When John openly designated Jesus as “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world”, his disciples made no attempt to switch allegiance from their erstwhile leader. This is not difficult to understand. Their loyalty to John would be strong. So, the next day, John’s teaching of his disciples was resumed. The word “stood” (v. 35) seems to imply a kind of open-air meeting (7:37).

It is even possible to infer that the theme of John’s discourse was an exposition (and application) of Malachi 3:1,2; for in this part of John 1 so many of the key words are traceable back to that passage: cometh (v.30), sent (v.33), stood (v.35), seek (v.38), abide (v.39), witness (v.32) and four others suggested by the Greek text.

As John proceeded, Jesus was seen not far away. “Behold”, he said, “the one whom I greeted yesterday as the Lamb of God.” Probably he added a yet more pointed directive to his followers. That they should not give their loyalty to Jesus. The friend of the Bridegroom was giving away the Bride. Two who were with him promptly did as he said, although with some reluctance, so that Jesus was well ahead of them when they set out after him. So the last glimpse that John ever had of Jesus was as he walked away that day, with two of John’s own disciples making to overtake him. And they followed him primarily because he was “the Lamb of God that beareth the sin of the world” (Rev. 14:4).

Andrew and John

One of the two was Andrew of Bethsaida, the brother of Simon Peter. The other was almost certainly John, the son of Zebedee. The omission of this identification in the narrative is characteristic, for John never refers directly either to himself or his brother or his parents in the course of this gospel. It is a fact which provides a subtle but effective argument against the modern theory that the author of the Fourth Gospel was not an apostle, but “John the elder”. Since John was the cousin of Jesus (compare Jn. 19:25 with Mt. 27:56), it is readily understandable that he found some difficulty in re-adjusting his attitude to one he already knew well. Only the bidding of his revered leader brought him to consider the possibility that Jesus might be even greater than John. The disparity in age between them (perhaps ten years), together with the big reputation which Jesus had already gained as one with quite abnormal learning in the Scriptures, doubtless led him to think and speak of Jesus in terms of high respect. But the confident declarations of the Baptist went far beyond even the title Rabbi.

The Lord’s First Preaching

So Jesus had to dissipate the uncertainty and diffidence of these two young men by pausing for them to join him: “What (not “Whom?”) seek ye?” Perhaps with some embarrassment, they replied: “Rabbi, where are you abiding?” with the implication added: “that we might come whenever we wish, to learn more about you and from you.”

The simple encouraging reply: “Come and see”, ended their hesitation, and they came to the lodging of Jesus, (or, to Nazareth), and stayed with him throughout the day.

The wedding at Cana was almost certainly on a Wednesday (Cp. British elections always on a Thursday!); so it may be inferred that this day spent with Jesus was a sabbath.

“The tenth hour” mentioned in John’s narrative is a time not free from uncertainty. By Jewish reckoning it would be four o’clock in the afternoon. But if John uses Roman time (the modern system), it was ten o’clock in the morning. The Synoptists use Jewish time, but the same assumption for John’s gospel creates a big problem with chapter 19:14: “it was about the sixth hour” when Pilate condemned Jesus. For this reason it is probably correct to assume that here, and throughout this gospel, Roman times are being used.

The beginning of the preaching work of Jesus, then, was a quiet day in his lodging spent in conversation with Andrew and John – a sharp contrast with the debut suggested to the mind of Jesus in the wilderness: Cast thyself down from a pinnacle of the temple. Perhaps also, in later days, John saw a meaningful contrast with the promise which Christ left them: “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (Jn. 14:23).

Peter and James

It took only a matter of hours for Andrew to be convinced that Jesus was the promised Messiah (though the reader is left uninformed as to what it was in the discourse of Jesus which settled the conclusion in his mind – or was he simply accepting the authoritative lead given him by the Baptist?).

In his as yet very limited experience of Jesus, it would be possible for him to associate half a dozen Old Testament prophecies with his new leader: Is. 11: 1; 42: 1; 53: 6; 40: 1-11; Mal. 3: 1; 4: 5. And what else had he learned during that day with Jesus?

Conviction was speedily turned into action. That same day Andrew, showing a clear indication of sharing his brother’s disposition, went off to find Simon, whilst John similarly went to fetch his brother James. This latter fact is implied very quietly by the phrase: “He (Andrew) first findeth his own brother Simon…”, that is, before John found his brother. Harrington Lees very succinctly sums up the lesson here: “We have in kinship a call to influence.”

”That Jesus “beheld” Simon (s.w. Lk. 22: 61) suggests that this was first acquaintance. He forthwith re-named him Cephas, the Graecized form of which is Peter, a stone. The idea behind this word petros is not that of an enormous block or slab of rock — that is covered by the word petra (Mt. 16: 18) – but rather, a rock hurled by a military siege machine, or a pebble fired from a sling (1 Sam. 17: 49) – but, of course, not the same word in Hebrew), or even a small gem like a diamond. Two words cognate with “Cephas” were used for hoarfrost and hailstones.

Final proof of the meaning of “Peter” is supplied by the words of Jesus in Lk. 22: 31: “Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat…” There is clear allusion here to Amos 9: 9 where — as the margin shows-the literal reading continues: “yet shall not the least stone fall to the ground.” The figure is that of the sifting of useless dust out of the grain. It is evident that in this passage Jesus thought of Peter as a kernel or corn of wheat — a “stone” in this sense. (Cp. also, Lam. 3: 20 mg: rolled). How remarkable that there is only one known instance of Jesus using this new name given to his disciple (Lk.22: 34).

Boanerges

Was it at the same time that James and John were given their name Boanerges, the sons of thunder (Mk. 3: 17)? All kinds of suggestions have been made to explain this cognomen, but none are very convincing. The modern commentators mostly refer it to their fiery ardent temperament (Lk. 9: 54?; cp. Heb. Ps. 2: 1; Dan. 6: 6). One rather ingenious suggestion compares them with the two scribes who were spokesmen for the high priest in the deliberations of the Council, but the evidence supporting this seems to be decidedly meagre. More probable, though not wholly satisfactory, is the idea which springs from the association of thunder with the voice of God (Jn.12: 29, Ps. 29; Ex. 20: 18; ls. 58; 1). This would identify James and John as the outstanding spokesmen for Jesus among the band of the apostles. Best guess of all, probably, is the meaning: “sons of fellowship” (Ps. 55:14). But the identification is not certain. The true explanation is probably different from all of these.

In this re – naming of disciples Jesus assumed to himself what was hitherto a divine prerogative, for it was God who changed Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Joseph and Saul later became Barnabas and Paul. The disciples would doubtless think of that – later, if not at the time.

Philip and Nathaniel

The next day, before the journey to Cana began, Jesus himself sought out the next addition to the small group of followers, one evidently already known to him. This was Philip, of the fisher-town of Bethsaida, a lakeside suburb of Capernaum (Jn. 6: 17; Mk. 6: 45). Thus, out of the first five disciples, three and probably all five were from this place which later Jesus was to upbraid for its lack of response to his many mighty works done there (Lk. 10: 13).

Philip forthwith added yet another to their little company: “He findeth Nathanael, and (shouting out as he approached) saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (1: 45; contrast 14: 9). This reads strangely, for it was Jesus who found Philip, and not conversely. No doubt Philip’s words express something of his dawning realisation, as they talked together, of the true Messianic character of this Jesus he had got to know. And no doubt John let the contradiction stand in his record because he saw it as a superb exemplification of a marvellously profound truth—every disciple thinks his own acceptance of the leadership of Christ the result of his own judgement and decision, yet in truth it is the Lord finding him. Here is the resolution of the paradox presented by: “Seek, and ye shall find”, and “the purpose of God according to election.” The word “find” dominates this part of the narrative (v. 41,43,45-5 times). The disciple found by Christ immediately seeks and finds another disciple. Even Philip’s defective understanding of “first principles” (“son of Joseph”!) did not prevent him from being an effective missionary!

Nathanael was not impressed with the uncontrolled enthusiasm of Philip: “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” There is no evidence for the supposition that this was a proverbial sneer current at the time, though indeed Nathanael may have been putting into words the general tendency to despise obscure Nazareth, a small town which gets no mention at all in the Old Testament (except Is. 11: 1 indirectly), or in any ancient inscription that has come to light. Perhaps it was one of the cities of Galilee which Hiram, king of Tyre, had treated with such caustic contempt (1 Kg. 9: 11-13). Nazara is said to be the Aramaic word for “despicable” (Num. 11: 20: same root). More probably, Nathanael simply expressed a strong conviction that the Messiah could not possibly arise from Nazareth. What could Messiah-ben-David have to do with this remote place in the territory of Zebulun? Nathanael’s home-town, Cana, was only a short distance from Nazareth, and yet -significantly – he had never heard of Jesus before this.

The only rejoinder Philip could raise to his friend’s rebuff was: “Come and see for yourself” (Cp. 4: 29). “A noble remedy against preconceived opinions”, adds one commentator of long ago.

Nathanael and Jacob

When Nathanael was first called by Philip he was sitting under a fig tree, probably musing on the life and experiences of Jacob. If, as seems possible, the wedding at Cana (2: 1-11) was Nathanael’s own wedding, it is readily understandable that he might be thinking over the vicissitudes through which Jacob passed when he went north to find a wife-how at Bethel he dreamed of the staircase between heaven and earth, and there received the promise of the Messiah; how he matched guile with guile in the service of Laban; how through his wrestling with the angel he learned the futility and faithlessness of all this; and how he thus came to a new birth and to a new name of high honour in the purpose of God.

Apparently Jesus read his very thoughts: “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.” With an ingenuousness which is wonderful testimony to his character, Nathanael accepted the description of himself, and confessed to his own mystification: “Whence knowest thou me?”, implying: Do you have divine knowledge beyond that of other men?” Jesus replied with an affirmative: “Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee” (cp. Pr. 27: 18).

Nathanael and Zechariah

These words are marvellously like Zechariah 3: 10: “In that day, said the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine (Cana means ‘vineyard’) and under the fig tree.”. This is the conclusion of a prophecy about Joshua-Jesus who is vindicated as God’s high priest. Nathanael had said: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth (Branch-town).” This prophecy replies: (using a different word): “Behold, my servant whose name is the Branch.” It also appoints that the men who are with this Jesus shall be “men of sign”; there is also “a stone (Peter) set before Jesus.” Evidently, even in the outward resemblances of the call of Nathanael to this remarkable prophecy Jesus saw the tokens of a greater fulfilment when there would come a change to garments “for glory and for beauty”, and an indisputable priesthood on behalf of all the Lord’s chosen.

It may be doubted whether at this time Nathanael grasped all that Jesus was opening up to him. But the mere fact that details of his shelter under the shade of the fig tree could be known, and his meditations about Jacob read as an open book, told him the truth about this unique stranger: “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel” (Cp. Mt. 16: 16). The last expression shows that his mind was still running on the experiences of Jacob, for that patriarch anointed a holy stone/and later when his name was changed to Israel, a promise was given him of a great king (the Hebrew text uses the intensive plural) who should come out of his loins (Gen. 35: 10,11; the context is important). Or was the comparison with the angel-”son of God”-who wrestled with and humiliated Jacob at Jabbok, showing himself to be Prince over Israel?

Nathanael was promised richer experiences than this demonstration of divine intuition and insight by Jesus. During ensuing days these came in awe-inspiring abundance. But the only one in which Nathanael is said explicitly to share is the encounter with the risen Lord on the shore of Galilee-it cannot have been very far from the place where he first met Jesus. But then the “filthy garments” of mortality had been taken away, (Jn. 20: 5-7), and Jesus was associated with seven men of sign, (21: 2), according to the prophecy (Zech. 3: 9).

Jacob again

Other “greater things” Jesus summed up in yet another eloquent allusion to Jacob: “Hereafter, from now on, ye (the pronoun has to be plural, applying to all the disciples he had now gathered) shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man.” The reference to Jacob’s dream at Bethel is inescapable, yet it is very easy to pick up the wrong idea here. By these interpretative words Jesus was not identifying himself with the ladder or staircase between heaven and earth, but with the altar and stone which Jacob raised up at the foot of it (the Greek phrase here requires this meaning). (See “Wrestling Jacob”, H.A.W., p. 36ff).

The allusion was to teach Nathanael to “see” (2 Kg. 6: 17; Mt. 26: 64) that Jesus was greater than angels of God. Through him they would ascend to heaven again, to receive a new and better status as ministers of the Messiah, and through him they would descend again to fulfil a more important commission, caring for the new Israel of God (Eph. 1: 10; Col. 1: 20). “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not” (Gen. 28: 16).

The record of the call of Nathanael is shot through with Biblical allusions of a kind altogether remote from twentieth century methods of interpretation. This, and a great many other examples in the gospels, should teach the student of today that in Scriptures which are familiar enough in a superficial fashion there are still many unfathomed depths of meaning.

Nathanael, Bartholomew

The guess which often identifies Nathanael with Bartholomew the apostle is probably correct, though the evidence is very indirect:

1. Nathanael was obviously in the inner circle of disciples, yet he is never mentioned in the synoptic gospels, whilst Bartholomew is never mentioned in John.
2. In John 21: 2 Nathanael is listed with a group of six others, all of whom are apostles.
3. In John 1 Philip and Nathanael are closely linked. In the synoptics, it is always Philip and Bartholomew.
4. Bartholomew (= Bar Talmai) is obviously a patronymic, like Bar-Jona, o’r a cognomen, like Cephas.
5. Bar-Talmai means “son of the hidden, secret thing”-as in Psalm 44: 21: “Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.” This is precisely what Jesus did at his first meeting with Nathanael.
6. When a successor was being sought for Judas, Nathanael had precisely the qualifications the apostles were looking for (Acts 1: 22,23), yet he was not included in the “short list”-because he was already one of the Twelve?

Notes: John 1:35-51

39.	Every detail in Dt. 33: 12 seems to fit this verse.
41.	His own brother. This emphasis is perhaps called for because of what “brother” came to mean later; 20: 17.
	Simon means “hearing”. Does the order of the names (v.44) imply that Simon was the junior? Yet he never seems to fit that role!
46.	Out of Nazareth. Is there also a hint here of the jealousy of neighbouring towns?
47.	No guile. Ps. 32: 2; 1 Pet. 2: 22. The men of Zebulun (Cana: 21: 2) who helped David to be King of Israel were “not of a double heart” (1 Chr. 12: 33).
49.	Son of God’, King of Israel. The titles derive from 2 Sam. 7: 14,16; Ps. 2: 2,6,7 (See also Mt. 27: 40,43). Foreshadowed also in Jacob’s anointing of a holy stone: Gen. 28: 18; 35: 10,11.
51.	Ascending … descending. Christ as sacrifice and altar is the starting point of all angelic work; Rev. 7: 2; 8: 4; 10: 1. Moses also ascended and descended in Messiah’s service.
	Son of man. Ps. 80: 15,17.

After the marriage at Cana in Galilee, Jesus evidently went back home to Nazareth, together with the group of disciples who had now attached themselves to him. Very shortly they all moved to Capernaum, and in this they were joined by Mary and the rest of the family. This was not the permanent change of home which is described in Matthew 4: 13. Chronologically that falls later in the ministry. This, mentioned by John, was only temporary-for “not many days”-and took place very shortly before the Passover. The purpose of this brief visit is not intimated. It is a puzzle to know why John mentions it at all. Clearly, from the way it is described, Jesus was the moving spirit behind it. Perhaps it was exploratory in character, to ascertain whether the family could advantageously migrate there. Probably Jesus already foresaw that, since a prophet has no honour in his own country (4: 44), life in Nazareth was likely to become uncomfortable for the rest of the family. This seems the most likely reason for a somewhat enigmatic arrangement.

Four Passovers

From Capernaum Jesus and his disciples went up to Jerusalem for the Passover. This was the first of four Passovers in the Lord’s ministry. Besides the Feast when he was crucified (19: 14), there was the Passover when the loaves and fishes were multiplied (6: 4). Probably also the unnamed feast of John 5: 1 was a Passover, but this uncertainty is not important because the encounter with the Pharisees concerning the disciples’ plucking of the ears of corn (Matt. 12: 1ff) requires another spring-time in the ministry separate from the others already mentioned. Thus the duration of the ministry was rather more than three years, possibly the three-and-a-half year period which is familiar enough in other parts of the Bible.

