The alternate view described here does not replace, or negate, the view presented in the previous post, but rather augments it, or fills out the picture by considering a second group that was present—the “teachers of the law.”

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

We can think of the “teachers of the law” as the other half of the Sanhedrin, or the second major group of religious leaders in Israel during the Second Temple. These leaders cared deeply about the Temple. Why?

Because the Temple held the keys to the sacrificial system. While modern Christians tend to reduce the Mosaic sacrificial system to a single dimension—the forgiveness of sins—it had many layered dimensions. These sacrifices can be broken down into two large classes:

The sacrifices prescribed by the Mosaic law are included under two classes: those offered for the sake of communion with Jehovah; and those offered in communion, and may be tabulated as follows: (1) For communion, or propitiatory, including sin offerings and trespass offerings. (2) In communion (a) burnt offerings; (b) peace offerings, including thank offerings, votive offerings, and freewill offerings; (c) grain and drink offerings.[1]

Beyond these two classes of sacrifices, the Temple system anchored the Feasts of Israel, unifying God’s people culturally across time. The Temple system also anchored Jerusalem’s importance, making it the hub of commerce, as everyone had to be there several times a year for the various feasts, and the hub of wealth, as everyone had to spend money there attending feasts and making sacrifices.

For the Temple leadership, then, the Temple was the root and heart of Israel. Without the Temple, there would be no Israel, there would be no forgiveness of sins, and there would be no fellowship with God.

With this background in mind, let’s take another look at the interaction between Jesus and the “teachers of the law” in Luke 5:20–21.

And when he saw their faith, he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Are the leaders condemning Jesus for forgiving sin, or for forgiving sin outside the Temple system? The belief that they are condemning Jesus for forgiving sin at all lends itself to the modern view that the Pharisees and Temple leadership were legalistic; that they were concerned with following the Law more than they were with forgiveness and mercy.

That does not seem to be the point the Pharisees and “teachers of the law” are making, however. According to James D.G. Dunn:

Not that a forgiveness was being offered which might otherwise have been denied the man; he could, after all, have taken his offering to the Temple and/or benefited from the Day of Atonement like other Jews. Nor that Jesus was claiming a special status for himself by saying these words (which any priest could say). The answer seems to be rather that he pronounced the man’s sins forgiven outside the cult and without any reference (even by implication) to the cult. It was not so much that he usurped the role of God in announcing sins forgiven. It was rather that he usurped the role of God which God had assigned to priest and cult. God could forgive sins no doubt when and as he chose. But man could only promise and pronounce the forgiveness of sins when he operated within the terms and structures provided by God—the Temple, priesthood and sacrifice. In that sense, as usurping a prerogative of God in disregard for the terms laid down by God, what Jesus said and did could be counted a kind of blasphemy.[2]

We can see echoes of this very accusation at Jesus trial. For instance, in Mark 14:58, Jesus’ accusers say: ““We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ” Of course, Jesus is never recorded as saying these things, but we might take this as an accurate description of how the Temple leadership heard what Jesus did say.

This accusation is echoed in Acts 6:12–14 against Stephen:

And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

This accusation against Jesus and the early Christians is the second arm of the pincer movement against Jesus later in his ministry. The Pharisees saw Jesus as opposed to their concern with the purity that kept Israel in existence in the Land as a nation. The Temple leadership saw Jesus as opposed to the very existence of the Temple and its sacrificial system, hence against the forgiveness of sins as directed by God in the Mosaic Law, and, again, threatening the very centrality of Jerusalem to Israel.

Just as the threat from the Pharisees grew throughout Jesus’ ministry, the threat from the Temple leadership does, as well. At the very end of his ministry, Jesus—perfectly in control of the situation—is going to inflame these two groups until neither believes they have any choice but to eliminate him.

