, James wrote, “Faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” James 2:17).

Faith and obedience simply cannot be separated. The Samaritan woman could not have come to true faith until she was willing to let Jesus into every area of her life.

Jesus’ asking this woman to bring her husband is like His asking you and me today to bring Him our checkbooks, our tax returns, our daily planners, or our diaries. Faith is not an aspect of our lives; it involves our whole lives.

Jesus did not disqualify the woman from the kingdom because of her past, but He insisted that she bring to Him her whole life. He asked her to make a break with her sinful past. Faith, if separated from the way we live, is not faith at all!

FAITH IS EXPRESSED IN TRUE WORSHIP 

When Jesus asked the woman to bring her husband, it seemed as if the conversation was taking a major detour; yet, as we have seen, it did not.

Next, the woman said, “Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” (4:20).

It appears that she was trying to detract from her personal situation by embroiling Jesus in a religious controversy. However, Jesus used her question to continue leading her to God.

First, He told her that true worship was not tied to any specific place, including Jerusalem and Mt. Gerazim. In saying this, He did not mean that Mt. Gerazim was as good as Jerusalem, for He made clear that “salvation is from the Jews” (4:22). “But,” He declared, “an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (4:23).

Worship, Jesus taught her, is not a matter of place. Both Jerusalem and Mt. Gerazim were soon to be irrelevant. True worship is in spirit (in contrast to the specific, physical regulations of Old Covenant worship) and in truth (in contrast to the shadow of the Old Covenant).

On this question, the Samaritan woman was probably guilty of the same misconceptions held by the Twelve. For her, Jesus was untying worship from a certain place and was pointing her in the direction of true worship. Because of the spiritual nature of God, true worship is a matter of the spirit.

John Killinger told of a conversation he had with an aging minister who was nearing retirement. As the two men walked through the magnificent church building where the older man preached, Killinger asked him about his daily thoughts at that point in his life. One of his frequent thoughts, he replied, was about love:

 

“By love,” he said, “I mean this.” He waved his hand in a semi-sweep, indicating the extremely

large church building completed within the last five years. “I used to think that the ultimate

was to build this building. You know, the old edifice complex. Now that it’s built, I think a lot

about love. What good is a building if the people aren’t changed? I’d like to spend the rest of

my ministry teaching people how to love. If they don’t learn .. .” His words trailed off

in another gesture, a gesture of partial hopelessness, as if he didn’t know if he could pull

it off, as if his glorious success as a builder was somehow fatally flawed by his discovery too

late that love is the goal of everything.”

 

Many issues attach themselves to religion; some are more important than others. Greater than all other issues are those of faith, worship, and love. Jesus pointed a needy and confused Samaritan woman in the direction of what is r significant in life when He pointed her in the direction of true, spiritual worship. Most other matters, including temples and holy mountains, mean nothing in comparison to that.

Conclusion

This is a great text, is it not? There are many lessons to be learned from this text, but I shall conclude by pointing out only a few. Is this whole chapter not a prototype, a foretaste of things to come? Was it not due to the hardness of heart and unbelief of the Jews that the gospel came to the Gentiles? What an amazing example of the grace of God, manifested toward sinners, and what an encouragement! Once again we see that those who reject the gospel are those who think themselves “too good for it.” But this woman, along with many from her home town, acknowledge their sin and find salvation in Jesus Christ. No one is ever too sinful to be saved, but many are those who are too “righteous” (self-righteous) to be saved. John chapter 4 prepares us for the great harvest of Gentile sinners, who are soon to be saved as a result of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the rejection of Him as Messiah by the Jews.

What an amazing thing that our Lord found it necessary to pass through Samaria. Why was this? Well, of course it was because God had purposed to save these Samaritans from their sins. But there is yet another reason, a very simple one: These Samaritans would not come to Jesus, but Jesus did come to them. I think there is sometimes the presumption that the unbelievers should come to us, but it is a presumption on our part, and a bad one. “Go” is an important word in the great commission, and Jesus has set the example for us.

If the church is saying, “Come” to unbelievers, let us remember that our Lord says, “Go” to the church. The first thing the Samaritan woman does is to “go” to those who are lost in her home town.

Our text challenges me to question just how committed I am to obeying our Lord. The “work” to which our Lord was committed was the “Father’s work,” the work of salvation. He was so committed to completing His work that He refused to eat a meal when it interfered with this work. Am I as committed to the salvation of men as God is? Am I willing to forego a meal, a restful evening, a bigger house, a more affluent lifestyle, so that God’s work might be advanced? This text exposes my own self-centeredness, my own reluctance to subordinate my self-interests to God’s interests.

I am also challenged to reevaluate what inspires and motivates me. My appetites provide me with strong motivation to eat and to satisfy myself. God’s purposes and work motivated our Lord. Food gives us strength and sustenance. If our Lord’s “food” was to complete the work His Father had given Him, then His strength and motivation for service came from this work. I hear a lot these days about “burnout,” and I’ve always been troubled because I don’t find this term in the Bible. Now, I’m beginning to wonder if the concept is biblical. Are Christians “burning out” because they have been working too hard at doing the Father’s will? It seems to me that if the Father’s work is that which strengthens and empowers us, then we can hardly “burn out” by making His work our work. This whole matter needs to be given more careful thought in the light of our text.

If the salvation of the lost is so important, then it is clear that nothing should keep us from it—even something as “good” as “lunch.” Is this not what Jesus told His disciples? And if something essentially good and necessary may need to be set aside to complete God’s work, then surely those things which are not good must to be set aside too:

1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and run with endurance the race set out for us, 2 keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. For the joy set out for him he endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:1-2).

What are some of the hindrances we ought to set aside so that we can more effectively carry out the Father’s will in the salvation of men? We have already seen that we must set aside “self-interest.” In our text, we see that we must also set aside our prejudices in regard to race, culture, and gender (to mention a few). We must set aside all self-righteousness, realizing that Christ came to save sinners, among whom we are chief (see 1 Timothy 1:12-16).

We must set aside our false views of piety. We are not more holy for separating ourselves from any contact with sinners. We are holy when we put off those practices that once characterized us as sinners. Keeping our distance from sinners as the Pharisees did was ineffective in making them more pious, and it kept them from sharing the light of the gospel with those who needed it.

We must also set aside erroneous ideas as to whom God can use to save others. Why do so many Christians today (of those who do attempt to evangelize) seem to fix their attention and focus their efforts on the “Nicodemuses” of our time? Why do we go after those whom we suppose to have position and power, thinking they will bring more to Christ? Does the contrast between Nicodemus in chapter 3 and the woman at the well in chapter 4 not teach us something? Is this not exactly what the Apostle Paul taught?

18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic Law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since in the wisdom of God, the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. 22 For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, 23 but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. 24 But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. 26 Think about the circumstances of your call, brothers and sisters. Not many were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were members of the upper class. 27 But God chose what the world thinks foolish to shame the wise, and God chose what the world thinks weak to shame the strong. 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, what is regarded as nothing, to set aside what is regarded as something, 29 so that no one can boast in his presence. 30 He is the reason you have a relationship with Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Finally, our text is instructive as to how we should evangelize the lost. I have already pointed out that we must see the importance of this ministry—it is God’s passion, and it should be ours as well. It is so important we should be willing to miss a meal (or more) to do it. We need to set aside our prejudices and rearrange our priorities. We need to go where the lost can be found. And, we need to start by talking to people where they are, in terms of things they understand, and that they know they need. We should move from these matters to the deeper issues of sin and of salvation. We need to earn the right to do this, and it will very likely take much more time that it took our Lord. But it is what God wants us to do, indeed what He commands us to do. It is what He did to seek and to save us. It is what we need to do as well.

Following Jesus’ words about worship, the Samaritan woman again tried to change the subject. “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us” (4:25). Jesus then did something startling–something that is extremely rare in the Gospels: He told her exactly who He was! “I who speak to you am He” (4:26).

It was not to priests or kings that He made such a revelation; it was to an immoral Samaritan woman! Jesus saw in her heart fertile soil for the seed of the kingdom, so He shared with her the message of God.

In the end, you and I are standing at the well with Jesus. Bringing our confusion, our hopes, our past, and our pain, we encounter the Son of God. We listen and try to understand as He teaches us these truths: (1) Faith is above circumstances, (2) faith is tied to behavior, and (3) faith is expressed in true worship. As surely as Jesus invited the Samaritan woman to travel the road of faith, He invites you and me today!

 

 

 

 

[1] Morris observes, “John’s word for ‘left’ is unusual in the sense of leaving a place. It often has the meaning ‘abandon’ (as in v. 28 of the woman’s waterpot), and there may be something of this meaning here.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 253. Morris then cites Morgan: “‘We should not misinterpret the thought if we said He abandoned Judaea. He did go back, but very seldom. He had been to Judaea. He had gone to the Temple. He had exercised His ministry in the surrounding country with marvellous success; but hostility was stirring there, and He left Judaea; He broke with it.’” Morris, p. 253, fn. 10.

[2] “Popular commentators have sometimes insisted that the longer route through the Transjordan was the customary route for Jewish travelers, so great was their aversion to Samaritans; this in turn suggests that the ‘had to’ language (edei) reflects the compulsion of divine appointment, not geography. Josephus, however, provides ample assurance not only that the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans was strong, but also that Jews passing from Judea to Galilee or back nevertheless preferred the shorter route through Samaria (Ant. Xx.118; Bel. Ii. 232; Vita 269).” D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 216. Morris adds, “Josephus uses exactly the expression rendered ‘must needs’ when he says, ‘for rapid travel, it was essential to take that route (i.e. through Samaria).’” Morris, p. 255. He further adds, “Josephus says that it was the custom of the Galileans to pass through Samaria when they went up to Jerusalem for the feasts (Ant. xx, 118).” Morris, p. 255, fn. 16.

[3] There is some discussion about the time here, since there were two ways of reckoning time in that day: the Roman method (by which reckoning it would have been evening), and the Jewish method, which puts the woman’s arrival at noon. Overall, it seems best to assume that the woman reached the well at noon, when others may not have been so likely to come. This also serves to contrast the woman’s arrival with that of Nicodemus, who came to Jesus at night.

[4] The exact location of “Sychar” is not known. Morris writes, “Sychar is perhaps to be identified with the village called Askar, near Shechem. There is a reference to Jacob’s buying of a piece of ground in this vicinity (Gen. 33:19). … There is no Old Testament reference to his having dug a well there, but there is nothing improbable about it.” Morris, p. 257.

[5] The word John uses here is phgh‰, rather than the usual Fre‰ar. “On the difference between the two Loyd comments: ‘A spring is a God-given thing. God creates the spring; man only digs the well.’ It is a curiosity that such a deep well should have been dug in a country where there are many springs. (Godet says that there are as many as eighty springs in the region.) The well must originally have been well over a hundred feet deep, so that digging and lining it was no small task. This has been worked into an argument that the well really was dug by Jacob. Only ‘a stranger in the land’ would have gone to all the trouble to construct such a well in a land as plentifully endowed with springs! Many commentators give the depth of the well as about seventy-five feet, but according to Hendriksen a great deal of debris has been cleaned out and the well restored to its original depth.” Morris, p. 257, fn. 20.

[6] Time does not permit an extensive exploration of the “well motif” in Genesis, but it has been noted elsewhere. Many of the important events in Genesis took place at a well. It was at a well that Abraham’s servant found a wife for Isaac (see Genesis 24). It was also at a well that Jacob first met Rachel (Genesis 29). A spring plays a vital role in the survival of Hagar and her son, Ishmael (Genesis 16).

[7] See also John 8:1-11.

[8] “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.

[9] “Whatever might be thought of the propriety of asking for a drink …, no Rabbi would have carried on a conversation with a woman. 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.

[10] Note the change in Peter’s view of women, as reflected in 1 Peter 3:7.

[11] Morris, p. 274, fn. 68.

[12] I would hasten to add here that I do not see the issue as being something inappropriate in the way Jesus is dealing with one of the opposite sex. What Jesus does is shocking, because He gives this woman credit for being capable of an intelligent spiritual and theological conversation, not because He is acting in a morally inappropriate manner toward the opposite sex.

[13] Isn’t it interesting that Adam and Eve did not eat of the fruit of the tree of life, but fell because they disobeyed God by eating of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The Corinthians were not willing to miss a meal, so they insisted on eating “meats offered to idols” (1 Corinthians 8-10). So too they would not wait for their brothers and sisters to arrive at the Lord’s Table, choosing rather to indulge themselves to the detriment of those of lesser means (1 Corinthians 11). Food really is a test, is it not?

[14] “J. A. T. Robinson has argued, convincingly to my mind, that the reference is primarily to the work of John the Baptist and his followers. His work in this very area had prepared the way for Jesus and His band.” Morris, pp. 281-282.

[15] The “harvest” seems to have lasted longer than our Lord’s short stay. “Cullmann, who is supported by M. Simon (St. Stephen and the Hellenists, 1958, 00. 36ff.), sees in the ‘others’ the Hellenists of Acts 8 (pre-eminently Philip), who took the gospel to Samaria after which the apostles Peter and John entered the fruits of their labor.” Morris, p. 282, fn. 93.

Many of us use the N.I.V. and you probably noticed a different translation of an important word in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

It is usually rendered “only Begotten” and caused quite a stir when the N.I.V. was published. Many felt that it de-emphasized the uniqueness of Jesus, when quite the opposite it true.

The Greek word under fire is “monogenes.” Monogenes comes from monos (only) and genos (kind)–thus “the only one of its kind.” The earliest Latin translators rendered it to be “unique son” and it was actually 318 A.D. when it was first rendered “begotten Son”…and there began the inaccurate Latin rendering of “unigenitus” (only- begotten).

In the New Testament, monogenes appears 9 times and is always translated “only” in the Revised Standard Version. Only 6 times is it rendered “only-begotten” in the King James Version!

THE NINE USES OF THE WORD “MONOGENES” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. The Widow of Nain and Luke 7:12.

“As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out–the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her.”

In this story, the fact that her dead son had once been begotten was of course true but now of no consequence; the important thing here was that he was her only son.

What a pathetic situation!  The fact that she was a widow speaks of her past sorrow, but now the realization that the one and only prop of her life, the stay and hope of her widowhood, had been taken from her, shows realistically her present despair. Surely few greater misfortunes are conceivable than the loss of a widow’s only son!

2. Jairus’ daughter in Luke 8:41-42a.

“Then a man named Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue, came and fell at Jesus’ feet, pleading with him to come to his house {42} because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.”

Likewise, we share the concern of the father, for his only daughter was dying! Can anyone mistake the significance of “monogenes” in these passages? Not even the King James translators could!

3. The boy with an evil spirit and Luke 9:38.

“A man in the crowd called out, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child.”

Likewise, the comments of items #1 and #2. We cannot help but share the concern of this father.

4. Isaac and Hebrews 11:17.

“By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice.  He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son…”

Though the King James Version says “only begotten,” Abraham obviously had begotten other children (Gen. 25:1-2). But the point is: Isaac was the only son of his kind, as far as God’s promise to Abraham was concerned. Thus “monogenes” is justified, and the RSV rendering “only son.”

5 and 6. Jesus and John 1:14 and 1:18.

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth….No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”

The question is: doesn’t “only begotten” refer to Jesus’ virgin birth? Never!  Jesus did not become the Son; He became flesh to manifest Himself as God’s eternal Son. Men became the Sons of God because the Son of God became man.

Jesus is certainly the only Son in that there is none like him. He is the Son eternally, He is the Son by nature, and is the same essence with the Father.

7 and 8. Jesus in John 3:16, 18.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life…Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

9. Jesus in 1 John 4:9.

“This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.”

When “God sent his only Son into the world,” He did not send one Who became a son only when sent, any more than when God sent forth the Spirit (Gal. 4:6) did He send forth one who became a Spirit only when sent.

* CONCLUSIONS. Let’s let the translators render the words as they fit the context. Let’s not argue about translations…let’s read, study, and apply the book! Let’s realize that Jesus is not merely the Only Son, but the precious beloved Son of God’s embrace, and still God gave Him up! Take all the tenderness, forgiveness and love in the relation of an earthly father to his only child, and in that earth-drawn picture you have yet but a faint approach to the fathomless love of God, as He so loved the world that He gave the ONLY SON HE HAD–and what a precious Son–an innocent Son to be slain for the benefit of guilty men–that He might redeem them from eternal condemnation.

No clearer picture of the deity of Christ, or the love of God can be seen!

Picture a guy floating downstream on a raft on a hot summer day. He’s having the time of his life, enjoying the ride as the cool water gently splashes on him. You’re on the shore and you know that there’s a deadly waterfall not far downstream. This guy is floating blissfully and ignorantly toward certain destruction! So you yell to warn him. You throw him a rope. But he rejects it and keeps floating toward certain death. Why won’t he grab the life preserver? Because he loves what he’s doing and he doesn’t want to believe your warning.

Why do people reject God’s wonderful offer of salvation through Jesus Christ? You would think that everyone would eagerly grab the life preserver that God has thrown out through the gospel (John 3:16): “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Why would anyone reject such a wonderful offer? Why would anyone want to keep heading for eternal destruction? In our text, John shows us:

People reject Christ because they love their sin and they hate having it exposed by God’s light.

People don’t want God interfering with what they consider “a good time,” and they don’t believe the warnings of Scripture that they are under God’s judgment now and will face it eternally when they die.

People think that they’re basically good and that God will overlook their faults and give them credit for their good deeds on judgment day. So they don’t repent of their sin and believe in Jesus Christ to save them from God’s judgment.

The Greek philosopher, Plato, observed (source unknown), “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”

1. The light came into this world in the person of Jesus Christ, and His presence condemned those in darkness.

John 3:19a: “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world ….”

John has already introduced Jesus as the Light (1:4-5): “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

Later (8:12; also, 9:5; 12:46), Jesus states, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

In the Bible, light is used symbolically in two main ways: First, it refers to God’s absolute holiness and, by extension, to the holiness of His people; whereas darkness symbolizes Satan’s domain and sin (Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18).

Paul says (1 Tim. 6:16) that God “dwells in unapproachable light.” In 1 John 1:5, the apostle declares, “God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.”

In this vein, Paul exhorts us (Eph. 5:7-10): Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.

Second, light refers to the spiritual illumination or understanding that we get when we are born again, whereas darkness refers to our natural spiritual blindness before we are saved (2 Cor. 4:3-4, 6): And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God…. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

In that sense, God’s Word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path (Ps. 119:105). Proverbs 6:23 says, “For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching is light; and reproofs for discipline are the way of life ….” God’s Word gives spiritual light so that we understand God’s truth and how He wants us to live.