Abuses in the Temple

In the temple in Jerusalem Jesus encountered once again conditions which had long stirred his spirit deeply. Now that he was launched on his public ministry he felt moved to drastic action. The dynasty of high priests headed by Annas had found that they could make themselves wealthy at the expense of the Jewish worshippers who came from all parts of the Roman world, and from even further a field than that. Naturally, all who came wished to offer sacrifice. So it would be a great convenience to them to be able to purchase on the spot the animal they intended to offer. Only those beasts could be slain for sacrifice which were approved by the officiating priest as “without blemish and without spot”. And it only required that the priest should insist on the temple fitness-certificate being presented with each animal and there was in existence a money-making monopoly which the layman could not cavil at; he must put up with it, no matter what it might cost him.

But there was another turn of the screw. It was unthinkable that these holy offerings should be purchased with unclean Gentile money from all parts of the empire. So it was required that first the offerer convert his cash into Jewish money, possibly, into a special temple coinage “after the shekel of the sanctuary” (Ex. 30: 13). Here was another splendid opportunity for a further rake-off. Thus at every turn the devout Jew was made to pay through the nose for his piety, and the Sadducean priesthood waxed fat on the proceeds.

Drama in the Temple Court

The blatant shameless profiteering in these “Bazaars of the sons of Annas” in the courts of the Lord aroused the indignation of Jesus. Equipping himself with a whip, formed by knotting a few cords together, he loosed the tethered animals and drove them forthwith out of the temple area. Then, returning, he dealt yet more drastically with the tables of the money changers, violently overturning them. Nor did anyone interfere when he seized the cash boxes and poured out their contents. Coins rolled in all directions across the pavement.

There were also large quantities of birds. These, the poor people’s offerings, were of course in baskets and cages. Their owners were peremptorily bidden take them away. Even in his anger Jesus had thought for the poor creatures. It has been suggested (see RSV) that “he drove them all out of the temple” refers primarily to the men concerned, for the word “all” is masculine (cp. Mt.21: 12 Gk), but the grammar of the rest of the sentence makes this somewhat doubtful (see RV). “Whose fan is in his hand”, John had said (Lk.3: 17). Here was a startling token of that authority to exercise judgment.

The men cowered from before this awe-inspiring display of zealous indignation in one who even in his most relaxed moments was commanding and impressive. At Passover there were always extra detachments of the temple police on duty. Yet even these officials made no attempt to interfere with what must have been a fairly prolonged operation. Any three of them could have overpowered Jesus within a minute had they chosen to do so, but they were as overawed as the rest, and discreetly held off.

Passover Purification

As Jesus carried through this astonishing coup, witnessed no doubt by a great crowd of Passover worshippers, he vindicated his action with one brief eloquent phrase: “Make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise”. The next time, “den of thieves” was his searing caustic phrase (Mk.11: 17).

The Law of Moses commanded all Israelites that at Passover “there shall be no leaven found in your houses” (Ex.12: 19). It is an instruction which in every generation has been generalized to mean the removal of all forms of dirt and corruption. So, always, just before Passover, Jews everywhere spring- cleaned their houses. The custom continues to this day. Before the Passover celebration begins, after a formal search of the house (Zeph. 1: 12), one small heap of dust, deliberately left, is swept up and thrown out, and then the feast proceeds.

At this time, then, what the Jews were doing in their own homes Jesus proceeded to do in his Father’s house, the temple, hence the word “found” in verse 14. How many times at earlier Passovers had he witnessed these abuses, and wanted to go into action! Now his drastic interference was an open declaration, made before rulers and people alike, that he was the Son of God asserting his authority in his Father’s house.

This understanding of the cleansing of the temple lays to rest the difficulty which some have found in the repetition of this drastic action in the last week of the ministry (Mt.21: 12-17; Mk.11: 15-19; Lk.19: 45-48). It is a bad mistake to assume that all four gospels describe the same incident, and that either John or the synoptists got it chronologically out of place. If Jesus’ action was a Passover spring-cleaning of his Father’s house corresponding to that which went on in every home in the country, then it would not have been at all surprising if he had done this thing at every one of the four Passovers of his ministry. The repetition ceases to be a problem.

The Lord’s assertion of authority was declared in a Biblical way which has been misunderstood by the commentators-Jesus had a scourge in his hand. King James’ men, also missing the point, have tried to take the idea of violence out of the picture by making “cords” into “small cords”. But this scourge was meant to be purely symbolic:

The Hebrew word for “scourge” is, strangely, identical with that in Zechariah 4: 10 which describes: “the eyes of the Lord which run to and fro through the whole Land” (there is a logical link between the two meanings). In that context there are seven men (Jesus and his six disciples), men of sign including “my servant the Branch”, and they are in the house of the Lord. Thus, the scourge was a Biblical symbol of Christ’s authority to inspect and correct abuses in his Father’s house.

In his temptation, not long before, Jesus had been incited to prove to the nation that he was Son of God by a spectacular feat in the temple which would immediately make him accepted by all, both high and low. Instead he began his public ministry in the temple court, and in a truly sensational fashion, but with a vigorous gesture of censure which was bound to set the ruling clique against him. “For the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters” (Hos.9: 15). Had not Zechariah also written: “In that day there shall be no more a trafficker in the house of the Lord of hosts” (14: 21; the Hebrew for “trafficker” suggests: “a man of Annas”).

This corruption connected with the temple had long been a national scandal. Simeon, the grandson of Hillel (possibly the Simeon of Luke 2) had forced the priests to reduce the price of a pair of doves (the poor person’s offering) from one gold denarius to half a silver denarius (which in 1983=£10).

During the Lord’s ministry those abuses came back. The “house of merchandise” (v.16) became a “den of thieves” (Mk.11: 17).

“Show us a Sign”

Naturally the rulers were outraged by such a dramatic assertion of authority. Their own supremacy in the temple was challenged, and their revenues were seriously interfered with. Yet this Jesus of Nazareth clearly had the sympathies of the people with him, so they dared not summarily arrest and punish him. Instead they sought first to strengthen their own case against him: “What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?” Had they not the wit to see that the cleansing of the temple court was itself a sign to show to all except the wilfully blind who this was who was now in their midst? But of course they were not blind. The sign asked for was not needed. Already they knew what this demarche j betokened.

However Jesus acceded to the demand, and , produced his credentials, albeit indirectly: “Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.”

The men who heard this saying were not fools. They realised at once that this was no flamboyant empty challenge to destroy their’ new-built temple so that they might marvel at its re-erection single-handed. Yet it suited their purpose now (as also three years later when they had Jesus on trial) to misconstrue the meaning: “Forty and six years was this temple in building.” This was exaggeration for the sake of effect. The Lord used a word referring to the inner sanctuary, and that had taken only eighteen months to build (Jos.Ant.15.11.6).

“Wilt thou rear it up in three days?”, they countered, hoping thus to ridicule this new upstart before the people. Herod the Great had intended this architectural wonder of the ancient world as his present to the Jewish people. By it he meant to soothe the asperity of their spirit as they chafed against the savagery of his rule. But Herod was long since dead and gone, and still much building remained to be done. The edifice was actually not completed until A.D.64, in the reign of the Herod Agrippa whom Paul would fain have made into a believer in Christ. These forty-six years from the twentieth year of Herod (so Josephus) identify the date of this beginning of the public ministry of Jesus as being A.D.27- an excellent cross check against the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar mentioned by Luke (3: 1)

The Law had bidden the rulers investigate the claims and credentials of any new teacher: “If there arise among you a prophet…. and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet…. that prophet shall be put to death” (Dt.13: 1,2,5). Also: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken” (18: 22).

Since there had been no genuine prophet for centuries, the priests were right to ask for a sign, and-like so many of the Old Testament prophets-the Lord gave as sign a prophecy with short-term fulfilment. Then what an irony it was that they had to put Jesus to death before the sign could be authenticated, and by that very rejection of him they made vindication of his resurrection sign possible.

Repeatedly they came at him demanding a sign (Mt.12: 38; 16: 1; 21: 23), and each time he either repeated the same sign-resurrection on the third day-or else he sent them back to the witness of John the Baptist, another authenticated prophet whom they had rejected.

His Meaning

The disciples slow as always to get inside the meaning of their leader’s words, only saw the true force of them offer his crucifixion and resurrection. But the chief priests recognized the “three days” allusion made by Jesus and grasped its significance (hence Mt. 27: 63). When Israel were in the wilderness, “the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them three days’ journey, to search out a resting place for them. And the Cloud (the Shekinah Glory) of the Lord was upon them by day, when they set forward from the camp” (Num. 10: 33,34).

The going forward of the ark ahead of the host of Israel required also the taking down of the sanctuary and its re-erection on the third day. By using the word “unloose” (wrongly translated here “destroy”) Jesus made his allusion clearer. But this seeking out of a new resting place for Israel required that they “depart from the mount of the Lord” where the Law was given! And when the ark set forward it was to the proclamation: “Rise up, O Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered” (10: 35). The word signifies resurrection (it is the same as in “Talitha, kumi”; Mk. 5: 41). The enemies of the Lord saw the meaning of these things, and that their own scattering was inevitable. “Let them that hate thee flee before thee.” Already the headlong flight of their minions from the temple court could be seen as symbolic of the ultimate triumph of this Jesus over all that the temple stood for.

Three years later the accusation in the trial of Jesus was: “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands” (Mk.14: 58). It is highly unlikely that these additions to the record in John were invented, for they did nothing to help the case for the prosecution, and if their accuracy could be challenged the case might collapse altogether.

Jesus said, with double meaning: “(You) destroy this temple made with hands” (cp. Acts 7: 48) – and they did, by the spreading corruption which they injected into the nation, so that judgment came in A.D. 70. The different temple “made without hands”-that is, of divine origin (Dan. 2: 34; Heb. 9: 11) – is the risen glorious Lord.

The full meaning of all these things only dawned on the disciples much later, when their Lord was risen from the dead. Then “they believed the scripture”, that is, they discerned at last its inner meaning and rejoiced in it as a prophecy of Christ.

Psalm of Messiah

The full force of another Scripture also dawned on them belatedly as they looked back over these events so pregnant with meaning: “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (Ps. 69: 9). The allusion is to the fire of the altar consuming the burnt-offering. That which taught the Israelite to see a symbol of his own complete re-consecration to the service of God found its fullest possible meaning in one who now showed to the entire nation his dedication to the God whom temple and altar were designed to honour.

The next words in the psalm are marvellously apposite to these strong measures taken by Jesus: “The reproaches of them that reproache thee are fallen upon me” – that is, those things which are offensive in the sight of the Father are also offensive to the Son. And the despising of God became a despising of Jesus.

Also, John evidently meant the immediate context to suggest another impressive idea. Because Jesus was eaten up with “the zeal of thine house”, therefore “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children”, (v.8); in other words, the Lord’s own family were grievously offended by this peremptory cleansing of the temple. Their unsympathetic attitude was to come out plainly later on (Mk. 3: 21,31-35; Jn. 7: 1-8).

It is unlikely that at the time the disciples linked this dramatic action of Jesus with Psalm 69, for the entire context of the passage quoted is one of rejection and suffering-an aspect of Messiah’s work which, even up to the last week, was hardly appreciated by them. Only the resurrection of Jesus resolved these strange paradoxes. Then “they believed the scripture (Ps. 69: 9? Num. 10: 33? Mal. 3: 1-3?) and the word which Jesus had said.

“Shall suddenly come to his temple”

At this time also part of the prophecy of Malachi came to life afresh: “Behold, I send my messenger (John the Baptist), and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek (observe the irony there!), shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in (more irony!); behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth…. and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver… that they may offer unto the Lord on offering in righteousness” (Mal.3: 1-3) That word “purge” is identical with John’s word for the pouring out of the changers’ money.

But if animals for sacrifice were driven out of the temple, what righteous offering could Israel bring? The answer is in Psalm 69. From this day on, Jesus was as good as crucified. The chief priests would see to that. Already this was their settled intention.

Notes: John 2: 12-22

12.	Verses 3, 12, 13 mark the open change by Jesus from preoccupation with home and family to his own ministry; “went down” s.w. as Gen. 11:15; 18:21 LXX.
	Not many days. In Acts 1: 5 this means ten days.
13.	Money. John uses here a term of contempt.
17.	Eaten me up. The word is used also for “destroy” (Rev. 11: 5); cp. v. 19.
20.	Forty and six years. Could it be that they were following the Lord’s allusion to the Tabernacle? – 40 years in the wilderness followed by 6 years’ conquering the Land (Josh. 14: 7,10)? Or is it that John, years later, sees a further meaning in these words and therefore gladly preserves the detail?
21.	The temple of his body. The same figure is repeated in “Tabernacled among us” (1: 14) and “In him dwelleth the fulness (of the Glory) of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2: 9; Ex. 40: 35). And Is. 38: 12 also? (Hezekiah a type?). 1 Cor. 3: 16; 6: 19; 2 Cor. 6: 16 invite further interpretation of this incident with reference to animal appetites and a money-grubbing disposition in a life dedicated (sic!) to God.
22.	His disciples remembered. For slow comprehension by the disciples, see: 2: 17, 22; 4: 31-34; 6: 19; 8: 27; 11: 11-13; 12: 16; 13: 7; 14: 4-9,26; 16: 12,17; Mt. 16: 7-11; Mk. 8: 17; Lu. 22: 38; 24: 8,45. And by others: Jn. 3: 4; 4: 10-15; 6: 34,52; 7: 33-36; 8: 22,56-58; 12: 34.
	That he had said. The verb is continuous. Jesus repeated this teaching more than once.

After the discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus left Jerusalem for what must have been a sustained campaign of preaching in the country districts of Judaea (Jn. 3: 22). The fact that he chose at this time to leave Jerusalem was a clear answer to the section of the Pharisees who were proposing a working alliance with him. More important to Jesus were the humble country folk who esteemed his message for its own sake.

At first the response was enthusiastic. Drawn by the reports of miracles in Jerusalem (2: 23; 3: 2) and the cleansing of the temple (2: 15), people came in large numbers, and, held by the grace and freshness of his message, they stayed, and sealed their discipleship with baptism. “All men come to him”, John’s followers reported in some amazement, and not without a touch of envy.

Baptism – its Meaning then and now

The baptism which Jesus administered through the practical help of his first disciples was similar in character and meaning to the baptism which John’s converts received. It was, in essence, the Christian baptism which believers receive today. The only difference was this — whereas today baptism looks back to the death of Christ and receives all its meaning from his sacrifice, the baptism which converts of John and Jesus received in those early days looked forward to an acceptable sacrifice for sin whom God would provide. It is hardly likely that at that time the recipients of baptism understood quite clearly how and through whom their sins would be put away, but this lack would be rectified in due time. And in spite of these deficiencies it was, without doubt, a valid baptism.

Today, those who are beset from time to time with doubts as to the adequacy of their own knowledge or appreciation of the Truth at the time of their baptism can take comfort from considerations of this kind. The grace of God is not so meagre that it cannot take into account such human limitations.

Meantime John was equally assiduous in the work of God. The fact that Messiah had now launched his own personal appeal to the nation did not mean that there was nothing left for him to do.

Geography and Symbolism

The precise locality where John was now at work is not identifiable with any certainty. Aenon and Salim occur together in Joshua 15: 32 in a context which suggests the locality of Ziklag in the south-east of Judah. The mention of “much water there” probably identifies the “springs of water” given by Caleb to his daughter Achsah as part of her marriage dowry, thus increasing the joy of her bridegroom Othniel (Jud. 1: 15). It was now high summer, and places in the Negeb where there was water sufficient for baptisms would be remarkably few. Commentators, using Genesis 33: 18 as a pointer, favour a place in the vicinity of Shechem (Nablus), even though this was in Samaritan territory. In any case the place would hardly be identifiable by the majority of the gospel’s first century readers.

What symbolic meaning, then, did the writer of this fourth gospel see in “Aenon (fountains of water) near to Salim (peace) “where there were “many waters”? Isaiah 48:21, 22 includes these ideas in an eloquent passage about the blessing and providence of God for His redeemed: “He caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out. There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked.” The context of this passage is wonderfully descriptive of the appeal of Christ: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret… the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me… O that thou wouldest hearken to my commandments! then should thy peace be as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea “ (v. 16,18).

But the name Aenon (= Hebrew: ayin) also means “eye”. This suggests another prophecy in Isaiah: “How beautiful upon the mountains (of Judaea) are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings (the gospel), that publisheth peace (Salim)… that saith unto Zion, the King of thy God!… they shall see eye to eye (Aenon), in the return of the Lord of Zion” (52: 7,8). It is hardly possible to be certain about these shadowy allusions, but those who have spent long hours on John’s gospel will know that this book is shot through with Old Testament ideas of this sort. The repeated confession of chapter 2: 22: “his disciples remembered that it was written of him”, is more than a hint of how this gospel should be read and studied.

The Pharisees at work again

If the sending of Nicodemus was intended as an unofficial deputation which might lead to a “take-over bid” for the movement Jesus had initiated, it was evident from the start that no success could be expected in that direction.