Do not, of course, make the mistake of thinking either of these two groups represent every Israelite, or even most Jews at the time of Jesus’ ministry. These two groups are a small slice of the whole Jewish world even if they did control the two major institutions of Jewish life, the synagogues and the Temple. Neither of these two groups were a unified front against the teachings of Christ; the Scriptures record both Pharisees and Priests who followed Christ.

This one encounter over the healing of the paralytic, however, sets the stage for much of what follows in Jesus’ ministry.

[1] Merrill Frederick Unger et al., The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, in The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Rev. and updated ed. (Moody Press, 1988).

[2] James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity, Second Edition (SCM Press, 2006), 61.

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

Luke introduces us to the Pharisees and “teachers of the law”—elsewhere called the Scribes—in this passage. Who are these people, and why do they care so deeply about Jesus’ teaching? Let’s look at some reasons why the Pharisees cared so deeply about Jesus’ teaching.

First, according to Pharisaical teaching, God had cast Israel out of the Land because they had not fully followed the Mosaic Law, specifically via syncretism.[1] The Pharisees, then, considered teaching the Law and finding ways to help people keep it to be supremely important, as it prevented the people from adding various religious practices and ideas to Judaism.

They worked towards these goals by building a series of “fences” around the Law. While there is a clear distinction between committing a sin and becoming ceremonially unclean, the Pharisees largely saw things a little differently. Avoiding sin begins by avoiding ceremonial uncleanness; fences are built to prevent it. One well-known example of this is:

• It is sinful to offer sacrifices to an idol.
• One specific prohibition is never to boil a calf in its mother’s milk—apparently a common practice among the pagan religions in the Land before Israel’s arrival.
• Because you cannot tell if a particular bit of dairy is from the mother of the cow from which a particular piece of meat came, and the stomach “boils” the solids in the liquids you eat, you should not eat meat and dairy products at the same time.

The Pharisees held that adhering to these fences would make intentional sin visible, and reduce unintentional sin, reducing the likelihood that God would remove Israel from the Land (again).

Antiochus Epiphanes’ attempt to force Israel to worship the Roman gods in the 160s B.C. gave the movement to preserve Israel’s righteousness significant momentum. From that time forward, Pharisees (and other Jewish groups) resisted cooperating or even interacting with secular governments.

Second, the Pharisees held that God will preserve a nation if he could find some number of righteous people there. They took this view—a view that is still taught among various Jewish groups to this day—from the discussion between God and Abraham at the Oaks of Mamre. They supported this view from God’s statements to the various prophets about a righteous remnant through which God would save Israel.

They aimed to be that righteous remnant through separation and strict adherence to the Law and the fences. According to Geldenhuys, the name Pharisee “is probably derived from the passive participle of the Hebrew verb pārash (פָּרַשׁ), which means ‘to separate.'”[2]

Third, the Pharisees held the Messiah would return as a military leader to free Israel from Roman rule, rebuilding Israel as God’s witness to the world. It was unthinkable that Israel should be removed from the Land yet again; God’s name would be dishonored in all the nations.

Fourth, the Pharisees held that entrance into Abraham’s Bosom—essentially a Jewish vision of what Christians might call “heaven”—was regulated via circumcision.[3] Jesus threatened this model by teaching that faith, rather than circumcision, is the necessary prerequisite to salvation.

Based on these things, it’s easy to see why the Pharisees would be very concerned about Jesus’ teaching. If Jesus led people astray, into thinking infractions of the Law were minor or the Pharisees’ fences were of no import, God could well remove Israel from the Land, which would be an unmitigated disaster.

Now let’s turn to the paralytic’s healing.

And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus.
Luke 5:18–19

You may see, in your mind’s eye, a modern house. Jesus is sitting in the living room when the ceiling opens just in front of him, and a basket in the shape of a stretcher is lowered from the ceiling. Or perhaps you’ve puzzled over the idea of a “tile roof” that you must “dig through” (combining Luke’s and Mark’s descriptions). We can resolve this mystery by considering the following illustration of one way houses were built in Israel at this time.