God’s light is embodied in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God who took on human flesh. John has told us (1:9), “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.” When Jesus came into the world, His very presence exposed the world to who God is as holy and to the fact that we are not holy.

1. A. Carson explains John 1:9 (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans/Apollos], p. 124): It shines on every man, and divides the race: those who hate the light respond as the world does (1:10): they flee lest their deeds should be exposed by this light (3:19-21). But some receive this revelation (1:12-13), and thereby testify that their deeds have been done through God (3:21). In John’s Gospel it is repeatedly the case that the light shines on all, and forces a distinction (e.g. 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:39-41).

Leon Morris (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans], p. 233, italics his) explains John 3:19: The word translated “judgment” here denotes the process of judging, not the sentence of condemnation…. It is not God’s sentence with which [John] is concerned here. He is telling us rather how the process works. Men choose the darkness and their condemnation lies in that very fact…. They refuse to be shaken out of their comfortable sinfulness.

As we saw in 3:17-18, even though Jesus did not come for the purpose of judgment, because of who He is, His very presence brought judgment and divided people. Have you ever been in the presence of a very godly man, so that his very presence made you uncomfortable?

How much more would we all have felt condemned to be in the presence of Jesus Christ! Do you remember one of Peter’s early encounters with Jesus, when Jesus caused the miraculous catch of fish? Peter fell down at Jesus’ feet and said (Luke 5:8), “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!”

Have you had that experience with Jesus Christ? Have you seen who Jesus is and instantly recognized, “He is holy and I am not holy! I am under God’s judgment because Jesus is Light and I am darkness!” When you’ve that kind of encounter with Jesus, you can go one of two ways. First, John presents the negative reaction:

2. People love darkness rather than the light because their deeds are evil.

John 1:19b: “… men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.” This phrase contains several significant truths about sin. First, sin is far deeper than outward deeds; sin is a matter of our affections or desires. “Men loved darkness.” The past tense (Greek aorist) could be translated, “Men set their love on darkness” (Morris, p. 233). Loved indicates that this was not a cool, rational decision: “Having weighed all the factors involved, I think the best decision is to love darkness rather than light.” No, it was in large part an emotional choice that stems from desires that dwell in our hearts due to the fall. We love darkness rather than light.

This leads to a second significant truth about sin: Our sin problem is far deeper than we ever imagined. The Bible does not teach that we are basically good people who need to overcome a few flaws in our character. We’re not merely in need of more education or learning some anger management skills so that we can develop better relational skills. We don’t need to go through therapy to explore our pasts and figure out why our parents treated us as they did so that we can now understand why we are the way we are. All of these approaches to sin are too superficial from a biblical standpoint. The Bible shows that our root problem is that we love our sin rather than God’s holiness. It’s a matter of the heart, and the only remedy that goes deep enough is the new birth, which gives us new hearts that hunger and thirst after righteousness.

This phrase also shows us a third truth about sin: The reason that people reject Christ is not primarily intellectual, but moral. Unbelievers do not love darkness rather than light because they have thought it through carefully and concluded that darkness makes more sense. No, unbelievers love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. The light exposes their evil deeds and convicts them of their true moral guilt before the holy God. But, frankly, they like sinning!

Aldous Huxley, the famous atheist of the last century, once admitted that his rejection of Christianity stemmed from his desire to sin. He wrote (Ends and Means [Garland Publishers], pp. 270, 273, cited in James Boice, Genesis [Zondervan], 1:236): “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had not; and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning for this world is not concerned exclusively with the problem of pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to…. For myself … the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”

This means that when you’re sharing the gospel, don’t be intimidated by a Ph.D. who argues in favor of evolution or who cites arguments from the latest popular atheist. Don’t panic if someone says, “I don’t believe in the Bible because of its contradictions.” You can give philosophic arguments for the existence of God or scientific arguments against evolution all day long, but even if you were to convince the unbeliever intellectually, you have not dealt with his main problem. His main problem is that he loves his sin and he stands guilty before the holy Judge of the uerse.

I’m not saying that we should not have good answers to these intellectual questions. But I am saying that they are usually not the real issue. You can ask the person raising the objection, “Are you saying that if I can give reasonable answers to these questions, you will repent of your sins and trust in Christ as your Savior and Lord?” Invariably, the answer will be, “Well, I have other objections, too.” The objections are smokescreens to hide the fact that unbelievers love their sin.

This phrase shows us a fourth truth about sin: Sin must be determined by God’s absolute standards of holiness, not by men’s relative standards of goodness. When John says that men’s “deeds are evil,” we may recoil and think, “Terrorists and drug dealers and pedophiles and pimps are evil. But most people are not evil. Just look at all the good people in this world!”

The Bible acknowledges that there are unbelievers who are relatively good people. Because of God’s common grace, all people are not as evil as they could be. The human race would have self-destructed millennia ago if everyone acted as badly as they could. God restrains outward evil through civil government, through social disapproval, and through the fear of shame and the desire to look good to others. But God looks on the heart. Hebrews 4:13 reminds us, “And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” When God looks at our hearts, even the best of people, humanly speaking, are filled with pride, selfishness, greed, lust, and other sins that may never come into public view.

But the situation of loving darkness rather than light is far worse than just loving sin:

3. Those who practice evil hate Jesus, who is light, and do not come to Him for fear that their deeds will be exposed.

John 3:20: “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.”

Unbelievers do not just love their sin; they also hate Jesus! They hate the One who out of love offered Himself on the cross so that every sinner might not perish but have eternal life simply by believing in Him! They hate Him because He exposes their evil deeds.

A teacher assigned his fourth-grade students to write a topic sentence for the following phrases: “Sam always works quietly. Sam is polite to the teacher. Sam always does his homework.” The student’s topic sentence? “I hate Sam.” (Reader’s Digest [November, 2007], p. 59)

We need to understand several things about this verse. First, John does not mean that all sinners do their evil deeds in secret. Many do, of course. Many otherwise respectable men would never frequent a strip club in their own city, for fear of being seen. But if they’re traveling far from home, where they think they’re safe, they might yield to that sin. But in our day, when people call good evil and evil good (Isa. 5:20), it’s cool to flaunt your sin. Movie stars and other celebrities go on television to tell about their immoral behavior. We have “gay pride” celebrations to boast in what God condemns as evil. John is merely pointing out that such sinners do not come to the Light (Jesus) because they know that He would condemn their behavior as evil.

Second, John does not say that those who practice evil are neutral toward Jesus; rather, they hate Him. Many unbelievers would object. They would say that they don’t have anything against Jesus; they’re indifferent towards Him. They think that Jesus was a good man. Some may think that He was a prophet. They may say that He was a good moral teacher. They might even feel bad that He got crucified for His teachings and beliefs. They recognize that that was a miscarriage of justice. But they would protest if you said that they hate Jesus. They’re just indifferent. But John says that they hate Jesus. Jesus Himself told His then unbelieving brothers (John 7:7), “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.”

Third, John gives the reason why unbelievers hate Jesus: they fear that He will expose their evil deeds. Just being around a guy like that makes you nervous because you’re always afraid that you’ll slip and utter a swear word or say or do something that will expose your evil heart.

The word translated “exposed” means to be convicted in a court of law. It was used of an attorney proving his case. Jesus uses it in John 16:8 when He says that the Holy Spirit “will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.” Guilty criminals hate judges who convict them of their crimes, even though it’s not the judges’ fault. Guilty sinners hate Jesus because He convicts them of their sins.

But, because of God’s grace, not all reject Christ:

4. True believers practice the truth and come to the Light, so that their deeds are shown to have God as their source.

John 3:21: “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” John does not mean that some have a natural bent toward practicing the truth or that doing so brings salvation. He has just made it plain that we all need the new birth and that salvation comes through believing in Jesus Christ (3:1-16).

Rather, John is describing two types of people in the world: Those that have not believed in Christ avoid the light and hate it, because it exposes their sinful deeds. Those that have believed in Christ gladly come to Him and give Him all credit for their good deeds, because they know that those good deeds came from God, who caused them to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3; James 1:18).

“Practicing the truth” is a Semitic expression which means to act faithfully or honorably (Carson, p. 207). But it also shows us that the truth is to be lived, not just spoken (1 John 1:6). “Truth” is an important concept for John He uses the word 25 times in his gospel and 20 more times in his epistles. Truth is embodied in Jesus Himself, who said (14:6), “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” Jesus told Pilate (18:37), “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” This has two implications:

First, there is such a thing as absolute truth in the spiritual and moral realms and you can spot believers by their obedience to that truth. Contrary to the postmodern mindset, truth is not relative to the culture or situation. All truth is in Jesus (Eph. 4:21) and He declared that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). This means that believers are committed to the truth. We seek to understand the truth more deeply. We hold to the truth of God’s Word even when our culture goes against it.

Second, believers willingly, gladly, and repeatedly come to the light of God’s Word in order to grow in holiness and to give God glory for His work in their hearts. True believers read God’s Word over and over, allowing it to shine into the dark corners of their lives and expose the sinful thoughts and intentions of their hearts (Heb. 4:12). False believers avoid the Word and they find churches that don’t preach the Word to expose sin. False believers try to keep up a good front to impress others, but they don’t live openly in the light of God’s presence on the heart level.

Conclusion

1. C. Ryle (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels [Baker], 3:164) points out that eventually sinners will get what they desired while on earth: they loved darkness; they will be cast into outer darkness. They hated the light; they will be shut out from the light eternally. God will be perfectly just in condemning those who rejected Christ. They saw the Light, but hated it and turned away from it because they loved their sin.

John Piper summarizes our text (DesiringGod.org, “This is the Judgment: Light has come into the World”): “The coming of Jesus into the world clarifies that unbelief is our fault, and belief is God’s gift. Which means that if we do not come to Christ, but rather perish eternally, we magnify God’s justice. And if we do come to Christ and gain eternal life, we magnify God’s grace.”

I pray that we all will believe in Jesus and rejoice in His light, so that we magnify God’s grace!

The opening ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem had attracted a great deal of attention, both favorable and unfavorable. Many of the people believed (2:23).

Jesus knew their hearts and that their faith was weak and unstable and so while He encouraged their belief, He did not trust Himself to them for more. They needed more time.

The story of Nicodemus is presented by John as a contrast to those who were described in 2:23-24. Nicodemus is an instance of Christ’s knowledge of men and of one to whom He could trust Himself, unlike those in 2:24.

Nicodemus cannot overlook the weight of the evidence. His fellow Pharisees will quickly begin to find alternative explanations for Jesus’ success, but Nicodemus cannot get away from his personal conviction that Jesus has some kind of divine mission, and that He possesses divine authority by which He speaks and heals. I am now inclined to read the first verses of chapter 3 in this way: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could do the miraculous signs that you do unless God were with him …”

I am not sure Nicodemus knows what to say from here on, or that he came with a predetermined agenda for this interview. If he does have a plan, we do not know what it was as he never gets to it. He simply tells Jesus that, from what he has personally seen, he has concluded that Jesus has come from God on some divinely inspired mission. Having said this, Nicodemus may have waited, hoping Jesus would take up the subject where he leaves off, fill in all the blanks, and answer all his questions. If this is his hope, he is in for a big disappointment.

Nicodemus is the “cream of the Jewish crop.” One dare not dream of having life any better than he has it. He is a Jew, a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin (the highest legal, legislative and judicial body of the Jews), and a highly respected teacher of the Old Testament Scriptures. Can you imagine being Nicodemus and having Jesus tell you that all of this is not enough to get you into the kingdom of God? Yet this is precisely what Jesus tells Nicodemus. If a man like Nicodemus is not good enough for the kingdom of God, then who is? That is the question, and Jesus has the answer, which John records for us. Let us listen well to the inspired words of this Gospel to learn how one must enter the kingdom of God.

The three main interviews within the next two chapters exhibit Jesus’ method of dealing skillfully with three different types of personality with the purpose of bringing them to belief.

These early believers were not where Jesus wanted them eventually to be in their faith. They had faith, but it was not the kind of faith that would allow them to understand fully who Jesus really was. Jesus wanted to communicate more about Himself and the kingdom of God, but such concepts were difficult to discuss with large groups of people. Consequently, John related Jesus’ teaching on true, Christian faith by recounting the private, nighttime encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus.

The Setting

While the exact chronology of the following events may not be accurate, the sequence outlined by these texts cannot be too far from the way our Lord’s teaching (and John the Baptist’s) caught the attention of the Jewish religious leaders, particularly the Pharisees:

46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Jesus were astonished at his understanding and his answers (Luke 2:46-47).

19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed—he did not deny but confessed— “I am not the Christ.” 21 So they asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.” 22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 John said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the desert, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.” 24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) 25 So they asked John, “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” (John 1:19-25)

30 However, the Pharisees and the experts in religious law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John (Luke 7:30).

28 When Jesus finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed by his teaching, 29 because he taught them like one who had authority, and not like their experts in the law (Matthew 7:28-29).

17 On one of those days, while he was teaching, there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting nearby (who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem), and the power of the Lord was with him to heal the sick (Luke 5:17).

At the age of 12, our Lord accompanied Mary and Joseph to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover with them. When His family left for home, Jesus stayed behind, His absence unnoticed. When Mary and Joseph returned to Jerusalem in search of Jesus, they found Him in the temple listening to the teachers and asking questions (Luke 2:46). It wasn’t long before they were asking Jesus questions, and they were amazed at His answers (2:47). Our Lord was already an astounding teacher at 12 years of age, whose understanding of the Scriptures amazed Israel’s finest scholars.

A number of years later, John the Baptist commenced his public ministry, proclaiming the Word of God and calling Israel to repentance in preparation for the coming of Messiah. The Jewish religious leaders took note of him and sent a delegation to inquire about his ministry and message. It is apparent that the Pharisees chose not to identify themselves with John and his preaching, as they refused to be baptized by him (Luke 7:30).

When Jesus began His public ministry, the people who heard Him recognized a difference between His teaching and that of the Jewish religious teachers. Jesus taught as one having authority and not as their experts in the law. Our Lord’s authority was evident in His healing of the sick and casting out of demons. It also seems to have been evident in the impact His words made on His listeners. The experts in the law taught with great dogmatism (Romans 2:17-20; 1 Timothy 1:6-7; 2 Peter 2:18), but their message lacked the power of our Lord’s words. His teaching seems to have “rung true” to His audience.[1]

We learn from Luke 5:17, the Pharisees quickly take note of Jesus. At some point in time, Pharisees from the entire nation of Israel gather to observe His ministry and teaching. We know from Luke’s words that Jesus was also performing miracles at this time. It is uncertain whether this occurred before or after our Lord’s interview with Nicodemus, but it must have been close to the time Nicodemus comes to Him by night, as our text in John describes. The Pharisees are hard pressed to speak critically of our Lord or His ministry. How can His teaching be criticized? How can anyone speak against Him, when He performs miracles openly, and many take note of them? Jesus makes the Pharisees look bad, and there seems to be little they can say against Him at the moment, though this will soon change. But Jesus does not have much good to say about them:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do this, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-20).

Jesus performed His first sign at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, but very few even realized what had happened. It was the cleansing of the temple which captured the attention of the religious leaders (John 2:18-22), while the signs our Lord accomplished in Jerusalem caught the attention of many others (John 2:23-25). Still, the Pharisees were not the ones who caught the brunt of our Lord’s attack. They were not the ones behind the merchandising which took place in the temple courts. This was the work of the priests and of the Sadducees.[2] It may be that the Pharisees even stood by as Jesus cleansed the temple, looking on with great satisfaction as the priests and Sadducees were publicly humiliated.[3]

All of these events seem to rivet the Pharisees’ attention on Jesus. We know one Pharisee in particular is greatly impressed—a Pharisee named Nicodemus. At one time, I thought Nicodemus was seeking, on behalf of the Pharisees, to recruit Jesus as a kind of junior partner. I am not certain Nicodemus’ colleagues would even have accepted Jesus into their ranks. I also thought Nicodemus came with a memorized script, and when Jesus interrupted him, he was totally disarmed and disoriented.

I now view our text in a different light. For the moment, suppose you are a renowned pianist, trained by the finest concert pianist the world has ever known. When you perform, crowds gather to listen. Everyone hails you as the master in your area of musical expertise.

Now suppose some young man comes along who grew up in the Ozarks and who never had a piano lesson in his life, but simply taught himself to play on a broken-down instrument in his grandmother’s house. When this hillbilly musician comes to town, his talent is discovered, and people throng to hear him perform. When he does, tears come to the eyes of those in his audience. You too listen to him play. You, better than anyone else, recognize in him a musical genius that you have never had and that you never will. When you hear him play, you wish you had his abilities.

I believe this is the way Nicodemus must have felt about Jesus. Nicodemus is a Pharisee who is at the top of his field. Not only is he a member of the Sanhedrin, he is the most renowned Bible teacher of his day—the “Billy Graham” of first century Jerusalem. Yet when he hears Jesus teach, he hears the answers to questions that have bothered him for years. He watches the crowds as they listen to Jesus, and he knows he has never held the attention of an audience like Jesus does. Jesus speaks in simple terms, but His message has great power. Nicodemus observes the miracles Jesus performs, knowing he has never performed so much as one miracle. By nearly any standard, Nicodemus does not hold a candle to Jesus.

THE INTERVIEW WITH NICODEMUS

   “Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.”

For the most part we see Jesus surrounded by the ordinary people, but here we see him in contact with one of the aristocracy of Jerusalem.

“Religious” people are often the most difficult to lead to Christ. They may be brilliant scholars, gifted leaders, or just “good folks,” but they can suffer from a blindness that is almost impenetrable.  A class example is Nicodemus.

Small Group Discussion Starters 1. Why did Nicodemus come to Jesus at night? a. he couldn’t wait until morning b. he worked during the day c. he was afraid of being seen d. he wanted time alone with Jesus  2. Of the three levels of communication, how did the conversation start out? a. mouth to mouth-polite talk b. head to head-intellectual talk c. heart to heart- deep sharing  3. What is the condition for obtaining eternal life, according to verses 16-18? a. feeling sorry for yourself b. feeling sorry for your sins c. living a clean life d. going to church every Sunday e. receiving God’s free gift by faith  4. How do you think Nicodemus came away from this conversation with Jesus? a. totally confused b. enlightened c. a silent follower of Jesus d. intellectually convinced e. with “food for thought”

He had an impeccable resume. If heaven could be earned from one’s accomplishments, Nicodemus would have had change left over!