A similar attempt, with somewhat different emphasis, was now made to wreck the work of John. There arose a discussion between a leading Jew and some of John’s disciples. No head-on encounter was sought with John himself. The leaders had already had experience of this, and were still licking their wounds (Mt. 3: 7-12). These tactics of seeking to take over the movement from within gave better promise of success. Ultimately they were to prove so successful (see Study 36) that the same strategy was later attempted more than once with the followers of Jesus.

It looks as though the argument, about “purifying”, took this shape: ‘What good is this baptismal cleansing which you have received from your leader when not far away is another like him who is also teaching and baptizing?’ It is exactly the kind of superior quibble which Romans Catholics are fond of making about the wide diversification of various Protestant sects.

The point went home. John’s disciples came to him worried by the problem: “Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan (1: 29,36), to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth and all men come to him” (3:26)—as who should say: ‘You and Jesus were working together at first. Now you are in competition, and he’s making more headway than you are. He has even taken some of your best disciples away from you’.

The Bridegroom

In reply John quietly bade them regain a sense of perspective: “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.” In different ways this principle held good both for Jesus and for himself. The new preacher was making big progress; that was as it should be, for this was God’s declared purpose and intention with him. And from the outset John’s own role was secondary in character. ‘You have remembered how I bore witness to Jesus earlier. Remember also how I repeatedly told you and all men that I am not the Messiah, I am merely a forerunner’ (see v. 28). Then came a change of figure: ‘He is the Bridegroom. Mine is a lesser role. As friend of the Bridegroom I am happy to stand by in service and helpfulness. It gives me pleasure to hear him make his marriage vows’.

It is not impossible that here John was making allusion to the Song of Songs (2: 8,10). But another passage in Isaiah (61: 10) seems to be the more likely original: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself (in a priestly garment), and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels.” The apostle John was surely thinking of this passage, for he went on to include two priestly allusions in his commentary: “God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him” is apparently an allusion to the copious pouring of anointing oil on the head of the high priest, in contrast to the limited application for other priests (Ex. 29: 7,20). And the expression: “he hath given all things into his hands” (v. 35) is an allusion to the Hebrew idiom for consecration as a priest (Ex. 29: 9 margin).

“He must increase”

The logic of John’s witness, spoken with unsurpassed humility, was that disciples like Peter and Andrew, James and John, and the others, should break off the loyalty they felt for their first leader and attach themselves instead to Jesus. “He must increase, but I must decrease”, John’s last public utterance was as plain as instruction could be, that the time was ripe for graduation to a better teacher. It may be that already John’s outspoken denunciations of Herod’s evil life were cutting short his own days of active witness. “This my joy (Lk. 1: 44) therefore is fulfilled” suggests a task completed. Probably the prophet was already worried as to the future of these men who clung to him with such mistaken faithfulness.

The Apostle’s Commentary

At this point (v. 30) there is a palpable break in the fourth gospel. The first person pronouns in the reported speech of the Baptist cease. The style and structure of the sentences change. The paragraph that follows (v. 31-36) reads more like the apostle John’s own comment on the high status of Jesus which the Baptist had been proclaiming afresh. Certainly the words are easier to understand from this point of view.

Also, the succession of phrases — so full of Johannine abstractions (as they seem to be) – immediately begins to make much more sense when it is realised that here is another of the apostle’s extended allusions to the Old Testament, characteristically put together without any specific quotation from the particular passage he has his eye on. Here the allusions all go back, as will be seen, to the grim episode of the Golden Calf. The passage thus becomes a further exemplification of the main theme of this gospel: “The Law was given through Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ” (1: 17).

The force of the allusions is best brought out by a tabulation (much as one dislikes applying railway time-table methods to such a holy book as this!):

These extended hints of Moses’ foreshadowing of the character and work of Jesus (an idea mentioned briefly by Paul also in 1 Cor. 10: 5,6) send the reader back to Exodus 32 to consider yet other aspects of this type; for instance:

1. The weakness and futility of the priesthood of Aaron.
2. His demands for their wealth in order to further a false religion (cp. the buying and selling and money-changing in the temple).
3. What was an abuse was called “a feast to the Lord”.
4. The golden calf foreshadowing the reverence of cherub figures in the temple: “these be thy Elohim, O Israel.”
5. The smashing of the Testimony.
6. Moses’ successful intercession for sinners, based on willingness to sacrifice himself.
7. The washing away of sin by the stream from the Smitten Rock (Dt. 9: 21; cp. the references to baptism; v. 22,23).

It is, however, important to observe how John is careful to include here certain pointed reminders of the marked superiority of Jesus over Moses:

1. “God giveth not the Spirit by measure” to Jesus. In one sense this was not true of Moses, for (as Exodus 34: 29,30 emphasizes) the glory in the face of Moses was a fading glory (2 Cor. 3: 13 RV).
2. “The Father loveth the Son” uses the best word of all – agapao -whereas for Moses (and only once at that) Scripture uses the lesser word philos, friend.
3. And whereas Moses had communion with the Angel of the Covenant, for Jesus there was an intimate fellowship with the Father Himself such as even those in Christ cannot hope to understand.
4. “He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God.” Thus John points out Jesus as the promised “Prophet like unto Moses” who is to supersede Moses: “I will put my words in his mouth… he shall speak in my name… unto him (and not to Moses) ye shall hearken” (Dt. 18: 18,15).
5. Moses’ self-sacrifice was not accepted (as being inadequate), but Christ’s self-sacrifice is all-sufficient.

It is perhaps useful also to observe how a clear recognition of the shape of the apostle John’s thought in this paragraph immediately evacuates the phraseology of any possible allusion to a pre-existent Jesus coming literally from heaven.

In any case there is need here, as in a number of other places, for allowance to be made for the kind of idiom in which John wrote: “He that cometh from above is above all.” Trinitarians fasten on such phrases as these with an avid but most unbecoming literalism. Yet they say no more than v. 34: “he whom God hath sent” (which language is used also of John the Baptist; 1: 6). The idiom comes out even more clearly in another antithesis: “Ye are from beneath; I am from above” (8: 23). The second phrase here can no more be taken literally than the first. The divine origin of Jesus and his higher spiritual status are the essential ideas intended. Similarly, “he that cometh from heaven is above all” (v. 31).

The Witness and its failure

Jesus was now bearing witness of “that he hath seen and heard” (the words imply a unique intimacy with God), and — so comments John not long before the overthrow of Jerusalem — ’no man receiveth his witness.” The words obviously call for some limited application, for all through the life of the apostle John the Truth of Christ made steady progress throughout the Roman Empire. Read with reference to the nation of Israel, the words were near to being literally true. The decade which witnessed the deaths of Paul and Peter saw also the steady dwindling away of effective impact of the gospel on orthodox Jewry. Indeed by that time the tide had set the other way. The main purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews was to stem the drift of Jewish Christians back to the synagogue. At such a time John might well write: “No man receiveth his witness.” What a dramatic irony there is now seen to be about the querulous words of John the Baptist’s disciples: “the same baptizeth, and all men come to him”!

Notes: John 3: 22-36

22.	Tarried. In classical Gk. the word describes time-wasting, but in N .T. time-using.
27.	Given.. The form of this word implies: “and remaining on him” 1: 33.
29.	Bride… bridegroom. This figure of marriage runs into strange inconsistencies if it is not recognized that here (and in ch. 2 and Mt. 22: 2) the reference is to betrothal; whereas Rev. 21: 9 is the marriage itself.
	The friend of the bridegroom. Edersheim (in “Jewish Social Life”) maintains that “the friend of the bridegroom” was a custom and title normal in Judaea, where John and Jesus now were, but not in Galilee. Hence the omission of the phrase in 2: 1-11.
	Rejoiceth greatly. Therefore John did not teach his disciples to fast (Mt. 9: 14,15).
34.	Giveth not the Spirit by measure, as happened with Moses’ helpers; Num.11: 17 RV. There is here also a clear reference to ls. 40: 13 RVm.
35.	Into his hand. This idiom of consecration comes in Ex. 29: 7,29, together with much oil for anointing (the Spirit not by measure). Contrast the idiom for Christ’s authority as king: “all things under his feet” (Ps. 8: 6; 1 Cor. 15: 27; Heb. 2: 8).
36.	The wrath of God. The only occurrence in this gospel. It was John’s message; Lk. 3: 7; cf. Jn. 1: 32.

At that Passover when Jesus cleansed the temple he also worked a number of miracles. John calls them “signs”. These made a great impression, so that “many believed in (into) his name”. This phrase normally indicates thorough-going conversion to acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Yet, strangely enough, “Jesus did not trust himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man” (Jn. 2: 23-25). This triple emphasis on a guarded attitude towards the people reads strangely, coming as it does immediately after the first mention of many believing in his name. No clear-cut explanation of this difficulty has been advanced.

Perhaps this passage should be interpreted in the light of what happened two Passovers later (Jn. 6: 15). Then a great multitude believed on Jesus as their Messiah, so fervently indeed that they sought to compel him to be their king. It was a terrific surge of nationalistic spirit. The temptation to line up with this movement must have been very strong indeed. But Jesus would have none of it, and from that day forward his popularity with the people declined.

It is not unlikely that what is alluded to here in John 2 is the first burst of enthusiasm greeting Jesus as a national leader. Knowing what it meant and how wrongly based it was, Jesus shrugged off this wave of popularity and very shortly betook himself to the open country (3: 22). By this very act he required those who would be his followers to separate themselves from the fever of politics which dominated the capital.

Human Paradox

There is here one of the continuing themes of this gospel: People believing, but not to be trusted. A bare catalogue of the human encounters narrated here will serve to make the point:

3: 1-12	Nicodemus, by night.
4: 48	The nobleman: “except ye see signs and wonders.”
5: 1-16	The man of Bethesda, healed and disloyal.
6: 15	The multitude seek to make Jesus king.
6: 30,31	A selfish demand for repeated miracles.
7: 3	The Lord’s brothers cynical, unbelieving.
8: 59	Convinced by argument, they attempt stoning.
9: 34	Convinced by blindness healed, they excommunicate.
10: 1-18	The thief, the robber, the hireling, the wolf.
11: 47	The Sanhedrin convinced and plotting.
12: 10	And against Lazarus also.
13: 30	Judas went out, and betrayed.
13: 37	Peter: “I will lay down my life” – and made denials.
19: 12,13	Pilate weak and giving way.
20: 25	Thomas loyal (11: 16), but stubbornly disbelieving.
21: 3	Disciples go back to their fishing.

By contrast with this long list there are those whom this gospel shows in a good light: The woman of Samaria, Martha and Mary, the women at the cross, and Mary Magdalene; and also the Greeks who would see Jesus, and the blind man (a type of Gentile believers).

So if Jesus had not known at the beginning of his ministry “what was in man”, he would surely have learned by the end of it.

Action at the highest level

However, before he came to this decision to abandon Jerusalem, a temptation of a different character beset him: a proposition for a working agreement with the Sanhedrin. The Greek text makes a definite link with the sombre words just considered.

The proposal was put to Jesus by a learned rabbi called Nicodemus. The name Nicodemus ben Gurion crops up a number of times in the Talmud and early church writings, sometimes with reference to this Nicodemus and sometimes with reference to his son. The probable but not certain details are these:-

He belonged to one of the wealthiest families in Jewry, was thrust out of high office and expelled from Jerusalem (because of his faith in Christ?). Out in the country he took refuge in the home of Gamaliel, who was his kinsman. One mention says he was the priest responsible for adequate water supplies for the multitudes who came to Jerusalem for the feasts. At the time of the siege in A.D.70 the family fell into the most dire poverty. It must have been the son who negotiated the final surrender of the city to the Romans.

The Sanhedrin had three leading members: its President, called The Teacher of the Law; a vice-president, The Father of the House of the Law; and a second vice-president, The Wise One. It may be inferred from the words of Jesus that Nicodemus filled the first of these offices: “Art thou the Teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things?”

By Night

This distinguished man came by night because it could have caused a big sensation in Jerusalem if word had gone round that so important and influential a religious teacher had chosen to consult this new prophet from Galilee. Moreover the purpose of his visit would have been immediately divined, and the plan of the Sanhedrin to persuade Jesus to co-operate with them would have been torn to shreds. It may be that already — as certainly proved to be the case later—the Jewish Council was split down the middle over the question of policy or attitude towards the preacher from Nazareth, and that Nicodemus came as representative of the more moderate section.

That phrase “by night” has an ominous ring about it (cp.13: 30). Here was a man honest enough to recognize from the first that the claims of Jesus were true, but without the strength of character to declare his conviction openly (7: 50-52).

Certainly this visit to Jesus was not just to satisfy curiosity: “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God”, indicates clearly enough that he came not just on his own behalf. And that word “know” does not signify “we are beginning to learn”, but rather “it is immediately obvious to us.”

The entire procedure of coming secretly with a proposal for a party alliance is condemned by John’s mention that Nicodemus came “by night”, for at the end of this discourse comes the comment: “men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” This was true of the party which Nicodemus belonged to, and at this time it must have been true, though to a much less extent, of Nicodemus himself.

There was no hypocrisy or fawning insincerity about his addressing Jesus as “Rabbi”. Nicodemus had the honesty to recognize that here was a religious teacher of surpassing insight and power. This was an attitude the more extreme leaders of the Jews were never prepared to consider: “How knoweth this man letters having never learned?” (7: 15). For a man without university training they had no use whatever. By contrast, the essential humility of Nicodemus is shown in his willingness to talk on equal terms with an uneducated carpenter.

Recognized as a Prophet

The frank admission: “We know that thou art a teacher come from God”, really represented a remarkable concession from a group of highly important men. It carried the implication that on certain conditions they were willing to accept his leadership. There was also a brief but explicit summary of the grounds for their accommodating attitude: “No man can do the signs that thou doest except God be with him”. Here is a further indication that that Passover in Jerusalem had witnessed a number of remarkable miracles done by Jesus. These had been carefully pondered by the leaders, and some — at least — were satisfied that they were the credentials of an outstanding prophet.

Deuteronomy 13:1 warned that a prophet working miracles was to be accepted only if his teaching also was wholesome and true. The cleansing of the temple by Jesus would certainly be recognized by the more devout members of the community as a reform long overdue. Probably, also, Jesus had spent each day of the Passover week discoursing in the temple court, as he did later at other Feasts, and men like Nicodemus looking for the kingdom of God would appreciate that a vast gulf lay between the searching principles of this Jesus, spoken in such an authoritative tone, and the wild extravagances of the false prophets who arose in the Land from time to time.

Immanuel

It is possible that, in making acknowledgement of these things to Jesus Nicodemus implied: “You are Immanuel.” The words: “Except God be with him” are equivalent to that prophetic name. Certain details in the context might support this. There is the reference to “signs” – compare: “God himself shall give you a sign” (ls. 7: 11,14). The Lord’s insistence on being born again (which many consider to be puzzling in these circumstances) can now be paraphrased thus: “You say I am Immanuel. If you wish to share Immanuel’s kingdom you must share Immanuel’s birth by divine power.” Also the allusion in verse 12 to “heavenly things” and “earthly things” would correspond to Isaiah’s words concerning the sign: “Ask it in the height or in the depth.” Isaiah’s “if ye believe not” (7: 9) is echoed twice by Jesus in the same connection.

It is not impossible that the Lord’s allusion to birth of “water and Spirit” goes back to “the waters of Shiloah” and “the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him” (ls. 8: 6; 11: 2). Both of these are Immanuel prophecies.

New Birth

In reply, then, to the Sahhedrin’s enquiry (either implied or explicitly put by Nicodemus): ‘We should like to join forces with you, and share your kingdom’, Jesus had only a rather peremptory: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Their approach was basically in error. The Kingdom which Jesus preached was not an affair of party alliances or human contriving, but of new birth. In a rather enigmatic passage Isaiah had implied as much: “Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb: and even to your old age, I am he; even to hoar hairs I will carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you” (46: 3,4).

More pointedly, Jesus emphasized that this new birth must be individual, and not national or even on party lines: “Except a man be born again…” (cp. Mt. 18: 3). It was essentially a reiteration of John’s caustic warning: “Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Lk. 3: 8).

The words of Jesus are capable of a double meaning. They may mean either “born again” or “born from above”. Putting the emphasis on the first of these Nicodemus expressed his despair that such a thing might ever be, in spite of the Baptist’s assurance: “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”

His reply has often been interpreted as a deliberate red-herring, to pull the discussion away from a theme which was getting uncomfortably personal. But everything that is known about him suggests that here was a sincere man wrestling with a genuine difficulty.