Some houses had a sort of “balcony” on the upper floor looking out over a large, open courtyard. Jesus would be sitting on this balcony, speaking to the people crowded into the courtyard below. If this were a large house, then perhaps fifty or sixty people might be crowded there.[4]

The men, seeing the courtyard impassable, take the man up to the flat roof of the house, pull the tile off the small overhang, and lower him down so he is on the balcony with Jesus. While digging through the flat roof would cause permanent damage (potentially even causing the house itself to collapse), removing the tiles from an overhang like this would leave no permanent damage.

And when he saw their faith…
Luke 5:20

How did Jesus see their faith? Because they acted on it—they found a way to bring the man to Jesus’ attention (bringing him “before his eyes”), and they acted on it. While faith is a noun here (the first use of faith as a noun in Luke), this faith is active. The men did not wait until Jesus was more accessible, not busy, or “called”—they saw the situation and actively sought God out to resolve the problem.

…he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”
Luke 5:20

While not all physical disease is a result of sin, Jesus apparently saw that this particular paralysis was, and hence the best path forward was to forgive the man’s sin. Forgiveness would lead to physical and spiritual healing.

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Luke 5:21

While there are instances in the Tanakh of God calling on people to forgive those who have sinned against them, there is no instance of a priest or prophet forgiving a sin against God or against a third party. Because of this, the Pharisees held you can forgive sin committed against you, but not forgive a sin against God or a third party. Only God can do this.

Jesus is claiming to forgive the sin of this man, either against a third party or against God, so Jesus is claiming to be God. Everyone who says, “Jesus never claimed to be God,” clearly hasn’t read the Pharisee’s reaction to Jesus’ words in this passage.

Some writers classify Jesus’ forgiving sins against God or some unknown third party as a Messianic Miracle—something only the Messiah can do.[5]

… But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins …
Luke 5:24

It is easy to say: “Your sins are forgiven.” It is much harder to prove the man’s sins are actually forgiven. Given the connection between sin and physical maladies in his listeners’ minds, Jesus goes directly to physical proof.

The Son of Man is a circumlocution for “God,” referring back to Daniel 7:13. Jesus’s use of “man” in Luke 5:20 creates a play on words between these two statements, drawing them together in his listeners’ minds.

At least some of the Pharisees, at this point, know precisely who Jesus is claiming to be. The question is not who Jesus claims to be, but rather what to do about it. Could it be true that the Messiah has come in a way they did not expect? For some Pharisees, their understanding of the Scriptures will overcome their own senses and possible alternate readings. Others, however, do not seem so sure, even through Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.

This division within the Pharisees and Jesus’ careful avoidance of claiming to be God directly will keep the issues at bay for several years yet. The Pharisee’s anger is not yet boiling over, but it is certainly heating up.

—
[1] James D.G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (UNKNO, 1992), 141.

[2] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952), 189.

[3] In fact, one of the main supports for the modern Christian belief that baptism causes, rather than symbolizes, salvation, is the equating of baptism with circumcision and the salvific results of circumcision taught by the Pharisees.

[4] Mark E. Moore, The Chronological Life of Christ (College Press Publishing Company, 2011), 134.

[5] Moore, The Chronological Life of Christ, 135.

And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”
Mark 1:40–44

Leprosy is, perhaps, the paradigm of uncleanness in the Tanakh, and leprosy is very important to understanding this encounter. Modern readers most often relate leprosy to sin because of narratives like Numbers 12:10–11.

When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned.

And 2 Kings 5:26–27.

But he said to him, “Did not my heart go when the man turned from his chariot to meet you? Was it a time to accept money and garments, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen, male servants and female servants? Therefore the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and to your descendants forever.” So he went out from his presence a leper, like snow.

Leprosy is not always attributed to a sin, however. The Mosaic Law makes much of the results of specific sins, such as idolatry and unfaithfulness in marriage, but most often considers leprosy a matter of uncleanness rather than moral failure. For instance, Leviticus 13 does not mention a moral failure in relation to leprosy:

The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, “When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling or an eruption or a spot, and it turns into a case of leprous disease on the skin of his body, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests, and the priest shall examine the diseased area on the skin of his body.