But when he met Jesus, he, the leading teacher of Israel, would be the one raising his hand and asking the elementary-school questions.

There are certain things we need to know:

– Nicodemus must have been wealthy.

When Jesus died Nicodemus brought for his body “a mixture of myrrh and aloes about an hundred pound weight” (John 19:39), and only a wealthy man could have brought that.

– He was a Pharisee.

   In many ways the Pharisees were the best people in the whole country. There were never more than 6,000 of them; they were what was known as a chururah, or brotherhood. They entered into this brotherhood by taking a pledge in front of three witnesses that they would spend all their lives observing every detail of the scribal law.

– He was a ruler of the Jews.

   This is to say he was a member of the Sanhedrin, which was a court of 70 members and was the supreme court of the Jews. Of course, under the Romans its power was limited, but they were still exclusive.

They had religious jurisdiction over every Jew in the world; and one of its duties was to examine and deal with anyone suspected of being a false prophet. Again, it was amazing that Nicodemus should come to Jesus at all!

Nicodemus was a strict interpreter of the law! He was respected! He was “Mr. Everything” in his society.

“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.”

There are two reasons why he could have come at night: First, it may have been a sign of caution. It’s likely that Nicodemus may not have wished to commit himself by coming to Jesus by day. We must not condemn him; the wonder is that with his background, he came to Jesus at all! It was infinitely better to come at night than not at all.

Second, the rabbis declared that the best time to study the law was at night when a man was undisturbed. Throughout the day Jesus was surrounded by crowds of people all the time.

His statement of greeting showed he was a gentleman and a thinker: a gentleman, because he paid Jesus a sincere compliment; a thinker, because his words implied that he’d obviously observed Jesus’ works, and had concluded that only a heaven-sent person could perform them.

   “In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”” “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”” Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” (3:3-6).

When John relates conversations that Jesus had with enquirers, he has a way of following a certain scheme:

– the enquirer says something

– Jesus answers in a saying that is hard to understand

– that saying is misunderstood by the enquirer

– Jesus answers with a saying that is even more difficult to understand

– they then begin teaching and understanding

The reply of Jesus was startling because of its abruptness. At first the statement seemed almost irrelevant; yet it really was the expression of Jesus’ discernment.

Because “He knew what was in man,” He saw in Nicodemus a man who was truly seeking the kingdom of God!

To a Jew, the idea of baptism would be repugnant since it connoted the ceremony by which an unclean Gentile became a member of the Jewish faith. It would involve humiliation, and an acknowledgment that he, a Pharisee, needed to repent just like the Gentile “dogs.”

The water and the Spirit are the agents and instruments in producing the birth. The Spirit is living and active…the water is inanimate. The Spirit is the active agent, the water the instrument of birth. It is the fleshly part of man that is born of the flesh; but it is the spirit within man that must be born again or begotten of the Spirit.

 

A special study of the attitude behind this important command:

Jesus often said in His ministry what I believe that these verses are trying to say; to show us in fuller form what Jesus said many times in His earthly ministry: “Unless you can humble yourself and become like a little child, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

This metaphor about humbling self is expressed in the extreme context here with Nicodemus…and he even talks about grown ups, even needing to “be born again.”

This humbling process involves:

– starting their spiritual life from scratch

– seeking grace from God

– looking to Jesus for faith for what we cannot do of ourselves

– willing to accept a divine analysis of the human condition

– willing to accept the divine cure for the human ailment

Jesus was saying: “The fact that you are who you are could make it harder for you to enter the kingdom of God than some others. You need to forget everything you ever heard or thought about being saved…and listen to my commands and do them.”

Prostitutes and thieves may enter the kingdom ahead of someone with the background of Nicodemus. It will always be harder for those who stand on plateaus and have to step down, give up their position of pride, or give up the notion that men should come to them for answers, as they did to Nicodemus!

Humility! It’s the most difficult of all virtues!  YET it’s the foundation for the Christian! Remember Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” It’s the first “Be-attitude” and it’s first for a purpose:

– to be “poor in spirit” means to be “poor in ego”

– without this attitude, the other be-attitudes won’t come!

This is difficult, isn’t it?  It’s difficult for anyone to admit they might be wrong, that we might need to change our viewpoint and our ways! And Jesus blows Nicodemus out of his saddle here. Nicodemus had all the credentials and they wouldn’t be the right ones!——

——————————————-

And, without doubt, Jesus realized that He surprised him with the answer:

“You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ {8} The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.””

In the Hebrew and Greek, the word for wind (“pneuma”) can also be translated “spirit.” It is likely that the evening wind was blowing as Nicodemus and Jesus sat on the housetop conversing.

One of the symbols of the Spirit of God in the Bible is the wind or breath (Job 33:4; John 20:22; Acts 2:2). When Jesus used this symbol, Nicodemus should have readily remembered Ezekiel 37:1-14. The prophet saw a valley full of dead bones; but when he prophesied to the wind, the Spirit came and gave the bones life.

Again, it was the combination of the Spirit of God and the Word of God that gave life.

No one has seen the wind, but all of us have seen its effects, the devastation caused by severe wind storms.  This mighty wind has lowered trees, razed homes, and destroyed lives. We have not seen the wind, but we have seen what the wind has done.

So one cannot see the quiet working of the Holy Spirit, but all who are saved can testify to the fact that its effects are visible. We have seen lives snatched from alcoholism, prostitution, and thievery, being transformed into peaceful, law-abiding citizens with a holy love for God and man. How do we account for this? The new birth, the miracle of the holy Spirit!

Water is the symbol of cleansing. When Jesus takes possession of our lives, when we love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength…the sins of the past are forgiven and forgotten.

The Spirit is the symbol of power. When Jesus takes possession of our lives it is not only that the past is forgotten and forgiven; if that were all, we might well proceed to make the same mess of life over again. But into life there enters a new power which enables us to be what by ourselves we could never be and to do what by ourselves we could never do.

Water and Spirit stand for the cleansing and the strengthening power of God, which wipes out the past and gives victory in the future!

“”How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. {10} “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? {11} I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. {12} I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? {13} No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man. {14} Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, {15} that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

Nicodemus came “by night,” and he was still in the dark! Our Lord stated clearly that his knowledge of the Old Testament should have given him the light he needed (vs. 10). Nicodemus knew the facts recorded in scripture, but he could not understand the truths.

Nicodemus has now responded in three ways:

– “Rabbi, you are a teacher from God…your signs show that”

– “How can a man be born old? Can He enter his mother’s womb again?”

– “How can this be?”

Nicodemus was earnestly seeking for answers…and was not afraid to reveal his lack of understanding. Christ did not answer him directly, but rebuked him for his spiritual incompetency…as if to say, “you ought to know.”

Nicodemus was not just an ordinary teacher…he was a well-known teacher of high rank and position, respected and admired by his people. A man in such a position should have a masterful grasp of spiritual truth. He should  have been familiar with the Scripture passages telling of new life through the Messiah.

 

 

 

 

Faith that leads to a new birth

Conservative columnist Cal Thomas is known among his peers in the news business as a man of deep Christian convictions.

Once when a story broke that involved someone who was known to be a Christian, one of Thomas’ colleagues asked him, “Cal, aren’t you a born-again Christian?” He asked in return, “What do you mean by that?” The friend did not have any idea what his question meant, so Thomas said, “Yes, I am, but let me tell you what I mean by ‘born again.'”

The phrase “born of water and the Spirit,” has been the source of much debate. Various suggestions have been offered as to the meaning of the water which fall into three categories. First, “water” might refer to the water associated with physical birth, such as amniotic fluid, or semen. However, there are no clear examples in Jewish literature of birth being associated with either of these types of “water.”

Second, water might refer to purification. Some suggest that Jesus was calling Nicodemus to submit to John’s baptism, which has just been mentioned (Jn 1:23, 26; 3:23). Aside from the fact that John’s baptism was not associated with the Spirit, John himself has started pointing people away from himself and toward Jesus. Perhaps the cleansing is not a ritual washing but a symbolic reference to the Holy Spirit. After all, the OT often associates the Holy Spirit with both wind and water (Gen 1:2; Joel 2:28-29; Isa 44:3; Ezek 36:25-27), especially in terms of bringing people to life (Isa 32:15-17; 55:1-3; Jer 2:13; 17:13; Zech 14:8). In addition, the word “spirit” is also translated “wind.” Thus, Jesus may be saying that in order to be born from above one must be birthed through wind and water. Both metaphors describe the Holy Spirit, both come from heaven, and both are symbols of cleansing in the OT.

Third, the water may refer to baptism.  We support this third option for the following reasons:

(1)   Both nouns (water and spirit) are governed by a single preposition. Thus, Jesus refers to one birth, not two.

(2)   The words “water” and “Spirit” are linked in Ezekiel 36:25-27 where the author looks forward to an eschatalogical cleansing which afford its recipients a new heart and a new spirit. This appropriately pictures the sacrament of baptism.

(3)   The concept of baptism has already been introduced by John. Thus we are not surprised to encounter both water and spirit baptism (Jn 1:25-26, 28, 31-33).

(4)   Water and Spirit are connected in other baptism passages (Mt 28:19; Acts 2:38; 19:1-7; Titus 3:5).

(5)   The Greek and Latin Fathers interpret this verse unanimously as immersion.

(6)   In the very next pericope we find Jesus baptizing (Jn 3:22).

(7)   John’s original readers could hardly have read this combination (water & Spirit), and not thought of baptism.⁵

Indeed, Christian baptism is anachronistic here. Jesus could hardly have rebuked Nicodemus (v. 10) for not submitting to Christian baptism which has not yet even been instituted. But John’s baptism (Jn 1:26) will give way to Jesus’ baptism (Jn 1:33; 3:22) which will become Christian baptism (Mt 28:19).

The new birth begins and ends with the power of God. Jesus declared to Nicodemus that the new birth is both possible and available because of the power of the Holy Spirit (3:6-8). We can become so caught up in how to receive the gift of God that we forget how incredible it is that the Spirit of God is available to us in the first place!

Because being born again is rooted in the power of God, it also gives us hope of real and significant change in our lives. When we make plans to see old friends we have not seen in years, we always wonder how much they have changed. Having known them years earlier and having been acquainted with their basic personalities, it is easy for us to assume that they are still the same people we knew twenty or forty years earlier. Could they have experienced serious changes in their lives? For Christians, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” By the power of God we are being changed.

Faith is a crucial aspect of the new birth. This faith is not just any decision about Jesus (3:2), but the decision to trust Him as the Christ, the Son of God (20:31). Jesus compared this faith to the faith that was required of the Israelites in the wilderness when Moses raised up the bronze serpent (3:14; Numbers 21:4-9).

At that time the Israelites were grumbling against Moses and against God for bringing them out into the wilderness. Weary of their complaints, God sent fiery serpents into their camp, and many people were bitten and died. The people cried out to God for deliverance, and Moses was instructed to place a bronze serpent on a pole. If those who were bitten by a snake looked on the bronze serpent, they would not die. This action required faith enough to look on the serpent; but when they looked, they were healed by the power of God. Jesus was “lifted up” on the cross (John 12:32, 34), and those who look to Him in faith and obedience are also saved by the power of God!

A Decision That Is Proclaimed

The new birth is possible because of the power of God. It is motivated and facilitated by one’s faith in Jesus (3:16). However, it is realized only when the decision to believe is publicly confessed in baptism, when one is “born of water and the Spirit” (3:5).

This decisive act marks the beginning of a new relationship between a person and God and a new relationship between that person and the community of other believers in Jesus, the church. The new birth indeed involves a personal faith in Jesus Christ, but it requires that personal faith to express itself in the very public action of baptism (Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

The story is told that George Whitefield (171470) preached frequently from the text we have just studied. One day a friend asked him, “George, why do you preach so often on the text ‘You must be born again’?” Whitefield firmly replied, “Because you must be born again!” To all who believe that Jesus was an outstanding man, a great teacher, but less than the Son of God, Jesus says, “You must be born again.”

To all who think that basic goodness is enough for God, Jesus says, “You must be born again.”

To all who are comfortable with their cultural religions, Jesus says, “You must be born again. ”

To all who seek only a personal, private religion, Jesus says, “You must be born again.”

To all who view baptism as a meaningless, irrelevant historic relic, Jesus says, “You must be born again.”

There are two kinds of misunderstanding:

1. There is the man who misunderstands because he has not yet reached a stage of knowledge and of experience at which he is able to grasp the truth.

   When one is in this state, our duty is to do all we can to explain to him so he will be able to grasp the knowledge which is being offered to him.

2. There is also the man who is unwilling to understand.

   There is a failure to see which comes from the refusal to see. A man can deliberately shut his mind to truth which he does not wish to accept. If a man does not wish to acknowledge his own failings or does not wish to be changed, he will deliberately shut his eyes and his mind and his heart to the power which can change him.

* When a person is unfamiliar with an idea, use something they are familiar with…Jesus went to the brazen serpent (Numbers 21:8) and made a direct comparison between the serpent and Himself.

On their journey through the wilderness the people of Israel murmured and complained and regretted that they had ever left Egypt. To punish them God sent a plague of deadly fiery serpents; the people repented and cried for mercy.

God instructed Moses to make an image of a serpent and to hold it up in the midst of the camp; and those who looked upon it were healed. The serpent was the emblem of sin, as Nicodemus would recognize. The destiny of the individual was determined by his  response to God’s invitation. The serpent seems to have been given as a test of their faith in Moses.

I wonder how many Israelites died on that occasion because the idea of looking at a serpent was so preposterous!?!

In both cases (Christ and the serpent):

– death threatens as a punishment for sin

– it is God Himself who, in His sovereign grace, provides a remedy

– this remedy consists of something (or some One) which (who) must be lifted up, in public view

– the belief or faith of the individual was crucial in the healing

The idea of being “lifted up” has a double meaning: Jesus was lifted up upon the cross; and  Jesus was also lifted up into glory at His ascension. The same Greek word (“hupsoun”) is used here relating to the cross (8:28; 12:32) and also of Jesus’s ascension (Acts 2:33; 5:31; Phil. 2:9). And the two are connected…for without one, the other would not be possible!

Did Nicodemus believe on this occasion? Verse 11 tells us that he did not accept Jesus’ testimony at that time. Verse 12 implies that the earthly should have made the heavenly easier. We don’t know for sure, but John’s style throughout the gospel up to this point says that if he had obeyed here, John would have told us about it…that’s been his pattern thus far.

But notice:

– Nicodemus spoke on behalf of fairness in judging Jesus (7:50)

– He assisted Joseph of Arimathea in removing the body of Jesus from the cross and burying it (19:38-42)

– He was willing to admit that Jesus performed miracles and that He was a teacher of God (cpt. 3)

[1] So too, we might add, with the teaching of John the Baptist. There was something forceful about his teaching, that even attracted and fascinated a man like Herod, and yet John never performed a sign (John 10:41).

[2] The Sadducees are named seven times in Matthew, and once each in Mark and Luke. John never names them.

[3] I am not suggesting that the priests or the leaders of the Sadducees were actually present at the cleansing of the temple at the outset, but they most certainly got there in time to challenge our Lord (see John 2:18ff.).

2:23–25 While he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast.  This was during the same week that Jesus purged the temple in Jerusalem (see 2:13ff.). It was the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread that followed the day of Passover.

Many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.  John did not recount any of the particular miracles Jesus performed in Jerusalem; he simply said that many people believed in Jesus when they saw the miracles he did. But, as the next verse indicates, this belief was not complete. The people believed in Jesus as a miracle worker or a political messiah, but not necessarily as the true Messiah, the Son of God.

Faith in Jesus can be deficient in at least two ways. The first occurs when we base our faith on the wrong motives. We should not believe in Jesus because of what he can do for us (or for what miracle he may have done for us); we should believe in him for who he is—the Christ, the Son of God. The second deficiency of faith pictures trust as a point of arrival rather than a point of departure. John described the disciples’ attitude toward Jesus as belief, even though there was a great deal of room for growth. Either of these deficiencies leads to incomplete and immature faith. Does your faith rest on what Christ does for you or on who he is?

But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them.  John used the Greek verb pisteuo to make a wordplay. In 2:23, John said that many believed (episteusan) in him; in 2:24, John said that Jesus did not entrust (episteusen) himself to them. Another way to word this would be, “many trusted in his name, … but he did not entrust Himself to them.” The reason for Jesus’ lack of trust then follows—because he knew all people.  In other words, many people trusted in him, but Jesus did not entrust himself to them, for he knew that people are not trustworthy. Jesus was realistic about the depth of trust in those who were now following him. Some would endure; others would fall away (6:66). It is worth noting, however, that Jesus did not give up on them; they gave up on him.

PATIENCE

How easy it is to give up on those around us or in our ministry! Yet Jesus had the patience to wait for the disciples to develop and mature. He had the courage to face spiritual loneliness with no one around him who was able to understand his experience.

How patient are we with those who are struggling to keep on track spiritually? How well do we do in those dry times when there are no others with whom we can relate at the same spiritual level? We can see Christ’s example in the Gospels, and we can experience his patience in our own lives. Practice Christ’s patience with those to whom he has called us to minister.

Needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone.  Jesus did not need to be told about human nature; he knew the motives behind people’s actions because he thoroughly knew the human makeup. He knew how fickle people were (and are). Jesus was well aware of the truth of Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (—see also 1 Samuel 16:7; Psalm 139; Acts 1:24). Jesus was discerning, and he knew that the faith of some followers was superficial. Some of the same people who claimed to believe in Jesus at this time would later yell, “Crucify him!”

JESUS KNOWS

It’s easy to believe when there is excitement and everyone else seems to believe the same way. But sooner or later the opportunities will come to discover whether our faith is firm when it isn’t popular to follow Christ. It is comforting to know that Jesus sees through our efforts to be more confident or perfect than we really are. In fact, we will not fully appreciate his grace until we recognize that he sees us and knows us exactly as we are, and he loves us anyway. Part of trusting Jesus is acknowledging that he understands us better than we understand ourselves.

John based both of these two phrases on the same Greek verb for “believe.” This verse subtly reveals the true nature of belief from a biblical standpoint. Because of what they knew of Jesus from His miraculous signs, many came to believe in Him. However, Jesus made it His habit not to wholeheartedly “entrust” or “commit” Himself to them because He knew their hearts.

Verse 24 indicates that Jesus looked for genuine conversion rather than enthusiasm for the spectacular. The latter verse also leaves a subtle doubt as to the genuineness of the conversion of some (cf. 8:31, 32).

