The Concept of Blamelessness in 1 Corinthians 1:8

In 1 Cor 1:8, the Apostle Paul speaks of how Jesus keeps believers firm in the faith until the end in order that they might be “blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The word translated as blameless or guiltless is the Greek adjective ἀνέγκλητος, which means not accused or without reproach.

The translation of ἀνέγκλητος into English as blameless or guiltless is potentially problematic if the word is understood by the English reader as conveying the idea of absolute moral perfection on the day of judgment. In 1 Cor 1:8, Paul does not have the absolute moral perfection of the believer in mind. Nor does he have the absolute moral perfection of Christ imputed to the believer in mind. The blamelessness in view at this point is rather a legal status on the level of covenant obedience. The covenant obedience in mind is perseverance in faith, i.e., faithfulness to the new covenant.

An examination of the use of ἀνέγκλητος elsewhere in the New Testament illustrates this. In the four other uses of this term in the New Testament (all by Paul), three of them are clearly not talking about absolute moral perfection. In 1 Tim 3:10, being ἀνέγκλητος is a moral quality that is required to be shown by a new deacon under probation. In Tit 1:6–7, being ἀνέγκλητος is a moral quality required for ordination as an elder. Elders and deacons (before the return of Christ) will never be absolutely free of personal sin; but high moral standards, and practice consistent with these standards, are required for them to be leaders in the church of Christ. The use of ἀνέγκλητος in Col 1:22 is more difficult to adjudicate. Here Paul speaks about how God has brought about our reconciliation with himself through the death of Christ “to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him.” Paul could have the gift of being covered in the absolute moral perfection of Christ in view at this point, however the condition of continuation in the faith that is mentioned immediately following (i.e., in Col 1:23) gives cause for considering that Paul probably has the covenant righteousness of the believer in view in Col 1:22. Surprisingly perhaps, ἀνέγκλητος does not occur in the LXX; however the use of ἀνέγκλητος in 3 Macc 5:31 by King Ptolemy IV Philopator as a description of the Jews who had been fully loyal to his ancestors is a good extrabiblical instance of ἀνέγκλητος denoting general moral goodness or loyalty.

To interpret 1 Cor 1:8 and possibly Col 1:22 as Paul expressing the need for believers to present themselves before Christ on the day of judgment as personally holy (i.e., as people who have persevered in the faith) is consistent with Paul’s teaching in Phil 1:10–11, where he prays that the Philippian Christians might know what is morally good, so as to be “pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness.” It is also consistent with Paul’s teaching in 1 Thess 3:12–13, where he links abounding in love for others with God establishing “your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.” It is also consistent with Paul’s blessing in 1 Thess 5:23, where God sanctifying the believers completely is linked with the full preservation of our spirit, soul, and body “blamelessly at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul’s teaching in these passages is also consistent with Peter’s teaching in 2 Pet 3:14, where, in the context of a discussion about the end of the current state of the world, Peter encourages his readers to “be diligent to be found by [God] without spot or blemish” while waiting for the new heaven and new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

The goal of the process of sanctification is cleansing with a view to the church, and all the members thereof, being made “holy and without blemish,” in order to be presented to Christ “in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing” (Eph 5:26–27). The process of sanctification can be viewed as Christ preparing his bride for the eternal marriage that will take place on the day that he arrives. Paul’s understanding is that every Christian should be morally beautiful and pleasing to the Lord on the day that he returns on analogy with the way that a bride makes herself beautiful before meeting her husband on the day of their wedding. The moral beauty of personal righteousness, cultivated through the power of God’s word and Spirit, is the blamelessness which Paul desires that all Christians will display before the Lord on the day of Christ’s return. This is the proper conceptual framework for understanding Paul’s use of ἀνέγκλητος in 1 Cor 1:8.

The Solution to Pain and Suffering according to Revelation 21:1–4

When Christians get sick, or when things start to go wrong, we can pray to God, asking him to bring healing, deliverance, or relief. God definitely has the power to change our lives for the better in the here and now, but what do you do when it is not God’s will just yet to bring healing or relief? It is a fairly well documented fact that, for all our prayers, Christians still get sick. And it is a fact that Christians, no matter how strong their faith, still get old and eventually die. All of this poses the question, therefore: when and how will the pain and suffering end?

The Bible points to the coming of Christ as marking the point when all pain and suffering will end for God’s people. This is clear, for example, in the vision given to John in Rev 21:1–4. These verses indicate that pain and suffering will not end fully for God’s people until God brings about the renewal of the cosmos.

According to the vision that God showed John regarding the future of the world in Rev 21:1–4, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, because the first earth will have passed away. God has created the world to exist eternally, but the Bible tells us that the world as we currently know it will not exist forever. The world as we know it is a world that has suffered the effects of sin and disease and death, but God’s plan is to bring about the renewal of the world, which will result in the removal of the effects of sin, disease, and death from the world.

The new heaven and the new earth will not be totally new in the sense that God will destroy the original creation in order to replace it with a totally new creation. Just as Jesus’ resurrection body was his old body transformed, so too the new world will be a transformation, not a replacement, of the old world. God’s plan involves refining the current world through fire. The Apostle Peter states that:

“the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of the judging and destruction of ungodly people … the day of the Lord will come like a thief, when the heavens will disappear with a roar, and the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare” (2 Pet 3:7, 10)

The role of fire when the day of the Lord comes helps us to see that the new earth is the old earth refined and purified. When people refine gold, for example, they put the lump of gold which contains impurities into a furnace. The lump of gold melts and becomes liquid, allowing other substances in the lump to be separated from the gold. This allows refined gold, often up to 99.99% pure to be produced. This refined gold is not new gold. It is the old gold that has been purified. In a similar way, the fire of judgment will refine the world, transforming the old world of sin and death into the renewed world of righteousness and life. This idea of refining, plus the basic continuity in the appearance of the risen Jesus compared to the appearance of his pre-resurrection body, suggests that the new earth will basically look like the world that we currently know, but without any impurities or imperfections.

After seeing the new heaven and the new earth, John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descending from the presence of God in heaven (Rev 21:2). Jerusalem is the capital city of the kingdom of God, the place where God has chosen to establish his throne on earth. The new Jerusalem, therefore, is basically God’s palace. The perfection of the palace of the eternal King will be the centerpiece of the new world. The new Jerusalem will be beautiful, just like a bride on her wedding day.

Revelation 21:3 records the powerful voice of God explaining the significance of the coming of the new Jerusalem to John: “Behold, God’s tent is with humanity, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself with them will be their God” (Rev 21:3).

The new Jerusalem is the ultimate tabernacle, the ultimate temple, the presence of God among humanity. The coming of the new Jerusalem symbolizes the coming of God to be present in the world in a physical way. God’s plan in creating the world was for God himself to enter into our world in a physical way at some point in the future. The ultimate goal of creation, and the key purpose of the existence of the universe, is fellowship between God and humanity. Christianity is not such much about us going to be with God; it is about God coming to be with us. Immanuel: God with us! God created the human race back in the beginning with a view to being physically present with us in a fully intimate way at the time of his choosing at a certain point of time in world history. This is the significance of Jesus’ first and second comings. Having entered physically into the world in the person of Jesus, God is going to return to the world in order to be physically present in our world eternally in the person of Jesus.

The implications of the personal physical presence of God in the world are massive. According to Rev 21:4, when God appears in the person of Jesus at the time of the second coming in order to be physically present in our world eternally, this will mean the end of all forms of suffering. God can comfort us in the here and now. He can give healing and relief from pain in the here and now. But God also has a timetable. And according to God’s timetable, full relief, full healing, full comfort, will only be realized when the new Jerusalem appears.

According to Rev 21:4, on the day that Jesus returns, God will wipe away every tear from our eyes. This implies that before Jesus comes back, there will be occasions when God’s people will suffer and shed tears. This world is a world in which evil and the effects of the fall still exist, and Christians are still impacted by these negative forces. In this world, Christians still get sick, the ageing process still affects us, and like everyone else eventually we die. But continual pain and suffering are not our ultimate destiny. One day God will wipe away our tears. As a result of Christ’s return, “death will be no longer; neither sorrow, nor crying, nor pain will be any longer” (Rev 21:4).

Pain and suffering and death will not exist in the new world, because “the former things” will have passed away (Rev 21:4). Suffering is part of this world as a result of the fall. But through the refining fire of judgment, and the return of Jesus to be King over the world in a fully realized sense, the old will be swallowed up by the new, meaning that suffering and all of the other effects of the fall will finally no longer exist for those who have the privilege and right of living in the new earth.

Whatever our pain or hardship, the return of Jesus, and the resulting transformation of the cosmos, provide the ultimate solution. When Jesus returns, everything will be perfect; and those who have have been victorious over evil through faith are assured that a place in the new earth, and a full experience of the truth of Immanuel, will be their eternal destiny (Rev 21:7).

The Significance of Jesus Walking on Water in John 6:16–21

The incident involving Jesus walking on water is the fifth of the seven signs recorded in detail by John in John 2–12. It is set in the evening after the feeding of the 5,000 recorded in John 6:1–15. Like the fourth sign, its timing is significant. Jesus’ encounter with the Jews in Jerusalem recorded in John 5 had raised the following questions: Is Jesus the prophet like Moses (something implied in the argument of John 5:45–47); and is he equal with God (John 5:18)? It is very significant, therefore, that Jesus is shown to have the power to walk on water, since walking on water is considered in the Old Testament to be uniquely an activity of God. By walking on water, Jesus thus showed himself to be divine and also greater than Moses. Moses after all had to wait until God made dry land appear before he could lead Israel across the sea at the time of the exodus, whereas Jesus had no such need. Jesus’ divinity can not only be seen in the fact of his walking on water, but also via his I am statement, and through the detail of the immediate arrival of the boat at its destination.