In Leviticus, we see a house and a garment can both be leprous as well as people:

And he shall examine the disease. And if the disease is in the walls of the house with greenish or reddish spots, and if it appears to be deeper than the surface, then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house and shut up the house seven days.
Leviticus 14:33ff

When there is a case of leprous disease in a garment, whether a woolen or a linen garment, in warp or woof of linen or wool, or in a skin or in anything made of skin, if the disease is greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin or in the warp or the woof or in any article made of skin, it is a case of leprous disease …
Leviticus 13:47ff

Since a house or garment cannot “sin,” there must be some other category of understanding of leprosy that readers can bring to this encounter between Jesus and the leprous man.

Rabbis have often noted that among the classes of laws and sacrifices in the Levitical Law, there is a clear separation between uncleanness and sin.

Sin is ethical. It is something you do that makes you unclean.

Uncleanness can, however, be ontological. Humans, by nature, are just unclean.

In more Christian theological terms, each of us is a sinner—we are unclean—who then sins. Anyone who is unclean cannot stand before God; their uncleanness must be covered in some way, regardless of whether that uncleanness is caused by merely being a part of a sinful world or for specific, identifiable sin.

How does this apply to the series of events described by Mark? Let’s return to the story.

And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”
Mark 1:40–41

Many commentaries state Mark is showing Jesus’ power over sin in this passage—but this attributes something to the text Mark never says. It is easy enough to assume a link between sin and physical ailments like leprosy, but this man’s condition appears to be ontological—the result of living in a sinful world, rather than the result of a specific sin. If we frame the man’s leprosy as a form of uncleanness, rather than as a direct result of a specific, personal sin, we can understand Jesus’ pity. The man is certainly a sinner, but this evil thing—leprosy—has come upon him because he lives in a sinful neighborhood. Jesus feels pity for the man and his condition, rather than anger at the man’s sin.

Much is made of Jesus touching the man—and rightly so. Lepers were to live alone, without human contact. They were to ring bells as they went and intentionally make themselves unkempt to drive people away from their presence.

Being a leper was a lonely affair in ancient Israel. It would be made worse if there was no specific sin the leper could point to and say, “I am this way because of this sin.”

And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.
Mark 1:42–44

Understanding the way Israel understood leprosy can also help us understand one reason why Jesus told the man not to spread the news of his healing far and wide—because this was a healing of a condition that “just is” part of the world, rather than a healing related to a specific sin.

Mark specifically mentions another reason—“for a proof to them.” A proof to whom? The most natural reading is ”a proof for the priests.” Why would the priests need such a proof? First, to show them that Jesus is fulfilling the miracles expected of the Messiah.

Second, to show them that Jesus is not hostile to the Levitical Law nor the Temple. The disagreement that is about to develop between Jesus and the Pharisees (in fact, the disagreement that will ultimately end in Jesus’ death) is concerned with a specific reading of an individual point within the Mosaic Law: what is lawful on the Shabbat. Jesus is undermining their argument that Jesus does not follow the Law or take the Law seriously before the disagreement becomes acute.

Mark infers a third and final reason Jesus wanted the man to stay quiet about this miracle: So Jesus could continue to move freely. As a result of this man talking about this miracle, Jesus is forced to stay in “desolate places”—at least for a time.

And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them. And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.
Matthew 4:23–25

After being rejected in Nazareth, Jesus makes Capernaum his “base of operations” for some time. Just on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, within the bounds of Herod Antipas, and a short distance from territories under direct Roman rule, this was about as far away from Jerusalem and the religious rulers of the Temple and Synagogue as you can get.

From Capernaum, Jesus sets out on three preaching tours. The beginning of the first is described in the passages above and Luke 4:38–42. According to Luke, Jesus’ first encounter is with four fishermen who had just finished a long night of work and were cleaning their nets.