This emphatic contrast between verses 23, 24 in terms of type of trust, therefore, reveals that literally “belief into His name” involved much more than intellectual assent. It called for whole-hearted commitment of one’s life as Jesus’ disciple (cf. Matt. 10:37; 16:24–26).

While in Jerusalem for the Passover, Jesus performed miracles that are not given in detail in any of the Gospels. It must have been these signs that especially attracted Nicodemus (John 3:2). Because of the miracles, many people professed to believe in Him; but Jesus did not accept their profession. No matter what the people themselves said, or others said about them, He did not accept human testimony. Why? Because, being God, He knew what was in each person’s heart and mind.

The words believed in John 2:23 and commit in John 2:24 are the same Greek word. These people believed in Jesus, but He did not believe in them! They were “unsaved believers”! It was one thing to respond to a miracle but quite something else to commit oneself to Jesus Christ and continue in His Word (John 8:30–31).

John was not discrediting the importance of our Lord’s signs, because he wrote his book to record these signs and to encourage his readers to trust Jesus Christ and receive eternal life (John 20:30–31). However, throughout the book, John makes it clear that it takes more than believing in miracles for a person to be saved. Seeing the signs and believing in them would be a great beginning; in fact, even the disciples started that way and had to grow in their faith (compare John 2:11 and v. 22).

Throughout the Gospel of John, you see the Jewish people divided over the meaning of these miracles (John 9:16; 11:45–46). The same miracles that attracted Nicodemus to Jesus caused some of the other religious leaders to want to kill Him! They even asserted that His miracles were done in the power of Satan! Our Lord’s miracles were testimonies (John 5:36), giving evidence of His divine sonship; but they were also tests, exposing the hearts of the people (John 12:37ff). The same events that opened some eyes only made other eyes that much more blind (John 9:39–41).

It is important to see that Jesus tied His miracles to the truth of His message. He knew that the human heart is attracted to the sensational. The 5,000 that He fed wanted to make Him King—until He preached a sermon on the Bread of Life, and then they left Him in droves! “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). In grace, Jesus fed the hungry; in truth, He taught the Word. The people wanted the physical food but not the spiritual truth, so they abandoned Him.

“He knew what was in man” is a statement that is proved several times in John’s Gospel. Jesus knew the character of Simon (John 1:42). He knew what Nathanael was like (John 1:46ff), and He told the Samaritan woman “all things” that she had ever done (John 4:29). He knew that the Jewish leaders did not have God’s love in their hearts (John 5:42), and that one of His disciples was not truly a believer (John 6:64). He saw the repentance in the heart of the adulteress (John 8:10–11) and the murder in the hearts of His enemies (John 8:40ff). Several times in the Upper Room message, Jesus revealed to His disciples their own inner feelings and questions.

As you follow our Lord’s ministry in John’s Gospel, you see Him moving gradually out of the bright light of popularity and into the dark shadows of rejection. At the beginning, it was easy for people to follow the crowd and watch His miracles. But then, His words began to penetrate hearts, with conviction following; and conviction leads either to conversion or opposition. It is impossible to be neutral. People had to decide, and most of them decided against Him.

Yes, Jesus knows the human heart. “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe” (John 4:48). People who want His works but not His Word can never share His life. “Seeing is believing” is not the Christian approach (John 11:40; 20:29). First we believe; then we see. Miracles can only lead us to the Word (John 5:36–38), and the Word generates saving faith (Rom. 10:17).

Our Lord’s accurate knowledge of the human heart is another evidence of His deity, for only God can see the inner person. This brief paragraph prepares us for the important interview with Nicodemus recorded in the next chapter. Note the repetition of the word man from John 2:25 to 3:1. Nicodemus wanted to learn more about Jesus, but he ended up learning more about himself!^[1]

1. corroborative text

^[1] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 293–294.

You’ve heard the expression “the elephant in the room,’ which means there is something clearly right in front of us that we simply cannot ignore.

We have that situation in our text today. Jesus goes into the temple in Jerusalem and starts cleaning house. He didn’t begin by opening Scripture and teaching everyone the proper use of the temple. He wasn’t polite, either. He didn’t ask, “Would you mind moving your animals outside the temple? Could you please carry your coin boxes and tables outside the gates?”

Rather, He saw what was going on, made a scourge of cords, and drove the animals and their owners out of there. He dumped out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

John 2:12–17 (ESV) — 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days. 13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

As could be expected, the Jews asked Him, in effect, “What right do you have to do these things?” In the vernacular, “Who do you think you are? Do you think you own this place?” John wants us to understand, “Yes, Jesus owns this place! The temple belongs to Him.”

As the Lord of the temple, Jesus has authority to cleanse it and restore it to its proper use.

Now let us see why Jesus acted as he did.  His anger is a terrifying thing; the picture of Jesus with the whip is an awe-inspiring sight.

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.

• Anger at child abuse, racism, pornography, abortion, or homosexual activity
• The actions of Jesus in the temple, when he drove out the money lenders and overturned their tables.
• Moses’ actions when he broke the tablets of the law and destroyed the golden calf after the Israelites worshiped it

In some Christian doctrines, righteous anger is considered the only form of anger that is not sinful. It is said to be God-oriented, and to focus on how God’s reputation and purposes have been offended.

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

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

The passover was the greatest of all the Jewish feasts.  As we have already seen, the law laid it down that every adult male Jew who lived within fifteen miles of Jerusalem was bound to attend it.

But it was not only the Jews in Palestine who came to the Passover.  By this time Jews were scattered all over the world, but they never forgot their ancestral faith and their ancestral land; and it was the dream and aim of every Jew, no matter in what land he stayed, to celebrate at least one Passover in Jerusalem.

Astonishing as it may sound, it is likely that as many as two and a quarter million Jews sometimes assembled in the Holy City to keep the Passover.

There was a tax that every Jew over nineteen years of age must pay.  That was the Temple tax.  It was necessary that all should pay that tax so that the Temple sacrifices and the Temple ritual might be carried out day by day.  The tax was one half-shekel.

God had originally instructed the people of Israel to bring from their own flocks the best animals for sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:5–7). This would make the sacrifice more personal. But the temple priests instituted a market for buying sacrificial animals so the pilgrims would not have to bring their animals on the long journey. Given the distances traveled by pilgrims to Jerusalem, the provision of a local animal supply probably was well intended, but what had begun as an informal farmer’s market along the road coming into Jerusalem had gradually become institutionalized until it took up the very place of worship.

In addition, the merchants and money changers were dishonest. The business people selling these animals expected to turn a profit. The price of sacrificial animals was much higher in the temple area than elsewhere. In order to purchase the animals, travelers from other lands would need local currency, and the temple tax had to be paid in local currency; so money changers exchanged foreign money, but made huge profits by charging exorbitant exchange rates.

Jesus was angry at the dishonest, greedy practices of the money changers and merchants, and he particularly disliked their presence on the temple grounds. They were making a mockery of God’s house of worship. The effect was somewhat like having loan officers at the back of our churches so that worshipers could obtain money to place in the offering plate.

Besides that, they had set up shop in the Court of the Gentiles, making it so full of merchants that foreigners found it difficult to worship—and worship was the main purpose for visiting the temple. With all the merchandising taking place in the area allotted for the Gentiles, how could they spend time with God in prayer? No wonder Jesus was angry!^[1]

The fact that the money-changers received some discount when they changed the coins of the pilgrims was not in itself wrong.  The Talmud laid it down:  “It is necessary that everyone should have half a shekel to pay for himself.  Therefore when he comes to the exchange to change a shekel for two half-shekels he is obliged to allow the money-changer some gain.”

What enraged Jesus was that pilgrims to the Passover who could ill afford it, were being fleeced at an exorbitant rate by the money-changers.  It was a rampant and shameless social in-justice-and what was worse, it was being done in the name of religion.

Besides the money-changers there were also the sellers of oxen and sheep and doves.

Frequently a visit to the Temple meant a sacrifice.  Many a pilgrim would wish to make thank-offering for a favorable journey to the Holy City; and most acts and events in life had their appropriate sacrifice.

It might therefore seem to be a natural and helpful thing that the victims for the sacrifices could be bought in the Temple court.  It might well have been so.

But the law was that any animal offered in sacrifice must be perfect and unblemished.  The Temple authorities had appointed inspectors to examine the victims which were to be offered.  The fee for inspection wasn’t much but it was predetermined and plans were made in advance.

If a worshipper bought a victim outside the Temple, it was to all intents and purposes certain that it would be rejected after examination.  Again that might not have mattered much, but a pair of doves could cost wasn’t much outside the Temple, but much more inside.

Here again was bare-faced extortion at the expense of poor and humble pilgrims, who were practically blackmailed into buying their victims from the Temple booths if they wished to sacrifice at all-once more a glaring social injustice aggravated by the fact that it was perpetrated in the name of pure religion.

It was that which moved Jesus to flaming anger.  We are told that he took cords and made a whip.

We have seen that it was the exploitation of the pilgrims by conscienceless men which moved Jesus to immediate wrath; but there were deep things behind the cleansing of the Temple.

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

He acted as he did because God’s house was being desecrated.  In the Temple there was worship without reverence.    

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.

There is still another reason why Jesus acted as he did.  Mark has a curious little addition which none of the other gospels has:  “My house shall be called the house of prayer for all the nations” (Mark 11:17). 

The Temple consisted of a series of courts leading into the Temple proper and to the Holy Place.  There was first the Court of the Gentiles, then the Court of the Women, then the Court of the Israelites, then the Court of the Priests.

All this buying and selling was going on in the Court of the Gentiles which was the only place into which a Gentile might come.

Beyond that point, access to him was barred.  So then if there was a Gentile whose heart God had touched, he might come into the Court of the Gentiles to mediate and pray and distantly touch God.  The Court of the Gentiles was the only place of prayer he knew.

The Temple authorities and the Jewish traders were making the Court of the Gentiles into an uproar and a rabble where no man could pray.

The lowing of the oxen, the bleating of the sheep, the cooing of the doves, the shouts of the hucksters, the rattle of the coins, the voices raised in bargaining disputes-all these combined to make the Court of the Gentiles a place where no man could worship.

Jesus was moved to the depths of his heart because seeking men were being shut out from the presence of God.

Is there anything in our church life-a snobbishness, an exclusiveness, a coldness, a lack of welcome, a tendency to make the congregation into a closed club, an arrogance, a fastidiousness-which keeps the seeking stranger out?

Let us remember the wrath of Jesus against those who made it difficult and even impossible for the seeking stranger to make contact with God.

Special note: Terry and I have ministered on two occasions where African-American members outnumbered the Caucasian members. I know of one very large congregation in Fort Lauderdale that would have ushers go into the auditorium and remove ‘loud’ children from the worship rather than let them disrupt the worshippers…and, no, we do not have ushers assigned for that task, but we do ask that all of us be mindful of things that can disrupt our worship.

This cleansing was significantly appropriate during Passover because that was the time when all the Jews were supposed to cleanse their houses of all leaven (yeast).

Yeast was used in making bread, but as God was preparing his people for their hasty exodus from Egypt, he told them to make bread without leaven because they would be eating quickly and would not have time to wait for bread to rise.

During the Feast of Unleavened Bread, no leaven was used in any baking and, in fact, was not even to be found in the Israelite homes (Exodus 12:17–20).

 As the Lord of the temple, Jesus examines and judges it in light of its purpose.

Jesus knew that the temple was not to be a place for business (2:16). It was a place for worship, for prayer, and for offering sacrifices. It was the place to meet with God and seek His face (see 1 Kings 8:22-53; Isa. 56:7).

It was the place to gather for the three annual feasts (Deut. 16:16). The Passover, which Jesus here went up to celebrate, was a time to remember God’s miraculous deliverance of Israel from 400 years of slavery in Egypt.

But it had degenerated into a business opportunity for the high priest and all of the merchants and money changers. No doubt they rationalized their activities: It was a useful service for the worshipers. But they were prostituting God’s purpose for the temple.

God’s purpose for His church is that we would glorify Him by growing in fervent love for Him and for one another (the two great commandments) and by proclaiming the gospel to the lost (the Great Commission).

We need to keep on task by evaluating all that we do in light of these purposes. Individually, each of us should seek to glorify God by everything we do (1 Cor. 6:20; 10:31).

Does that fit with your picture of Jesus? Yes, He was gentle toward sinners (Matt. 11:29; 12:20).

He gives “grace upon grace” (John 1:16). He so loves us that He gave Himself for us on the cross (John 3:16).

But He also baptizes with fire. “His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor” (Luke 3:17).

“It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). As we’ve seen (1 Cor. 3:17),

“If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.”

Jesus hates sin because sin destroys people He loves and sin among God’s people drags God’s holy name through the mud.

This means that first, we should hate our own sin and be quick to repent of it so that He doesn’t have to clean house for us (Rev. 3:19).

Judge, confess, and forsake your sin on the thought level and it won’t go any farther. If you’ve already sinned in word or deed, turn from it, ask God to forgive you, and ask forgiveness of those you’ve sinned against.

Jesus never avoided confrontation if it was necessary to do the will of God. Don’t dodge your responsibility. It’s a necessary part of biblical love to hate sin.

The temple (church) can be abused by…

• forgetting what worship is all about.
• 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.

^[1] Bruce B. Barton, John, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 41–42.

The text of this study, John 2:12-22, allows us to watch Jesus in yet 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.

Like Josiah and Hezekiah of old, Jesus purifies God’s temple. This is a gutsy move, which may suggest that Jesus is the Messiah (cf. Mal 2:2-3).  The focus of this incident is not on the temple and its corruption so much as it is on Jesus and his person.

Read in conjunction with the wedding at Cana, we get a glimpse of both sides of Jesus’ ministry. On the one hand, he is the great Messiah of the new kingdom with all its lavish and delightful provisions. On the other hand, he is a suffering servant, rejected and destroyed by the Jewish leaders, only to be raised again on the third day.

All four Gospels record the cleansing of the temple. But the Synoptics place it at the end of Jesus’ ministry (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46), not the beginning, like John. It is possible that there was only one cleansing and that John places it here for theological emphasis rather than chronological precision. After all, there are striking similarities (e.g., same place, animals and money changers), for obvious reasons.

There are also considerable differences. For example, only John mentions the whip, the prophecy from Psalm 69:9, and the prediction about destroying the temple. The Synoptics also add the prophecies of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11-14, as well as Mark’s comment about Jesus halting traffic through the temple. This leads us to conclude that Jesus did, in fact, cleanse the temple twice. This bold action serves both to open and to close his public ministry.

John alone allows us to date Jesus’ ministry based on the various feasts he attended: (1) First Passover (2:13); (2) Second Passover (supposedly), (5:1); (3) Third Passover (6:4); (4) Tabernacles (7:2); (5) Dedication (10:22); (6) Fourth Passover (11:55).

Furthermore, John the Baptist’s ministry can be dated in a.d. 26 (Lk 3:1), probably in the fall. Jesus was likely baptized that winter.

He spent forty days in the wilderness (Mt 4:2); seven days gaining his first disciples and going to the wedding at Cana (Jn 1:29, 35, 43; 2:1). He visits Capernaum for a few days (Jn 2:12) and then hot-foots it to Jerusalem for the Passover which would take place on the 15th of Nisan (approximately April), a.d. 27. This is further confirmed by verse 20, since Herod began rebuilding his temple in 19 b.c., 46 years would place Jesus in a.d. 27.

“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.” This temple was built by Herod, not so much to facilitate Israel’s worship, but as an attempt to reconcile the Jews to their Idumaean king. Construction of this temple began in 19 B.C. and continued for 46 years. The temple was largely complete in the time of our Lord, but was fully completed a mere 6 years before it was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps it did not have the glory of the first temple built by Solomon, but it must have exceeded the beauty and splendor of the second temple (compare Ezra 3:12; Mark 13:1).

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:

41 Now Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem every year for the feast of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom. 43 But when the feast was ended, as they were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, 44 but because they assumed that he was in their group of travelers they went a day’s journey. Then they began to look for him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Jesus were astonished at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” 49 But he replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?” 50 Yet his parents did not understand the remark he made to them. 51 Then he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. But his mother kept all these things in her heart (Luke 2:41-51).

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 (Wouldn’t you love to know what some of these questions and answers were?). 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 (See Matthew 4:13; 9:1). 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).

Finally, 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. The disciples appear to be taken in by our Lord’s family for the few days they stay in Capernaum. From what we know of our Lord’s brothers at this point in time, they do not believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah (John 7:5). They may even resent the intrusion of Jesus and His disciples. Jesus and the men who accompany Him do not stay long in Capernaum. After a few (“not … many”) days, they make their way up to Jerusalem for the Passover celebration.

     Capernaum was Jesus’ hometown, though He was rarely there. When there, He performed many miracles and gave the people every opportunity to believe on Him and follow Him. But the hearts of the people were hardened by unbelief. Thus Jesus denounced them by the words of Matthew 11:23: “And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.  If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.” This is also the last mention of His mother until the crucifixion.

—————————————————–

Here we have a very interesting thing.  At first sight John has a quite different chronology of the life of Jesus from that of the other three gospels.  In them Jesus is depicted as going to Jerusalem only once.  The Passover Feast at which he was crucified is the only one they mention, and his only visit to Jerusalem except the visit to the Temple when he was a boy.  But in John we find Jesus making frequent visits to Jerusalem.  John tells us of no fewer than three Passovers-this present one, the one in John 6:4 and the one in John 11:55.  In addition, according to John’s story, Jesus was in Jerusalem for an unnamed feast in 5:1; for the Feast of Tabernacles in 7:2, 10; and for the Feast of the Dedication in 10:22.  In point of fact in the other three gospels the main ministry of Jesus is in Galilee; in John Jesus is in Galilee only for brief periods (2:1-12; 4:43-5:1; 6:1-7:14), and his main ministry is in Jerusalem.

The truth is that there is no real contradiction here.  John and the others are telling the story from different points of view.  They do not contradict but complement each other.  Matthew, Mark and Luke concentrate on the ministry in Galilee; John concentrates on the ministry in Jerusalem.  Although the other three tell us of only one visit to Jerusalem and one Passover there, they imply that there must have been many others.  At his last visit they show us Jesus mourning over Jerusalem:  “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!  How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”  (Matthew 23:37).  Jesus could never have spoken like that if he had not made repeated appeals to Jerusalem and if the visit at which he was crucified was his first.  We ought not to talk about the contradictions between the Fourth Gospel and the other three, but to use them all to get as complete a picture of the life of Jesus as possible.