Summarizing the immediate events leading up to Jesus’walking on water, Jesus’ disciples had gotten into a boat to travel from the south-eastern area of the Sea of Galilee to Capernaum, a journey of some 10–15 km (John 6:17). A strong wind had been blowing, and when the disciples had reached to about halfway across the lake, they observed Jesus walking on the sea and approaching the boat (John 6:18–19). Jesus walking on the water is a theologically significant activity. It is a clear sign of Jesus’ deity. According to Old Testament teaching, only God has power over the sea (e.g., Gen 1:6–7, 9; Exod 14:21; 15:8; Job 26:12; 41:31; Ps 33:7; 74:13; 95:5; 104:6–7; 107:25, 29; Isa 51:15). God is exalted above the sea (Ps 93:3–4; 104:3). Job 9:8 teaches that God “treads upon the waves of the sea” (see also Isa 43:16; Ps 77:19). The sea is also a symbol of the forces of chaos (Gen 1:2; Ps 88:9–10; Isa 51:9–10; Dan 7:2–3; Rev 13:1; 21:1). Sinking into water is also an Old Testament metaphor for death (Ps 69:14–15). By walking on water, Jesus proved that he is divine, and that he has power over the forces of chaos and death. This sign, therefore, gives clear evidence to prove that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, with power and authority equal with the Father (contra the attitude of the Jews in 5:18).

Jesus walking on the water and approaching the boat initially only provoked fear in the disciples; but responding to this fear, Jesus said, “It is I. Do not be afraid” (John 6:20). Both clauses in Jesus’ response are significant. The clause translated as it is I literally reads as I am (ἐγώ εἰμι) in the original Greek. The expression ἐγώ εἰμι often functions in Greek as the equivalent of the English it is I or it is me. Nevertheless, in a context which stresses Jesus’ deity, we are most likely meant to understand Jesus’ I am statement as echoing the divine name Yahweh, which is linked in Exod 3:14 with the Hebrew verb אהיה I am. The implication is, therefore, that Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh (see also Isa 41:4; 43:10). Jesus’ I am statements occur elsewhere in John’s Gospel (see John 4:26; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5–6, 8). There are also many I am X statements made by Jesus in John’s Gospel (e.g., 6:35, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 11). Jesus’ command do not be afraid also echoes similar statements made by God elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Gen 26:24; Exod 14:13; Deut 31:6, 8; and especially Isa 43:1–2, 5). Because none other than Yahweh was with them, they need not have been afraid.

Jesus boarded the boat presumably shortly after his disciples had rowed “about twenty-five or thirty stadia” (John 6:19). One stadium is about 185 m in length. This means that the disciples had rowed about 5 km, which indicates that their location at that point was about halfway across the lake. Yet in John 6:21 we read that when Jesus got into the boat, “immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.” Jesus delivered his disciples safely and almost instantaneously through the stormy sea to their destination. This detail is theologically significant, because guiding people through a stormy sea safely to the shore is a divine act according to the Old Testament (see Ps 107:23–30; see also Jonah 1:11–17; 2:10).

All in all, the sign of Jesus’ walking on water functions in John’s Gospel to prove Jesus’ divinity.

The Theme of Repentance in the Book of Hosea

The theme of repentance or Israel’s turning back to Yahweh is a rather prominent theme in the book of Hosea. One of Israel’s particular sins leading up to the time of the exile was a lack of repentance. The Israelites’ wickedness had kept them from repentance (Hos 5:4). Judgment had come down against Israel because of her arrogance; but despite this, Israel had refused to turn back to Yahweh (Hos 7:10, 16). The deportation at the hands of the Assyrian army took place because of Israel’s refusal to repent (Hos 11:5). Because they had turned away from God, God would not listen to their cries, or exalt them (during the period of the exile), despite their crying out to him in prayer (Hos 11:7).

Despite the inevitability of judgment, repentance was still necessary for the people of Israel. Hosea called upon the people to return to God, to show kindness, do justice, and to put their hope in God (Hos 12:6). In the light of God’s commitment to restore Israel in the future, Israel was called upon to return to God (Hos 6:1). Israel was to return to Yahweh, and ask for forgiveness (Hos 14:1–2).

Hosea prophesies that after the period of the exile (during which she would not have any king or functioning priesthood), Israel would return to Yahweh and to the Davidic king (i.e., the Messiah), and experience God’s blessing as a result (Hos 3:4–5). Recoiling at the judgment that he had brought against Israel, God promised that he would not turn back to destroy Ephraim (a synecdoche for Israel) ever again.

The Theme of Kingship in the Book of Hosea

Kingship is a rather prominent theme in the book of Hosea. Israel’s kings and princes rejoiced in evil (Hos 7:3). The princes were drunkards and full of treachery and political intrigue (Hos 7:4–7). None of the kings of the northern kingdom had been set up with God’s approval (Hos 8:4).

Hosea preached that judgment was coming against the king of Israel (Hos 5:1). The king of Israel was going to be destroyed (Hos 10:7, 15). Like a twig floating on the surface of a body of water, Israel’s king was going to perish (Hos 10:7). The king of Israel would “be utterly cut off” (Hos 10:15). Following this, Israel would be devoid of a king for a long period of time (Hos 3:4), i.e., during the time of the exile and beyond.

Surprisingly, the king who is acknowledged in the book of Hosea as being “great” and “mighty” is the king of Assyria (Hos 5:13; 10:6)! Israel had sought to overcome her internal weaknesses by turning to Assyria as an ally, but in the end Assyria would not provide any genuine help to Israel (Hos 5:13). Indeed, the tribute paid to foreign nations (particularly to Assyria) would end up making the situation far worse for Israel’s king and princes (Hos 8:10). The idolatrous calf of Bethel would end up being carried off as tribute for the king of Assyria (Hos 10:6). Because of the Israelites' refusal to turn to God, Assyria would be their king (Hos 11:5).

The execution of divine judgment against Israel, however, would cause her to lose faith in kingship (whether divine or human) as an institution (Hos 10:3). This stands in contrast to the false expectations that many Israelites had harbored previously with respect to the ability of human kings and princes to provide salvation (Hos 13:10; see also 1 Sam 8:19–20). The kings of Israel had been permitted by God to reign out of divine anger, and their end also came about as a consequence of God’s wrath (Hos 13:11).

The restoration of Israel, however, would see Israel turning back to Yahweh, which would involve at the same time Israel’s turning back to the Davidic king (Hos 3:5). This is significant because the northern kingdom had been in rebellion against the Davidic king (i.e., the king of Judah) since the days of Rehoboam. At this time, Israel would rightly lose faith in the false saving abilities of Assyria and human military might (Hos 14:3).

Exodus Typology in the Book of Hosea

The book of Hosea exhibits a significant exodus typology. Typology is the phenomenon where aspects of present or future salvation history are modeled on persons, institutions, or events from past salvation history. The exodus typology of Hosea centers on the idea that Israel’s exile in Assyria is like a return to Egypt (Hos 8:13; 11:5). The background to this typology is the reality of the original exodus from Egypt (Hos 11:1; 12:9, 13). The punishment of exile, involving expulsion from the promised land, can be thought of, therefore, as being a kind of reversal of the exodus (Hos 9:3; 12:9).

Like Adam, who was brought from the wilderness into the garden (Gen 2:5–8), and then later expelled from the garden in order to return to the wilderness on account of his covenant rebellion (Gen 3:17–18, 23–24), Israel, having passed through the wilderness on the way to the promised land (Hos 13:5), would likewise leave the Holy Land to return to the wilderness on account of her covenant rebellion (Hos 2:3, 14).

But if the exile to Assyria constituted a reversal of the exodus, then God’s commitment to ultimately bring blessing upon Israel means that Israel’s future restoration can be pictured as constituting a new or second exodus (Hos 11:11). At this time of future restoration, Israel would sing like she had done previously in her youth when first rescued from Egypt (Hos 2:15; compare with Exod 15:1–21). This new exodus would mark the end of Israel’s exile from the presence of the Lord.

The Theme of Love in the Book of Hosea

The concept of love is an important theme in the book of Hosea. One of Israel’s problems was that her love had been misdirected. Instead of keeping her covenant vow of exclusive love towards her “first husband, ”Yahweh, the one true God (Hos 2:7), Israel in the pre-exilic period turned to other gods and nations in a misguided effort to ensure her survival. Instead of trusting in Yahweh and his provision and protection, Israel decided to act like a prostitute, chasing after lovers whom she mistakenly thought would provide her with bread, water, wool, flax, oil, and drink (Hos 2:5). She chased after her lovers, but forgot the Lord (Hos 2:13). Her love for Yahweh was as fleeting as morning mist and dew (Hos 6:4). She loved the Baals and other idols instead of Yahweh (Hos 2:8, 13; 9:10; 11:2; 13:1). This betrayal would prove to be counterproductive with God punishing Israel for her lewdness, her former lovers (Egypt and Assyria—see Hos 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 12:1; 14:3) impotent to save her (Hos 2:10).

Contrasting with Israel’s unfaithfulness stands Yahweh’s great love for his people. At least three different metaphors are used in the book of Hosea to illustrate God’s love for Israel.

Firstly, God’s covenant relationship with Israel is like a marriage, and despite Israel’s unfaithfulness, God still loved Israel. Yahweh’s plan was to woo Israel back after the exile, and betroth her again to himself (Hos 2:15, 19–20). It is an amazing form of love that could forgive such great unfaithfulness on the part of Israel, the wayward wife of Yahweh. In large part, the message of the book of Hosea is that “Yahweh loves the people of Israel, even though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins” (Hos 3:1). Indeed, this husband and wife relationship between Yahweh and Israel was dramatized through Hosea’s marriage and remarriage to Gomer (Hos 1:2–3; 3:1–3). Hosea’s rocky relationship with Gomer was a dramatized prophecy of the breakdown of the marriage between God and Israel as well as their future reconciliation (Hos 2:19–20; 14:4). At the time of reconciliation, the name of Baal (which means master or husband) would no longer be used of God, given its negative association with Baal the idol, but solely the term אישׁי my husband (Hos 2:16–17).

The second major metaphor of God’s love in the book of Hosea is the touching metaphor of a father’s love for his son in Hos 11:1–3. God pictures himself as a father who called his child, who taught him how to walk, who cuddled and healed his son when he was sick. Yet “the more that [God] called out to [Israel], the more [he] turned away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning offerings to idols.”