“How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” This is no prevarication. The second question was intended to throw into relief the difficulty of the first. It is the argument a fortiori. “It is plainly impossible for a man to be born again of his mother’, said Nicodemus; “then, from what I know of human nature, how much more impossible is it for a man to be spiritually re-born and thus become a new creature’

He spoke feelingly out of his own depressing experience of swimming against the tide. Few men, if any, in that generation can have had greater opportunities in life for spiritual growth, yet all was in vain. The regimen and discipline of a law which was “holy, just, and good” had only served to teach him the impossibility of achieving regeneration by one’s own efforts.

The reply of Jesus repeated the ultimatum, stressing that what is necessary (“must”) is rebirth of a kind which a man cannot achieve for himself: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born-of-water-and-Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

“Born of water-and-Spirit”

In any attempt at understanding these crucially important words, two big considerations must not be lost sight of. The first is that one new birth — out of water and Spirit — is spoken of, and not two. Any exegesis which breaks the meaning down into birth of water by baptism and birth of Spirit either in conversion or after resurrection does violence to the form of the Greek phrase which very obviously speaks of one birth only. Any two-phase re-birth would require the repetition of the preposition governing “water” and “Spirit”, and this is not found in the Greek text (note the AV italics).

Also any interpretation which does not associate the passage with baptism is almost certainly wrong. The allusions in the context to John the Baptist, the ensuing references to the baptism of disciples of John and Jesus (v. 22,23), and the uniform interpretation of the passage from the very earliest days of the Christian era — these all point to baptism as the essential application of the words.

But in that case, why “of water and Spirit”?

This is an excellent and undeniable example of the figure of speech known as hendiadys (which is really Greek for one-by-means-of-two), that is, employing two separate terms to describe the same thing. Examples of this:

1. “Philosophy and vain deceit” (Col. 2: 8) eans “philosophy which is vain deceit.”
2. “Execute ye judgment and righteousness” (Jer. 22: 3), that is “righteous judgment.
3. “Ye denied the Holy One and the Just” (Acts. 3: 14) – not two persons, but one: Jesus.
4. “They which shall be acounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead”(Lk. 20: 35).
5. “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Mt. 3: 11). Here, again the Greek has one preposition governing two terms.

The words of Jesus, then, require to be read of Christian baptism which is a re-birth “of water and Spirit”, that is, of spiritual water, the baptismal water with a spiritual significance and to which the believer is led by divine guidance. This understanding removes immediately the difficulty which is otherwise involved in the ensuing references (v.6,8) to birth “of spirit” only. Once the hendiadys is recognized, birth of water (that is baptism) is implied and included even when not specifically mentioned.

Paul, Isaiah, John

Paul evidently had a similar approach to the subject in his allusion to Israel’s typical baptism “in the cloud and in the sea.” The two experiences were one and the same. As Israel passed through the depths of the sea they were shrouded and protected also by the pillar of cloud and fire (Ex.14: 19-22; 1 Cor. 10: 1,2). And as Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage was in no way wrought by themselves, so also with this new birth concerning which Jesus now discoursed to Nicodemus. It is an experience to which a man is led by the grace of God. Since man is “flesh’—the word stands for all that is weak and unworthy in human nature—anything that he achieves must also be stamped with the same character: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” It is the theme of John’s preaching, as enunciated in the prophecy about him in Isaiah 40: “All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit (wind) of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass” (v. 6,7).

Nothing could have been more appropriate or more needful in the message of these two unorthodox preachers — John and Jesus — than an exposure of the weakness of the Pharisees’ philosophy of justification by works. A man may try as hard as he likes to transform himself into a better creature, yet he will try in vain. The centuries are littered with the wrecks of men who by self-discipline and a devoted pursuit of high ideals have sought to purge themselves of the inherited evils which are human nature. At the end of it all is the groan of failure: “O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” A man needs not only a new physical nature if he is to be rid of the shackles of mortality, but also a new inner nature if he is to be freed from the equally powerful fetters of sin.

Flesh and Spirit

The alternative offered by Jesus is what he calls being “born of the Spirit”. It is an insistence that as he himself had a divine birth, although born “flesh” like all the rest of the race, so also those who would share redemption in him must have a divine birth of a comparable character. The parallel is remarkably close — as is to be expected. In Jesus flesh and spirit fought a sustained struggle the outcome of which was a decisive victory over all inherited propensities of human nature. Put to death in the flesh, he was quickened in the Spirit (1 Pet. 3: 18; 1 Cor. 15 : 40-50). He offers the believer a comparable experience, both now and hereafter.

Nicodemus listened with increasing wonderment. Where was the advantage in being Jews, Pharisees, if they too must experience this new birth, for all the world as though they were Gentiles? This was the revolutionary doctrine preached by the Baptist: “Think not to say within yourselves, We nave Abraham to our father.” And Jesus, “knowing what was in man”, read in the mind of Nicodemus the wonderment which the learned Pharisee sought to disguise.

Marvel not, he said, because I require that even you pious Pharisees be born again. For here is something yet more staggering to marvel at. Do you remember how John used the message of Isaiah: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the wind, the Spirit of the Lord, bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass” (40: 7)? The Spirit of the Lord can blow in a man’s life not only to wither and destroy but also to make him into a new creature to live for ever. And that Spirit is “the Word of our God who will rise up (to live) for ever” (40: 8).

The winds of heaven do not blow where they please. Like everything else in God’s world, except man, they are subject to law (Ecc.1: 6). But the Spirit of God breathes its regenerating influence in a way that no man can make sense of. You, Nicodemus listening to me now, are hearing the voice of the Spirit — not recognizing my heavenly origin nor my high destiny [v. 7,13; 8: 14), yet being brought to “birth” through being “begotten by the Word of God who lives and abides for ever” (1 Pet. 1: 23). It is in this way that a man is born of the Spirit. The words that I am speaking to you, they are spirit and they are life (6: 63), and there is no new life apart from that which I teach.

Listening to this Man of Nazareth, Nicodemus knew in his soul the truth of what he said, but his mind wrestled with a severely practical problem: Would his proud and learned colleagues ever accept humbly the message of John and Jesus. He had come with a proposal for a spiritual alliance, and was met with the awkward but, indisputable fact that only total surrender to this heavenly Word would get them anywhere. “How can this happen”, he asked, thinking aloud.

‘Look at yourself, replied Jesus. ‘You are The Teacher of Israel, are you not, and yet you are not learning humbly or readily the things I am now telling you, simply because of the tension set up between your present standing in Jewry and the meekness without which there is no new birth. Then what hope is there for your colleagues? John and I both speak a message from God, but because John is John and Jesus is Jesus you learned and notable rabbis hold off instead of coming as disciples to men whom you deem inferior to yourselves.’

‘This message of “earthly things” – that “all flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereon as the flower of the field” – comes hard to men of your standing; then how can I hope to teach you the ‘heavenly things’ concerning my divine origin, my redeeming work, and my future glory?’

So a good deal of progress in spiritual comprehension was needful in these Pharisees beyond the guarded admission that “we know that thou art a teacher come from God”, even though in saying so much, Nicodemus had surely gone further, out of his own convictions, than most of his colleagues were inclined to do.

The evangelist’s inserted comment repeats the truths Jesus enunciated here: “He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth (this is John the Baptist with his foundation doctrine of the spiritual sickness endemic in human nature, and the consequent need for regeneration): he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard (8: 38), that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony” (v. 31,32). At the time when the apostle John wrote, this was almost or even quite literally true — Jewry had turned its back on the gospel. In the A.D.60’s there came such a hardening of Jewish opinion against the message concerning Jesus that this source of converts to the Faith dried up, and has remained dried up ever since.

Notes: John 2: 23-3: 12

1.	A Man. John should surely have had here the more impressive Greek word to indicate a man of distinction. But, as the Gk. de also suggests, he wanted to make a clear link with 2: 25.
	Nicodemus. To a Jewish ear this essentially Greek name would sound like “innocent blood”; cp. 7: 50-52 with Ps. 94: 21.
2.	Can do these miracles. The verb is often used with reference to divine powers; cp. use of dunamis.
	Come from God; cp. 1.1c. No definite article here. Nicodemus could not possibly have believed in the trinity. Accordingly, this phrase implies a divine mission, but no descent from heaven.
3.	Answered. This word implies that some proposition had been put to Jesus.
	Born Again. The verb is passive (and so also in v. 5,6). No man can bring himself to new birth. Dr. Thomas reads here: from above (Eur. 3: 686) cp.1: 13; 1 Jn. 3: 9; 4: 7; 5: 1,4,18.
5.	Of water and the Spirit. An allusion, following on from those in 1: 1-4, to Genesis 1: 1,2? The Lord certainly intended reference to baptism: “Of all the ancients there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise expound or allege this place than as implying external baptism” (Hooker: Ecclesiastical Polity). John’s record here (and in ch.1) assumes that the nature and meaning of baptism and also the Lord’s miracles (2: 23) are known to his readers from the synoptic gospels.
6.	Flesh… spirit. Gen. 6: 3 RVm; 1 Pet. 3: 18.
	Born of the Spirit. With this compare 1: 12,13. Apply Ps. 139: 14-16 to the New Birth. “In thy book” (v.16) seems to require this.
7.	Must. Literally: it is necessary.
8.	The wind bloweth. It is worth considering whether perhaps, as Jesus talked with Nicodemus, there may have been a mighty wind, “the voice of the Lord”, blowing round the house where they sat — not an ordinary gale, but the Lord’s whirlwind: Job. 38: 1; Ex. 15: 10; Ps. 19; 18: 10; 2 Sam. 5: 24; 1 Kgs. 18: 45; 19: 11; 2 Kgs. 2: 1,11; ls. 30: 30; Jn. 1: 4; Ez. 1: 4; Acts. 2: 2 etc.
	Hearest the sound there of. The Greek suggests reference to the voice of Jesus at that moment.
11.	That we have seen. This verb is commonly used of seeing some divine ad or revelation.
	Ye received not. Here and in v. 12, plural. Therefore reference to those who sent Nicodemus.
12.	Earthly things. Their corruption, their flesh (“as grass”), the inevitable end of their temple.
	Heavenly things. The Lord’s message of forgiveness of sins, redemption, and the coming kingdom (v. 3,5).

The preaching of Jesus in Judaea brought a speedy reaction from the authorities in Jerusalem. As a matter of course they were having him watched, so before long the impact which he was making was reported to headquarters — and the information that this report had been received and that action was about to be taken on the basis of it was soon afterwards conveyed to the Lord. It may be surmised with a fair degree of probability that Nicodemus was the one who sent the warning message (Jn. 4: 1).

But the work was going well. Converts were being made at a satisfying rate. Their instruction was largely in the hands of Jesus himself-necessarily so. Nevertheless, he personally baptized none of them, lest any should later take pride in the fact that the Lord himself had baptized them (cp. 1 Cor. 1: 14-16).

The message from Jerusalem brought this work to a halt. Jesus knew how the wiles of the rulers had been tried out against John the Baptist (Mt. 3: 7) and also how an attempt had been made to unsettle John’s disciples (Jn. 3: 25). John himself had just been thrown into prison. Reading between the lines, it would seem that the Baptist had been invited to the king’s court to repeat before the king the substance of his reformation message. In the utterly fearless fashion that was characteristic of him, John hammered away at the duty of personal repentance. He pointed an accusing finger of stern rebuke at the king who had callously disowned his wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, in order to acquire another wire, the notorious Herodias, by stealing her from his brother Philip.

It may be taken as fairly certain that, in spite of the vigorous directness of John’s reproof, Herod would have hesitated to do anything against him but for encouragement given by the Pharisees, and the venom of Herodias, who, as it later turned out, was not even content to have John flung into a dungeon (Jos. Ant. 18.5.2).

Now there was a danger of similar action against Jesus by the Pharisees of Judaea. So, warned about this, and being unwilling to put the loyalty of his unfledged disciples under strain, the Lord sent his Judaean disciples back to their homes, and with his handful of Galileans he left the south forthwith (Mt. 4: 12; Jn. 4: 1-3).

Because of the mutual hostility that existed between Samaritans and Jews, Galilean travellers usually avoided Samaria. Jesus could have done this by striking east to the Jordan valley and using that as his highway north. The fact that instead he went straight through Samaria argues that he deemed this route safer than the risk of being picked up by Herod’s men at the southern end of Gennesaret.

Roman Time, or Jewish?

After a long spell of walking, the little band came “at the sixth hour” to the neighbourhood of Shechem. There is much argument both as to the time and place. If this is Jewish time, then it was high noon, and Jesus would be understandably tired and hot and thirsty. But it was “the sixth hour” when Jesus was finally condemned to be crucified (Jn. 19: 14). For this to be noon sets John’s gospel in sharp contradiction with the synoptists (e.g. Mk. 15: 25). If however, John’s “sixth hour” is Roman (that is, modern) time, it was 6 a.m. when Jesus was condemned, and either 6 a.m. or 6 p.m. when he came to the well of Sychar. Of these alternatives the latter is a solution not free from difficulties, for there would then not be sufficient daylight left for the long discussion with the woman, followed by the excited trek of the multitude out of the city to see and hear him.

If, however, it was the hot season of the year (and verse 35 is no real evidence to the contrary), it is not unlikely, but indeed probable, that Jesus and his disciples chose to make a cool journey by moonlight, and now at 6 a.m. he was naturally both tired and thirsty.

Is Sychar Shechem?

There has been much argument as to whether Sychar is to be identified with Shechem or whether it was a small village distinct from Shechem, on the slopes of Mount Ebal. In favour of the former is the emphasis in the woman’s conversation on “our father Jacob” (twice) and on “our fathers (Abraham and Jacob)”, both of whom dwelt for a time in Shechem. Accordingly, Joseph and his brethren were later buried there. Also the indications of a big crowd of people coming out of the city to see Jesus suggest a place of some importance, and not a trivial hamlet. On the other hand it is not easy to see why John should avoid the very familiar name Shechem. Perhaps Sychar was a Jewish nickname for the place, for it closely resembles the Hebrew for “a lie” (the Samaritan religion), or “drunken”, or “wanton” (the woman herself; Is. 3: 16) or “wages” (v. 36). John’s symbolic mind was doubtless at work when he wrote this part of the record.

If Jesus was tired and hungry as he rested by the well, it may be taken as certain that the disciples were also. It is a measure of their eagerness to be of service to him that they all took this task on themselves of fetching food-that is, all except perhaps John, who if he stayed with Jesus would be able to report the details of what happened. It may be, too, that because they were unwelcome Jewish visitors, it was deemed rather dangerous for only one or two of them to enter the city to make the necessary purchases. So, providing safety in numbers, they all went.

A Jew and a Samaritan

Long centuries before this Jacob, travelling north, had similarly come to a well where he had met the woman who was to become his wife (Gen. 29: 10,11). Perhaps it was with his mind on this incident that John now wrote: “Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well” (as Jacob his forefather had done) — the RVm reading here: “as he was”, is inadmissible.

When a woman came to the well for water, Jesus surprised her by asking for a drink. That he should speak to her at all was altogether unexpected, “for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.” From the time of the return from captivity in Babylon there had been bad blood between the two communities. The semi-Gentile origins of the Samaritans were despised, their rejection of Psalms and Prophets from the Scriptures was resented, their choice of Mount Gerizim as a holy site in place of Mount Zion was condemned, and their easy-going standards of religiosity were reprobated.

So the woman’s surprise at Christ’s simple request was not to be contained: “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (had she recognized Christ’s Jewishness by his speech or his dress or his looks?).

Unlike his fellow-Jews and unlike many of his followers of the present day, Jesus was glad enough to avail himself of the kind help of a Gentile.

Just as Rachel did not know who the stranger was who drew water for her and her flock, although he was actually a kinsman, so now this woman of Shechem failed to appreciate that here was a stranger who could satisfy her thirst. He called himself “The gift of God” (3:16), and offered “living water”: It was a double-meaning phrase, with both literal and symbolic force-fresh running water (but there was this at the bottom of Jacob’s well – v. 6,14 switch to the word “spring, fountain”); symbolically, Jesus was offering water of life-his teaching, and the Spirit (7: 37-39).

It is usually assumed that the woman, lacking in religious perception, and all at sea with the spiritual implications of this stranger’s strange talk, tried to take him literally, and made a fool of herself in the process.

Two considerations suggest that it is the interpreters, and not the woman, who lack insight. In the first place, if indeed she were so spiritually obtuse, would the Lord have persevered in attempting to bring home to her mind religious ideas so profound that today they leave experienced men of Truth floundering? And secondly, the woman’s later contributions to the discussion show that she was not a spiritual blockhead. The words Jesus had just spoken to her required to be lifted away from literality, for if he could give to her a pitcherful of fresh water, why should he be asking her for a drink?