I suppose all of us have owned something we consider very special, something we would not wish to be “defiled” by misuse. Whatever this precious object may be, it could not be as precious to us as the “temple” was to our Lord. Our lesson is about our Lord’s “cleansing” of the temple as described in John, chapter 2. John considered this incident one of the more significant actions of our Lord at the outset of His public ministry. Our task is to learn why this is true, and what the temple cleansing has to do with men and women living centuries later. I assure you this incident is important, and that it has much to say to us today. I urge you to seriously consider this text and its message to us today, and especially its message to you.

Now let us see why Jesus acted as he did.  His anger is a terrifying thing; the picture of Jesus with the whip is an awe-inspiring sight.  We must see what moved Jesus to this white-hot anger in the Temple Courts.

The passover was the greatest of all the Jewish feasts.  As we have already seen, the law laid it down that every adult male Jew who lived within fifteen miles of Jerusalem was bound to attend it.  But it was not only the Jews in Palestine who came to the Passover.  By this time Jews were scattered all over the world, but they never forgot their ancestral faith and their ancestral land; and it was the dream and aim of every Jew, no matter in what land he stayed, to celebrate at least one Passover in Jerusalem.  Astonishing as it may sound, it is likely that as many as two and a quarter million Jews sometimes assembled in the Holy City to keep the Passover.

There was a tax that every Jew over nineteen years of age must pay.  That was the Temple tax.  It was necessary that all should pay that tax so that the Temple sacrifices and the Temple ritual might be carried out day by day.  The tax was one half-shekel.  We must always remember, when we are thinking of sums of money, that at this time a working man’s wage was about less than 4p per day.  The value of a half-shekel was about 6p.  It was, therefore, equivalent to almost two days’ wages.  For all ordinary purposes in Palestine all kinds of currency were valid.  Silver coins from Rome and Greece and Egypt and Tyre and Sidon and Palestine itself all were in circulation and all were valid.  But the Temple tax had to be paid either in Galilaean shekels or in shekels of the sanctuary.  These were Jewish coins, and so could be used as a gift to the Temple; the other currencies were foreign and so were unclean; they might be used to pay ordinary debts, but not a debt to God.

Pilgrims arrived from all over the world with all kinds of coins.  So in the Temple courts there sat the money-changers.  If their trade had been straightforward they would have been fulfilling an honest and a necessary purpose.  But what they did was to charge one ma’ah, a coin worth about 1p, for every half-shekel they changed, and to charge another ma’ah on every half-shekel of change they had to give if a larger coin was tendered.  So, if a man came with a coin the value of which was two shekels, he had to pay 1p to get it changed, and other 3p to get his change of three half-shekels.  In other words the money-changers made 4p out of him-and that, remember, was one day’s wage.

The wealth which accrued from the Temple tax and from this method of money-changing was fantastic.  The annual revenue of the Temple from the Temple tax has been estimated at £75,000, and the annual profit of the money-changers at £9,000.  When Crassus captured Jerusalem and raided the Temple treasury in 54 B.C. he took from it £2,500,000 without coming near to exhausting it.

The fact that the money-changers received some discount when they changed the coins of the pilgrims was not in itself wrong.  The Talmud laid it down:  “It is necessary that everyone should have half a shekel to pay for himself.  Therefore when he comes to the exchange to change a shekel for two half-shekels he is obliged to allow the money-changer some gain.”  The word for this discount was kollubos and the money-changers are called kollubistai.  This word kollubos produced the comedy character name Kollybos in Greek and Collybus in Latin, which meant much the same as Shylock in English.

What enraged Jesus was that pilgrims to the Passover who could ill afford it, were being fleeced at an exorbitant rate by the money-changers.  It was a rampant and shameless social in-justice-and what was worse, it was being done in the name of religion.

Besides the money-changers there were also the sellers of oxen and sheep and doves.  Frequently a visit to the Temple meant a sacrifice.  Many a pilgrim would wish to make thank-offering for a favourable journey to the Holy City; and most acts and events in life had their appropriate sacrifice.  It might therefore seem to be a natural and helpful thing that the victims for the sacrifices could be bought in the Temple court.  It might well have been so.  But the law was that any animal offered in sacrifice must be perfect and unblemished.  The Temple authorities had appointed inspectors (mumcheh) to examine the victims which were to be offered.  The fee for inspection was 1p.  If a worshipper bought a victim outside the Temple, it was to all intents and purposes certain that it would be rejected after examination.  Again that might not have mattered much, but a pair of doves could cost as little as 4p outside the Temple, and as much as 75p inside.  Here again was bare-faced extortion at the expense of poor and humble pilgrims, who were practically blackmailed into buying their victims from the Temple booths if they wished to sacrifice at all-once more a glaring social injustice aggravated by the fact that it was perpetrated in the name of pure religion.

It was that which moved Jesus to flaming anger.  We are told that he took cords and made a whip.  Jerome thinks that the very sight of Jesus made the whip unnecessary.  “A certain fiery and starry light shone from his eyes, and the majesty of the Godhead gleamed in his face.”  Just because Jesus loved God, he loved God’s children, and it was impossible for him to stand passively by while the worshippers of Jerusalem were treated in this way.

We have seen that it was the exploitation of the pilgrims by conscienceless men which moved Jesus to immediate wrath; but there were deep things behind the cleansing of the Temple.  Let us see if we can penetrate to the even deeper reasons why Jesus took this drastic step.

No two of the evangelists give Jesus’s words in precisely the same way.  They all remembered their own version.  It is only by putting all the accounts together that we get a true picture of what Jesus said.  So then let us set down the different ways in which the writers report the words of Jesus.  Matthew gives them as:  “My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you make it a den of robbers” (Matthew 21:13).  Mark has it:  “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.  But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17).  Luke has it:  “My house shall be a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers” (Luke 19:46).  John has it:  “Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade” (John 2:16).

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.  Edward Seago, the artist, tells how he took two gipsy children on a visit to a cathedral in England.  They were wild enough children at ordinary times.  But from the moment they came into the cathedral they were strangely quiet; all the way home they were unusually solemn; and it was not until the evening that they returned to their normal boisterousness.  Instinctive reverence was in their uninstructed hearts.

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, and which sounds as if, in H. H.  Farmer’s phrase, the worshipper was “pally with the Deity.”  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).  “For thou hast no delight in sacrifice; were I to give a burnt offering, thou wouldst not be pleased” (Psalm 51:16).  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 obtaining of a more sonorous organ, 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.

(iii)  There is still another reason why Jesus acted as he did.  Mark has a curious little addition which none of the other gospels has:  “My house shall be called the house of prayer for all the nations” (Mark 11:17).  The Temple consisted of a series of courts leading into the Temple proper and to the Holy Place.  There was first the Court of the Gentiles, then the Court of the Women, then the Court of the Israelites, then the Court of the Priests.  All this buying and selling was going on in the Court of the Gentiles which was the only place into which a Gentile might come.  Beyond that point, access to him was barred.  So then if there was a Gentile whose heart God had touched, he might come into the Court of the Gentiles to mediate and pray and distantly touch God.  The Court of the Gentiles was the only place of prayer he knew.

The Temple authorities and the Jewish traders were making the Court of the Gentiles into an uproar and a rabble where no man could pray.  The lowing of the oxen, the bleating of the sheep, the cooing of the doves, the shouts of the hucksters, the rattle of the coins, the voices raised in bargaining disputes-all these combined to make the Court of the Gentiles a place where no man could worship.  The conduct in the Temple court shut out the seeking Gentile from the presence of God.  It may well be that this was most in Jesus’s mind; it may well be that Mark alone preserved the little phrase which means so much.  Jesus was moved to the depths of his heart because seeking men were being shut out from the presence of God.

Is there anything in our church life-a snobbishness, an exclusiveness, a coldness, a lack of welcome, a tendency to make the congregation into a closed club, an arrogance, a fastidiousness-which keeps the seeking stranger out?  Let us remember the wrath of Jesus against those who made it difficult and even impossible for the seeking stranger to make contact with God.

“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.[1] 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.

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).”  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).

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?  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.  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!”[2]

After His death and resurrection, our Lord’s disciples remembered that it was written,[3] “Passion for your house will devour me” (verse 17). The disciples came to view this cleansing of the temple in the light of Psalm 69:

8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother’s children; 9 Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on Me (Psalm 69:8-9, NKJV).

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.[4] I like the way the New English Bible renders it best:

“Zeal for thy house shall destroy me.”

Psalm 69 is a psalm of David. It is a prayer for his deliverance, due to his piety. The psalm speaks of David’s imminent danger due to the enemies of God who hate him for his fervent devotion to God, and thus who seek his death. Later portions of this psalm depict events that occur at the crucifixion of our Lord (see Ps. 69:21). It seems clear in this psalm that there is a prophecy of our Lord’s sacrificial death, due to His zeal for pure worship.

Jesus acts out of zeal for His Father’s house, laying claim to the temple and cleansing it in His Father’s name. In so doing, He fulfills a prophecy that our Lord’s zeal for His Father’s house will bring about His death. It is the second cleansing[5] of the temple (Matthew 21:10-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-46) that actually sets into motion the events which lead to our Lord’s crucifixion.[6]

As Jesus walked into the temple it looked and smelled like a hybrid stockyard/circus. There would be blood spattered about the altar, oxen and sheep lowing, birds cooing, squawking, and flitting about when they were manhandled. The people were cosmopolitan (as well as neapolitan), from all over the Roman world. They brought with them vacation money in a desire to make a sacrifice to their God. For the wealthy pious, this was an annual affair. For the poorer class it may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. How disappointing for them this scene must have been.

The whole spectacle came to be known as the “Bazaar of Annas.”  He was the Jewish high priest. His power was only exceeded by his avarice and greed. He was revered and feared. He had set up quite a profitable venture for himself in the courts of the sacred temple.

It worked something like this (cf. Edersheim, I:369): If a worshiper brought in an animal to be sacrificed the officiating priest would undoubtedly find something wrong with it and offer to buy it off him at a devalued price. The animal would then be taken back to the pens of the priests, blessed and sold to another worshiper for an inflated price. The original worshiper then had to purchase a “kosher” animal at an exorbitant price, sometimes four or five times its actual value. When he pulled his money out of his pocket, if it was not Palestinian coinage, he would have to visit the money changer to get the proper currency. When he did, he was charged a fifteen to twenty percent fee for the exchange. It was quite a scam.

In addition to the sacrifices, every Jew was required to submit a half-shekel temple tax annually (Exod 30:13; Mt 17:24). Jews from other areas (e.g., Persia, Tyre, Syria, Egypt, Greece, and Rome), who used different coinage, would also have to pay the exchange fee. Hamilton observes that the temple in Jerusalem, like the pagan religious temples of the day, served as the central bank of the area (cf. 2 Macc. 3:6-15). There were a lot of financial moguls running around taking advantage of these pious pilgrims.

All this made the visitors bitter. But they had no other choice if they wanted to fulfill their pious inclinations. To make matters worse there were no set fees for the animals. It was all up for grabs. Thus there was constant and heated haggling going on over prices. Faces were red, fists were clenched, and voices were raised … all for the worship of God.

    Their suspicion and jealousy were revealed through His cleansing the temple, which was His protest against their commercializing of the temple, which was His Father’s house.

The temple Jesus found when He arrived at Jerusalem was actually the third temple in Israel’s history. Following temples built by Solomon and Zerubbabel, this one was known as Herod’s Temple, taking its name from Herod the Great, who was responsible for its construction. When Jesus entered the temple on this occasion, it had already been under construction for forty-six years (2:20) and would not be completed for another thirty-five years, in A.D. 64. The temple grounds were actually a large area of vast courtyards and walls leading to the temple itself.

Upon entering the temple grounds, the first courtyard was the Court of the Gentiles. Anyone could enter this area. Beyond this was the Court of the Women, where only Jews could enter. The next gate led to the Court of Israel, where only Jewish men could go. Finally, there was a court where only Jewish priests were allowed. This was the location of the building most of us think of when we say the word “temple.”

Because the Court of the Gentiles was the one place in the temple where everyone could go, it became the place where merchants and moneychangers set up shop.

Worshipers coming from far away would need to buy an animal to sacrifice, so there was a brisk business in selling sheep, doves, and cows.

Every Jewish man over twenty years of age was expected to pay a temple tax, creating a business opportunity for moneychangers at the temple grounds. All this activity probably produced a lot of noise and a fair amount of chaos in the temple courtyard, but in time people had come to accept it all as normal. Then came Jesus.

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.
• 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!

One simple application of the scene at the temple has to do with the way we treat our brothers and sisters when we gather for worship. I have known many people, particularly medical doctors and business owners, who have trouble worshiping because people insist on asking them business questions before and after church. They want to come to a “house of prayer” but find only “a house of commerce.”

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

DEEPER STUDY – (2:14) Temple: a person must understand the layout of the temple in order to see what was happening in this event. The temple sat on the top of Mt. Zion, and it is thought to have covered about thirty acres of land. The temple consisted of two parts, the temple building itself and the temple precincts or courtyards. The Greek language has two different words to distinguish which is meant.

The temple building (naos) was a small ornate structure which sat in the center of the temple property. It was called the Holy Place or Holy of Holies. Only the High Priest could enter its walls, and he could enter only once during the year, on the Day of Atonement.

The temple precincts (hieron) were four courtyards that surrounded the temple building, each decreasing in their importance to the Jewish mind. It is important to know that great walls separated the courts from each other.

First, there was the Court of the Priests. Only the priests were allowed to enter this court. Within the courtyard of the Priests stood the great furnishings of worship: the Altar of Burnt Offering, the Brazen Laver, the Seven Branched lamp-stand, the Altar of Incense, and the Table of Showbread.

Second, there was the Court of the Israelites. This was a huge courtyard where Jewish worshippers met together for joint services on the great feast days. It was also where worshippers handed over their sacrifices to the priests.

Third, there was the Court of the Women. Women were usually limited to this area except for joint worship with men. They could, however, enter the Court of the Israelites when they came to make a sacrifice or worship in a joint assembly on a great feast day.

Last was the Court of the Gentiles. It covered a vast space, surrounding all the other courtyards, and was the place of worship for all Gentile converts to Judaism.

Two facts need to be noted about the Court of the Gentiles.

It was the courtyard farthest removed from the center of worship, the Holy of Holies, which represented God’s very presence (see note, pt.2—^ Ephes. 2:14-15).

A high wall separated the Court of the Gentiles from the other courts, disallowing any Gentile a closer approach into God’s presence. In fact, there were tablets hanging all around the wall threatening death to any Gentile who went beyond their own courtyard or center of worship.

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.

Most of us have an anger problem. For some it is the presence in our lives of far too much of the wrong kind of anger. For others it is the near-absence of godly anger.

For example, do you get angry enough about the moral decline in our country to vote? In the 1990 U.S. national elections, 90 percent of confessed homosexuals voted while only 35 percent of those who confessed to following Jesus did the same. Such apathy reflects the need for godly anger.

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.”

“The Jews”—in particular the Jewish religious leaders directly challenged by our Lord’s actions in cleansing the temple—confront Jesus with a challenge. They demand a sign to demonstrate His authority to act as He has. The irony is that Jesus’ actions are the sign:[7]

1 “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the LORD of hosts. 2 “But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire And like launderer’s soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He will purify the sons of Levi, And purge them as gold and silver, That they may offer to the LORD An offering in righteousness” (Malachi 3:1-3, NKJV).

I find the words of the Jews most interesting. They do not argue with Jesus about the evil of making the temple courts an emporium. I suspect the Pharisees agree with Him on this point. The issue is not what has been done, but who has done it. They raise the issues of Jesus’ identity and authority, which is not altogether hard to understand. Suppose you ran a stop sign and were pulled over by a police officer. If you were smart, you would politely listen to the officer, admit you were wrong, take the ticket, and pay it. If, however, you ran a stop sign and were pulled over by an irate citizen, you would be much less inclined to listen politely. Even if you were wrong, you would likely protest, “Who do you think you are, pulling me over to lecture me about my driving?”

In one sense, the Jews do view our Lord’s actions as a sign. For someone to cleanse the temple and correct wrongdoing found there implies having the authority to do so. If Jesus is acting in God’s behalf (they cannot yet grasp that He is acting as God), then let Him establish His credentials by an exercise of divine power. If He is acting with God’s authority, let Him perform a sign to prove it. We have an irreverent expression, which captures the spirit of the Jews’ challenge (who are not very reverent either): “Put up, or shut up!” They have thrown down the gauntlet. It is Jesus’ turn to respond.

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]

The Jews do not understand at all. They probably walk away, shaking their heads, convinced that Jesus is out of His mind. The disciples don’t understand either. Not until after our Lord’s death and resurrection does this prophecy come to mind, and they see how He fulfilled it exactly as He said. Then they believe both the Scripture and what Jesus has spoken. One might say they believe that what Jesus said and what was written in the Scriptures are one and the same, and both were fulfilled.[9] They came to believe in Jesus, and His words as the fulfillment of Scripture.

We are not actually told here what “Scripture” John has in mind, which the disciples remember and believe. After our Lord’s resurrection, the apostles used the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and that His death and resurrection were foretold (see Acts 2:14-36; 13:16-41). Jesus Himself gives His disciples a lesson from the Old Testament on these matters before He ascends to the Father (Luke 24:44-49).

Note four things.

1. The religionists questioned Jesus’ authority. What right did He have to do what He was doing? He claimed that the temple was His Father’s. They knew that He was claiming to be the Messiah; therefore, they wanted proof that His claim was true. They wanted some spectacular sign.
2. His sign was to be given in the future. He was going to build a new meeting place for God. Note His exact words: “[You] destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
3. His puzzling statement was misunderstood . They could not understand how He could possibly build a temple in three days. The present temple had taken forty-six years to build.
4. His puzzling statement had a symbolic meaning. Jesus was speaking of His body, of His death and resurrection.
5. The proof that He was the Son of God with authority over God’s house was to be given. The sign was to be His body, His death and resurrection. The resurrection was to be the supreme proof of His Messiahship. They were to destroy (kill) Him, but He would be raised from the dead after three days.
6. His death and resurrection was to provide a new temple, a new meeting place for God and man. It was to be in Him that men would thereafter meet God. The temple of His body was to become the temple of men, the temple whereby men would worship and be reconciled to God.

The Jews (i.e., Sadducean priests) were in a pickle. They were about to lose a bunch of money, which was one of their greatest loves.

On the other hand, they were about to get beat up if they oppose this Jesus. They address him with cautious cordiality. They do not deny his identity but they do ask for proof of it. They ask for a sign. According to popular Jewish expectations the Messiah would come with great signs and wonders. Thus, these Sadducees, who did not even believe in a literal Messiah, were coddling to the crowd.