The third major metaphor of love in the book of Hosea is that of a farmer who takes care of his domestic animals. God pictures himself as a gentle farmer who leads his treasured animals, eases their yolk, and feeds them lovingly (Hos 11:4). God’s heart was deeply pained to see his people destroyed in judgment, and his compassion would spare Israel from total destruction (11:8–9).

The Folly of Suretyship according to Proverbs 6:1–5

An important part of being wise, according to the Old Testament, is knowing what constitutes foolishness and avoiding such behavior. In Prov 6:1–19, Solomon identifies ten different acts of folly, the first of which is the folly of going surety for others. Standing as surety or going guarantor means promising to take on the debt of someone else if that person defaults on the debt on question. A variation of this is putting up a certain amount of one’s assets as security in order for someone else to get a loan.

From the perspective of the wisdom literature in the Old Testament, going guarantor for someone else is not a good idea. Standing surety for someone else is putting yourself in a trap (Prov 6:1–2). If the other person defaults on their debt repayments, then you are stuck with it, like a gazelle caught by a hunter, or like a bird caught in a trap (Prov 6:5).

Solomon’s teaching here is consistent with what we see elsewhere in the Bible. In Prov 22:26–27, in the sayings of the wise, it says: “Do not be someone who strikes hands in pledge or goes surety for debts; if you lack the means to pay, why should your very bed be snatched from under you?” Similar teaching about avoiding going surety for someone else is found in Prov 11:15; 17:18.

From the biblical perspective, being in debt is generally a bad situation to be in, so why would you want to take on the debt of someone else? There is an old Assyrian proverb which says: “I have hauled sand; I have carried salt; but nothing is heavier than debt” (see Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient East [3rd ed.; Mahwah: Paulist, 2006], 306). Debt is something to avoid if at all possible.

For those who have fallen into the trap of going guarantor for someone else, Solomon says that such a person should not sleep until he has liberated himself from standing as surety (Prov 6:4–5). In Prov 6:3, Solomon advocates grovelling forcefully with the creditor in order to negotiate a release from such an obligation.

True Worship according to Paul in Romans 12:1

How many people when they think of Christianity think that being a Christian is a matter of sitting in church on Sunday, singing a few hymns, and putting money in the offering bag? Is that all there is to Christianity?

Christianity is not about sitting in church. It is about transformation! Paul understood that God’s plan of salvation, which encompasses Jews as well as Gentiles, has implications for how we live. Being a Christian involves following God’s way of life.

Paul writes in Rom 12:1 about this transformed way of life in Christ in terms of believers presenting their bodies as living sacrifices to God. In ancient Israel, worship at the temple involved bringing sacrifices to God. These were offered up as symbols of a person’s dedication to God. These sacrifices usually consisted of animals that were dedicated to God by being killed. In being killed, they were being removed from ordinary human use, and handed over to God for his use. Paul indicates that Christians should view themselves as sacrifices, but we are called to be a living sacrifice, not a dead sacrifice. The idea here is not that we serve God by literally dying for him like an Old Testament sacrifice, but that we serve God as we live in our bodies in the here and now. Every day of our life is supposed to be dedicated to God.

Paul describes the kind of sacrifice that we are to be in terms of being holy and pleasing to God. The concept of holiness in Greek has connotations of that which inspires religious awe or fear, or that which is fitting or appropriate in a sacred context. But underlying this Greek word is the use of the word קדוש in the Hebrew Bible. קדוש expresses the idea of separation from common use in order to be consecrated to God. Being holy means that we are to give ourselves over to God for his service. Being a living sacrifice that is holy and pleasing to God means that we are to be dedicated in our service to God in a way that is appropriate in terms of what God desires.

Paul says that dedicating ourselves as a living sacrifice constitutes our spiritual worship. The word translated as spiritual in the NIV usually means rational or reasonable. The word translated as worship means service, and has connotations of the service that the Levitical priests offered to God in the tabernacle/temple. What then is this rational worship? It involves using our thoughts and minds to direct our bodies in the service of God. Paul speaks about the need for a mind-transformation in Rom 12:2, so he probably wants us to understand that being a living sacrifice for God as we engage our minds for him in our daily lives is the kind of worship that we are to show. This service is mind-full, always mindful of God and what pleases him. This is the kind of worship that God desires, and it contrasts with the physical worship of God that took place in the temple in Jerusalem. For Paul, therefore, Christian worship is basically a new way of life based on a new way of thinking.

The motivation for us in offering ourselves in this kind of worship is particularly God’s compassion that has been shown to us in his plan of salvation. All human beings (apart from Christ) have sinned, but God has chosen to be compassionate. The meaning of the word translated as mercy in the NIV indicates that God has identified with our pain or grief. As the word compassion implies, God has felt our feelings. God has felt our passions of pain or grief, and has been moved to do something to help us. Seeing us tormented on the pathway of death, God sent Jesus into the world to rescue us; and a key part of that rescue involves us being set upon the way of life, no longer serving sin but serving God instead. God does not have to save anyone, but he has! And in response to his mercy, it behooves his people to respond to his compassion by offering themselves in grateful service to him.

Giving God the First Part of Our Income

One of the characteristics of a wise person, according to Solomon in Prov 3:9, is prioritizing the use of one’s resources for God: “Honor Yahweh from your wealth, from the first part of all your produce.”

The question for Christians in the light of this is: how often do we have God at number one on our shopping list? Most of us spend money firstly on the things that we need to spend money on; and if we have any money left over, then this is either used on purchasing discretionary items or saved. If you have a family, there is always the weekly shopping to do. Then there is the phone bill, the broadband bill, the electricity bill, the water bill, and petrol for the car. If you do not have a family or are still living at home, then you tend to spend your money on yourself … what clothes you might like or the latest gadget you want to buy. Some of us may currently be saving up money in the hope of buying a house one day, or maybe your eye is on going overseas for a holiday. The problem is that we plan all of our own expenditure before being concerned about how we can promote God’s work in the world. We spend money during the week, and sometimes it is only when Sunday arrives that we think about giving a little bit back to God.

But Solomon says the first part of our produce or income should be given over to God. The teaching in this verse reflects the laws of Exod 23:19; 34:26; Num 18:12; Deut 18:4, which state that “the first part of the firstfruits of the ground” should be brought to the Lord in the temple. How many of us when we receive a pay cheque, or when our wages are paid into our account, think straight away about we can use some of that money for God and his purposes? If you were suddenly to receive a cheque for $100,000, what thought would come to your mind? Great, now I can pay off my mortgage faster! Or great, now I can go overseas on holiday for three months! Or great, now I can buy a new car, and still have some left over! Instead, the proper response should be something like: Wow, God has given me these tremendous financial resources; how can I use some of this for him by promoting the work of his church or through caring for those in need! What we immediately think in our heads as we receive the money in our hands shows up our priorities. The wise person has contributing to God’s work as a priority. God should be first on our list of expenditure.

When giving to the church or to Christian causes, we should not think that this is lost money. Obviously to give to the church to the point that we cannot provide for ourselves or our family is not correct, but having said that God actually tells us that having his expenditure at the top of our list is the way to wealth. Proverbs 3:10 teaches that the generosity that we show towards God is multiplied back to us as God generously responds. Storehouses filled with abundance, wine vats bursting with new wine … all of this is a picture of God’s blessing (both physical and spiritual) upon those who generously contribute to God’s plan for the extension of his kingdom in the world.

Torah Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs

I have argued previously that the concept of wisdom in the Old Testament is torah-centric, and that Jesus’ definition of wisdom in Matt 7:24 also functions as a neat summary of the Old Testament definition of human wisdom, namely, that being wise involves hearing and doing the word of God (see “The Old Testament Concept of Wisdom” for further details).

This view is supported by the book of Proverbs, where wisdom is closely linked with torah. For example, Prov 28:4, 7, 9; 29:18 speak about hearing, keeping, or forsaking the law. The law in question at this point ought to be understood in the original context as being the law of Moses. This conclusion is reached on the basis of the fact that Prov 28:4, 7, 9; 29:18 are proverbs of Solomon (see Prov 25:1), and that Solomon’s wisdom is strongly connected in the historical narrative of the Bible with the law of Moses (e.g., 1 Kgs 2:3; 3:3, 14; see also 1 Kgs 8:25, 58, 61; 2 Chr 7:17–20). In fact, from the point of view of the Mosaic covenant, keeping the Mosaic law was Israel’s wisdom (Deut 4:6). The law of Moses was able to make wise the simple (Ps 19:7; 119:130). Solomon also clearly knew of the Mosaic covenant and called upon Israel to be committed to this covenant (1 Kgs 8:56–61).

Given the close connection in the Old Testament between wisdom and the law of Moses, and given that the language of Prov 1–9 recalls the language of the exhortatory passages of Deuteronomy, the voice of the father in chapters 1–9 is best understood as an example of generalized sophistic covenant instruction. Solomon’s instruction is generalized and sophistic in the sense that instead of being an Israelite father passing on the laws of and the historical rationale behind the covenant to his son (such as we see, for example, in Deut 6:6–9, 20–25), Solomon appears as the “father” of the nation passing down a form of covenant instruction, expressed in the conceptual categories of the wisdom tradition (where wisdom and understanding obtained by means of listening to and accepting divine instruction leads to life) to all his subjects.

The use of the word תורה thirteen times in the book of Proverbs (in Prov 1:8; 3:1; 4:2; 6:20, 23; 7:2; 13:14; 28:4, 7, 9; 29:18; 31:26), where it is usually translated as teaching, also serves to make clear the connection between wisdom and torah. The word תורה is derived from the Hebrew root which denotes instruction or direction. There are also proverbs that mention obedience to “the word” or “the commandments,” or the need for such to be received into the heart (e.g., Prov 2:1; 3:1; 13:13; 16:20; 19:16). All of this suggests that there is a close connection between the concept of wisdom in the book of Proverbs and the torah of Moses. As taught elsewhere in the Old Testament, wisdom is, in effect, the outworking of divine law in the heart.

A Summary of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs

Wisdom is the major theme in the book of Proverbs. The wisdom taught in Proverbs is not some kind of general human knowledge gained by way of human contemplation and reflection on the facts of life, but knowledge concerning God and his way that is ultimately communicated to humanity by God himself through torah.