Her crude address: “thou, being a Jew” was promptly replaced by “Sir, Lord.” Here, she now recognized, was one with far higher spiritual powers than her own.

Continuing the figure, she objected (but not aggressively): “Thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that (not, this) living, water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well?”

She saw the well, bequeathed to all later generations by Jacob, as a symbol of the divine Promise inherited from him by his descendants. It was a Promise of a centre of worship, with an altar and a place of ready access to God, a Promise of a multitudinous seed, and of an Anointed Messiah, fallen and raised up again (Gen. 28: 12-19).

Was this Jew actually offering something better than that? That well had not only refreshed the spirits of Jacob and his sons, but had also saved the lives of his flocks and herds. (This woman knew her , Bible-she had noted, and remembered, that when Jacob, returning south, came to Shechem where he dug the well, he was blessed with numerous cattle; Gen. 33: 17). Now, falling in with the mode of speech of this friendly Jew, she asserted her faith in the Promise – for herself and her fellow Samaritans living round Jacob’s well, and for “Jacob’s cattle” (did she mean the Jews?).

The answer to her sceptical enquiry startled her: ‘Yes, indeed, I am greater than Jacob. For you and all others depending on the Promise there is only a constantly-recurring thirst until it is fulfilled. / am the one through whom the Promise is to be fulfilled. Receive me and my teaching, and you will have a lasting satisfaction nothing else can impart. I am asking you to pin your faith not to pride in your descent from the Fathers (which is dubious anyway) but to the higher truth you can learn from me. Fasten on to that, and you yourself will become a quencher of the thirst of others. It shall be in you “a well of water springing up into everlasting life”-like the spring dug by the princes of Israel when they came to the border of their promised inheritance, causing them to sing for joy: “Spring up, O well” (Num. 21: 17).

The woman responded at once with a similar play on double meanings: “Lord, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.” Thus she voiced her aspiration for the fulfilment of the Promise.

‘There can be no fulfilment’ Jesus answered, ‘except there first be love for and union with the heavenly Bridegroom. Was not that Rachel’s experience? and it led on to the birth of Joseph, now buried here at Shechem. So I say: Go, call thy husband, and come hither.’

This was his way of leading on to the need of the Samaritans for himself as the promised Messiah.

She shook her head. “I have no husband” -meaning: ‘Messiah has not yet come. Did I not tell you that just now when I asked for the real thirst- quenching water?’

‘That is what I wanted you to realise clearly’, Jesus answered. ‘You Samaritans have had five husbands – the five Books of Moses which alone you accept. And you have come away from their teaching in order to follow a false Messiah, one who is no Husband.’

It was true. About that time the Samaritans round Shechem were building up excitement over the claims of an imposter who, later on, was to claim ability to disinter from Mt. Gerizim the sacred vessels Moses (sic!) had hidden there (Jos. Ant. 18.4.1).

Now it may well be that what is usually taken for granted by most commentators is correct-that this woman had had such a variegated personal life as Jesus now described (double meaning again!). But in that case, what likelihood that she had five times found herself a widow? Or was it that, dissatisfied, she had successively left them, hoping always and idealistically for a better? The alternative is that she had been successively divorced five times. And now she was living promiscuously with another.

In that case, the obvious cover-up, for one as intelligent and quick-witted as she, was to do as she was bidden, passing off the man she lived with as her husband.

Instead, she invited immediate disbelief of her abrupt reply: “I have no husband.” Can it be that here was the first sign of a moral response to this Jew who impressed her so strangely?-as though she there and then determined to break off this illicit union.

She made no attempt as self-justification. Instead:

“Lord, I perceive that thou art a prophet”-by which she may have meant: “the Prophet like unto Moses” (Dt. 18: 15-19), for there was no Messianic Scripture the Samaritans made more of than this.

Moses had bidden conquering Israel recite the blessings and curses of the Law at Shechem, with the blessings assigned to Gerizim (Dt. 27: 12), and Joshua, a prophet like unto Moses, had carefully obeyed (Josh. 8: 33); but in all their copies of the books of Moses there was no mention at all of Jerusalem, even though their copies of the Law had all been altered to read “Gerizim” in connection with Melchizedek (Gen. 14: 18) and the offering of Isaac (Gen. 22: 2). “Then, (she asked), if you are the prophet Moses foretold, are you going to change the appointment Moses made? Then which is the temple where men should worship? — ours on Gerizim, or yours on Zion?”

The solemn answer which Jesus gave must have startled her, and would have startled any Jew even more: “Woman, believe me (here Jesus was speaking with exceptional earnestness), the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father” (cp. Mal. 1: 11). Gerizim and Zion were alike to be put out of fellowship (cp. Acts. 7: 48; 8; 12). In the Roman War, in A.D. 70, both temples were reduced to rubble. But already, in the cleansing of Jerusalem’s temple and in his word about the “raising up” of a new Temple (2:19) Jesus had pointed his hearers from a place to a Man.

Nevertheless, there was a difference in the status of the two religions. For all their pathetic formal adherence to Moses, the Samaritans wallowed in ignorance: “Ye worship ye know not what” (cp. 2 Kgs 17: 26-28,29,33,41); and the life she lived may have borne witness to the fact. But it was hardly so in Israel. She had referred Jesus back to the Genesis record (12: 6,7; 33: 18-20) of Jacob and Abraham worshipping at Shechem. In turn he had to remind her that the name of Jacob’s altar was “God is the God of Israel”, and that the promise given there to Abraham was: “Unto thy Seed will I give this Land.” So, beyond controversy, the Saviour (the Joshua-prophet like unto Moses) is to be a Jew-and therefore the salvation he brings is of the Jews (Lk. 1: 77).

But why did Jesus say: “Worship the Father” (and not “the God of Israel”)? Because he meant “my Father”. Here was an explicit claim to be the Son of God foretold in the great Messianic Promise to David. That Promise had switched from David’s ambition to build a temple “exceeding magnificat” to the building of a different kind of House-a House of men and women, all of them sons of the Father.

Jesus had now succeeded in achieving for this discussion the change of emphasis he sought. Instead of personal labour and exertion to draw literal water out of a well, he offered “living water” for the asking. And instead of a worship of outward forms glorifying not God but a man-made temple on this mountain or that, he called for worship “in spirit and in truth”. Since God is Spirit, and not located in any one place on earth, those who would be acceptable to him must avoid centring their worship on any earthly place and must rise above the types and outward forms of the Mosaic system to the truth of the inner spirit which the Law was designed to express. These, Jesus insisted, are the true worshippers (the word he used makes deliberate contrast with type and ceremony): “for also the Father seeketh such to worship Him”, even as they, actuated by their sense of need, seek Him. They have to be sought because of their fewness. The man who “trembles at God’s Word” (ls. 66: 2) is not to be found under every roof.

The words of Jesus were, by design, chosen from Joshua’s exhortation to the leaders of the twelve tribes when he gathered them together at Shechem. Here now was another Joshua repeating the same warning at the same place: “Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity (contrast Israel!) and in truth (contrast the Samaritans): and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the Euphrates (whence the Samaritans were brought), and in Egypt (whence Israel came out)” (Josh. 24: 14).

“Messiah cometh”

By this time the woman was beginning to grasp what Jesus was driving at. If there was to be a true and acceptable approach to God, it must be through a Man of God’s providing-a Seed promised to Abraham at Shechem, a Prophet like unto Moses, a Joshua settling the people in God’s Land, and leading them in a worship which knit the soul of the sincere believer to his Covenant God: “I know that Messiah cometh … when he is come, he will tell us all things.” By using the Jewish title, Messiah, she showed her ready acceptance of Christ’s essential principle: “Salvation is of the Jews.”

The Disciples’ Return

In reply, Jesus claimed point-blank to be the Messiah: “I that speak unto thee am he”, but her response was cut short by the return of the disciples. These, astonished at the conversation and its evident earnestness, were eager to satisfy their curiosity – “Why talkest thou with her?” – but were held back by diffidence. They wanted also to bombard the woman with enquiry: “What seekest thou?” but the presence of Jesus restrained them.

Without a word more the woman left her waterpot and returned to the city in haste. The disciples pressed Jesus to join them in a meal, but the stimulus of this encounter with the woman, and its unexpected promise, had taken his mind off food: “I have food to eat that ye know not of”(cp. Ps. 19: 10; 40: 8; Mk. 3: 20). His hunger was gone, and his tiredness, but the woman’s thirst had increased. “Hath any man brought him ought to eat?” the disciples asked each other, implying: ‘Not here in Samaria, surely!’ Their blundering literalism-a sharp contrast with the woman’s insight- did them little credit.

In reply Jesus came down to their level: “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.” The form of that last phrase would normally suggest the crucifixion (17: 4; 19: 30), but in this context the meaning is more likely to be the extension of the gospel to Samaritans and Gentiles (Acts. 1: 8).

“Fields white to harvest”

It is clear that this long discussion with the woman, and the evident developments which might spring out of it, had left Jesus in a very exalted and almost excited frame of mind. Wanting his followers to share his enthusiasm, he talked on, trying to communicate to them some appreciation of the big possibilities which lay before them: ‘You have a proverb: ‘Four months from sowing to harvest’ (cp. Mt. 16: 2). Don’t let that teach you an easy-going attitude of mind: ‘Plenty of time to spare before we really get to work.’ Lift up your eyes (ls. 49: 18; Prov. 20: 13b), and see that already opportunities of reaping a great harvest for God are before you.’

“The fields are white already unto harvest” is a strange expression. The allusion is perhaps to the sheen on the bearded barley as it stands in the field ready for cutting-and barley is the cheapest coarsest grain grown in Palestine, an apt figure for the rough, spiritually untutored Samaritans who were even now streaming out of the city to verify the woman’s emphatic report.

At this point in the record John includes one of the Lord’s later exhortations (v. 36-38) to his disciples urging them to greater missionary zeal and activity: “He that reapeth receiveth wages.” The present tense “receiveth” was designed to emphasize that the labour of the preacher is its own reward – “now, in this time” (Mk. 10: 30); witness the way the exhilaration of this encounter had transformed Jesus. No longer a tired hungry traveller!

And the experience of “gathering fruit (the harvest already referred to) unto life eternal” is specially satisfying, for converts to the gospel are given the most alluring of prospects. Thus in the efficient and successful consummation of the gospel’s work “he that soweth and he that reapeth rejoice together.”

They had another proverb mostly used in a bad sense: “One soweth, and another reapeth.” It could be an equivalent of: “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” Or it could express a bitter summary of the world’s unfair economics. But with reference to the Lord’s harvesting only the good sense will stand. In the apostles’ experience in Judaea and Galilee, the real work was done by John the Baptist and by Jesus — “he that soweth is the Son of man” (Mt. 13: 37) – and the twelve entered into their labours, gathering a worthwhile harvest which neither John nor Jesus saw in the days of their mortality. The same became true of Philip’s remarkable success in Samaria (Acts. 8: 5-17). Nevertheless in days to come, “he that soweth and he that reapeth will rejoice together” (cp. Pr. 11: 18).

Jews and Samaritans

What a contrast is to be seen between the Jews’ stubborn rejection of the witness of Holy Scripture, of John the Baptist, and of Jesus, Son of God, and the immediate willingness of these uncouth Samaritans to go forth, at the bidding of a woman, to greet and welcome Jesus as Messiah. The Greek text (v. 42) uses a very vigorous word, to describe her constant talk or chatter. How well it expresses her excitement! Her appeal – “Come, see” (cp. 1: 46) -was made to “the men” (v. 28). She was more at home talking to them than to her own sex, amongst whom she probably had a shady reputation. If the women responded as well, it would be because of the example set by their menfolk. Today it is more usually the other way around.

Many of these Samaritans, impressed by her conviction, believed the truth of her claims on Jesus’ behalf before they even set eyes on him. These promptly offered him hospitality, and the result of two days in that place was that “many more believed because of his own words”, expressing openly their conviction that “this is the Saviour of the world”. At this time that phrase could hardly mean to them more than Saviour of both Jews and Samaritans. In due time they would learn its wider significance.

Years later when one of the most urgent problems of the early church had crystallized out in a bleak unwillingness of Jewish believers to associate with their Gentile brethren in Christ, the apostle John was to make eloquent use of this Samaritan title bestowed on Jesus (its only other occurrence): “We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world… If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (1 Jn. 4: 14,20).

Notes: John 4:1-42

1.	The Lord. Only twice before the resurrection (4: 1; 6: 23) does John use this title for Jesus in his narrative. Why here?
9.	Askest. Normally this Greek word describes a request from an inferior to a superior! (v. 10 also).
12.	Our father Jacob, which gave us the well. An interesting little addition to O.T. history.
	Art thou greater...?The form of the question implies: Surely you are not!
14.	Springing up. In LXX this word describes the Holy Spirit springing up in Samson; Jud. 14: 6.19; 15: 14. But there seems to be allusion here to Num. 21: 17-19, when Israel was on the border of its inheritance; and thence they came to Mattaneh (the gift-of God; v.10 here), and to Nahaliel (God is my inheritance). See Pr. 10: 11a.
18.	Saidst. This form of this verb is commonly used for a divine pronouncement or inspiration. Then was Jesus saying: ‘You spoke more truth than you know?’ or was he commending the insight behind what she had said symbolically?
19.	I perceive. There could be a play on words here implying: If I am a prophet, then by God I tell you that you are the Prophet like unto Moses.
22.	We know what we worship. Why should Jesus use here a neuter pronoun with reference to the God of Israel? Salvation links with Saviour (v. 42) and with the allusions in this chapter to Joshua at Shechem.
23.	The hour cometh, and now is. Contrast v.21: “the hour cometh.”
27.	Yet no man said. The disciples were in some awe of Jesus; cp. v. 33; 12: 20-22; 13: 22-24; 16: 17-19; 21: 12; Mk. 9: 32.
28.	Left her water pot. This hardly suggests the purblind materialist she is often made out to be. Comparable examples: Mt. 4: 20; Mk. 10: 50.
29.	Told me all things that ever I did. Cp. the reaction described in 1 Cor. 14: 24,25.
	Is not this the Christ? The form of the question attempts to cloak her own enthusiasm: He can’t be, can he? This, and her “Come, see…” betrays a good “preaching technique”.
33.	Apostolic misunderstanding of their Master: 14: 5; 11: 13; Mt. 15: 15; 16: 7,22; Lk. 22: 38.
35.	Harvest. Contrast Jer. 8: 20 (and context) as a prophecy of God’s judgment on Israel (A.D.70) when they shut their minds to the gospel.
	Four months, and then cometh harvest. If literal, and not proverbial, then this sets the time as about December, four months before 5: 1. Had the disciples been commenting on high food prices in Shechem — until the next harvest should come in?
38.	/ sent you. This past tense is the chief reason for regarding v. 36-38 as a parenthesis, preserving a later intensely relevant saying of Jesus spoken after Mt. 10: 37; Lk. 10: 2. Perhaps John inserted it here (a) because of a possible play on words – Sychar may mean “wages” (v. 36); (b) because “I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour” echoes Joshua’s “sincerity and truth” exhortation, spoken to Israel on this very spot (24: 13).
39.	Believed on him. Elsewhere the phrase implies baptism.
40.	Besought him that he would tarry. Again contrast the not infrequent attitude of Jewry: Mt. 8: 34; Lk. 4: 29; 13: 31. There is also Lk. 9: 52,53.

Jesus would doubtless have wished very dearly to spend a long time among the Samaritans who gave such a ready reception to him and his message, but to do so would have meant building up big unsurmountable prejudices in the minds of the Jews, when the news got round. So, since he must needs go first to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, after two days of refreshing (in more ways than one) he set out northwards again.

At this point the text of John’s gospel presents a strange inconsistency: “and he went unto Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country” (4: 44). This, one would have thought, was an excellent reason for not going to Galilee.

Nazareth and Galilee

Resolution of the difficulty is best found by understanding that Galilee is to be taken in the narrower sense as meaning the district immediately round the lake. From this point of view, Nazareth was not in Galilee. A hint of the same distinction is traceable in Luke 4: 31: “He came down (from Nazareth) to Capernaum, a city of Galilee.” John’s text also implies that on the present occasion Jesus went first to Nazareth, but left it almost immediately for the lake: “and he went forth (from Sychar), and he went away (from Nazareth?) into Galilee” (v. 43). Unless the repititious phrases be filled out in this way,the language here is almost childishly tautological. Matthew reinforces this conclusion: “he departed into Galilee; and leaving (abandoning) Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum” (4: 12,13).