On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.
Luke 5:1–11

Some readers may have questions about this passage.

What do we do with John and Matthew?

In John 1, we read:

One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).
John 1:40–42

At first reading, this appears to contradict Luke’s description—how can Peter meet Jesus “for the first time” twice? Is this a contradiction?

Luke, however, never says Peter had not met Jesus before. On the contrary, Peter seems willing enough to stop cleaning his nets to carry Jesus out a little way into the water, letting him speak to the crowds. Setting aside this work would not have been a minor inconvenience—it would have left the nets uncleaned and still on the boat (as we later discover) and left Peter’s companions alone to spread and clean their nets.

Those nets wouldn’t clean themselves before the next night’s fishing, nor would Peter have some luxurious amount of time to get things ready for the next attempt at filling his nets—probably slated for that night.

That Peter interrupts his work to allow Jesus to speak for what was probably several hours indicates Peter already knew Jesus. The meeting in John 1 provides a good backstory for Luke’s account, then.

Yet a third version of Peter’s call can be found in Matthew 4:18—

While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him.
Matthew 4:18–19

Matthew’s account is clearly parallel to Mark 1:16–20. There are two ways we can relate these passages.

We could say Luke’s narrative is a more detailed version of Matthew and Mark’s narrative. While this resolves any problems, there are some critical differences:

• There is no mention of the large haul of fish, almost breaking the nets, in Matthew and Mark. It’s easy to understand Matthew omitting this detail, but not Mark—because Mark is told from Peter’s point of view.
• In one of these narratives, Peter is “casting into the lake,” while in the other, he is cleaning the nets. Again, it seems odd that Mark, in particular, would not mention such a detail.
• There is no sermon, nor anything of its contents, in Matthew. The lack of any mention of a sermon seems particularly odd, given that Matthew was a tax collector and presumably one of the primary “recorders” of Jesus’ travels. Perhaps Matthew did not witness these events?

It is possible, then, that we have three different stories about an encounter between Jesus, Peter, and the other fishermen.

The Three Encounters

One possibility can explain all three of these encounters.

John describes the first encounter. Here, Peter and the fishermen are called to repentance but not discipleship. This encounter may have been early in Jesus’ ministry before he started asking disciples to follow him (and providing financial support for his ministry).

Matthew and Mark describe the second encounter. Peter is already familiar with Jesus and agrees to follow him, but only for a short time, perhaps six months or a year.

Luke describes the third encounter. Peter has traveled with Jesus for some time and is familiar with his teaching. Perhaps he has not seen any “large miracles,” however, and decides to return to fishing so he can feed his family. The miracle of the catch convinces Peter to travel full-time with Jesus.

This “double call” is in keeping with Jewish history. For instance, Stephen mentions that Abraham and Moses were both called twice before obeying the call. It would not be unusual for it to take two calls and some great miracle to convince Peter—who was deeply familiar with the Tanach and its stories—to travel with Jesus full-time.

Woe is Me!

But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.”
Luke 5:8

Where was the living God to go that he would be away from Peter? There is no place.

Peter’s proclamation is one of the first great proclamations of who Jesus is we find in the Gospels. Peter echoes Isaiah:

And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
Isaiah 6:5

An angel brings a coal to make Isaiah’s tongue pure before the Lord:

And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”
Isaiah 6:7

Just as the angel took away Isaiah’s guilt with the burning coal, Jesus will take away Peter’s sin on the Cross. In the meantime, Jesus tells Peter not to be afraid and that he will make Peter into a “fisher of men.”

And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the Sabbath, and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word possessed authority. And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, “Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent and come out of him!” And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm.
Luke 4:31–35

After his initial rejection at Nazareth, Jesus moves to the Galilean countryside and begins ministering there.

We often like to take the phrase: “his word had authority” to mean something about Jesus’ teaching style, but it is more likely to mean something about casting a demon out through his command. While Rabbis claimed to be able to cast out demons, they did so through a long and practiced ritual.