The book of Proverbs teaches that God used wisdom in creating the world (Prov 3:19–20). The idea of the seven pillars and the the high places of the town in Prov 9:1, 3, 14 relates Wisdom and Folly to the concept of temple. Wisdom is closely associated with sanctuary building in the Old Testament (see Exod 31:2; 35:30–36:1; 2 Chr 2:13). An important theological connection exists between God’s wisdom in building the earth as a sanctuary (where God and humanity relate together) and the God-given wisdom of people like Bezalel and Solomon, who were used by God to build the tabernacle/temple.

Because God is the source of wisdom, all wisdom comes as a gift from him (Prov 2:6). Wisdom is of great value (Prov 4:7; 8:10–11; 16:16). Wisdom is readily available (Prov 1:20–21; 8:1–5); but we need to get hold of, to love, and to never forsake wisdom (Prov 4:5, 7). We need to pay attention to it (Prov 5:1), to listen to the voice of wisdom (Prov 2:2; 8:6), to search for wisdom like searching for hidden treasure (Prov 2:4). The person who possesses wisdom is blessed (Prov 3:13; 8:32–34). Wisdom provides protection (Prov 4:6), honor (Prov 4:8), splendor (Prov 4:9), and life (Prov 8:35; 9:6).

The Identity of the “We” Who Speak and Testify in John 3:11

In John 3:11 Jesus is reported as saying to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have beheld, yet you do not receive our testimony.” The main question in this verse is: to whom do the pronouns we and our refer?

The options suggested are that the pronouns we and our refer either to Jesus and his disciples, to the Trinity, to Jesus via a plural of majesty, or to Jesus and the Old Testament prophets (including John the Baptist).

Out of all of these options, it makes more sense in the context to take the pronouns we and our as referring to Jesus and the Old Testament prophets. Jesus links the concepts of speaking and testifying with knowing and beholding or seeing. In Jewish thinking, it is supremely the prophets who pass on what has been revealed to them. The prophets were people who heard or saw the mysteries of God, and passed such truths on to God’s people. The fact that John the Baptist has previously appeared speaking and testifying (see John 1:6–9, 19, 29–33, especially 1:34) helps to confirm this linkage.

The pronoun you in the final clause of this verse is in the plural. This pronoun refers, therefore, not just to Nicodemus, but to the Jewish leadership viewed as a whole. Overall, the meaning of this verse is that the Jewish people viewed as a whole did not receive the testimony of the prophets. The rejection of the prophetic word by old covenant Israel was a problem that Israel had experienced throughout her history, but it reached its climax with the Jewish rejection of the testimony of Jesus the Messiah.

“The Wind Blows Where It Wills”: The Meaning of Jesus’ Teaching in John 3:8

What did Jesus mean when he said: “The wind blows where it wills. You hear its sound, but do not know where it is coming from and where it is going. Thus is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8)?

To understand the meaning of Jesus’ teaching in this verse, we need first of all to recognize that there is a play on the double sense of the noun πνεῦμα in this verse. πνεῦμα can be translated as wind or spirit. John is deliberately playing on the dual sense of πνεῦμα as wind or spirit, drawing an analogy between the wind and the Holy Spirit. Wind is considered in the Bible to be a phenomenon that, like the waves of the sea, is beyond the control of human beings (e.g., Job 38:24; Ps 107:25; Prov 30:4). Just as the wind blows wherever God wills, so also God’s Spirit blows wherever God wills. That is to say, God’s Spirit works in a sovereign way.

Just as people cannot see the wind but can hear the sound of the wind blowing, so also the Spirit of God cannot physically be seen with human eyes but we can perceive his effects on the objects which he touches. The concept of the sound of the wind as an image of the movement of the Spirit finds an echo in the events of the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, when the sound of a mighty rushing wind from heaven was heard as the Spirit came down upon the early church (Acts 2:2). The movement of God’s Spirit cannot be predicted or controlled by human beings, but we can perceive his effects as people’s lives are transformed by the power of God’s Spirit.

The point of Jesus’ analogy between the wind and the Spirit is stated in the final clause of the verse: “Thus is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” The point of the wind/spirit analogy is that the beneficiaries of rebirth by the Holy Spirit are not determined by human beings. In the context of the concern on the Gospel of John with the ethnically universal nature of salvation provided through Jesus, and given that Jesus was currently directing this teaching to Nicodemus, a representative of the teachers of Israel (John 3:9–10), the implication of Jesus’ analogy in this verse is that it is not right for Jews to think that the saving work of the Spirit is solely limited to Israel.

Although covenant membership is inherited according to physical descent—a principle which applies under the new covenant as well as the old (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 7:14)—the work of the Spirit during the new covenant age exhibits a greater scope compared to the situation under the old covenant. Under the old covenant, the work of God’s Spirit was limited to operate primarily within the boundary of covenant membership in Israel. But under the new covenant, God’s Spirit operates not just within Israel, but extensively beyond the borders of Israel. Furthermore, even within the constraint of covenant membership, it is not the case that everyone in covenant with God is a recipient of the saving work of the Spirit. The determining factor for salvation under both the old and the new covenants is not formal covenant membership but whether or not a person has experienced the work of God’s Spirit writing God’s word upon one’s heart. Those who have God’s law written in the heart are those who are right with God and who therefore experience salvation (e.g., Ps 37:29; Isa 51:7; Rom 2:28–29).

Regeneration by the Spirit, therefore, remains a sovereign act of God. God has mercy on whomever he wills, the implication being, that he has mercy on “everyone,” which is to say, on Gentile as well as Jew. This is the sense in which the Spirit blows where he wills.

The Parable of the Sower and the Danger of Temporary Faith

Without denying the truth of the perseverance of the saints (i.e., that the elect will persevere in faith and definitely be saved), it is important for Christians to know that it is possible for faith to be temporary. This is a truth that Jesus taught in the parable of the sower in Matt 13:1–9, 18–23 (see also Mark 4:1–9, 13–20; Luke 8:4–8, 11–15).

A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Satan can snatch the word of God from people’s hearts before it has time to take root (Matt 13:4, 19).

Some seed fell on rocky places, where there was not much soil. The seed sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. The seed sown among the rocky soil symbolizes those who hear God’s word and who receive it joyfully, but when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away, because the word of God has not been received deeply into their hearts (Matt 13:5–6, 20–21).

Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. The seed sown among thorns symbolizes those who hear God’s word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth end up strangling the life out of them, making them unfruitful (Matt 13:7, 22).

But some seed fell on good soil, and it grew up to produce a crop, a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown (Matt 13:8).

Out of these four different types of soil, it was only the good soil that allowed the seed to produce a positive harvest. This represents the person who hears and understands the word of God (Matt 13:23).

In three out of the four soils mentioned by Jesus there was some kind of growth, some kind of response to God’s word. In three out of the four soils the seed germinated and was alive for a certain period of time. But only in one of these three situations was there enduring life and growth to maturity that resulted in the positive outcome of fruitfulness.

Because faith can be temporary, encouraging his disciples to persevere in the faith was an important part of Jesus’ ministry.

Understanding the Flesh versus Spirit Distinction in John 3:6

The content of John 3:6, where Jesus says “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” is supposed to be understood in the context of Jesus explaining further to Nicodemus the concept of Spiritual rebirth, which Nicodemus had misunderstood as if Jesus were talking to him about a literal rebirth. Being born again physically will not help anyone. Even if being born again could literally happen, a person born again could live another lifetime, but in the end would still have to die, or else endure a cycle of multiple deaths and rebirths. The reality of the death of what is flesh is implied in Jesus’ statement that what is born of the flesh is flesh. Human beings born into the world have no hope of eternal life unless they have God’s Spirit in their hearts; and since the fall, ordinary human nature is devoid of God’s Spirit.

The important thing for true human existence, therefore, is whether or not a person “is spirit” in the sense of possessing the Spirit. The determining factor for salvation is having God’s Spirit, for “the Spirit gives life” (John 6:63; see also Ezek 37:14; 2 Cor 3:6). A person who is born physically will die, but one who is born of the Spirit is spirit in the sense that he or she cannot die (the second death), and so will live forever (John 1:13; Rom 8:6).

Therefore, the flesh versus spirit distinction in John 3:6 (as generally throughout Scripture where a flesh versus spirit framework is applied to human beings) is not to be understood in terms of Greek philosophical dualism, where flesh and spirit indicate the corporeal and incorporeal realms of existence respectively. The Bible can talk of human beings as being either spirits or spiritual wherever human nature is energised in a salvific way by God’s Spirit (e.g., 1 Cor 3:1; 15:44–45; see also Rom 8:9). The biblical presentation of flesh versus spirit can be summarized as follows:

human(ity) - God’s Spirit = flesh 

human + God’s Spirit = spirit

Jesus’ point is that regeneration by God’s Spirit is what transforms a person from flesh to spirit. God’s Spirit transforms a person destined to die into one who can live forever in the presence and blessing of God.

The Meaning of the Phrase ‘Born of Water and Spirit’ in John 3:5

Jesus’ statement in John 3:5—“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!”—is an amplification of Jesus’ prior statement to Nicodemus in 3:3 concerning the condition for seeing the kingdom of God. The equivalent of being born again or being born from above is literally being born of water and spirit. In the context of John 3:6, 8, where Jesus is arguably talking about the Holy Spirit, it makes sense to translate the phrase born of water and spirit (γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος) in John 3:5 as born of water and the Spirit, where Spirit indicates the Holy Spirit.

To be born of water and the Spirit means, therefore, to experience Spiritual regeneration, which ultimately is the work of God. This is the primary idea in John 3:5, but a question remains concerning to extent to which the term water in John 3:5 indicates water baptism. In regard to this issue, the structure of the phrase of water and spirit, where two co-ordinate nouns are governed by a single preposition (i.e., ἐξ), suggests a close connection between water and Spirit. Since Gentile converts to Judaism were considered to become like newborn children through proselyte baptism (which was performed in order to cleanse them from their Gentile impurity), it is quite likely that the word water would have conveyed the idea of baptism, or at least some kind of ceremonial washing, to a Jewish audience, including Nicodemus. Elsewhere in John’s writings where the concepts of spirit and water are placed in close proximity, namely, in 1 John 5:8, spirit refers to the Holy Spirit, and water to Jesus’ baptism.