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).

It is significant that the word “temple” of v. 14, is changed in v. 19-21. This latter word, strictly speaking, is the “shrine” where a god dwells. It is used in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 6:19 to refer to the body of the Christian. Obviously, Jesus was speaking about his own body as the dwelling place of God. The disciples later remembered this very discussion and it sparked in them even greater faith in Jesus.

This incident is not about the temple edifice, but the person of Jesus. Nevertheless, Jesus’ death did, in fact, make the temple obsolete. The final sacrifice had been made and the veil was torn in two. God was no longer in the Holy of Holies. Instead, God dwells in the hearts of men through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).

Furthermore, God’s judgment fell upon the Jews and their temple for killing Jesus. It would be destroyed in a.d. 70. To this day OT worship in the temple has not been restored.

   Psalm 69 is clearly a messianic psalm that is quoted several times in the New Testament: vs. 4 (John 15:25); vs. 8: (John 7:3-5); vs. 9 (John 2:17, Romans 15:3); vs. 21 (Matt. 27:34, 48); and vs. 22 (Rom. 11: 9-10).

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

According to Jewish tradition, the arrival of the Messiah was to be heralded by great wonders and upheavals. They thought this may be part of it…when they asked for a sign, verse 19 talks of the destroyed temple being raised in three days.

Certainly, they misunderstood (1 Cor. 2:14) Him, but remembered His statement years later. The temple was an important element of the Jewish faith, for in it God was supposed to dwell. All of the ceremonies and sacrifices of the Jewish religion centered in the temple. When Jesus suggested that their precious building would be destroyed, their angry reaction was predictable. After all, if His body is the temple, then the Jewish temple would be needed no more!

It had taken more than 46 years to build the Temple, and their statement must have been associated with the reign of Herod, who began his reign in 37 B.C., and according to Josephus, began construction in the 18th year of that reign, in the year 19 B.C.

Thus the Jews could say 46 years to that date, though it was not completed (it was not completed until 64 A.D., or 34 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, just a few years before being destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70.  And, in reality, Jesus predicted the end of the entire Jewish religious system, for in A.D. 70, when the temple was destroyed, it did end.

Remember, too, that this gospel was written after the Temple was destroyed. Titus, the Roman general, came during the Passover season, and some three million Jews were there at the time, Josephus tells us.

By the temple cleansing, Jesus: attacked the secularizing spirit of the Jews. One should not tamper with holy things.  He exposed their graft and greed, in addition to assailing their anti-missionary spirit. The court of the Gentiles had been built as an invitation for them to worship the God of Israel (Mark 11:17). But Annas and his sons were using it for selfish purposes.

This act also fulfilled Messianic prophesy. (Psalm 69 and Malachi 3). His “sign” was the greatest miracle of all, which changed the course of all history and mankind! Matthew 21:21f, Mark 11:15-17, and Luke 10:45f record a second cleansing of the temple, at the close of Jesus’ ministry.

It was logical for the religious leaders to ask Him to show the source of His authority. After all, they were the guardians of the Jewish faith, and they had the right to test any new prophet who appeared.

“The Jews require a sign” was a phrase we see often in the gospels. He almost always refused to do so, except for the sign of Jonah (Matt. 12:39ff), which was his death, burial and resurrection.

Verses 17 and 22 indicate John’s thoughts for us “after the facts.” These events served to anger the traders, but aided in reminding the  disciples. But it came slowly, only after the resurrection were they convinced!  While His disciples remembered this after He was raised from the dead, his enemies also remembered it and used it at His trial (Matt. 26:59-61)! And some of the people mocked Him with it when He was dying on the cross (Matt. 27:40).

A special notation here: In writing this gospel, John included a number of vivid pictures of the death of the Savior. The first is the slaying of the Lamb in John 1:29, indicating that His death would be that of a substitute for sinners.

The second is here, the destroying of the temple, suggesting a violent death that would end in victorious resurrection. The third is that of the serpent lifted up (3:14), a reference to Numbers 21:5-9.

The Savior would be made sin for us (1 Peter 2:24). His death would be voluntary (John 10:11-18): the Shepherd would lay down His life for the sheep. Finally, the planting of the seed (12:20-25) teaches that His death would produce fruit to the glory of God. His death and burial would look like failure, but in the end, God would bring victory.

Jesus Christ and the special knowledge (2:23-25).

   “Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. {24} But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. {25} He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.”

For some time, John the Baptist had been preaching to the nation Israel, calling men to repentance in preparation for the coming of Messiah. At that time, even John the Baptist did not know for certain who the Messiah was. And so he spoke about Him in general terms.

6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify about the light so that everyone may believe through him. 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. 9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world (John 1:6-9).

John testified about him and cried out,

“This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me’” (John 1:15).

26 John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not know, 27 who comes after me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal” (John 1:26-27).

Finally, God revealed the identity of the Messiah to John as he was baptizing Jesus:

30 “This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’ 31 I did not recognize him, but I came baptizing with water so that he could be revealed to Israel.” 32 Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God” (John 1:30-34).

John was quick to point out to his disciples and others that Jesus was the One of whom he had been speaking. It was not long before several disciples attached themselves to Jesus, traveling along with Him, and even staying with His family in Capernaum (John 1:35ff.). They accompanied our Lord to the wedding at Cana of Galilee (2:1-2). It certainly seemed that it was time for Jesus to make His debut as Israel’s Messiah. This may have been in Mary’s mind when she informed Jesus that the wedding party had run out of wine. Jesus provided the wine, but He did so in a way which kept His identity—and even His power—a secret.

A few days later, Jesus and His disciples went up to Jerusalem, where our Lord publicly proclaimed His identity in a most unusual way. He cleansed the temple by driving out the sheep and the oxen, and also the men who were making His Father’s house a place of business. While John does not call this a “sign,” it surely was a “statement” by our Lord, a very public statement. Jesus was not merely correcting some evil; He was doing so as One who had the right to do so—Israel’s Messiah.

In Jerusalem, Jesus was beginning to gain a following. This looked like the start of something big. It is precisely that for which the disciples had hoped. It is what our Lord’s brothers almost defied Him to do (see John 7:1-5). One would expect our Lord to “fan the flames” of His rising popularity and expand the ranks of His followers. Instead, we read these words, which are not recorded in any other Gospel: “But Jesus was not entrusting himself to them, because he knew all people. 25 He did not need anyone to testify about man, for he knew what was in man” (John 2:24-25).

What does Jesus have against popularity and large numbers? What does it mean when John tells us that Jesus would not “entrust Himself” to these people who believed in Him? Why does Jesus keep His distance from those who want to be near Him? What are we to learn from all this? The purpose of this message is to learn the answers to these questions, and then to explore their implications for Christians today. It is my belief that these three verses which conclude the second chapter of John set the stage for chapters that follow. Let us listen closely to the words of John, and let us look to the Spirit of God to interpret and apply them to our hearts and lives.

John does not relate the story of any wonder that Jesus did in Jerusalem at the Passover season; but Jesus did do wonders there; and there were many who, when they saw his powers, believed in him.  The question John is answering here is-if there were many who believed in Jerusalem right at the beginning, why did Jesus not there and then set up his standard and openly declare himself?

The answer is that Jesus knew human nature only too well.  He knew that there were many to whom he was only a nine-days’ wonder.  He knew that there were many who were attracted only by the sensational things he did.  He knew that there were none who understood the way that he had chosen.  He knew that there were many who would have followed him while he continued to produce miracles and wonders and signs, but who, if he had begun to talk to them about service and self-denial, if he had begun to talk to them about self-surrender to the will of God, if he had begun to talk to them about a cross and about carrying a cross, would have stared at him with blank incomprehension and left him on the spot.

It is a great characteristic of Jesus that he did not want followers unless they clearly knew and definitely accepted what was involved in following him.  He refused-in the modern phrase-to cash in on a moment’s popularity.  If he had entrusted himself to the mob in Jerusalem, they would have declared him Messiah there and then and would have waited for the kind of material action they expected the Messiah to take.  But Jesus was a leader who refused to ask men ever to accept him until they understood what accepting meant.  He insisted that a man should know what he was doing.

Jesus knew human nature.  He knew the fickleness and instability of the heart of man.  He knew that a man can be swept away in a moment of emotion, and then back out when he discovers what decision really means.  He knew how human nature hungers for sensations.  He wanted not a crowd of men cheering they knew not what, but a small company who knew what they were doing and who were prepared to follow to the end.

We will continue to see the Jewish people divided over the meaning of these miracles. The same miracles that attracted Nicodemus to Jesus caused some of the other religious leaders to want to kill Him! They even asserted that His disciples were done in the power of Satan!

“He knew what was in man” is a statement that is proved several times in this gospel:

– Jesus knew the character of Simon (1:42)

– He knew what Nathanael was like (1:46ff)

– He told the Samaritan woman “all things” that she had ever done (4:29)

– He knew that the Jewish leaders did not have God’s love in their hearts (5:42)

– He saw the repentance in the heart of the adulteress (8:10-11)

– several times in the upper room, he revealed to His disciples their own inner feelings and questions

Christ knows everything about everyone. As this Scripture says: He knows “all men” and He knows what is “in man”: all his thoughts and deeds—good or bad, done in the light or in the dark, in the open or behind closed doors, publicly or secretly.

A few days before this, our Lord turned the ceremonial cleansing water into wine. He then went up to Jerusalem with His disciples. Upon His arrival at the temple, Jesus drove out those who had made “His Father’s house” a place of business. One might think that this temple cleansing was counter-productive, so far as our Lord’s popularity is concerned. Other than making Jesus unpopular with the religious elite, this does not seem to be the case at all. In reading the Gospels, one does not get the impression that the Jewish religious leaders were exceedingly popular.

They seem to have been arrogant snobs, who cared little about the common people and much about their position and power. Listen to the response of these leaders to the officers who were sent to arrest Jesus when they came back empty handed:

45 Then the officers returned to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why didn’t you bring him back with you?” 46 The officers replied, “No one ever spoke like this man!” 47 Then the Pharisees answered, “You haven’t been deceived too, have you? 48 None of the rulers or the Pharisees have believed in him, have they? 49 But this rabble who do not know the law are accursed!” (John 7:45-49, emphasis mine.)

The religious elite did not appear to share the attitude of the common people toward the rule of Rome. The common people seemed eager to “throw the rascals out.” They seemed to look to the Messiah to do this. But listen to the words of the chief priests and Pharisees, when they realize how popular Jesus has become, due in part to the recent raising of Lazarus:

47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many miraculous signs. 48 If we allow him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation” (John 11:47-48).

When Jesus took on the religious leaders and exposed their ignorance, arrogance, and hypocrisy, the common people seemed to love it:

35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he said, “How is it that the experts in the law say that the Christ is David’s son? 36 David himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”

37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ So how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight (Mark 12:35-37, emphasis mine).

At this very early stage of our Lord’s ministry in John’s Gospel, I am inclined to think that even the Pharisees were pleased by what Jesus had done when He cleansed the temple. It seems to be the high priest and the Sadducees who were most involved in the temple market Jesus “closed” when He made His debut at the temple. The high priests seem to have been Sadducees (see Acts 5:17). The Pharisees appear to be laymen, as opposed to the priests and religious officials. The Pharisees and Sadducees[10] had some very sharp differences (see Acts 23:6-8). We might sum up these differences by saying that the Sadducees were liberals, while the Pharisees were very conservative, theologically speaking.

When Jesus cleansed the temple, He was confronting and challenging the Sadducees. As rivals of the Sadducees, the Pharisees probably enjoyed watching one “man” (of apparently common stock) make the religious establishment look bad. This “Jesus” might come in handy to the Pharisees, or so they might have thought. Such thinking would quickly vanish, but it may have been present in the first days of our Lord’s ministry, while He was still in Jerusalem.

Yet another factor added to our Lord’s popularity. While He was in Jerusalem, Jesus performed a number of signs:

Now while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in his name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing (John 2:23, emphasis mine).

He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could do the miraculous signs that you do unless God were with him” (John 3:2, emphasis mine).

So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him because they had seen all the things he had done in Jerusalem at the feast (for they themselves had gone to the feast) (John 4:45, emphasis mine).

John is very selective in the signs he chooses to include in his Gospel. The turning of water into wine seems to be our Lord’s first public sign. John now tells us that while Jesus was in Jerusalem, He performed a number of signs. These signs made a great impact on many who observed them. Many who witnessed them “believed in His name” (verse 23).

First I must point out something that is not sufficiently clear in the English translations of this passage. John uses the same Greek term[11] to refer to the faith of those who believed (this is the word) in His name as he does for our Lord’s not entrusting (here it is again) Himself to them. The closest English approximation of the Greek text would be translated something like this: “Now while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people trusted in His name because they saw the miraculous signs He was doing, but Jesus was not entrusting Himself to them, …”

We are seeking to learn what John means when he tells us that Jesus did not entrust Himself to some believers. I believe we can do so by answering this pair of questions: (1) Why didn’t Jesus entrust Himself to these believers? and, (2) To whom, if any, did Jesus entrust Himself? Let us pursue these two questions, beginning with the second question.

John’s words in 2:23-25 indicate that Jesus did not entrust Himself to certain people, but by inference we would conclude that there were those to whom He did entrust Himself. Would we not agree that if our Lord entrusted Himself to any group of people it would be His disciples? Now we can move to the first question, slightly modified: “Why did Jesus entrust Himself to His disciples but not to these Jerusalem believers?”

John tells us the reason: Jesus is God. As God, He knows all things. Among the things He knows is what is in men’s hearts. We know from the Gospels that our Lord knew the thoughts of men:

3 Some people came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4 When they were not able to bring him in because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Jesus. Then, after tearing it out, they lowered the stretcher the paralytic was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some experts in the law were sitting there, turning these things over in their minds, 7 “Why does he speak this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Now at once Jesus knew in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, so he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your stretcher, and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—he said to the paralytic—11 “I tell you, get up, take your stretcher, and go to your home” (Mark 2:3-11, emphasis mine).

A dramatic example of our Lord’s omniscience[12] has already been described by John in chapter 1. Jesus welcomed the two disciples of John the Baptist, one of whom was Andrew (1:35-40). He knew what was in the hearts of the men He chose as His disciples. He renamed Simon “Peter” (the stone). He knew what Peter’s character would be. The most dramatic example of our Lord’s omniscience was our Lord’s knowledge of Nathanael as a man in whom there was no guile, the man whom Jesus “saw” while he was unseen, under the fig tree (1:45-51). The hearts of the disciples were an “open book” to our omniscient Lord. He also knew what was in the heart of Judas, who was to betray Him (see Matthew 9:3-5; John 6:70-71; 13:26).

I take it, then, that because Jesus fully knows the hearts of all men, He does not entrust Himself to those whose faith is second class. There is a tension here, which I cannot overlook or deny. On the one hand, we have nothing to commend us to God. He does not choose to save us because of what we are, what we have done (see Titus 3:4-5), or for what we can do for His kingdom (contrary to some popular misconceptions). He chooses the weak and the foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:26-31). There is nothing we have but what we have received from Him (1 Corinthians 4:7). On the other hand, God does look on the heart. He rejected Saul and He chose David, not because of his stature or his good looks, but because of his heart (1 Samuel 16:7). The issue here is not God’s choice of men for salvation, but His choice of men for service, and for intimate fellowship and ministry with Him.

After John Mark abandoned Paul, the apostle refused to take this young man along on his next missionary journey. Paul did not want to entrust himself and his mission to a man who had deserted him under fire (see Acts 15:36-41). Paul instructed Timothy: “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2, emphasis mine). Leadership in the local church is restricted to those who have met certain qualifications, many of which have to do with character (see 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). The disciples, to whom our Lord entrusts Himself, are those to whom He will give the Great Commission, those who will be the foundation of His church (Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 2:17-22).

What is it about these Jerusalem “believers” which causes our Lord to distance Himself from them, while He entrusts Himself to His disciples, spending a great deal of time with them? I believe our text tells us the reason: their faith was “sign faith.” John says, “Now while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in his name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing” (John 2:23).

The faith of these saints is based upon our Lord’s signs. I would suspect that when things got tough, their faith, if it did not grow beyond this dependency on signs, would seek for some new sign. We know, of course, that there were many who demanded to see a sign in order to believe, but these folks seem to never have enough sign-proof to believe. There are those like Nicodemus, however, who remain “secret saints,” who out of fear of the Jews keep quiet about their faith in Jesus:

However, no one spoke openly about him for fear of the Jewish authorities (John 7:13).

After this Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus (but secretly, because he feared the Jewish authorities), asked Pilate if he could take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission, so he went and took away the body (John 19:38).

Jesus would shortly send His disciples out in teams of two to proclaim the Gospel. They would face opposition, rejection, and persecution. Jesus would not entrust Himself to those who would wither and withdraw under this kind of adversity. Jesus knew the hearts of men, and because of this He committed Himself to His disciples and kept His distance from others, whose faith was dependent on signs.

Jesus knew human nature. He knew the fickleness and instability of the heart of man. He knew that a man can be swept away in a moment of emotion, and then back out when he discovers what his decision really means.

He knew how human nature hungers for sensations. He wanted not a crowd of men cheering who knew nothing, but a small company who knew what they were doing and who were prepared to follow Him to the end!

And, too, this brief paragraph prepares us for the important interview with Nicodemus in our next lesson.  But, in reality, the three main interviews which will follow exhibit Jesus’ method of dealing skillfully with three different types of personality with the purpose of bringing them to belief.

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). I suspect that immediately after our Lord departed from Jerusalem all the temple businessmen set up shop again and went right on with their evil deeds. I believe our Lord’s purpose in this first cleansing is to “make a statement,” about Himself, the temple, and the Jewish religious system—not to permanently solve the problem He attacks.

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. He calls the temple “His Father’s house.” No one who actually witnessed this event fully grasped its meaning or significance. The disciples will understand, but only after our Lord’s death and resurrection, only after the coming of the Holy Spirit (see John 16:12-14). Jesus not only came with God’s authority (as a prophet might do); He came as God. In fact, He is God tabernacling among men, as John tells us (John 1:14). Later, He speaks of Himself as the temple, and so He is:

21 And the twelve gates are twelve pearls—each one of the gates is made from just one pearl! The main street of the city is pure gold like transparent glass. 22 Now I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God All-Powerful is its temple, and the Lamb. 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because the glory of God lights it up, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 The nations will walk by its light and the kings of the earth will bring their grandeur into it. 25 Its gates will never be closed during the day (for there will be no night there). 26 They will bring the grandeur and the wealth of the nations into it, 27 but nothing ritually unclean will ever enter into it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or practices falsehood, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 21:21-27, emphasis mine).