Demons would not start an argument with a Rabbi in this way—nor would a Rabbi essentially tell the demon in question, “Shut up.” Rabbis would also not cast out such a demon on the Sabbath day. Jesus is showing his power in many different ways through these miracles.

One interesting aspect of this is Jesus commanding the demons to remain quiet—

Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent and come out of him!”
Luke 4:35–35

This command is repeated in Luke 4:41—

And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

Why would Jesus rebuke the demon, telling him to be quiet? There are two Jewish ideas of Christ:

• Messiah ben David will be a military leader, rescuing Israel from physical oppression
• Messiah ben Joseph will be a spiritual leader, rescuing Israel from their sins and rebellion

The demon is essentially calling out Jesus as both the military and spiritual leader—but Jesus specifically left the military portion of his calling out of his first appearance. Note the words Jesus left out while reading Isaiah 61:1–2—

…and the day of vengeance of our God
to comfort all who mourn

The demon is speaking of precisely what Jesus has said is not to occur yet, the “day of the vengeance of our God,” when God would come to destroy the demons. Jesus is focusing this moment on the incarnation rather than the return.

There is a real danger in taking these two events as interchangeable. First, if the Jews associated Jesus with Messiah ben David during the incarnation, they would attempt to make him king and place him at the head of an army to drive the Romans out of Israel.

In fact, we see attempts to make Jesus king. Peter using the sword and Judas betraying Jesus are two of the better-known instances where an Apostle attempted to oppose Jesus directly to the Romans. Jesus always damps down the expectations, placing his Kingship later, after his return, rather than “now,” during his incarnation because this would not fit Jesus’ purpose in coming as the Lamb of the World.

Much later in the Gospels, we see Jewish leaders upset over Jesus performing these kinds of miracles on a Sabbath day, and yet—

And he was teaching them on the Sabbath…
Luke 4:31

Luke specifically points out Jesus cast out demons and healed Peter’s mother-in-law on the Sabbath. Why were the Jewish leaders silent in this case, and not just a few passages later when Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath?

First, Jesus performed these miracles in the “backwater” of Galilee. This is not where the Jewish leaders would expect any sort of serious Messianic figure or Rabbinical leader to come from, so Galilee is a bit of a “blind spot.”

Second, Jesus is not someone they are watching yet. He has performed a few miracles, but they are not enough to arouse much more than curiosity. The Jewish leadership is probably still focused on the fallout from John the Baptist, as well as several other claimants to the Messianic throne, so their attention is just not drawn in Jesus’ direction yet.

Third, Peter’s mother-in-law’s healing happens in a private home. This is not something many people would have witnessed, so the news of this second miracle would not have spread quickly.

By the time we get to Luke 6, however, Jesus’ fame has spread to Jerusalem, and the Jewish leaders are specifically looking for reasons to support or reject him. Performing a miracle in Jerusalem, in front of crowds who are looking to the Pharisees for leadership, on the Sabbath is an entirely different matter than casting out some demons—demons told to “shut up” so they don’t reveal Jesus’ identity—in some “backwater town” among the “country folk” than right up the Pharisee’s faces.

Performing miracles on the Sabbath in Jerusalem is bound to raise the specter of Messiah ben David regardless of how much Jesus soft-pedals the act or how strongly he tries to dampen such speculation.

And when it was day, he departed and went into a desolate place. And the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them, but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.” And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea.
Luke 4:42–44

Did Jesus stay in Judea, or did he return to the Galilee? The Living Bible, NIV, NASB, NED, and many others read the underlying Greek in just this way, even though the parallel passage in Matthew 4:23 says otherwise—

And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.
Matthew 4:23

Before jumping to the conclusion there is a contradiction in the text, we need to look at a more straightforward explanation. Wilbur Pickering[1] provides a possible solution—

• 94% of the available Greek manuscripts say: “της Γαλιλαιας,” which means: “in the synagogues,” presumably of Galilee
• The remaining 6% have the word “Ιουδαιας,” which means: “in Judea”

Translators often choose the harder reading because it is deemed more reliable, arguing scribes would never correct an easier reading (or shorter word) to a harder one (or longer word). Given the parallels and the flow of the text, however, it makes more sense to assume that 94% of manuscripts are correct, Matthew and Mark are correct, and Jesus returned to Galilee to preach there.