Jesus’ mention of water and spirit is also to be understood (as it most likely would have been in a Jewish context) in the light of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant age. The Old Testament prophets foresaw a time when God would work through his Spirit to bring Israel back to himself in covenant obedience (see Deut 30:6; Jer 31:31–33; Ezek 36:24–27). In particular, Ezekiel 36:24–27 pictures the future work of the Spirit as being like water sprinkled upon Israel to cleanse her from her uncleanness. Therefore, understanding the phrase born of water and spirit in John 3:5, in conjunction with the idea of the kingdom of God, on Jesus’ lips, in a Jewish context, leads us to take the phrase born of water and spirit to be referring to conversion or baptism by the Holy Spirit.

But it should be noted at this point that baptism in the Holy Spirit was viewed by the early church as ordinarily taking place at the point of Christian (water) baptism (e.g., Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 12:13; Tit 3:5), following the model of Jesus’ baptism, in which there was a conjunction of water and the Spirit (Luke 3:21–22). Exceptions to the rule of the conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit in baptism only happened at special stages in God’s plan of salvation, such as at Pentecost (Acts 1:15), at the conversion of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–18), and at the conversion of the first Gentiles (Acts 10:24–48), matching the pattern of the evangelistic mandate in Acts 1:8, where the gospel was to be preached in Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (i.e., to the Gentiles). Apart from these exceptions, at least as far as adult converts were concerned, baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit were considered in the early church as taking place together. This led to the view in the early church that the eschatological gift of the Spirit was received through faith at the time of conversion, i.e., at the point of Christian baptism.

It is most likely, therefore, that John’s audience, both Christian and non-Christian, would have understood the phrase of water and spirit in connection with Christian baptism, which marked the point of conversion to Christianity. Conversion to Christianity is the necessary condition for entering the kingdom of God, where entering the kingdom of God is itself a metaphor for coming into the possession of salvation, which involves having the right to live in the presence of God and to experience his blessing. All in all, the significance of Jesus’ teaching in John 3:5 is that Christian conversion, which formally takes place at Christian baptism, which marks the official reception of the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit on the part of the baptizand, is necessary in order for individuals to experience salvation in the kingdom of God.

Born Again or Born from Above? The Concept of Spiritual Rebirth in John 3:3

When Nicodemus came by night to visit Jesus, he had only just offered his greetings to Jesus when Jesus spoke to him about the condition for salvation in the kingdom of God. Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). As a pious Jew, Nicodemus would have been greatly interested in this issue; but Jesus’ raising of this topic so early in his conversation with Nicodemus definitely highlights the importance of it in Jesus’ thinking.

Unpacking the meaning of Jesus’ statement, the expression truly, truly, I say to you occurs 25 times in John’s Gospel, where it usually introduces sayings of Jesus of particular significance. The use of this expression by Jesus also highlights the fact that Jesus has come into the world to speak the truth (e.g., John 8:40, 45–46; 14:6; 17:17; 18:37).

The word ἄνωθεν, which is often translated as again as in the phrase born again also means from above. In a Jewish context it would be most natural to take ἄνωθεν as being a Jewish circumlocution for from heaven or ultimately from God. It is clear from Nicodemus’s response in John 3:4, however, that ἄνωθεν could also mean again, and this is primarily how Nicodemus understood it. As far as Jesus’ use of ἄνωθεν is concerned, it is likely that Jesus used the word in John 3:3 with deliberate ambiguity but at the same time with the sense of from above primarily in mind. This is apparent from the substitution of the expression by water and spirit for ἄνωθεν in Jesus’ explication of his statement in John 3:3 in John 3:5. The concept of being born again in a spiritual sense should have been familiar to Nicodemus as a reference to conversion, given that Jewish rabbis spoke about Gentile conversion to Judaism as the beginning of a new life.

The expression to see the kingdom of God simply means to experience, to be a part of, the kingdom of God. It is a synonymous concept with entering the kingdom of God (see John 3:5). New birth, a spiritual rebirth engineered from above, is the condition of salvation. This teaching could have been rather controversial for Nicodemus, had he understood Jesus’ intended meaning, because the implication of Jesus’ teaching was that more is needed for the Jews to be right with God than adherence to the law of Moses. A new birth, connected with faith in Jesus, is what is needed in order to experience salvation in the kingdom of God.

In terms of the wider context of the Jewish-Christian polemics relevant to John’s readership—where Christian Jews were facing opposition from many non-Christian Jews—Jesus’ teaching would clearly have been quite controversial. In effect, Jesus was stating that Jews need to be converted out of Judaism (symbolized in its purest form in Jesus’ day by Pharisaism, of which Nicodemus was an adherent) to Christianity, which was distinguished from traditional Judaism by the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.

The Meaning of Jesus Not Entrusting Himself in John 2:24

Most English translations of John 2:24 do not make much sense to the average reader. Many Jews, who saw the miracles that Jesus had been performing, “believed in his name”; but Jesus either “did not commit himself” (KJV), “did not trust himself” (ASV), “did not entrust himself” (ESV), or “would not entrust himself” (NIV) to these new believers. But what does it mean that Jesus did not commit or entrust himself to others?

It is good that many people believed in Jesus as a result of the miraculous signs that he had performed. Christians know that “there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10), yet Jesus in John 2:24 does not seem to have responded to the conversion of a large number of people with a great deal of enthusiasm.

The key to making sense of Jesus’ response here is to note that the word translated as commit or entrust in John 2:24 is from the Greek verb πιστεύω, the same word that is often translated as believe. In fact, the verb πιστεύω occurs in the previous verse: “many believed [ἐπίστευσαν] in his name.” The repetition of πιστεύω in adjacent verses suggests that there is a kind of play on the word πιστεύω at this point. Many believed in Jesus, but Jesus did not believe in them! These people claimed to be followers of Jesus, but Jesus was not confident in them, and could not confide himself in them.

But why did Jesus not believe in these new converts? A large number of people being converted and coming to faith is surely a time for celebration … but only if such faith is a true faith that endures to the end. Jesus knew, however, that he would end up being rejected by the majority of the Jewish people of his day. He was cognizant of the fact that many of the people who believed in him at the start of his public ministry would end up abandoning him. Jesus knew the fickleness of people’s faith in him.

Further explanation is given in John 2:25. Jesus did not need anyone to tell him what human beings are like, because he himself knows what we are like on the inside. Jesus was well aware of the weakness of human nature, and just how fickle human commitment can be. Jesus knew that in the end he would be rejected by the majority of the Jewish nation, just as God had been rejected by the majority of Israel during the time of the Old Testament, and just as God had been rejected by Adam and the human race more generally throughout the centuries beforehand.

The Jewish rejection of the Messiah is a one of the key themes of John’s Gospel. Many Jews believed in Jesus, but only for a time. Jesus had crowds of people following him around the countryside. This reached fever pitch particularly after the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. Free food! Exciting preacher! Who wouldn’t want to be one of his disciples?

But when Jesus started teaching the people things that they could not readily accept, or when opposition or persecution arose, many of these believers ended up abandoning him (see John 6:60, 66). We are also told in John’s Gospel that there were many in the Jewish leadership at the time who also believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but sadly they were not prepared to confess this belief out of fear of being ostracized from Jewish society (John 12:42).

The Christian confession of faith that “Jesus is the Christ” is a necessary cause for celebration, but true Christian faith is more than just a momentary conversion experience. The question is how genuine such faith is, and whether or not it will endure till the end.

You say that you believe in Jesus, but does Jesus believe in you?

.

What Does It Mean to Believe in Jesus’ Name?

The expression to believe in [Jesus’] name occurs five times in the New Testament, all in the Johannine literature. The expression πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ to believe in his name occurs in John 1:12; 2:23; πιστεύω τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ’Iησοῦ Xριστοῦ to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ in 1 John 3:23; πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ to believe in the name of the Son of God in 1 John 5:13; and πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ to believe in the name of the unique Son of God in John 3:18. But what does it mean to believe in Jesus’ name?

When John advocates believing in the name of Jesus, it is handy to substitute the word title for name. To believe in Jesus’ name is to acknowledge Jesus’ title, to acknowledge who Jesus really is, and in particular, to acknowledge who Jesus claimed to be, i.e., to accept the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the anointed one, the Son of God, the divinely-chosen divine King of salvation.

For John, Jesus’ name or title is twofold. Firstly, Jesus is the Christ; and secondly, Jesus is the Son of God (see John 20:31). These terms are virtual synonyms in John’s usage, although the term the Son of God also implies (for John) that Jesus is divine. This twofold understanding of Jesus’ name can be seen from the terms used by John in connection with the idea of Jesus’ name. In John 1:12, believing in Jesus’ name is paralleled with receiving him. In John 2:23, many people believe in Jesus’ name after seeing the many signs that Jesus performed. The signs presumably convinced them that Jesus was the Christ. In 1 John 3:23, the terms Christ and [God’s] Son are used. In John 3:18 and 1 John 5:13, the term the Son of God is used.

Thus, to believe in Jesus’ name is to confess that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus Is the Eschatological Temple

Jesus’ response in John 2:19 to the Jewish religious authorities who challenged him after he had cleared the temple continues the theme in John 1–2 of Jesus being the eschatological temple. Jesus’ clearing of the temple was a provocative act that challenged the authority of the temple authorities. They responded by asking Jesus on what authority he had been acting in the way that he had: “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” (John 2:18).

Jesus answered his opponents by pointing to his resurrection: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). Jesus’ sign was the sign of the destruction of “this temple” and the rebuilding of it in the space of three days.

The narrator explains in John 2:21 that the phrase this temple was used by Jesus to refer to the “temple” of his body. But at the time, with Jesus still situated in the Jewish temple precincts, Jesus’ words were deliberately ambiguous. John 2:22 indicates that the true meaning of Jesus’ words at this point only became clear with hindsight after the resurrection.