The Galileans, unlike the people of Nazareth, gave him a ready welcome, because so many of them had been present in Jerusalem at the Passover, and had themselves seen the cleansing of the temple and the miracles which Jesus did there (2: 23; 3: 2). To be sure, people from Nazareth had shared that experience, but even when the prophet was not in his own country, he was still without honour “among his own kin, and in his own house.” On the occasion of this return to Nazareth, the town must have given him a bad reception, for Matthew 4: 13 implies a permanent transfer of residence to Capernaum. It was a long time before he again brought his message to the people who had known him all his life (Mt. 13: 54).

On the way to Capernaum some time was again spent at Cana. The text implies (what one would naturally surmise) that this was at the home where the miracle had been performed of turning water into wine.

By this time Jesus had so much become headline news, because of the remarkable happenings in Jerusalem, that the whole countryside was aware of his movements. So there came to him at the end of the day (the seventh hour, 7 p.m) a nobleman from Capernaum, seeking the cure of his son, now lying at death’s door.

The man is described by a word which might mean “a member of the royal family” (Dan 1: 3 LXX) or “an officer of the king’s court”. The former meaning would be appropriate to Manaen, the son of a rabbi, who was “brought up with Herod the tetrarch” (Acts 13: 1), the latter to Chuza, “Herod’s steward” (Lk.8: 3). It may be taken as fairly certain that if not identifiable with the former, this nobleman was a Gentile.

Faith of a Sort

It is not difficult to see that the man had only on incomplete faith in his mission. The words of Jesus, strangely discouraging, imply as much: “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe” (v. 48). Was Jesus quoting back to the man the very words which he himself had used earlier in hard-headed sceptical fashion when the character and work of Jesus were being discussed? ‘Except I see these signs and wonders, I will not believe!’ Compare Thomas’s experience: 20: 25,27.

Maybe also Jesus said the words with a slight hint of bitterness because precisely this had just been (and was to be; Lk. 4: 23) the attitude of his old friends in Nazareth.

“Signs and wonders”! This is the only time in the gospels that the latter word is used with reference to the miracles of Jesus. It serves to emphasize the contrast between this demand for miraculous marvels and the spontaneous belief of the Samaritans as soon as they were told about Jesus by one of their least reputable citizens (v. 39).

Even so, the man did have a faith of sorts, or he would never have made the journey from Capernaum. It is noteworthy that neither now nor on later occasions did Jesus rebuff this rudimentary faith, but encouraged and nurtured it: “Though ye believe not me believe the works” (Jn. 10: 38). He was willing to accept a faith that was rooted in marvels, even whilst regarding it as inferior. Nevertheless, “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (20: 29).

Faith answered

The nobleman was not to be put off by the apparent discouragement in the words and tone of Jesus. In desperation he swept aside the Lord’s seeming reluctance, pressing his request in a cry of anxiety and misery: “Sir, come down ere my child die. “He was not one of these hard-headed sceptics presenting an ultimatum for the satisfying or his own critical mind. Rather, it was as though he had said; “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief”. For, without him realising it, his words implied a belief that Jesus might have the power to heal, but not to raise the dead.

The unfailing compassion of Jesus could not withstand an assault such as this. “Go thy way; thy son liveth.” The authority with which these words were spoken carried conviction. There was no asking for elucidation of how or when. With a faith far greater than that with which he had come, “the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken.” He uttered his incoherent inadequate thanks, and eagerly went his way.

Faith Confirmed

The return journey through the night was necessarily slower than the earlier hot-foot quest for Jesus. Perhaps time was lost waiting for the moon to rise. So it was sometime next morning, when he was just over halfway home, on the stretch of road that dipped down to the lake side near Magdala when he met household servants sent, probably, with the idea of saving Jesus the trouble of the journey to Capernaum. They brought marvellous news: “Thy son liveth!” Enquiry soon verified that sudden recovery had taken place at the very time that Jesus had announced it. This was even more than the father’s faith had reached out to. He had been prepared to believe that the boy would show signs of recovery from the time that Jesus responded to the appeal. Yet apparently the healing had been instantaneous and complete-at the very time Jesus spoke.

Such evidence, if it was needed, made conviction complete: “and himself believed, and his whole house”, that is, the servants who made the journey and those who had witnessed the recovery. That word “himself” surely carries an implication that someone in the house was already a believer in Jesus. This must have been the nobleman’s wife. It was her conviction which had goaded the man to make the journey to Cana in the first instance.

The Growth of Faith

The progression of this man’s faith is something to note and admire and emulate:

1. “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will in no wise believe.”
2. He besought him that he would come down, and heal his son.
3. “Sir, come down, ere my child die” (implying: once he’s dead even you can do nothing for him).
4. The man believed the word that Jesus had spoken.
5. Himself believed (i.e. fully) and his whole house.

Symbolism

John adds a very brief comment: “This is again the second sign that Jesus did, having come out of Judaea into Galilee.” Here, the word “again”, normally redundant, is apparently intended to emphasize that again, as with the changing of water into wine, in each instance Jesus had exercised his divine power in Galilee of the Gentiles after leaving Judaea. Once again John’s symbolic mind is at work. Very probably this nobleman from Herod’s court was a Gentile. It is noteworthy that the other miracles of healing wrought by Jesus at a distance were both for the benefit of Gentiles -the healing of the centurion’s servant, and the casting out of the demon from the daughter of the Canaanitish woman. These things happened by design.

Perhaps also the healing of the blind man at the pool of Siloam falls into this category. He was definitely Jewish, but (as Study 124 seeks to show) that miracle makes him an impressive “sign” of the spiritual healing of the Gentiles.

This healing of the nobleman’s son is all that John’s record has of the Lord’s ministry in Galilee during the first two years of the ministry, up to the Passover of 6: 4. What a contrast with the fulness of the Galilean ministry as described by the synoptists!

Notes: John 4:43-54

43.	He departed. From the lack of mention here of the disciples some have actually inferred that until 6: 3 (one year before the crucifixion) they stayed in Samaria. What foolishness! A splendid example of how argument from omission (nearly always of dubious value) can corrode a man’s commonsense.
44.	Jesus testified. John would surely not have written this about Jesus without the sanction given by his Lord.
	A prophet hath no honour…; eg. 1 Sam. 10: 11,12. This reads like a good reason for not going to Galilee.
	Other explanations offered besides that in the text are these: (a) Because not honoured in Galilee, he went there for peace and quiet, (b) He had been dishonoured in Judaea (his own country!), and therefore was glad to be received by Samaritans and in Galilee of the Gentiles (c) The words are here to explain why Jesus had gone to Jerusalem-because ignored in Galilee (and hence now v. 45). (d) He must leave Samaria where he had been honoured in order to put a big effort into Galilee where he had been ignored. Remarkable that there should be so many different ways of reading a fairly straight forward verse!
45.	All the things that he did at Jerusalem. The third time mentioned (2: 23; 3: 2), and yet no details.
46.	Cana… where he made the water wine. John had a flair for associating incidents and places (or people): (a) 3: 1; 7: 50; 19: 39; (b) 1: 44; 12: 21; (c) 13: 23,25; 21: 20.
47.	Was come. This less common Greek word seems always to be used of divine action (see concordance).
48.	See. Was Jesus making a play on the meaning of the man’s name? Chuza — seen by revelation from God.
51.	It can be a rewarding exercise of the imagination to attempt a full re- construction of this conversation. And so also in many another place, especially where the miracles are concerned.
52.	Began to amend suggests that the father was looking for a gradual recovery.
	The seventh hour. 19: 14 is decisive that John uses Roman (modern) time, and not Jewish. Therefore 7 p.m.
53.	Himself believed. See v.50. Other examples of faith becoming a greater faith: 1: 14 with 2: 11; Ex. 14: 31; 1 Kgs 17: 24.
54.	The second miracle. Is this John’s way of drawing attention to one feature of the pattern of his gospel? – three miracles in Judaea, and three in Galilee

In normal circumstances the “ruler” of a Jewish synagogue had a free hand to invite whom he chose to discourse to the people. The one exception was that he could take that duty himself only by special request of the congregation. It is easy to understand Jesus being invited, on his first sabbath (Mk), to act as teacher in the only synagogue in Capernaum (Mk. 1:21: the synagogue; cp. Lk. 7:5 RV). Both his open-air teaching and his miracles in recent days had made the people eager to hear more. So synagogue preaching throughout Galilee became the Lord’s settled policy for a while to come (Lk. 4:44 Gk.).

Authority

Now that they listened to him in the more formal style of the synagogue it was forced upon their minds how drastically different was his mode of teaching from that of the scribes. These teachers, like certain of their counterparts in the twentieth century, were tied in their interpretations to the opinions and pronouncements of celebrated teachers of former days: “Rabbi Simeon-ben-Judah saith… Rabbi Judah the Holy saith…” But this Jesus of Nazareth, who, being a mere carpenter, should have been showing more than normal deference to higher authority, spoke with a self-assurance which filled them with amazement. ‘He hasn’t quoted the rabbis once!’ Either this was cocksureness and bombast far beyond normal experience, or he was in truth speaking by divine right. Could it be that here was an inspiration surpassing that of the prophets? He proceeded to produce further credentials about which there could be no argument. Astonishment at his teaching gave way to astonishment at his miracles.

Service Interrupted

There in the assembly was a man who had been afflicted with recurrent mental sickness. As a man is “in Adam” or “in Christ”, so this poor fellow was “in an unclean spirit” (Gk.) — a remarkable contrast with the usual phrase: “in whom was an unclean spirit”. Just now he was normal enough. Otherwise, of course, care would have been taken to exclude him from the synagogue. As Jesus concluded his discourse, and people marvelled at what they heard and how it was said, the man’s lunacy suddenly asserted itself once again, and he shouted out loudly: “Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34).

These words, difficult enough, have been made more difficult by the inclination of many to read them as though spoken by some personal evil spirit(s) dwelling in the man. Nor is the modern fantasy very convincing which suggests that wild incoherent cries were interpreted by Jesus as having this meaning.

A Contradiction

There is no need for wild assumptions of this sort. On carefully re-reading the words, one notices the change of pronouns from plural to singular. And at the same point there is also a complete change of tone and meaning. “The Holy One of God” and “come to destroy us” are hopelessly contradictory ideas.

It would seem, then, that in his more sane moments this poor fellow had heard thrown backwards and forwards widely differing opinions about Jesus. It is easy to understand that some, remembering the evils brought on the nation by various false Messiahs, had already decided that Jesus of Nazareth was in the same category and that his movement was bound to end in the same kind of tragedy: ‘He will get us into trouble with the Romans! And we shall receive no help or support from Jerusalem because our leaders there have already; decided against him.’ But there was also the other opinion: ‘I tell you, he is the Messiah, the, Holy One of God.’

This demonic description of Jesus as the Holy One is very difficult to reconcile with the “ common understanding that here was a man, possessed by an evil spirit. Would not a wicked spirit seek to derogate the holiness of Christ?

On the other hand, with the explanation (already suggested in Study 30) of unclean spirits as being God’s angels of evil, an incident like this assumes considerable significance.

In the cure, and in the words used to describe the cure, Jesus was asserting his authority over such an angel. Contemporary pseudo-exorcists made a great show with the repetition of impressive religious names (eg. Acts. 19:13), and especially the (invented) names of angels (HDB 1:812), as though invoking their aid in the cure. But here was Jesus, exercising control over angels, and by his own right!

It may be taken as fairly certain that the man’s lunatic cries are carefully reported in the gospels because of the important double meaning behind them. It is one of the great works of Messiah to reconcile “things in heaven” as well as things in earth. The dire work of angels of evil is to be made unnecessary. All these ministering spirits of God are to be brought into harmony with the healing, cleansing, redeeming work of God’s Holy One.

The Cure

It could help the new campaign of Jesus little to have such wild contradictions shouted out before this large assembly, so he addressed himself to the man, or rather, to his disability, or to the angel of evil responsible for his calamitous condition: “Be muzzled (s.w. 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Pet. 2:15), and come out of him.” Jesus only sought to silence the man’s testimony because it would be no help to his cause to have such witness borne by such a person in such a condition.

The effect of the Lord’s command was immediate. There, in the open space before the rostrum (cp. Lk. 4:35), a sudden convulsion shook the man violently, so that, uttering a wild yell, he was thrown to the floor before the fascinated horrified gaze of everybody. But, then, within seconds, he was on his feet again looking and behaving perfectly normally, and (may it be guessed?) apologizing to those about him for any disturbance he had caused. Luke’s phrase: “Having done him no hurt”, corrects any false inference that the man’s loud shout was a cry of pain. Indeed, it seems likely that Luke wrote with his eye on the only other place in Scripture which uses this word ‘hurt’ — in an extra verse preserved in the LXX version at Proverbs 25:20: “As a moth in a garment, and as a worm in wood, so the distress of a man hurts his heart (his mind)”. Hardship leaves its mark in a man’s thinking. But not so with this man. Here now was complete normality, with neither physical nor mental weakness as reminder of his former condition.

Now, for certain, there was only one conviction in his healthy mind: “Jesus is the Holy One of God.” The title was no recent invention, but had its origin in Daniel’s great “Seventy Weeks” prophecy: “Seventy weeks… to anoint the Most Holy One… Messiah the Prince” (9:24, 25; and in its turn Dan. 9 looks back to Ps. 89:18-20). Had not Jesus come to their district declaring that “the time is fulfilled” (Mk. 1:15)? And did not the signs he wrought make the conclusion certain?

Effect on the Crowd

This first public miracle of healing was followed by an awed silence very different from the astonished reaction to what the Lord taught (Mk. 1:27, 21). Then the buzz of conversation rarely absent from a Jewish synagogue reasserted itself. “What a word is this! What new doctrine is this! For with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out” (Mk. 1:27; Lk. 4:36). These comments can hardly have reference to the discourse Jesus had been delivering. The immediate context makes this difficult. And, after all, the amazement of the crowd and the argument that now went on clearly centred round the miracle of healing much more than the preaching. So the “new doctrine” is probably the implicit claim by Jesus to personal authority over God’s angels of evil responsible for maladies such as that afflicting the man in the synagogue. This mastery of the unseen powers of evil (Phil. 2:10) was even more fundamental and far-reaching than the royal majesty they normally associated with the Messiah.

The chatter (Lk) and argument (Mk) that went on in the synagogue showed no sign of abating. It effectively put an end to any useful instruction of the people for that day. The compassion of Jesus had defeated his other purposes and was to do so many a time again. So he rose up from the seat which he had occupied as synagogue teacher (Lk. 4:38 RV), and withdrew to take refuge from public attention in the home of Simon Peter.

The service ended in disorder, and the sensational story of what had happened in the synagogue erupted through the town and into all the surrounding countryside. Now everybody was talking about Jesus of Nazareth. The “year of popularity” had begun.

Notes: Mark 1:21-28

21.	On the sabbath day. The Greek plural here has been persuasively explained as an idiom appropriate to a special sabbath; but “taught them” (Lk. 4:31 Gk.) is decisive that this phrase covers a number of sabbaths.
22.	This verse comes in Mt. 7:28 verbatim, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount-describing a fresh astonishment? or supporting the not very popular view that Peter abbreviated “Matthew” and then told the rest to Mark sometimes in his own words and sometimes in Matthew’s?
23.	In their synagogue. Does this personal pronoun hint at a contrast with their synagogue at Nazareth?
24.	Let us alone… No doubt the man’s words are given verbatim by both Mk. and Lk. because of their further reference (already mentioned) to God’s angels of evil. Similarly, “Jesus of Nazareth” was first used contemptuously (Jn. 1:45), but later seems to have a higher meaning concerning The Branch (netzer) filled with “the Spirit of counsel and might” who would “reprove with equity for the meek of the earth” (Is. 11:1-3). The Holy One. In the NT. consider Jn. 6:69, 70 RV; 1 Jn. 2:20; Rev. 3:7. One commentator adds: “And he who thus cries out today is reckoned lunatic.”
25.	Rebuked him. The Greek is ambiguous, and may refer to the man or the “spirit”.
	Hold thy peace. In the O.T. Dt.25:4 only. Here was an “ox” damaging the “corn”, and therefore to be muzzled.
26.	Torn him. Lk: thrown him. An epileptic fit has been suggested, but the man’s utterance seems to rule this out.
27.	Amazed; v.22: astonished. And so also in 5:20; 6:51; 7:37; 10:26; but most emphatic here.
	What thing is this? Contrast 4:41: “Who then is this?”
	With authority he commandeth. The noun for “command” seems always to describe a divine command.