[1] Wilbur N. Pickering, “What Difference Does IT Make? The Greek Text We Accept Makes a Big Difference,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 25, no. 48–49 (2012).

It should not be surprising, then, that everyone in Israel does not immediately reject Jesus at all times, nor that his support would be tempered on whether he is attacking or supporting some other popular institution.

As we see Luke 4:16–28, when Jesus presses “the crowds,” they reject him just as quickly as the Jewish leadership.

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read.
Luke 4:16

In Jesus’ time, the order of Synagogue service was well established within each region. In Nazareth, as part of Palestine, the service would include:[1]

• The singing of a Psalm
• A prayer from “The Eighteen Benedictions”
• Recitation of the Shema
• A prayer from “The Eighteen Benedictions”
• Seven members of the congregation would read at least three passages from a selection in the Torah (the Law); they were not allowed to omit anything from their reading
• A scroll from among the Prophets was selected and laid on the table
• A member of the congregation who had studied the selection, or a visiting Rabbi, would read a portion of the Prophet
• The reader of the Prophets would expound on the passage they read
• Closing readings and prayers (depending on whether a priest was present, etc.)

At each point, the Hebrew of the original Scriptures was translated into Aramaic.

Our general impression of the ancient world, specifically Israel, is that people were largely uneducated. There might have been a few, such as tax collectors, who could read and write a form of shorthand. Others, such as religious leaders, could read the Scriptures. Our general impression is that the average Jew in Galilee was uneducated, particularly in the Scriptures.

The whole of the Scriptures and Jewish culture refute this view. During the Second Temple period, Jewish men would gather in groups late at night called the Haberim to study the Scriptures. Relying on memorized passages and possibly granted access to a synagogue’s scrolls, men would discuss the meaning of passages and consider the coming Messiah.[2]

Jesus didn’t need to be known as “Rabbi” to gain an invitation to read—he simply needed to attend synagogue regularly and be known to the congregation as one who studied the Scriptures. Since Jesus grew up in this area, he was probably known for his knowledge of the Scriptures.

Hence, he was given the scroll this particular Saturday and asked to read. Jesus chose to read parts of three passages, as shown below.

There are two puzzling points about Jesus’ selection:

• Jesus seems to draw from various points in the Scriptures rather than a single point
• Jesus leaves out the second part of Isaiah 61:2

While the congregation would not accept selecting different parts of the Torah this way, selecting different parts of the Prophets and even leaving intervening passages out was accepted practice.

Jesus explicitly leaves out one part of Isaiah 61:2, “and the day of the vengeance of the Lord.” This omission sets the parameters of the ministry of Christ—Jesus’s ministry will be about proclaiming “good news” rather than executing vengeance. This omission alerted his listeners—and readers these thousands of years later—that prophecies can be fulfilled in parts over long stretches of time.

Aside: Has the second part of this prophecy been fulfilled? Gathering all the available data about the “Day of the Lord,” no apparent point in recorded history appears to fulfill its description. The “Day of the Lord” can be spiritualized, as many theologians have done through the ages. Still, we should avoid changing events the Scriptures describe as literal into spiritual events.

Jesus also includes a single part of Isaiah 58. This inclusion is interesting; the setting, or purpose, of Isaiah 58 is far different than that of Isaiah 61. While Isaiah 61 proclaims the freedom resulting from the Servant’s commission completion, Isaiah 58 describes people abusing their freedom. The first dark overtone is included in this passage. Jesus has come to set those who have faith in him free—but what will they do with that freedom?