At the time, however, Jesus’ opponents did not understand that Jesus was referring to the “temple” of his own body. Given this lack of insight, it is understandable that the authorities incredulously said to him: “This temple was built over forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?” (John 2:20). Jesus’ opponents naturally thought that he had been talking about the physical temple. Starting around the year 20–19 B.C., it had taken Herod 46 years to renovate the temple. But Jesus had in mind the destruction of the temple of his body, and its rebuilding in the space of three days. This would be the sign of his authority to reform the worship of God as part of his ministry.

So Jesus was pointing to his resurrection as being proof (yet in the future) of his authority. But at the same time, by picturing his body in the figure of a temple, Jesus was hinting at the fact that he himself is the fulfillment of the temple theme of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, the physical temple was a key symbol of God’s presence with his people. God had fellowship with his people at the temple. It was there at the temple that the people’s sins could be forgiven, and the way opened up for them to come into the presence of God. But because of Israel’s disobedience, the first temple (the temple of Solomon) was destroyed. After the Babylonian exile, the temple was rebuilt, but the glory of God never returned to the temple. The second temple was like a shell, waiting for the return of God’s glory. It is significant, therefore, that John’s Gospel portrays Jesus as being the revelation of God’s glory to Israel (see John 1:14). The coming of Jesus constitutes the return of God’s glory to the temple. In addition, the fact that Jesus could talk about his resurrection in terms of the rebuilding of “this temple” suggests that Jesus viewed himself as being the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament theme of temple.

John’s Gospel forcefully states the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the eschatological temple. The building of the eschatological temple of Ezek 40–48, which is a metaphorical picture of the eternal state, would be achieved through the resurrection of Jesus. This is consistent with the view of the Apostle Paul that (through his resurrection) Jesus was the cornerstone of the “holy temple in the Lord … the dwelling place of God in the Spirit,” of which the saints form the ediface, built “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20–22). Jesus’ death on the cross represents the destruction of the old symbolic temple, and his resurrection to life represents the creation of the new, true temple. In the light of this temple-building function of resurrection, it makes sense that Jesus would drive people out of the old temple as a sign that, through his death and resurrection, a new temple was about to be built in order to bring about spiritual reformation for the sake of the establishment of the proper worship of God.

The Gospel of John presents Jesus as being the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament tabernacle/temple theme. Jesus is the eschatological temple through whom full atonement is made for human sin, allowing humanity (as they follow Jesus) to enter into the presence of God and live.

Jesus: Stairway to Heaven; House of God

Jesus’ words to Nathanael in John 1:51 build on the temple theme introduced in John 1:14 (see “The Significance of the Incarnate Logos Dwelling among Us in John 1:14” and “Beholding the Glory of the Son in John 1:14”). In John 1:51, Jesus is recorded as saying to Nathanael, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” Read in the light of Jesus’ words to Nathanael in John 1:50, the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man is one of the “greater things” that Jesus’ disciples would see.

Although Jesus’ comment in John 1:51 is recorded by the narrator as being directed to Nathaniel, the pronoun you is in the plural. This comment of Jesus, therefore, also applied to the other disciples of Jesus.

The idea of the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man interacts with the description of the content of Jacob’s dream in Gen 28:12. In his dream, Jacob saw a stairway joining earth and heaven; “and the angels of God ascending and descending upon it.” The language used by Jesus in John 1:51 in speaking of the angels ascending and descending follows the wording of the LXX very closely with the exception of syntactical changes made out of grammatical necessity. The LXX reads καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνέβαινον καὶ κατέβαινον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς and the angels of God were ascending and descending upon it, whereas Jesus mentions τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαίνοντας ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.

The strong similarity of language at this point parallels it, i.e., the stairway, with the Son of Man. The implication of this parallelism is that Jesus is the climax (κλίμαξ stairway, ladder). Jesus is the one who links earth to heaven. Jesus has opened up the way into heaven, enabling human beings to come into the presence of God.

From a Hebrew perspective, the term the Son of Man emphasizes Jesus’ humanity; but at the same time, given the biblical use of the the term, it also speaks of Jesus’ importance. This is due to the fact that the term the Son of Man, as used by Jesus, was derived from the prophecy of Dan 7:13–14, where “one like a son of man [comes] to the Ancient of Days” to receive “dominion” over an everlasting kingdom. Jesus viewed himself as being the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the exalted son of man of Dan 7. Putting the concepts of stairway and Son of Man together, the suggestion is that Jesus, who would later ascend into heaven to become the God-appointed King of the world, is the person who links earth to heaven.

A further detail from Gen 28 relevant to understanding the teaching of John 1:51 is Jacob’s naming of the place where he had been sleeping Bethel. The word Bethel means the house of God. Therefore, by identifying himself as the one upon whom the angels ascended and descended, Jesus was linking the name Bethel to himself. Jesus was effectively presenting himself as being the ultimate Bethel. This is consistent with the idea of the Logos tabernacling among us in John 1:14.

Therefore, according to John, Jesus is both the stairway to heaven and the house of God. Jesus is the true eschatological temple, the one through whom God and humanity are reconciled and have fellowship together.

Beholding the Glory of the Son in John 1:14

The third clause in John 1:14 (“and we have beheld his glory”) builds on the temple theme introduced in the second clause of the same verse (for a discussion of the temple theme in the second clause of John 1:14, see “The Significance of the Incarnate Logos Dwelling among Us in John 1:14”). The verb translated as beheld or saw usually implies looking attentively upon or gazing at something. The incarnate Logos was an awesome sight to behold. He was an object worthy of contemplation. The first disciples understood that the Logos incarnate is the ultimate revelation of God’s glory.

The noun δόξα, usually translated here as glory, typically denotes the splendor of a person’s external appearance; but John uses δόξα at this point to capture the majesty of Christ’s intrinsic divinity. The glory of the Logos incarnate is “the glory as of the only one from the Father.” The glory revealed in Jesus is the glory of the unique Son of God.

This mention of the concept of glory in the third clause immediately following the previous clause in which the idea of a tent or tabernacle has already been raised adds a further association in the verse with the theme of temple. In the Old Testament, God’s glory is closely associated with the idea of the tabernacle and the temple. The ideas of glory and tent coincide in Exod 40:34–35; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10; 16:19, 42; 20:6. God’s glory frequently settled over the tabernacle in order that the tabernacle might be filled with God’s glory. God’s glory among Israel symbolized God’s presence with his people.

After the temple was built by Solomon, the conceptual connection between tabernacle and glory naturally broadened to include the temple (see 1 Kgs 8:11; 2 Chr 5:14; 7:1–3). The Babylonian exile, however, represented a time when God’s protective glory withdrew from the temple. As the book of Ezekiel is concerned to show, the Babylonian destruction of the temple in Jerusalem presupposed that God’s glory had left the temple. This was primarily as a result of the rampant idolatry that took place in Israel. This point is argued strongly in Ezek 8, which functions as an awful case study into Israel’s idolatry at the time. Indeed, in the book of Ezekiel, the glory of God is seen slowly withdrawing from the temple to take up position over the Mount of Olives (see Ezek 9:3; 10:4, 18–19; 11:22–23) until the time of judgment against Israel had been fulfilled. The book of Ezekiel pictures that the glory of God would eventually return to his people (Ezek 43:2, 4–5), and be revealed to the nations (Ezek 39:21).

In the light of these prophecies of Ezekiel, it is very significant that the Old Testament does not record that the glory of God returned to the second temple. The Old Testament closes with the people of God still waiting for the return of God’s glory to the temple (Hag 2:3, 7, 9; Zech 2:5).

The brief outline given above concerning the concept of glory in the Old Testament helps us to understand the point of John’s assertion in John 1:14 regarding the glory of the Logos. John was well aware of Ezekiel’s teaching concerning the eschatological return of God’s glory. John’s assertion is that, in the person of Jesus, the glory of God, which had withdrawn previously from idolatrous Israel, has now returned. In Jesus, God’s personal presence has returned to dwell majestically among his people.

The Significance of the Incarnate Logos Dwelling among Us in John 1:14

John 1:14 is significant in containing the first note in a symphony of references in John’s Gospel to the temple theme. In the first two clauses in John 1:14, it is written that “the Word became flesh, and made his dwelling among us.” Most modern translations talk about the Logos dwelling among us, but this reasonable idiomatic translation effectively masks for today’s reader the important allusion that John was making at this point. A literal translation of the second clause of John 1:14 would be: “and he pitched [his] tent among us.”

The word translated as dwelt or made a dwelling (ἐσκήνωσεν) is related to the word tent (σκηνή). A reader familiar with the original Greek would easily see this connection. Jesus set up tent among us! In addition, a reader familiar with the LXX translation of the Hebrew Bible would also see a clear connection between the verb ἐσκήνωσεν and the idea of the tabernacle, given that σκηνή was the usual word in the LXX for denoting the tabernacle. Thus it is also possible to translate the second clause of John 1:14 as: “and he tabernacled among us.”

The word tent or tabernacle conveys to minds familiar with the Hebrew Bible an idea rich in theological significance. The tabernacle was a portable temple. It was a sacred tent that could be packed up and carried around until the day when Israel had rest. When Israel achieved rest, then the portable temple would become permanent, i.e., the tabernacle would become a temple (Deut 12:10–11). The tabernacle/temple was the supreme symbol of God’s presence among his people. The tabernacle/temple was considered to be God’s dwelling place among Israel. This is clear from the Hebrew word underlying σκηνή in the LXX, namely, משכן, which is based on the Hebrew root שכן, which conveys the idea of dwelling.

By saying that the Logos had tabernacled among us, John was clearly asserting the idea (controversial in its day) that Jesus is the ultimate temple, which is the same as saying that Jesus is the supreme instance of God dwelling among us. Jesus is the Emmanuel, the with-us-God. The tabernacle/temple was the place where human beings could obtain the forgiveness of their sins in order that they might then be able to enter into the presence of God, and experience blessing in his presence. Therefore, by saying that the incarnate Logos had dwelt among us, John was claiming that Jesus is the new and ultimate temple, the locus of divine forgiveness and fellowship.