At the cleansing of the temple, our Lord symbolically comes to possess what, as God, is His. As the Son of God, the temple is His Father’s house, and thus He has the right to correct temple abuses. He has the right to drive men and animals out of the temple courts. As I read this account of this first temple cleansing, I am reminded of a comment by Leon Morris on John 1:11, which directly relates to our text. Let’s first look again at this text:

9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was created through him, but the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him (John 1:9-11, emphasis mine).

Here is what Morris has to say about the expression, “His own”:

With vivid touches John highlights the tragedy of the rejection. We might translate the opening words, ‘he came home.’ It is the exact expression used of the beloved disciple when, in response to Jesus’ word from the cross, he took Mary ‘unto his own home’ (19:27; cf. 16:32). In one sense, when the Word came to this world He did not come as an alien. He came home. Moreover, He came to Israel. Had He come to some other nation it would have been bad enough, but Israel was peculiarly God’s own people. The Word did not go where He could not have expected to be known. He came home, where the people ought to have known Him.[13]

Various translations try to capture the significance of the subtle change of terms John deliberately employs in verse 11. Unfortunately, some translations render these two terms by the same expression, “His own.” The New English Bible renders this sentence, “He entered his own realm, and his own would not receive him.” The NET Bible translates, “He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him.” Morris would render it, “He came home, and His own would not receive Him.” Do you see it? When Jesus comes into the temple, He is coming “home.” This is His Father’s house. He is about His Father’s business. And in the process of doing so, He declares Himself to be God. In response, He is rejected—“His own did not receive Him.”

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.

The first coming of our Lord was, in part, to claim what was His. The Second Coming of our Lord, an event still future, is a time when He will come and fully possess what is His. Jesus speaks a good deal about stewardship, as we can see in the Gospels. The reason should be obvious: We do not own anything; ultimately, He owns it all. This puts everything we think of as our “possessions” in an entirely different light. Some seem to think they own everything they have, and if they feel generous enough, they may give a percentage of it to God. In truth, God claims it all, and we are merely stewards of His possessions. If we use these to indulge ourselves, we are failing our stewardship. If we fail to make good use of them, we fail as stewards. Let us cease thinking of anything as our own. Let us hold much less tightly to the things that we call possessions. And let us use them well as His stewards.

Jesus came to possess what was His—His temple. Jesus had the right to define how men could use His temple, and the right to correct those who abused it. The church is now being built up as His temple:

19 So then you are no longer foreigners and non-citizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, 20 because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22; see also 1 Peter 2:4-10).

As a result, those who in any way do damage to the church, God’s temple, are guilty of a most serious offense:

16 Do you not know that you[14] are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17 If someone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, which is what you are (1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

And what mutual agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will live in them and will walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people” (2 Corinthians 6:16).

If the church collectively is the temple of our Lord, it is also true that we are individually “temples” of the Holy Spirit. Because this is true, our sins in the body are taken most seriously.

19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God with your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

God owns us; He owns our body as His temple. We do not own ourselves.[15] In the context of 1 Corinthians 6, Paul tells us that sexual immorality, though taken very lightly by our society (see 6:13), is a most serious sin, especially for the Christian. If our body is the temple of God, then to defile it is to defile God’s temple. If Jesus took the defilement of Herod’s temple so seriously, how do you think He feels about the way you and I use our bodies? To abuse or defile them is an affront to God, to whom our bodies belong, and in which He dwells by His Spirit.

Our Lord’s words and actions also relate to our use of church buildings (or our places of worship). Let me be very clear: church buildings are not “God’s house” in the sense that the temple was. God is with His people when they gather, though it is not the “building” He indwells, but the church, His body. Nevertheless, our text has something to say about our gathering for worship.

Is it possible that we can turn the church (building) into an emporium, a house of merchandise? Whenever we begin to sell things in the church, that danger exists. At first, we may do this because we are trying to facilitate the worship of those who come. I think the temple businessmen would have said the same thing about their motivation. Whether it is songbooks, tapes and video’s being sold by a guest speaker or musician, or candy bars being sold to pay for a youth retreat, we need to be very careful that it does not turn the church into a shopping mall. There are lots of things being sold in churches today, so the danger is there.[16]

Let me press beyond the church walls for a moment, and give a word of warning about the commercialization of Christianity. Much of the ministry which was once viewed as the ministry of the church and by the church is now being handed over to “professionals” in Christian ministry. Some of this may be biblically defensible and even good, but some may not. I fear we have turned some Christian ministries into industries, “Christian industries,” where some Christians begin to view the needs of others as an opportunity to make a profit, rather than an occasion to sacrificially minister to others. I am most distressed when such “Christian ministries” are willing to minister only to those who have the means to pay, and who purposely reject or pass over those who are poor, and perhaps in the greatest need. Let us be on guard about commercializing the ministry.

We also need to be very careful about adopting “merchandising principles” as a means of assuring that we have a “successful” ministry.[17] I hear a lot about this today, as though secular business principles are the key to effective ministry. For example, a church may be engaged in a building program, trying to raise money for expansion. All too often, charts, thermometers, or advertisements dominate the auditorium (I refrain from using the word “sanctuary”) and distract from the worship that should take place there. Principles employed in the business world, which are truly biblical, may be applicable to the church. But many of the guiding principles of secular business are opposed to biblical principles. Much of the merchandizing promoted by Madison Avenue tactics is based upon an appeal to the flesh. When such is the case, Christian ministry can well do without such merchandizing principles and methods.

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.

The changing of the water into wine and the cleansing of the temple give us a broad overview of the person and work of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He is the gentle and gracious Savior, who saved the newlywed couple from embarrassment by making water into wine. He is also the holy and righteous Judge, who will punish His enemies and correct the evils of men. As Paul writes,

Notice, therefore, the kindness and harshness of God: harshness toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off (Romans 11:22).

Have you considered the harshness of God, which you justly deserve as a sinner? Have you received the kindness of God in the gift of Jesus Christ, who died for your sins on the cross of Calvary? I urge you to “believe” in Him, for this is John’s purpose in writing this Gospel.

[1] “So very close was the connection between the Passover-meal proper and the immediately following Feast of Unleavened Bread that the term Passover is frequently used to cover both. Thus, in Luke 22:1—a very significant passage—we read: ‘Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover.’ Also in Acts 12:4 (see the preceding verse) the term Passover clearly covers the entire seven-day festival. The Old Testament, too, calls the Passover a feast of seven days (Ezek. 45:21).” Hendriksen, pp. 121-122.

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

[3] I do not believe John intends for us to conclude that the disciples understood this immediately, but that they eventually came to understand it, in the light of His death, burial, and resurrection, and by means of the illumination of the Holy Spirit (see John 16:12-14).

[4] “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.

[5] See Appendix: “Were There Two Temple Cleansings or Just One?”

[6] “With other New Testament writers, however, John detects in the experiences of David a prophetic paradigm that anticipates what must take place in the life of ‘great David’s greater Son.’ That explains why the words in 2:17, quoted from the LXX, change the tense to the future: Zeal for your house will consume me.… For John, the manner by which Jesus will be ‘consumed’ is doubtless his death.” Carson, p. 180.

[7] “‘The action is not merely that of a Jewish reformer; it is a sign of the advent of the Messiah’ (Hoskins)” Morris, p. 196.

[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.

[9] “We ought to observe the connection of the words, that they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken; for the Evangelist means that, by comparing the Scripture with the word of Christ, they were aided in making progress in faith.” John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume 7: The Gospels (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., n.d.), p. 630.

[10] I should point out, however, that the term “Sadducee” never appears in the Gospel of John.

[11] I should clarify a bit. It is the same Greek verb in both verses. When describing the faith of those who believed in Jesus, John uses the aorist tense, focusing upon the moment of faith. When describing our Lord’s refusal to “commit” Himself to these “believers,” John uses the imperfect tense. John was informing us that this was Jesus’ course of action, something that He practiced consistently, in case after case, situation after situation.

[12] To be omniscient is to know all. It is an attribute of God alone. Jesus, as God, has this attribute.

[13] Morris, p. 96.

[14] The three “you’s” of verses 16 and 17 are all plural. Here, Paul is speaking of the church, collectively, as the temple of God.

[15] Here is a verse that needs to be etched in stone, and put in neon lights for any woman who would assert her right to have an abortion, because it is “her” body.

[16] Whether or not certain things should ever be sold by or to church members is another question. In our text, Jesus is most concerned about where these animals and birds were being sold.

[17] I do not wish to be understood as making a blanket condemnation here, but I do believe that many secular systems are embraced by Christians without any consideration of whether they truly have a biblical basis.

In our text, Jesus goes into the temple in Jerusalem and starts cleaning house. He didn’t begin by opening Scripture and teaching everyone the proper use of the temple. He wasn’t polite, either. He didn’t ask, “Would you mind moving your animals outside the temple? Could you please carry your coin boxes and tables outside the gates?” Rather, He saw what was going on, made a scourge of cords, and drove the animals and their owners out of there. He dumped out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those selling doves, He commanded (2:16), “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.”

As could be expected, the Jews asked Him, in effect, “What right do you have to do these things?” In the vernacular, “Who do you think you are? Do you think you own this place?” John wants us to understand, “Yes, Jesus owns this place! The temple belongs to Him.” Thus,

As the Lord of the temple, Jesus has authority to cleanse it and restore it to its proper use.

In our last study, the disciples got an initial glimpse of Jesus’ glory when He turned the water into wine and they believed in Him (2:11). They had already believed in Him, but when they saw more of who He really is, they believed in Him again, in a deeper way.

After Jesus’ resurrection when the disciples remembered this incident, the result was the same: “they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (2:22). And John writes these things so that we might get a deeper understanding of who Jesus is so that we might believe in Him as the Christ, the Son of God, and through believing, we might have life in His name (20:30-31).

Before we look at the main event in our text, note that verse 12 is a transitional verse from the last incident: “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days.” Capernaum was on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, about two miles west of where the Jordan River flowed into the sea. It was the home of Peter and Andrew. After John the Baptist was imprisoned, Jesus moved there from Nazareth (Matt. 4:13).

This is the last time that Jesus’ mother is mentioned in this gospel until she is at the cross (19:26). We will encounter Jesus’ brothers again in 7:3-10, where John informs us that they did not at that point believe in Jesus.

All Jewish males were required to go up (Jerusalem was at a higher elevation than the surrounding territory) to the temple three times a year for the great feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. On this occasion, Jesus went up for Passover.

Within the temple compound was a spacious courtyard called “The Court of the Gentiles.” Gentile proselytes could worship in that area but were threatened with death if they went beyond the four and a half foot dividing wall (Paul refers to this in Eph. 2:14).

It was in this area that the merchants and money changers had set up their operation. As Jesus approached this area, which was to be a place of worship and prayer (Isa. 56:7; Matt. 21:13), He would have heard the commotion of the marketplace, with merchants crying out to hawk their wares and the smell of animals.

The pilgrims who walked great distances to Jerusalem to worship needed sacrificial animals—sheep, oxen, and doves. They could bring their own animals from home, although it would not be easy to do. But, the animals had to be without blemish and had to pass an official inspection, which cost money.

So to avoid the hassle of bringing their own animals and the risk of having the animals rejected, a person could simply buy one of the already certified animals from a vendor at the temple. These vendors paid the high priest for the privilege of selling at the temple. So it was a nice business for the high priest and the vendors. And, it provided a convenient service for the worshipers.

Also, foreign money was not acceptable in the temple. To buy their animals or to pay the half-shekel temple tax, worshipers had to get their money changed into the proper coinage, again for a fee. If you’ve ever traveled overseas, you know how this works. In every foreign airport and city, money changers will trade your American currency for the local currency for a nice fee.

There is scholarly evidence that these merchants and money changers had operated around the Mount of Olives, outside of the temple precincts, under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin for some time. But just prior to Jesus’ ministry, Caiaphas, the high priest, had brought some of them into the Court of the Gentiles to compete with those outside.

Jesus’ indignation was not necessarily against selling these animals or changing money per se (although gouging people with exorbitant rates for personal profit was wrong), but rather at the audacity of bringing these merchants into the only place where the Gentiles could worship (William Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark [Eerdmans], pp. 403-404). Their business should have been carried on outside the temple.

Why didn’t the temple officials arrest or physically restrain Jesus from carrying out this extreme action? There were probably several factors.

First, there was a general public outrage against this corrupt and evil system. The people knew that they were being charged exorbitant rates. The high priest and the vendors knew that there was only so much that the public would bear. If they had used force against Jesus, they might have faced a public rebellion.

Second, the consciences of the vendors themselves may have been a little uneasy. Their setting up shop in the temple precincts defiled the temple because it brought animal excrement into that sacred space. Also, Jesus’ action could have been viewed as a fulfillment of Malachi 3:1-4, which prophesied that Messiah would come to His temple and purify the people like a refiner’s fire.

Leon Morris points out (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans], p. 194) that it was not so much Jesus’ physical force that drove these merchants out of the temple, but rather His moral power. So rather than physically arrest or restrain Jesus, the authorities challenge His authority or right to do what He did (2:18). We will have to wait until next time to examine Jesus’ reply and the disciples’ response (2:19-22). For now, let’s look at five lessons from Jesus’ housecleaning of the temple:

1. As the Lord of the temple, Jesus has authority over it.

Several things in the text establish Jesus’ lordship and thus His authority over the temple. First, He calls it “My Father’s house,” not “our Father’s house.” Morris notes (ibid., p. 195, note 66), “Jesus never joins men with Himself in such a way as to indicate that their sonship is similar to His (cf. 20:17).” He adds, “Jesus’ words are a claim to deity.” If Jesus is the unique Son of God, the heir of all things (Heb. 1:2), then He is the rightful Lord of the temple.

Also, the citation of Psalm 69:9 shows that this “action is not merely that of a Jewish reformer: it is a sign of the advent of the Messiah” (Hoskyns, cited by Morris, p. 196). John is showing us that Jesus is the Christ (20:31). Morris adds, “It is one of John’s great themes that in Jesus God is working His purposes out.”

John Calvin (Calvin’s Commentaries [Baker], p. 91) raises the question, “Why didn’t Christ begin with teaching before He took this drastic action?” He answers that Jesus wished in some way to take possession of the temple and to give a proof of His divine authority. Also, this dramatic action would awaken everyone to pay attention when He later began to teach.

It’s easy to sit here and enjoy the story of Jesus cleaning house on the temple, but it gets a bit uncomfortable when we remember two things. First, the church is now the temple where God dwells. In 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, Paul writes, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.” The context indicates that Paul is speaking of the church. Also, in Ephesians 2:21, he states that the church is growing into a holy temple in the Lord.

Second, every believer individually is a temple of the Lord. Paul writes (1 Cor. 6:19-20), “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.”

This means that Jesus has authority over this church and over every individual in it. He is the rightful Lord of the church. He owns each member because He purchased each one with His blood. Thus He has the right to cleanse the church and to cleanse every person in it. Everything else that I’m going to say applies both to the whole church and to each of you individually.

2. As the Lord of the temple, Jesus examines and judges it in light of its purpose.

Jesus knew that the temple was not to be a place for business (2:16). It was a place for worship, for prayer, and for offering sacrifices. It was the place to meet with God and seek His face (see 1 Kings 8:22-53; Isa. 56:7). It was the place to gather for the three annual feasts (Deut. 16:16). The Passover, which Jesus here went up to celebrate, was a time to remember God’s miraculous deliverance of Israel from 400 years of slavery in Egypt. But it had degenerated into a business opportunity for the high priest and all of the merchants and money changers. No doubt they rationalized their activities: It was a useful service for the worshipers. But they were prostituting God’s purpose for the temple.

God’s purpose for His church is that we would glorify Him by growing in fervent love for Him and for one another (the two great commandments) and by proclaiming the gospel to the lost (the Great Commission). We need to keep on task by evaluating all that we do in light of these purposes. Individually, each of us should seek to glorify God by everything we do (1 Cor. 6:20; 10:31). If we live for anything else, the Lord of the temple will examine us and purge out that which has diverted us from His purpose for us.

3. As the Lord of the temple, Jesus hates certain things that go on in it.

Jesus is zealous for God’s house and that zeal means that sometimes He is not “nice.” He didn’t politely go around to each stall and suggest to the proprietors that perhaps they should move outside the temple precincts. Rather, He made a whip and drove them out with force. He angrily upended their money tables and scattered their coins.

Does that fit with your picture of Jesus? Yes, He was gentle toward sinners (Matt. 11:29; 12:20). He gives “grace upon grace” (John 1:16). He so loves us that He gave Himself for us on the cross (John 3:16). But He also baptizes with fire. “His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor” (Luke 3:17). “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). As we’ve seen (1 Cor. 3:17), “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.”

Jesus hates sin because sin destroys people He loves and sin among God’s people drags God’s holy name through the mud. This means that first, we should hate our own sin and be quick to repent of it so that He doesn’t have to clean house for us (Rev. 3:19). Judge, confess, and forsake your sin on the thought level and it won’t go any farther. If you’ve already sinned in word or deed, turn from it, ask God to forgive you, and ask forgiveness of those you’ve sinned against.

Also, if you know of a brother or sister who is in sin, zeal for God’s house should override your fear of man and your aversion to confront anyone. After prayer, in humility, go to your brother and seek to restore him to the Lord (Gal. 6:1). It is the Christlike thing to do. Jesus never avoided confrontation if it was necessary to do the will of God. Don’t dodge your responsibility. It’s a necessary part of biblical love to hate sin.

4. As Lord of the temple, Jesus cleanses it.

A sober question to ask is, “What would Jesus do if He visited our church?” Would He be pleased with our worship? Would He smile as He looked at our relationships? Would He approve of our heart for the lost? Would He commend our giving and the way that we use the church’s funds? Would He say that our prayer life reflects our total dependence on Him?

Ask the same question on an individual level: Lord, is my life pleasing to You? Is my love for You genuine? Do I reflect the fruit of the Spirit? Is my thought life pure in Your sight? Where would You clean house in my life if I gave You full rein?

Note that Jesus didn’t work out a compromise with the stall owners and money changers: “If you guys will tithe your profits, I’ll let you keep doing business in the temple.” He cleaned out the entire operation. He doesn’t let us keep a little bit of sin if we’ll just give up a few other sins. Jesus cleans it all out. And, yes, it’s painful and costly. I’m sure that the whip stung when it hit. The money changers probably lost a few coins. Their future business suffered. It may cost you in many ways to do business with Jesus. But the long term benefits are worth it.