Luke 4:31-37

31.	Come down to Capernaum. Written by one who knew the geography. Nazareth to Capernaum is a drop of nearly 2000 feet.
33.	A spirit of an unclean devil. Genitive of apposition: a spirit, that is, an unclean demon.
36.	What a word is this! It is noteworthy that apparently no objection was raised about healing on the sabbath. As a campaign against Jesus this criticism was cooked up later.
37.	Fame, a very strong word; Heb. 12:19. 1 Cor. 13:1 and Lk.21:25 have the corresponding verb.

The Lord’s Galilee ministry now got going. It is interesting to note the diversity of names by which the lake and its environs are referred to in the gospels.

Chinnereth, the Old Testament name, is usually taken to allude to the lake being shaped like a harp (chinnor). The name Sea of Tiberias derives from the city which Herod the Great named after Tiberius Caesar. Gennesaret may mean the Land, or Valley, of Nazareth, although that despised place was 15 miles from the lakeside. In earlier days that locality had been contemptuously named Cabul (muck!) by Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 9: 13). Perhaps Galilee (dung) became a substitute name when Gentiles settled there, Genneseret would thus be a more polite way of expressing scorn.

It was such an area on which Jesus decided to concentrate.

His first preaching in Capernaum was listened to by massive crowds (Lk.) The news of his doings in Jerusalem had been put round by those Galileans who had witnessed them at Passover (Jn. 4: 45). And the recent sensational instantaneous restoration to health of the nobleman’s son, and from more than twenty miles away, had either made a great impression or had stimulated a vast amount of curiosity. So as he preached there by the lakeside, expounding to them the Old Testament (Lk), Jesus found himself beset by crowds to the point of inconvenience. Lacking a suitable pulpit or rostrum, he appealed to Peter and Andrew to let him use their fishing boat (Lk. 5: 3; cp. also Mk.4: 1, a later occasion).

Poor Fishing

The two brothers and their colleagues, James and John, were just back from the most discouraging fishing expedition they had ever known. All through the previous night they had plied their nets using all their knowledge and experience of the lake and its fish, yet not a single fish rewarded their ability and diligence (5: 5). Helped to hindsight by the later miraculous haul of fishes, it is now possible to see in this complete failure yet another miracle, as necessary as the other to teach these new disciples the power and character of their new calling.

At the time when Jesus asked for this help from Peter (since he was the “skipper”) they had been despondently trying to make good their sustained failure by using the smaller cast-net in the shallows (Mk. 1: 16), and now still without success they were dismally washing their nets free from weed and slime before putting them out to dry.

It was the work of moments to run the boat up to the beach, and then, when Jesus had leapt agilely on board, to pull out a short distance so as to give him the advantage of a few yards’ separation from the eager crowd on the shore (5: 3).

Memorable Miracle

His discourse concluded, and whilst the crowd was still standing about in groups, Jesus bade Peter pull right away from the shore into deep water. There they were to lower their big dragnet, operating as they had done all night.

Peter, still miserable over the night’s frustrations, would surely have been justified in refusing. ‘You are only a carpenter. What can you tell me about my trade?’ In just this way the modern disciple often deems himself more competent than his Lord, to judge a situation. “Can he know my life or twentieth century conditions better than I?” However, Peter did as he was bidden, though not without a quiet reminder that he doubted whether it would be any use. How often a disciple is called upon to abandon his own judgement in order to obey the call of Christ: “At thy word (depending on thy word) I will let down the net.” (Later, Peter had to be told again: Jn. 21: 6; Acts. 10: 11-16.)

No sooner was the operation set going than it at once became obvious that in the net was a catch past believing. This was no ordinary shoal of fish, or Peter’s experienced eye would have earlier detected their presence.

There have, of course, been massive hauls of fish, comparable with this, before and since. But this happened just when and where Jesus willed it to happen. This is an important aspect of the miracle.

The ropes strained to a dangerous tension and the boat tilted crazily. At Peter’s curt imperative all was frantic action. These astonished eager fishermen bent and hauled and heaved as never before in their lives. They could tell that in places the net was parting under its prodigious load of fishes. With every hand at the net they still could not bring it on board. So, still grasping and heaving, with a jerk of the head they signalled to the “hired servants” (Mk. 1: 20) in the other boat to come quickly to their aid.

Soon the two boats were gunwale to gunwale. Now with more hands to the work, they were at length able to bring the net on board with its teeming multitude of fishes, sleek and wet.

Peter’s Reaction

Now there was another problem. The boats had taken on such an immense load of fish that they were both dangerously down by the stern and shipping water. Whilst the others were climbing frantically over the piles of slippery fish to get to work at the oars, Peter suddenly saw the entire amazing episode in perspective. Here he was, an avowed disciple of this astonishing prophet of Nazareth, yet when the power of God provided him with a haul of fish past his wildest dreams, all he could do was to scramble around desperately to ensure, with incurable fisherman’s instinct, that every single fish should be pulled in. So eager had he been, that he had even been prepared to risk the boat itself. Where was the sense in this greed? Was there not here a man who obviously had “dominion over the works of God’s hands”, even over “the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas” (Ps. 8: 6,8).

Thoroughly ashamed of himself, Peter fell down before Jesus as he sat there (not helping!) with the water swirling round his feet: “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Did the story of Israel’s greed in the wilderness (Num. 11: 32-34) come to his mind? Rather significantly, the Greek word for “sink” comes (by design?) in only one other place (1 Tim. 6: 9), which describes how materialism can “drown men in destruction”.

“Fear not!”

There came immediate repentance: ‘Fear not-no need to fear my displeasure-from henceforth thou shalt be a regular catcher of men’, taking them for life, not death. The words were heeded not only by Peter but also by the rest, for, like him, they were all over-awed and made fearful by the marvel they had just witnessed (5: 8-10).

The miracle had happened near enough to shore for the drama of it to be witnessed by the crowd which had listened to Jesus. So when at length the two boats were beached, the catch would be speedily disposed of; it is hard to believe that the great haul of fishes was sold. Peter had learned his lesson, and he doubtless insisted on every one of them being given away. Whilst the disciples were occupied with this activity and the bailing out of the boats, Jesus slipped away for a while until the excitement had died down.

The Decisive Call

Soon he was back again. The crowd was gone, and the fishermen were busy with their gear. Their craft must be shipshape for the next fishing. Jesus interrupted them with an authoritive imperative: “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Mt). He had given Peter this promise only a little while before (Lk.), but that disciple was surely astonished that the time for it had come so soon.

How well Crawshaw’s splendid couplet-describes Peter’s present experience: “When Christ calls, and thy nets would have thee stay, To cast them well’s to cast them quite away.”

God pulled David away from his sheep to shepherd His people (Ps. 78: 70-72). Wise men of the east, given to much study of the stars, were given a special star to guide them to the Star that was risen in Jacob. The crowd that followed Jesus for food were offered a higher spiritual food. The Samaritan woman, with an empty waterpot, drank water of life. At a wedding in Cana, the poorer wine finished, they were given some of the best that ever was. Paul the tent maker taught men to care nought for the tabernacle of this mortality (2 Cor.5:4), if only they might know the blessedness of a house from heaven.

And Peter the fisherman also.

James and John, who were already busy mending the damaged nets were also called, and they too responded with alacrity. Zebedee was in the ship with his sons, and evidently offer this day’s experience gave his sanction or even his encouragement to their abandoment of the family business. With the regular employees available (Mk.) it would be possible to keep things going.

If, as seems not unlikely, the fishing trade on Galilee was licensed by the authorities as an obvious form of taxation, this abandoning of their livelihood by Peter and Andrew was a serious matter; for there would be big doubts about their being able to take up the license again later on, should they wish to do so. “We have forsaken all, and followed thee” (Mt. 19: 27). Peter really meant what he said. And the eagerness to resume fishing after the resurrection of Jesus (Jn.21) is thus more readily accounted for.

An Acted Parable

The allegorical significance of this astonishing miracle needs little underlining (cp. Mt. 13: 47-50). But it is seen to have point of a very special kind if indeed Peter and Andrew and James and John were all in the same boat together during this incident. It is not usual to read the story in this way, but on careful perusal there is found to be nothing against it. Indeed it is most natural that whilst Jesus was talking to the crowd, these four, who had already professed discipleship, would join him in the boat. Then, too, James and John were busy afterwards mending the torn net, even though it was Peter’s boat, and not the other, which had shot the net for the catch. Luke says explicitly that “James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were partners with Simon”.

Read thus, the entire incident is seen to have special relevance to a terribly difficult situation which faced the apostles in the early church some years later. There was, initially, a marked reluctance on the part of the Twelve to “launch out into the deep” of the Gentile sea (Galilee of the Gentiles), but ultimately there came such a “haul” of converts that they were quite inadequate for the situation. So it became necessary to call others to their side that the harvest of this Gentile sea might be gathered in: “They gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (wrote Paul), that we should go unto the Gentiles” (Gal. 2: 9). The result of this mighty “catch” of men, Jesus apparently doing nothing to bring them in, was that nets were breaking and the ships in danger of sinking. The accession of the Gentiles became the most potent cause of schism in the first century, and the church came near to foundering.

Another Acted Parable

How different the symbolism of the second miraculous catch of fishes.

This time there was only one boat. It was at the dawn of a new day, and Jesus unrecognized. The fish – all of them great fishes, and a precise number-were caught “on the right side”. Amazingly, the net showed no sign of breaking. Equally amazing, Peter was able to drag them up the beach single-handed. Contrasting with his remorseful expression: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord”, Peter now showed an irrepressible eagerness to be with Jesus. The Lord also provided a meal which he had prepared. They came ashore to eat it. Their boat had been used for the last time. (See in Jn. 21).

These things are not without special significance. Nor is the fact that on signet ring or gravestone the fish became the widespread symbol of the early Christian. Thus he thankfully declared himself one of those whom the power of Christ had added to the apostles’ miraculous catch in their gospel net.

There are yet more lessons to be learned from this remarkable miracle and its associations.

Long centuries before, this acted parable was anticipated by Jacob, of all people. Blessing Joseph’s sons, he prayed that they might “grow into a multitude”-Hebrew: “swarm as fishes” (Gen. 48: 16; see AV mg). And he went on to prophesy that the younger, who should be the greater, should become “a fulness of Gentiles” (v. 19, quoted in Rom. 11: 25).

Fulfilment in Christ is foretold in Psalm 8: 6,8: “Thou modest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands”, including “whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.”

The washing of nets suggests the need to rid the gospel net from old useless accretions. There is implied also an undaunted spirit not only in the making of these preparations but also in an immediate willingness to try again.

Here also there is emphasis on the need for whole-hearted collaboration. There is no room for chauvinism or a parochial spirit in the preaching of the gospel. And to do the work really well may require that a man leave those who are his natural kith and kin and those who serve for hire.

Fishing by daylight is usually a mighty unrewarding business; yet there must be a willingness to try “in season, out of season” (2 Tim. 4: 2).

Did Paul learn the fishing parable from Luke’s gospel? When properly sorted out, 2 Tim. 2: 24-26 is a powerful passage:

“The servant of the Lord must not strive… in meekness instructing those (the Judaists) that oppose themselves… that they (these gainsayers) may return to a sober outlook (RVm) out of the snare of the devil (the organizer of Judaist hostility), who are caught alive as fish (s.w. Lk. 5: 10) by him (the servant of the Lord) unto his (the Lord’s) will”.

Notes: Luke 5: 1-11

1.	This paragraph, like several others in Luke, is clearly not in its proper place chronologically. Mt., Mk. parallels establish this. See any Harmony.
3.	The people. RV: the multitudes. The plural here probably emphasizes that there were several crowds, all different in character; e.g. Jews from Judaea as well as Galilee, Gentiles etc.
4.	Launch out. Jesus issued the instruction to Peter, as skipper, but the shooting of the net involved all on board. Accordingly, “launch out” is singular, but “let down” is plural.
5.	Peter’s respectful attitude implies an earlier close association with the power and authority of Jesus, in Jn. 2,4. Later he switches from “Master” (chief, boss) to “Kurios” (Lord).
6.	Their net was breaking (Gk.), ie. about to break. This explains Mk. 1: 19: “mending their nets”. So the net did break!
7.	Beckoned. The Gk. word signifies a jerk of the head.
8.	Simon Peter. The apostle’s old and new natures both evident in this episode.
	Depart from me, for I am a sinful man. Similar reactions when in the presence of divine glory and power: Ex. 4: 10-17; 20:18-20; ls. 6: 1-7; Jer. 1: 4-10; Ezek. 2,3; Jud. 6: 22,23; Acts 9: 3-9; Dan. 10: 7-12; Rev. 1: 13-20.
	Fear not. Cp. Jn. 6: 20; Mt. 28: 5; Lk. 24: 36.
10.	Catch. The derivation of this Gk. word suggests, as an alternative to “catch men for life”, “gather men together alive”(deriving possibly from ageiro). Contrast the context in Dt. 20: 16 s.w.

Mark 1: 16-20

19.	A little farther. This harmonizes very neatly with Lk. 5: 7. The boats were close together.
	James the son of Zebedee, and John. James appears to be the elder of the two brothers; and, judging from the epistles these two have left, was certainly the more dynamic character. John and Zebedee both mean “the gift of God”, expressed differently.

Getting away from the excited crowd in the synagogue, Jesus walked, along with his four fisher disciples, to Peter’s home. Peter was a married man, with children probably (Mt. 17:24, 25); Judas also (Ps.109: 9, 12) and probably others among the apostles (1 Cor.9:5). But evidently Andrew was unmarried, for he lived with Peter (Mk. 1:29).

If Peter had a settled home at this time, how could it be said of him that he “forsook all”? How, near the end of the Lord’s ministry, could he say: “We have left all and followed thee” (Mt. 19:27)?

The explanation appears to be this: The first of these two references relates to Peter’s normal work as a fisherman; the other was true soon after this, and thenceforward, when Peter and the rest left their homes in order to be with Jesus constantly.

There is some uncertainty as to the location of Peter’s home at this time. When he first met Jesus, he was “of Bethsaida” (Jn. 1:44). Yet, on this sabbath, after preaching and healing in the synagogue at Capernaum (Tell Hum, by general agreement) Jesus went immediately to Peter’s house. Two possibilities present themselves. Either Peter and Andrew had lately moved to Capernaum, or the Bethsaida where they lived was within easy distance of Capernaum. It seems almost certain that there were two Bethsaidas (= Fisher-town; cp. Port Said). The sites suggested for these are about three miles from Capernaum, in opposite directions. But this distance is well over “a sabbath day’s journey” (= about 3/5 of a mile), unless there was a special dispensation to go further for the purpose of attending a synagogue. It seems much more likely that Peter’s Bethsaida was actually a suburb of Capernaum. The geographers do not seem to have considered this possibility.

“A great fever”

No sooner was Jesus in the house than he was urgently asked for help — Peter’s mother-in-law was prostrated with “a great fever”. According to one authority this expression was used by contemporaries to describe what was, judging from the symptoms, typhus. The fever was most acute, and (Luke’s Greek seems to imply) was continuing, without showing any sign of abating.

Apparently Jesus knew nothing of this domestic emergency until he got to the house, or he would surely have come to the sufferer’s aid before this. Now the fever had been running its distressing course for most of the day (at least). Yet when a high fever shows no sign of breaking there is real ground for alarm. Then with what impatience had Peter’s wife awaited the end of the synagogue service! She had every reason for anxiety.

Immediate recovery

The request was put to Jesus only once (Lk. 4:38 Gk). No more was needed. He went at once to her bed-side (Lk) and grasping her hand (Mk), sat her up in bed (Mk). Then, he rebuked the fever (Lk) — and it was gone! She was up from her bed immediately, and proceeded right away (Lk) to help with the sabbath evening meal and especially to look offer the needs of Jesus (Mt: Gk text) as he relaxed at table. There was no sign in her of the usual hang-over of debility and lassitude. The sufferer’s recovery was instantaneous and complete.

The ways of commentators are passing strange. “It was not a great miracle”, observes one learned man. He would surely have written differently if he had had that fever himself!

Luke’s description: “he rebuked the fever”, reads as though addressed to a demon. Here, again, so it would seem, the reader is intended to envisage the poor woman’s suffering as the work of one of God’s angels of evil.

There was of course, no arrière pensée about the working of this miracle. Yet how valuable it must have been to Jesus in later days. It is no light thing to take a man from his home and wife and family and livelihood to become a peripatetic preacher. Yet this is what Jesus had demanded of Peter that day. And for the rest of his life Peter followed. “Lord, we have left all, and followed thee.” Such response is hardly possible without the full assent and cooperation of wife and family. If such enthusiastic support was not already evident, this healing of Peter’s mother-in-law guaranteed it. From this day forward Peter need never be looking over his shoulder wondering how this wandering life as disciple of Jesus of Nazareth was regarded by the folks at home.