Why Did Jesus Clear the Temple? The Second Reason: Zeal for God

The second reason given in John’s Gospel to explain the extreme action of Jesus in clearing the temple is given in John 2:17 (for a discussion about the first reason , see “Why Did Jesus Clear the Temple? The First Reason: Commercialization of the Temple”). After reflection on the significance of this event, presumably after Jesus had been resurrected, “[Jesus’] disciples remembered that it was written: ‘Zeal for your house will consume me’” (John 2:17). The disciples came to understand that Jesus’ action in clearing the temple was not a case of Jesus losing his temper. Jesus was angry, but it was not an unjustified anger. Jesus cleared the temple because of his zeal for his Father’s house.

The statement “zeal for your house will consume me” is a quotation from Ps 69:9 [69:10 MT]. Psalm 69 is a prayer of salvation offered to God by a righteous sufferer. In the context of Ps 69, the word translated as consumed (אכלתני from the root אכל eat) has negative connotations. The second half of Ps 69:9, which is not quoted in John’s Gospel, confirms this: “zeal for your house has consumed me; the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen upon me.” In Ps 69:9, the idea of being consumed is paralleled with being reproached. This connection between zeal and reproach in Ps 69 links zeal for God together with opposition. When people stand up for God, they will experience some from of opposition.

The classic case of zeal for God leading to opposition is seen in Jesus himself. Because of Jesus’ zeal for the proper worship of God, he suffered opposition. Jesus’ zeal for God meant that his words and actions challenged the status quo. Driving people out of the temple and overturning tables was a challenge to Jewish society in general, and in particular to the Jewish authorities. As a result of his zeal for God, Jesus ended up being “consumed,” that is, destroyed.

Jesus’ zeal for God ultimately led to the cross. This was where Jesus was “consumed.” Jesus was prepared to challenge the way in which the people of his day were treating God; but he suffered opposition, and died on the cross, as a result of his zeal. This is why, when quoting Ps 69:9, the author of John’s Gospel changed the sense of the original wording has consumed—the Hebrew perfect conjugation in אכלתני is effectively equivalent to a past tense—to will consume—καταφάγεται is the future tense of κατεσθίω eat up, devour, consume. This change suggests that John and the other disciples understood that the ultimate fulfillment of Ps 69:9 took place in the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus’ zeal for God ultimately led to his consumption on the cross. But the immediate significance of the content of John 2:17 is to explain that Jesus’ zeal for God was one of the key reasons that led Jesus to clear the temple.

Why Did Jesus Clear the Temple? The First Reason: Commercialization of the Temple

Perhaps the most controversial act performed by Jesus during his earthly ministry was the clearing of the temple. This event is recorded in John’s Gospel in John 2:13–22.

John 2:13 records how Jesus traveled from Galilee to Judea to attend the Passover in Jerusalem. The Passover is the major religious feast in the Jewish calendar. It celebrates the Exodus, when God saved Israel out of Egypt, and in particular, the way in which the angel of destruction passed over the people of Israel, sparing them, during the plague against the firstborn (see Exod 12:1–30). All Jews who were physically able would endeavor to travel to Jerusalem to attend the feast each year, and it was common for Galileans Jews to travel to Jerusalem for this purpose. Following this custom, Jesus also traveled to Jerusalem, despite knowing that Judea was the heartland of Jewish opposition to his ministry.

But when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, he saw that things in the temple were not as they should be. “He found in the temple those who were selling cattle and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting” down doing business (John 2:14). Jerusalem and especially the temple precincts were a hive of activity during Passover. The cattle, sheep, and doves were actually required for the people’s sacrifices in the temple; and the job of the money changers was to change any unclean foreign or Galilean coins into clean Jewish currency that could be used in the temple. So the animal sellers and money changers were in some sense providing necessary services, but Jesus saw a significant problem in what was happening.

John records that Jesus made “a whip out of cords,” and “cast everything out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle; and he poured out the money of the money changers and overturned their tables” (John 2:15). This was a controlled yet violent action on the part of Jesus. What would cause the normally gentle Jesus to react in this extreme way? The text supplies two reasons to explain Jesus’ action. These reasons are found in vv. 16–17.

The first reason concerns the purpose of the temple and the proper worship of God. By driving out the animals, and overturning the tables of the money changers, Jesus was clearly indicating that there was something wrong with this type of activity. Jesus briefly expressed his opinion through his words to those who were selling the doves: “Take these things from here! Don’t make my Father’s house a market!” (John 2:16).

According to Jesus, the people had turned the temple into a marketplace. The temple was supposed to be a place where God was worshiped. But the people had turned the proper worship of God into an opportunity for economic gain. For Israel, the worship of God was centered on the temple; but this worship had lost its focus on God, and had become a means for making money instead. Jesus’ words indicate that the worship of God in the temple at Jerusalem had become corrupted through commercialism.

Given that the temple imagery in the Bible finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus and the church (see John 1:14; 2:19–21; Eph 2:21–22; 1 Pet 2:5), it is interesting to ponder to what extent Christians today could be accused of turning Jesus and his church into an opportunity for making money. To come to Jesus and his church for primarily selfish gain (whatever form that may take) rather than primarily to worship God is to abuse the Father’s house.

The Confession of Faith of a True Israelite

Nathanael functions in the narrative of John 1 as an example of a true, new covenant Israelite. Nathanael was surprised that Jesus could speak about him as if knowing him, without having met him previously. In response to Nathanel’s question “from where do you know me?” Jesus answered Nathanael: “Before Philip called you, while you were under the fig tree, I saw you” (John 1:48).

The detail about seeing Nathanael “under the fig tree” is enigmatic until Jewish cultural presuppositions are brought into the interpretative process. Sitting under a fig tree was a common Jewish image of the ideal location for students studying torah. This metaphor was most likely derived from the Old Testament texts that use living under one’s fig tree, or eating from one’s own fig tree, as an image of a person or people experiencing God’s blessing and peace (see 1 Kgs 4:25; 2 Kgs 18:31; Isa 36:16). The concept of sitting under a fig tree here is also significant in light of the prophecies of Mic 4:4 and Zech 3:10, where peace in the new covenant age is pictured in terms of sitting under one’s vine and fig tree. By saying that he saw Nathanael sitting under the fig tree, Jesus was expressing that he knew that Nathanael was a keen student of torah. Studying torah is an important part of what it means to be a true Israelite, according to the Old Testament (see Exod 19:5–6; Deut 6:5–9, 25; Josh 1:8; Ps 1:1–3; Ezra 7:10). It was only through the study of torah that obedience to torah could be achieved.

Nathanael was impressed by Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of his character. This evidence of supernatural knowledge, along with Philip’s previous testimony about Jesus (see John 1:45), led Nathanael to faith in Jesus Christ. Nathanael’s confession of faith is found in John 1:49: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” This confession stands as the paradigmatic confession of a true Israelite. This confession acknowledges that Jesus is a rabbi, a teacher; but he is more than just that. Jesus is also “the Son of God, the king of Israel.” The terms the Son of God and the king of Israel stand in parallel, and are both Messianic designations (see Ps 2:6–7 in particular).

Jesus’ testimony about Nathanael in John 1:47–48 (for a discussion of the significance of Jesus’ testimony about Nathanael in John 1:47, see “Jesus’ Description of Nathanael as a True Israelite in John 1:47”), and Nathanael’s confession about Jesus, both function in the narrative of John’s Gospel to express the idea that true torah-keeping Israelites recognize that Jesus is the Messiah. This was a controversial idea in its day. The fundamental issue that existed between Judaism and Christianity in the first century was the issue of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. This is still the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity today.

The character of Nathanael functions, therefore, in the Gospel of John to assert the Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and the idea that that all covenant-keeping Israelites in the new covenant age must necessarily acknowledge this fact. As the Apostle Paul has also argued, the true Jew is the one whose heart has been circumcised by the Holy Spirit (Rom 2:28–29), who does not stumble over the Messiah but “believes in him” (Rom 9:30–33), confessing that “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9–13), which is the equivalent (in a Gentile context) of saying that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ (in a Jewish context). The character of Nathanael, and the content of his confession, therefore, exhibit a sharp polemical edge that is as relevant today as it was back in Jesus’ day.

Jesus’ Description of Nathanael as a True Israelite in John 1:47

Jesus’ interaction with Nathanael in John 1:47–50 is rather enigmatic until Jewish cultural and theological concerns are considered as part of the assumed knowledge relevant to the communicative context of this incident. In John 1:47, after Nathanael had been invited by Philip to go and see Jesus for himself, Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, “Behold, truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!”

Jesus seeing Nathanael coming and then speaking about him follows the pattern of John the Baptist in John 1:29, 36; and also Jesus himself previously in John 1:42. Seeing and saying are significant motifs in John 1 (see 1:18, 33, 34, 39, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51; and 1:15, 21, 22, 26, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48 respectively). This highlights the concern with testimony in John 1. People testify about Jesus’ Messianic status, and Jesus also testifies about true righteousness. That Jesus’ assessment of Nathanael commences with the word ἴδε (behold or look) recalls the use of the same word by John the Baptist in 1:29, 36.

Jesus’ testimony identifying Nathanael as being “truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit” is significant. According to Jesus, Nathanael is a true Israelite. In what sense he is a true Israelite is unpacked in the rest of John 1:47–49. The expression in whom there is no δόλος deceit is effectively a conceptual play on the name Jacob, which literally means heel grabber, meaning supplanter, usurper, hence deceiver. Indeed the word δόλος in used by Isaac in reference to Jacob’s deception when stealing Esau’s blessing in Gen 27:35 in the LXX, to which Esau replies, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob?” (Gen 27:36). The teaching in Ps 32:2, that the person whose sin is forgiven, and in whose spirit there is no deceit, is blessed (see also Ps 10:7; 24:4; 34:13; 35:20; 36:3; 52:2) is also relevant to Jesus’ description of Nathanael.