5. As the Lord’s temple, we must submit to His cleansing, even if it costs us dearly.

Hebrews 12:6 reminds us, “For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives.” He adds (12:11), “All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.” And so we should not regard His discipline lightly or faint when we are reproved by Him, but rather be subject to the Father of spirits and live (12:5, 9).

Also, once Jesus has cleaned our house for us, we need to keep it clean so that He doesn’t have to do it again. Not long after this first cleansing, they set up shop again, so that Jesus had to do this a second time three years later. Then His zeal for God’s house did consume Him—it led to His death.

Conclusion

It’s good every so often to examine yourself to make sure that you’re in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5):

• Have you lost that first love for Christ (Rev. 2:4)? Do you spend time with Him often in His Word (Psalm 119) and in prayer (1 Thess. 5:17)? Are you actively seeking to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18; Phil 3:8-10)? Do you seek to please Him with your thoughts, words, and deeds?

• How are your relationships with others, especially with those you live with (Matt. 22:39)? Are you fervent in your love for others (1 Pet. 4:8)? Do you deny yourself and seek to build others in love (Mark 8:34; 1 Cor. 8:1)? Do you love gathering with His church (Heb. 10:25)?

• Do you spend your time in light of His kingdom purposes (Matt. 6:33)? Are you a conscientious steward of the resources that He has entrusted to you (Luke 16:10-13)? Do you view yourself as the Lord’s servant, seeking opportunities to be used by Him (Luke 17:10)? Are there any hidden or open sins that you need to confess and forsake (1 John 1:9)?

Paul says that if we clean house ourselves, the Lord won’t need to do it for us. Before we partake of the Lord’s Supper, he instructed us (1 Cor. 11:28), “But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” He adds (1 Cor. 11:31-32), “But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.” So if you need to clean house, don’t procrastinate! The Lord doesn’t want you to live in a spiritual pigsty!

This section represents the first miracle Jesus performed, demonstrating His very purpose for coming to earth: to reveal the creative power of God. He had the power to create and produce what was needed to meet man’s need.

This section, which carries through the close of chapter four, has been called “the period of consideration,” because it narrates certain events by means of which Jesus was presented to the public for their consideration and acceptance.

These events or appearances of Jesus were selected as representative, in order that His method of appeal to various classes might be plainly seen, and that the reader might be influenced by at least one of them.

Our text, John 2:1-11, tells of Jesus’ attendance at a wedding where He, too, experienced the tension. Watching what He did at this event tells us a lot about who the Son of Man (1:51) truly is.

This scene, in a way, leaves us up in the air. There are many unanswered questions: What was Mary’s role? What was Nathanael’s relationship to the couple? Who was this couple? Did Jesus know them previously? How?

As an eyewitness, John could have answered all these questions. But he chooses to emphasize Jesus. He is the main character of this wedding feast, the only one that really matters.

Note that Joseph was not mentioned. It is thought by most commentators that he was already dead. Jesus has come to bear all the trials of the world for man. He suffered…

• the death of a parent ( Matthew 13:53-58).
• being the child of a one-parent family.
• having to provide for His mother and half-brothers and sisters.

The first verse sets the time…it has been seven days since the event of John 1:19: “On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee.”

Cana of Galilee was the home of Nathanael (21:2). Jesus was a full participant in this celebration. Marriage was a happy time, a time of joy and laughter—a festive occasion. It was one of the largest social events in a community.

This tells us two things about Jesus: 1. He was a sociable person…He liked people and people liked Him. He enjoyed the company of people. Do not miss the truth that Jesus chose to attend the wedding! Can you imagine Him there? Can you imagine His relaxed smile as He talked with the other guests? Does the Jesus you picture in your mind experience joy? Would He be at home at a wedding celebration? The Jesus of this text certainly was!

Jesus honored marriage by His presence. He demonstrated His approval and honor in two ways: by attending the marriage feast and by meeting the urgent need of the bridegroom.

A Jewish wedding ceremony included three major events:

There was a marriage feast and ceremony, which were held on the same evening

They were conducted through the village streets by the light of flaming torches and with a canopy over their heads. They wore crowns and dressed in their bridal robes for a week…they didn’t go on a honeymoon, but stayed at home, and it was ‘open house’ for 7 days.

The wedding festivities lasted far more than one day; they usually lasted seven days. After the ceremony the young couple were conducted to their new home. There, speeches were made and expressions of goodwill publicly declared. They were treated like kings and queens, and were actually addressed as king and queen.

In a life where there was much poverty and constant hard work, this week of festivity and joy was one of the supreme occasions.  Hospitality was emphasized and the hosts took great care to provide whatever the guests needed.

“Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and His disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

Mary, the mother of Jesus, is at the wedding, although her role seems to be more than that of a guest. One gets the impression that the couple being married are either friends, or possibly related to Mary, and that she is helping with the arrangements, especially the serving of the food and wine. She seems to be one of the first to know that the wine is running out. She instructs the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them to do, and they appear willing to take her instructions.

Jesus and His disciples are also at the wedding as invited guests. There seem to be only five disciples at this point: Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and John (if indeed he is the other disciple of John who follows Jesus).

The fact that Mary, Jesus, and His disciples are all invited to this wedding suggests that this wedding is that of someone known to all of them, perhaps a friend or a relative. Well into the festivities, Jesus’ mother becomes aware of a most embarrassing situation—the wine has run out, and there appears to be no solution. Either no more wine is available, or there is no money to buy more wine.

The guests seem unaware of what is happening. If something is not done, all will be embarrassed. It became clear that the wine was running out, which would present quite an embarrassing moment, and the statement in verse 3 seems to be both a statement of fact and a hint of a request.

“Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Mary feels some sort of responsibility and exercises some authority here. Mary did not tell Jesus what to do; she simply reported the problem.

Her request to Jesus was at once a testimony to her personal confidence in His powers, of a sense of human glory and pride in her Son, and acknowledgment of the social disaster which threatened the young couple.

Of all those present, the mother of our Lord knows Jesus best. She knows better than anyone of the miraculous events surrounding His birth. She knows of John the Baptist’s miraculous birth as well, and of his ministry in which he has identified Jesus as the promised Messiah.

His brief response to Mary has three parts.

First, he addresses her as “dear woman” rather than “Mom.” It was a polite title, like “Ma’am,” (cf. Jn 19:26), and yet a definite statement about their relationship. She now must submit to him as Christ rather than leading him as “son.”

Then Jesus says, “Why do you involve me?” [lit. “what to me to you”]. This is a common Hebrew idiom, roughly meaning, “What business is that of mine?” Essentially, Jesus is asking Mary to carefully consider their relationship.

Finally, he said his hour has not yet come. In other words, “Mary, don’t expect a public proclamation just yet” (cf. Jn 7:6, 9). Jesus’ life was predestined. The events of his incarnation (Gal 4:4) and ministry were meticulously planned AND TIMED so as to lead to Calvary at the right moment. John’s use of the words “hour” and “time” indicate God’s plan for Jesus, especially in his death.

The Greek word for woman (gunai) carries with it no idea of censure from Jesus toward Mary. The same word is used in John 19:26 (when He left her in the care of John) and 20:13. But the use of “gunai” instead of “meter” (Mother) does show Mary that she can no longer exercise maternal authority and not at all in His Messianic work! (It is a difficult but needed lesson for parents to learn when the have to “let go” of their adult children).

His statement literally was: “what is it to me and to thee?” It was as if He asked, “is this the time for a public manifestation of My power and person?”

It is highly significant that we see Jesus having to cope with the strain and stress of belonging to a human family. Part of His being “flesh” was that He experienced life as a son and a brother.

Jesus, at the wedding, was being pulled in different directions by the confusing currents of a family.

We see Him standing between His love and honor for His mother on one side and His devotion to duty on the other. His was the terribly awkward conflict between “good” and “best.” He was forced to balance His mother’s wishes and His Father’s will.

Verse 5 tells us two things:

1. This mother knew her son.
2. She knew He could do something, but it would be independent of her. It also shows she was immediately subservient to Him.

“Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.” (2:6-7).

John explains that these jars were there to provide water for the purifying ceremonies of the Jews. Water was required for two purposes: it was required for cleansing the feet on entry to the house; and it was required for the handwashing.  The combined capacity of the waterpots was about 150 gallons. Reckoning a half pint to a glass, these vessels would contain about 2,400 servings of wine–certainly enough to supply a large number of people for days.

Jesus commands that they be filled with water to the brim. This will indicate (1) a great quantity, and (2) nothing else was “slipped into the punch,” (3) as purification jars, they contained water, not wine. Therefore, there wouldn’t even be any residue of wine in them. In quality and quantity the new-made wine more than satisfied the needs and taste of those who attended the feast.

(John 2:8-10)  “Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so, {9} and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside {10} and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.””

These verses explain themselves. This first miracle was not a spectacular event that everybody witnessed. Mary, the disciples, and the servants knew what happened; but nobody else at the feast had any idea that a miracle had taken place.

His first miracle was a quiet event in contrast to His last miracle (cpt. 11), a public event after a funeral. The tablemaster knew nothing of the miracle, and the servants knew the source of the water, but not the power that made the wine.

Notice that Jesus did not touch the pots or the water or pray openly to God for a miracle. He simply willed the change (this feat is nowhere in the Bible duplicated by prophets or apostles).

Some of the “water” was drawn out of the pots and taken to the “headwaiter” who was responsible for three things:

Tasting all food and wine to see that it was acceptable

keeping order in the party (he would break a glass if someone got unruly)

and officiating over the banquet.

This fellow was not privy to Jesus’ assistance. When he drank the water/wine he found it delicious. Its “goodness” was not found in its intoxicating ability but in its taste. In fact, Palestinian wine was significantly watered down. Although a person could become drunk with it, there were far more effective liqueurs. Wine was the normal table drink which accompanied meals.

So good was this wine that the “headwaiter” called the bridegroom and complimented him on his fare. Normally the best is served first, not last.

The Greek word “oinos” means it is real wine, but not necessarily intoxicating wine (there are 13 different Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible to denote the many different kinds of wines).

Drunkenness was a great disgrace, and they actually drank their wine in a mixture composed of two parts of wine to three parts of water.

The significance of the miracle lay in the result that it produced: “This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples pout their faith in him.”

Jesus performed many signs and wonders. This is the first of seven that John chooses to record (v. 11). And it was pretty much a private display for the disciples, as are the other six. John’s seven “signs” are not intended to showcase Jesus’ power but to validate his position as God’s Son.

It marked the beginning of His public ministry; it manifested His glory; it was used to point His disciples to the Divine Son; and it was used to produce faith in His disciples.

We should also note that this being the first miracle declares as false stories about miracles performed by Jesus as an infant or a young child. They are nothing but superstitious fables and ought to be rejected by anyone who believes the Bible!

“You shall see greater things than that…. You shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” 

“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to Himself (12x in John; 66x in the Synoptic Gospels). The term comes from Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel sees one like a Son of Man who approaches the Ancient of Days, who gives to Him an everlasting kingdom.

Since Jesus refers to these verses at His trial to testify to the high priest that He is coming again in power and glory (Matt. 26:64), there may be an allusion in John 1:51 to the second coming.

Leon Morris (pp. 172-173) points out four reasons that Jesus adopted this term for Himself.

First, it was a rare term without nationalistic associations. People would not view Him as a political Messiah.

Second, it had overtones of divinity (because of its connection with Daniel 7:13-14).

Third, He adopted it because it implies the redeemed people of God.

Fourth, it had undertones of humanity.

Morris says (ibid.) “He took upon Him our weakness. It was a way of alluding to and yet veiling His messiahship, for His concept of the Messiah differed markedly from that commonly held.” The term is always associated either with Christ’s heavenly glory or with the salvation He came to bring.”

The title “Son of man” was used at least forty times by Jesus, twelve times in this Gospel; and, with the exception of Stephen’s use of it (Acts 7:56), it is found only in our Lord’s reference to himself. There are two questions of the deepest significance that arise from Jesus’ use of this title: (1) did he use it in such a manner as to diminish his claim of absolute divinity? and (2) why did he favor this title as distinguished from “Son of God,” which was more popularly associated generally with the coming Messiah?

The answer to the first question is an emphatic negative. Jesus meant by the title “Son of man” to affirm his deity and Godhead just as dogmatically as the title “Son of God” could have done it, but with the additional advantage of stressing his unique relationship to the human race as well. It is evident that THE Son of man cannot be any mortal being. Dummelow pointed out that the Greek words so translated cannot mean “A Son of man,” but definitely and emphatically, “THE Son of man.”^[58]

In this conversation with Nathaniel, it is evident that Jesus intended the title “Son of man” to be understood in exactly the same sense as “Son of God.” This follows from the fact that, taking the conversation as a whole, the two titles are used synonymously and interchangeably, without any suggestion whatever that Christ rejected either “Son of God” or “King of Israel” as being properly applied to himself. It is as though our Lord had said, “Yes, Nathaniel, you are correct; but for the present, let us use the title Son of man.”

Why did Jesus prefer this title? “Son of God” was a title that carried with it; in the popular mind, the meaning King of Israel, a fact proved by Nathaniel’s usage of the two together just a moment before; and it would have been disastrous for the Lord to have allowed the multitudes to crown him “king,” a thing many of them were eager to do. It was clearly for the purpose of preventing such a thing that Jesus so often used the other title, “Son of man,” a title which was not generally known and understood by the people and which was thus free of the connotation of an earthly kingship of Israel. It was absolutely imperative for our Lord to have avoided any semblance of claiming the literal Solomonic throne of Israel; for, if he had been unsuccessful in such avoidance, the Pharisees might have been able to get him crucified for sedition. It will be remembered that that is exactly what they tried to do anyway; but so completely had Jesus thwarted them, that they finally admitted to Pilate that they desired his condemnation for claiming to be the Son of God (John 19:7). However, if Jesus had permitted the widespread use of that title earlier, some radical mob would have proclaimed him “King” and thus have provided sufficient grounds for a charge of sedition.

That Jesus did positively intend that “Son of man” should be understood in a unique and supernatural sense is proved by his own use of the title, as follows:

He used the title: (1) in connection with his power to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6); (2) of his lordship over the sabbath (Matt. 12:8); (3) of his second advent in glory (Matt. 19:28); (4) of his resurrection (Matt. 17:23); (5) of his seeking and saving that which is lost (Luke 19:10); (6) and of his coming in the final judgment (Matt. 26:64).

The frustrated hatred and enmity of the Pharisees at his trial before Caiaphas reached a point of frenzy over this very title. The Pharisees knew perfectly that “Son of man” was fully as adequate a title of the Messiah as was “Son of God”; but they were trying to trick Jesus into using the latter title, because of its popular but mistaken identification with an earthly kingship of Israel. At the climax of the trial, Caiaphas placed Jesus under oath, saying, “Tell us, art thou the Christ, the Son of God?” (Matt. 26:63). In his reply, Jesus used the other terms: “Thou shalt see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). The Sanhedrin accepted Son of man as equivalent to Son of God on that occasion and certified to Pilate that he had “made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). From these and many other considerations, therefore, it must be concluded that the answer to the second question raised at the first of this analysis is that Jesus preferred “Son of man” because of that title’s being free of any possible misrepresentation. The very learned, such as the Pharisees, well knew it as a valid and proper designation of the divine Messiah; but it is clear that the multitudes did not so recognize it (John 12:34).

Emil Von Ludwig’s blasphemous biography, “The Son of Man,” made this title the ground of his thesis that Jesus never claimed to be anything but a man; but his thesis is contradicted and disproved by the best of all judges of such a question, the Sanhedrin itself, which accepted the title, and so certified it to the governor, as equivalent in every way to “the Son of God.” Besides that, Jesus’ own use of it leaves no shadow of doubt that it carried the utmost implications of deity and Godhead, as well as connotations of his perfect and unique humanity.^[1]

Jesus now speaks to all the disciples there present. He tells that they would hereafter see the angels ascending and descending upon him, the Son of Man (a messianic title, see Daniel 7:13).

As students of the Old Testament, his disciples would have realized that Jesus was alluding to Jacob’s vision of the ladder connecting heaven to earth (see Genesis 28:12ff.). Jacob had left home, having lied to his father and cheated his brother of the birthright.

Yet in his dream Jacob saw a vision of angels ministering to him. If God could reveal himself to a sinner like Jacob, surely he could reveal himself in an even greater way to Nathanael.

To Nathanael and the others, the heavens would be opened—i.e., they would be given insight into the things of heaven (Acts 10:11; Rev. 4:1; 19:11).

Furthermore, they would realize that Jesus, as the Son of Man, was the vehicle of communication between heaven and earth. Just as God had appointed Jacob to be the father of the twelve tribes (under the new name Israel), God had appointed Jesus to be the founder of the new spiritual kingdom.^[2]

“Son of man” was one of our Lord’s favorite titles for Himself; it is used eighty-three times in the Gospels and at least thirteen times in John. The title speaks of both the deity and humanity of Jesus.

The vision in Daniel 7:13 presents the “Son of man” in a definite messianic setting; and Jesus used the title in the same way (Matt. 26:64).

As Son of man, Jesus is the “living link” between heaven and earth. This explains His reference to “Jacob’s ladder” in Genesis 28. Jacob the fugitive thought he was alone, but God had sent the angels to guard and guide him.

Christ is God’s “ladder” between heaven and earth. “No man cometh to the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6). Often in this Gospel, you will find Jesus reminding people that He came down from heaven. The Jewish people knew that “Son of man” was a name for their Messiah (John 12:34).

At the close of that fourth day, Jesus had six believing men who were His disciples. They did not immediately “forsake all and follow Him”; that was to come later. But they had trusted Him and experienced His power.

In the three years that lay ahead, they would grow in their faith, learn more about Jesus, and one day take His place on the earth so that the Word might be carried to all mankind.

Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the flesh. When Philip called Him “the son of Joseph,” he was not denying Jesus’ virgin birth or divine nature. That was merely His legal identification, for a Jewish person was identified according to who his father was (John 6:42). The witness of this entire chapter is clear: Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the flesh!

God is here!^[3]

⁵⁸ J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 654.

^[1] James B. Coffman, Commentary on John, The James Burton Coffman Commentaries (A. C. U. Press, 1984), Jn 1:51.

^[2] Bruce B. Barton, John, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 28.

^[3] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 284–289.