A Mass Appeal to Jesus

If it was the afternoon service at the synagogue (the time of the evening sacrifice) when Jesus healed the demoniac, there would be just time for him to enjoy a meal before the day’s end at sun-down. Just time also for every home in Capernaum where there was illness of any kind to make feverish preparations to bring their sick folk to Peter’s house for healing as soon as the sabbath was technically ended. According to Luke their eagerness stretched a point and set this operation in motion before the sabbath was quite ended.

It must have been an astonishing sight in that twilight — many small groups of people converging on the same spot, as sick folk were led (Lk) or carried thither (Mk) and set down there (Mt) in eager expectation of aid comparable to that exercise of power witnessed in the synagogue. “The entire city was now synagogued at the door.”

This appeal to the compassion of Jesus was not to be resisted. He went out to them and healed them all individually. He laid his hands in blessing on each sick or diseased person separately (Lk). There were further examples of the mentally unbalanced crying out (Lk), like the man in the synagogue, that this Jesus was the Messiah (a sentiment their bemused wits must have taken in from much of the excited talk which went on around them), only to be immediately silenced with a word of authority (Mt), for this was a form of advertisement or acclaim that Jesus could well do without (Mk).

The wonderful work continued (Lk) probably right through the twilight until darkness fell. Between them the synoptic writers exhaust the available vocabulary in attempts to picture the wide variety of ailments and disabilities brought to Jesus in that hour (cp. also Mt. 4:24). Luke’s phrase is specially emphatic. Yet all were sent away well and happy. That night the only sick persons in the town were those who said: ‘That Jesus of Nazareth is no good.’ Never was such a healthy place as Capernaum just then.

But alas, not so spiritually (Mt. 11:20, 23, 24).

In his gospel Matthew repeatedly drives home the point that there was no human need beyond the power of Christ to cope with (12:15; 14:35, 36; 4:24). It is a lesson the present age refuses to learn. And today, as then, it is to each individual separately according to his need that the Lord’s help comes.

According to the Scriptures

Matthew again, after his manner in the early part of his gospel, links this healing work of Jesus with Old Testament prophecy regarding him: “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses”. Here instead of the familiar Septuagint text there is a more strictly literal translation. In the original text (ls. 53:4) the first word means “sickness” and the second “pain”, either physical or psychological, i.e. “grief”. But the context there clearly has reference to sin-sickness. This is without doubt the fundamental meaning. It should not be assumed that Matthew is misapplying the passage or distorting its meaning. The gospel writers must always be given credit for knowing what they are about. Here then, rather, is Matthew’s way of enunciating a principle which will be found to run right through the gospel records: The greater includes the less; these miracles are not merely wonders, they are signs, acted parables, another form of teaching, and readers of the gospels are the losers if they let this pass them by. (For example, the word describing the fever of Peter’s mother-in-law comes in only one other place: Dt. 28:22!). This aspect of the Lord’s miracles is one which the student of the gospels is constantly encountering. It is important.

Notes: Matthew 8:14-17

These verses are chronologically out of place, due to the method by which Matthew assembles his material according to subject. Chapters 8, 9 concentrate on a catalogue of miracles, so it is not inappropriate for this miracle to be included here.

14.	Peter’s house. Even if the Lord’s own family had moved to Capernaum about this time, there are hints that Jesus used Peter’s home as his real headquarters, so far as he had any; 17:24, 25.
15.	Touched her hand. Mark’s equivalent is: “grasped her hand”. This helps to modify the meaning of Jn. 20:17, and to make it more intelligible.
16.	Brought. Very cleverly (if that word may be allowed without offence) Mt. employs here a word of double meaning; it also means
	“to bring as a sacrifice to the altar.” Thus there is not only the idea of our Lord’s divine status, but also that these sick folk besides being carried to him were also dedicated to his praise.
	Possessed with devils… cast out the spirits. Lk’s equivalent:
	Sick with divers diseases, and he healed them. Note also Mt’s own parallel in v. 1 7.
	Healed all. This “all” comes from ls. 53:6. Other mass healings: 4:24; 12:15; 14:35, 36.
17.	Bore our sicknesses. The double meaning mentioned in the text comes in markedly here — at personal cost, now in the tearing of compassionate soul, possibly in draining his energies, and certainly looking forward to his bearing of sin at Golgotha.

Notes: Mark 1:29-34

29.	When they were come. This word “come”, twice repeated (Gk) might possibly imply that Peter (the “author” of this gospel) had not been to the synagogue — kept at home by the emergency?
30.	Fever. The likely alternative to typhus is malaria.
31.	Took her by the hand. “The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord … He upholdeth him with his hand” (Ps. 37:23, 24). So also Mk. 5:41; 9:27. This double miracle — (a) fever gone; (b) no continuing weakness — is matched by Lk. 5:5, 6; Jn. 9:7, 9; Mt. 8:26; Acts 3:7, 8.
	She ministered unto them. So also others who know themselves healed by Christ will be glad to express their gratitude in service.
32.	Cp. Mark’s other early pictures of growing crowds: 1:37, 45; 2:2, 13, 15; 3:7-10, 20, 32.

Luke 4:38-41

38.	He arose. The implication is that Jesus had been seated, the usual posture of a synagogue teacher. Nor had he risen from his seat to heal the demoniac.
40.	He laid his hands on every one. Such examples as Gen. 48:14; Lev. 8:22, 23; Mt. 19:13 is the idea that of transfer of blessing or personal identification with those concerned? In Lev. 1:4; 3:2; 8:14; 16:21, certainly not blessing but the burden of sin.

The synoptic gospels recount a considerable number of occasions when Jesus cast out demons or unclean spirits. In addition there are further references in John’s gospel, Acts and the Epistles. As a class these incidents constitute one of the biggest problems of interpretation in the New Testament. It can hardly be said that the answers usually supplied are completely satisfying.

The common evangelical approach claims to take the gospel records strictly at their face value. Demons, that is to say, wicked disembodied spirits do exist; they caused many of the ailments which people were stricken with; Jesus recognised this fact, and by his power as Son of God he drove them away and so restored health to the afflicted.

Personal Devils?

This would be fine if it did not involve recognition of a whole world of evil beings. Belief in a personal superhuman Devil is a necessary adjunct to this viewpoint. Apart from this, there is a considerable array of minor problems and difficulties left unsolved. These crop up as soon as one studies the various accounts afresh equipped with a question mark.

But the biggest difficulty of all is the non-appearance of demons in the vast volume of Old Testament history. Here, for once, the argument from omission is really telling. In a thousand pages of Old Testament there is no mention of demons. Then a turn of the page and they become a regular feature of the record. An explanation which does not account for this strange phenomenon is no explanation. Strange, truly, that these demons should have been so active and evident in the time of Jesus, and yet so much out of the picture for long long periods both before and after.

There is also the fact that the identical diseases spoken of in the gospels as due to demonic influence are today curable by medical experts hardly any of whom believe in the existence of evil spirits.

Modern Attitude

The modernist approach is either to say that the writers of the gospels shared the beliefs of their ignorant contemporaries and for this reason couldn’t help but cast their accounts of the Lord’s miracles in this particular form; or else it is asserted that in this field of knowledge Jesus was a child of his own generation, himself thoroughly believing in the existence of demons and in his own ability to exorcise them. On this all that needs to be said is that a theory which assigns to the modern student of the gospels a higher authority and a superior judgement to that of Jesus or even of those who wrote about him condemns itself. But it is characteristic of the age we live in.

The “Accommodation” Theory

The explanation which seems to have found most favour among the readers of these studies assumes that Jesus, whilst not at all believing in or teaching the existence of unclean spirits, nevertheless fell in with the thinking of his contemporaries, tacitly adopting demonic modes of speech but without supporting or encouraging such ways of thinking.

The sheet anchor of this interpretative approach is the Baalzebub controversy: “If I by Baalzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children (i.e. your disciples) cast them out?” (Mt. 12: 27).

Here, it is suggested, Jesus adopted the standpoint of his adversaries simply for the sake of argument, solely in order to expose the illogicality of their thinking. And if he did so in this instance, may it not be safely assumed that in all his other references to demons he was following precisely the same method?

The simple answer is: It may not be so assumed! For this tacit adoption, for the sake of argument, of an erroneous point of view only crops up in discussion when seeking to confute a seriously false assumption made by one’s adversary (as in Mt. 12: 27). But in no other mention of demons was Jesus attempting to say: “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.”

On the contrary, in a score of places and more, when the Lord found himself confronted with a demoniac, he seems almost gladly to have fallen in with the idea, positively encouraging those who heard him to believe in the existence of such beings. And, equally important, the inspired gospel writers have, time after time, adopted precisely the same approach in a way which almost demands of the reader that he believe in demons.

An emphatic but quite typical example is Mark’s account (ch. 5) of the Gadarene demoniac:

• “A man with an unclean spirit” (v. 2: Mark’s ‘narrative).
• “He (Jesus) said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit” (v. 8).
• “And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine” (v.         12: Mark’s narrative).
• “And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine” (v. 13: Mark’s narrative).
• “And they come and see him that was possessed with the devil…sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind” (v. 15: Mark’s narrative).
• “He that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him” (v. 18: Mark’s narrative).

Thus, five times in this God-guided account and once in the words of Jesus the reader is being steered to a belief in the reality of demons. In this fairly lengthy passage (20 verses) there is no hint that such a belief is an error of either major or minor importance.

It would be no difficult matter to assemble thirty or forty other verses from the gospels all of which similarly make tacit assumption that unclean spirits really exist — and all of them putting this idea in the very words of Jesus or of the men who were inspired to write about him.

This is the real problem. This is the big difficulty. And the “accommodation” theory is utterly unable to cope with it. Only by shutting one’s eyes to the frequency and plainness of such passages as those just cited is it possible to say that Jesus fell in with grossly mistaken ideas just for the sake of convenience.

Let the fact be faced that in any of these exorcism episodes the Lord could have set the whole matter straight in a couple of clear incisive sentences — yet he didn’t!

Accurate New Testament Diagnosis

Another much neglected fact of considerable importance is this: In a marked majority of instances, alongside the mention of demons, the gospels also provide a plain simple matter-of-fact diagnosis of the disabilities Jesus healed.

“A dumb man possessed with a devil, (Mt. 9: 32). “One possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him” (12: 22). “(His friends said) He is beside himself. And the scribes said, He hath Baalzebub … “ (Mk. 3: 21,22). The Gadarene demoniac was found “sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind” (Mk. 5: 15). “Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is epileptic… and Jesus rebuked the devil…” (Mt. 17: 15,18 RV). “And they that were vexed with unclean spirits were healed” (Lk. 6: 18). “A woman which had a spirit of infirmity… and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself” (Lk. 13: 11). “He hath a devil, and is mad” (Jn. 10: 20; the same idea is implied in 7: 20 and 8: 48).

Let it be clearly understood, then, that in most instances the maladies from which these unfortunates suffered were clearly recognised and described. Mention of demons could be omitted without any loss of intelligibility — indeed, there might well be a gain in lucidity.

Thus the problem of demon terminology becomes more acute than ever.

Familiar Terminology

It is not certain whence these ideas about demons came into Jewish thought. Probably from Persia or Greece (Hellenized Syria). Between the Testaments the Jews came under the domination of both, and during the four hundred years before Christ it would have been impossible to resist altogether the encroachments of the conquerors’ religious ideas.

But it is difficult to be sure to what extent demon language came to be used merely as a mode of speech rather than as an expression of firm conviction.

Today many a man says “Go to hell” who hasn’t a flicker of belief in the existence of such a place. Today, “You look as though you’ve seen a ghost” hardly ever implies a belief in spooks. Today it is merely a well-understood figure of speech to say: “That politician is in league with the devil.”

Gospel evidence suggests that a somewhat similar situation existed in our Lord’s time regarding demons.

Then, once again, the question demands an answer: Why did Jesus so often go out of his way to talk about (and to) demons as though he firmly believed in their existence, when there was no real need for him to take the problem seriously?

Solution via the Old Testament

To attempt an answer to this question it is necessary to go off at a tangent, apparently, to explore the Bible’s teaching about angels of evil.

The angels — all of them — are God’s ministers. They exist to do His will. And His will very often involves what men construe as evil, although when seen from God’s point of view it is precisely what He wants to happen. “I make peace, and I create evil: I, the Lord, do all these things” (Is 45: 7). “Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Am. 3: 6).

God is the controller of everything in this world. He originates all the “evil” circumstances in it, as well as the good.

It follows, then, that whatever evil He decrees is contrived by the angels to whom this work is committed. The Bible refers to these as “evil angels” or “angels of evil”. Let it be clearly understood, these are not wicked angels. There are no wicked angels. They are God’s ministers, fulfilling His will, being responsible for bringing what men interpret as “evil” into human experience. A long list of illustrative Bible passages is available.

Examples

Psalm 78: 42-49 recalls the plagues in Egypt: “He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.” But these plagues were God’s retribution on the Egyptians.

“An evil man seeketh only rebellion (against God): therefore a cruel messenger (LXX: an angel without mercy) shall be sent against him” (Prov. 17: 11).

Exodus 12: 23 has a protecting angel and a destroying angel in the same verse: “The Lord will pass over (i.e. hover over) the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”

“And David spake unto the Lord when he saw the angel that smote the people…” (2 Sam. 24: 17).

“And immediately the angel of the lord smote Herod, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost” (Acts. 12: 23).

Specially germane to this study is 1 Sam. 16: 14: “But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him”.

There are many more passages of this character.

In the light of this teaching it is evident that the various maladies which Jesus healed were there in the afflicted people by the will of God and under the contrivance and control of His angels j of evil.

Bible and Science

If it be objected that these sicknesses, many of them, at least, were the direct result of natural law, this must be agreed. Else, why should wise medicine so often work a cure?

Yet it has to be remembered that the Bible’s view of natural law is that all such are the direct handiwork of God, maintained in operation by His angels: “He saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth” (Job 37: 6; and many more in the same book). “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Mt. 5: 45).

When stilling the storm on Galilee, Jesus “rebuked the winds and the sea” (Mt. 8: 26). But how could these mindless elements of Nature suffer rebuke^ Is not the reader intended here to look behind the natural phenomena to the angel of the Lord by whose operation these things happened?

The Bible has no use for the brainwashing inflicted by scientists on their contemporaries. There is not a word in the Scriptures about “laws of Nature”, except to pillory the idea (Ecc. 1: 13b; 3: 10,11). “Natural Law” has become a smokescreen put out by the scientists to save people from wholesomely seeing God at work in the world of Nature.

A Fairly Accurate Concept

From all this it follows that when the people spoke of their various disabilities as “being possessed with an unclean spirit” they were marvellously near to the truth of the matter. Theologically speaking they were actually much nearer the truth than the modern pagan who attributes his attack of ‘flu to a germ. The only error was the possible concept of these demons as powers or wickedness. Yet this does not appear to have been dominant in the people’s thinking. These demons are mostly referred to as “unclean spirits”, that is, evil angels, as in Ps. 78: 49. Only twice are they called “evil spirits” (Mt. 12: 45 = Lk. 11: 26; Acts. 19: 16), in circumstances which make the term specially appropriate. (See Study 76 and also “Acts” by H.A.W. ch. 84).

Here, then, is adequate reason why Jesus would appear to accommodate himself to the idea of demon possession. Provided the notion of wicked spirits be kept out of the picture, the concept is near enough to literal truth to be tolerable.

Another Difficulty Explained

Here, also, is the explanation why the Lord addressed himself directly to the “unclean spirit”, as in Mark 1: 25: “Hold thy peace, end come out of him.” As Son of God he had authority over the angel of evil who was responsible (under God) for the distress and suffering of the afflicted creature before him. The command: “Come out of him”, was an instruction to this angel to let go the sufferer from the dominance and control which had been exercised over him hitherto.

The Lord’s acquiescence in the terminology and conventional ideas of the people regarding the problem of suffering now presents less difficulty. It is no longer a patronising take-over of crude mistaken ideas, comparable to the Catholic church’s cynical appropriation of many an ancient pagan myth or custom. It is rather, the re-statement of an old and true idea in a new and better light, for the nurturing of faith in those whom the Lord blessed with his healing power. Men were being taught to see in Jesus of Nazareth a divine authority greater than the angels, greater than any in the universe save the Almighty Himself.

Seen in this light, the sharp contrast between the profusion of demonic detail in the New Testament and their non-appearance in the Old Testament ceases to perplex. Angels of evil in the Old Testament and demons in the New Testament fulfil the same essential functions. They are two ways of saying the same thing.

With such a view of a difficult problem now available, the threadbare and quite inadequate “accommodation” theory may be safely let go.