Putting all of this together, it is clear that, through the example of Nathanael, Jesus was testifying to the nature of true covenant righteousness now that the new covenant age had dawned. Nathanael stands as a righteous or covenant-keeping Israelite in contrast to the default situation in old covenant Israel, where the majority were covenant breakers. Jesus’ identification of Nathanael as being a true Israelite is highly significant, particularly in relation to Nathanael’s confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah in John 1:49, and introduces what is a significant theme in the context of the Jewish argument of John’s Gospel, that the true (i.e., righteous) Jew will recognize and receive the Messiah when he comes (e.g., John 3:21; 10:3–4, 25–27), in accordance with the teaching of the law of Moses itself as per Deut 18:15–19 (see Acts 3:22–23; 7:37, 52–53). At the heart of the new covenant restoration of Israel stands the confession of faith that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.

Water into Wine: The Significance of the Sign in John 2:1–11

The turning of the water into wine is one of Jesus’ most famous miracles. The narrator of John’s Gospel calls this ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων the first of the signs that Jesus performed during his public ministry (John 2:11; compare with John 20:30–31; 21:25). If this miracle is a sign, it is appropriate to ask what its significance is.

The detail that Jesus created the wine in six stone jars that were used for Jewish ceremonial washing is important (John 2:6). Each jar could hold about 75–115 liters, which means that together they could have held enough water to fill a Jewish ceremonial immersion pool. It can also be implied from Jesus’ instruction to the servants to fill the jars with water (see John 2:7) that these jars were originally empty or close to such. This is also an important detail.

Jesus filling the jars with water, and subsequently transforming this water into good-quality wine, points to the truth that Jesus is the full-fill-ment of Judaism. The empty state of the jars, and the fact that there were six jars, symbolizes the dryness, barrenness, and incompleteness of the old covenant age. The Old Testament was a time when the work of the Holy Spirit was limited. But Jesus has come to give the Spirit and life and joy in abundance; and as a result, the old covenant age of emptiness and thirst has been replaced by the new covenant age of abundance. This fulfills Yahweh’s promise in Isa 44:3: “I will pour out water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.” The time of the new covenant would be a time when the thirsty were invited to come and drink, to “buy wine and milk without money and without price” from the Davidic leader and commander of the peoples (Isa 55:1–4). John’s Gospel presents Jesus of Nazareth as being the fulfillment of this Old Testament hope, and the miracle at Cana points to the fact that Jesus has come to change old covenant curse into new covenant blessing (Ezek 34:26; Zech 8:13; Gal 3:13–14).

In addition, the fact that this miracle involved Jesus making wine signifies that Jesus has come in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies that describe the new covenant age in terms of an abundance of new wine. For example, in Isa 25:6 it is prophesied: “On this mountain [i.e., Jerusalem] Yahweh of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.” This divine provision of wine occurs as part of an eschatological feast, which is connected with the abolition of sadness and death on a universal scale: “And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord Yahweh will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth” (Isa 25:7–8). The Old Testament often associates divine blessing with an abundance of wine (see Deut 33:28; Jer 31:11–12; Joel 2:19–27; Zech 9:16–17).

On a deeper level, the sign performed by Jesus at Cana stands as a witness to God’s plan for the world. In terms of the bigger picture, world history involves a movement from curse to blessing, from sadness to joy, from death to life, corresponding in large part to the movement from the old covenant to the new, wherein God saves the best till last.

This idea about God saving the best till last is emphasized through the way in which the episode in John 2:1–11 finishes. When the servants took some of the water that had been turned into wine to the master of the banquet, the master of the banquet was amazed, not just at the quality of the wine, but also because of the late timing of its serving:

“When the master of the banquet tasted the water which had become wine and did not know where it was from … [he] called the bridegroom, and said to him, ‘Everyone sets the good wine first; and when they have had too much to drink, the inferior. But you have kept the good wine until now’” (John 2:10).

The master of the banquet was presumably unaware of the deeper significance of his statement, but it captures brilliantly God’s way of working in history, and that is exactly why it is recorded here in John’s Gospel. The statement of the master of the banquet that “you have kept the good wine until now” is statement about God’s way of acting in world history through Jesus. By entering the world in the person of Jesus near the end of world history, God has kept the good wine until the end. God has saved the best till last!

Understanding that God is saving the best till last affords us a profound insight into the purpose of the cosmos. God could have arranged for sin never to have entered our world, but he chose not to structure world history that way. God could have sent Jesus and unleashed the full power of his Spirit shortly after Adam and Eve had sinned, but he chose not to structure world history that way. Rather, God would take his time. This is consistent with the fact that God took six long days to create and order the world before it was “completed” and “very good” (Gen 1:31–2:1). The time frame of creation itself points to the idea that God’s plan for human history would get worked out over time. And as part of this process, God was saving the best till last.

But why would God act in this way? Why take his time? We can frequently become impatient with God and his timetable. At times we are unwilling to accept that suffering continues. We sometimes question God as to why he is not seemingly doing anything. Even Mary wanted Jesus to act before his time had come (John 2:3–4). But God is taking his time, and saving the best till last, because that is the process that is most conducive from God’s perspective for his overarching purpose of self-revelation. History is his story; and like with any story, it takes time to tell it. You cannot appreciate the ending of a story without knowing the preceding narrative. Our experience of the negative helps us to appreciate the positive. That is simply the way that God in his infinite wisdom has chosen to structure things.

God’s saving of the best till last is connected with the revelation of Jesus’ miraculous power and his divine glory (John 2:11). The miracle of turning the water into wine was “the beginning of [Jesus’] signs” because it signifies how the best has come with Jesus. This sign tells us that Jesus has come to complete God’s plan of salvation. Jesus is the one who changes emptiness into fullness, sadness into joy, and death into life. In this way, Jesus is the full-fill-ment of the Old Testament hope of life and salvation. In Jesus, the best has been saved till last, and has “now” been revealed.

The Seven Day Structure of John 1:29–2:11

The four pericopes that make up John 1:29–2:11 have been given a particular setting in time by the author of John’s Gospel. The first three pericopes are each introduced by the phrase τῇ ἐπαύριον on the next day (John 1:29, 35, 43), and the final pericope is introduced with the words καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ and on the third day (John 2:1). The presence of these adverbials of time forces the reader to question why they are present.

All in all, when taken sequentially, it seems like John 1:19–2:11 has been deliberately structured according to a seven day pattern:

Day 1		John 1:19–28
Day 2	“on the next day”	John 1:29–34
Day 3	“on the next day”	John 1:35–42
Day 4	“on the next day”	John 1:43–51
Day 7	“on the third day”	John 2:1–11

Given the author’s obvious concern with Gen 1 in John 1:1–5 (as seen in the phrase in the beginning, which is a quotation of the first phrase of the Bible in Gen 1:1; and also in John’s concern with the concepts of creation, life, light, darkness, which are key themes in Gen 1), it makes sense to take the seven day structure of John 1:19–2:11 as presenting the first seven days of Jesus’ ministry after his baptism. If creation week back in the beginning involved a seven day time period, then the suggestion seems to be that Jesus’ ministry involves a kind of re-creation. This seven day sequence serves to remind the reader that, through Jesus, a new beginning has arrived for creation. Jesus’ entrance into the world is a new episode in which God’s creative and life-giving power, mediated through the Spirit, is going to be made manifest in the cosmos. The climax of this new creation week is Jesus’ first recorded miracle, the turning of the water into wine.

Concerning the final episode in this sequence, the phrase on the third day in John 2:1 is most likely meant to be taken as indicating that the miracle of turning the water into wine took place three days after the previous episode, i.e., on the seventh day. Given Jesus’ habit of performing miracles on the Sabbath (John 5:9; 9:14; see also Matt 12:9–13; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–10; 13:10–16), we are probably meant to understand that the day when this miracle took place was not just the seventh day of Jesus’ ministry after his baptism, but also literally the seventh day of the week, that is, the Sabbath. The fact that Jesus seems to have performed the sign of turning the water into wine on a Sabbath day helps in understanding the significance of this miracle and the seven day structure in John 1:19–2:11. Jesus has come to usher in the eternal Sabbath rest, which will be a time of joy and celebration amidst the fullness of God’s new covenant provision and blessing.

The Eureka Theme of John 1

One of the interesting minor themes of John 1 is the eureka theme. The word eureka occurs in the English language as an exclamation that is used upon finding or discovering something important. It is a classic expression that is used, for example, when miners find gold. The word eureka is a transliteration of the Greek word εὕρηκα, which means I have found.

The word εὕρηκα does not occur in John 1, but on five occasions in two adjacent pericopes the verb εὑρίσκω find is employed. The relevant pericopes are John 1:35–42 and John 1:43–51.

It is recorded in John 1:41 that Andrew first finds (εὑρίσκει) his brother, Simon. He then told Simon, “We have found (εὑρήκαμεν) the Messiah.” John 1:35–42, therefore, contains a double eureka. Andrew found his brother, and then told him about what they had found regarding Jesus being the Messiah. When a person finds something precious or important, it is natural to want to share that news with others.

In John 1:43–51 we have a triple eureka. Jesus finds (εὑρίσκει) Philip, and asks him to follow him (John 1:43). Jesus’ mission on earth can be thought of as involving Jesus going out and finding disciples. Philip then finds (εὑρίσκει) Nathanael, and tells him, “We have found (εὑρήκαμεν) the one about whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth” (John 1:46). Once again, having found Jesus, Jesus’ disciples go out to find others to share with them what they have found regarding Jesus Christ.

By way of summary, in the two pericopes of John 1:35–42 and John 1:43–51, εὑρίσκει he finds occurs three times (in vv. 41, 43, 45), and εὑρήκαμεν we have found twice (in vv. 41, 45). The effect of this is to create a finding or eureka theme. Jesus finds disciples; his disciples then find others, and tell them what they have found in Jesus.

From this it is possible to speak about a triple eureka purpose to life. Having been created to know God, our job is to find and to follow the Messiah, Jesus. Following Jesus then involves us finding others, and telling them what we have found regarding Jesus. If we have found Jesus, and if we are convinced that he is the God-appointed Savior of the world, then going out and telling others about this should be natural. Evangelism is not about bashing people over the head with the Christian religion; but as opportunity presents itself, it should be natural for Christians to share what they know about Jesus with others. Evangelism is not about selling an idea or a product. According to John 1, evangelism is sharing with others our eureka experience regarding the messianic status of Jesus of Nazareth.