Much has been made of Jesus’ statement that he has come “to proclaim good news to the poor.” In our modern economically focused world, this is often taken to mean that Jesus came to solve economic injustice—but the two examples Jesus uses of “the poor” as he continues speaking counter this economic focus.

. . . there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.
Luke 4:25–27

Zarephath was poor, but Naaman was not. Jesus’ statement, then, is not about being financially poor. It is about Israel’s rejection of Jesus just as they rejected Elijah and Elisha (and every other prophet of God). Israel is spiritually poor, unwilling to listen to or heed the words of God.

At first glance, the congregation’s reaction appears to be somewhat positive.

And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?”
Luke 4:22

However, “well of” is added by the English translation. The crowd “spoke of him” and “wondered at his words about grace.” Isn’t this the “son of Joseph,” a man of no special social or religious standing? His lack of understanding is evident in their minds—the “Day of the Lord” must come before the Servant sets Israel free. Wasn’t he “one of them?” Having grown up in Nazareth, didn’t Jesus “owe them signs and miracles?”

And what of this intermingling of the Prophet’s warning about their use of freedom? Are the people of Nazareth among “the poor” who would reject Elijah and Elisha? Things escalate quickly once Jesus drives the point home that they are, in fact, among the spiritually poor.

When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away.
Luke 4:28–30

Jesus, facing his first rejection, escapes through the crowd. This rejection at Nazareth is only the beginning of rejection. There will be many more in the future, culminating in a rejection that alters his relationship with the generation of Israel living during his incarnation.

[1] David J. MacLeod, “The Year of Public Favor, Part 1: Jesus’ Inaugural Sermon,” Emmaus Journal 11, no. 1 (2002): 1–39.

[2] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 147.

So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine.
John 4:46

John points out that Jesus is returning to Cana, where he started his journey to wilderness temptation, his time with John the Baptist, and finally, through Samaria. The first trip of his new ministry has been completed; he returns to where he performed his first sign.

The map below reveals the distance between Capernaum and Cana was only about fifteen miles—perhaps eighteen miles by road. The map also reveals, however, that Capernaum is around 700 feet below sea level, and Cana is about 1500 feet above. Traveling these fifteen miles is a serious uphill climb—and also why the official says: “Come down.”

Jerusalem and the wilderness are to the south, and the Sea to the west. Many Jews would take the road east of Jordan rather than pass through Samaria.

And at Capernaum there was an official whose son was ill. When this man heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went to him and asked him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death.
John 4:46–47

Here in Cana, where he turned water to wine, an “official” meets him. This story might seem to be a retelling of the narratives in Luke 7:2 or Matthew 8:5, but the characters are different, and each narrative makes a different point—so we should read these as different events.

So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.”
John 4:48

John intentionally contrasts the people of Cana with the Samaritans:

• “You” is plural—”y’all.” Jesus includes the official and all the people of Cana who can hear him speaking.
• The Samaritans received precisely one “sign”—Jesus’ knowledge of the woman’s life and situation. There were no healings, no making wine from water, etc., and yet many Samaritans believed.

Jesus has—just a few months before this visit—performed just such a sign. Undoubtedly, the memory of him turning water into wine would not have been forgotten in this short time. Yet they demand a new sign.

This “demand for a sign” is essentially pagan—“Show me a miracle, and I will believe.” As Jesus points out many times in his ministry, those who see signs and wonders will still not believe. Paganism is defined by its desire to make our relationship with God into a transaction, saying things like: “Show me a miracle, and I will believe,” or even: “If you give me this, I’ll live a holier life.”

The official said to him, “Sir, come down before my child dies.” Jesus said to him, “Go; your son will live.”
John 4:49–50

The man says: “Come, he will die.” Jesus responds: “Go, he will live.” These two statements set one another off—one command and one reason.

The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went on his way.
John 4:50

The official’s faith was greater than the people of Cana; he believed without seeing the sign.

As he was going down, his servants met him and told him that his son was recovering. So he asked them the hour when he began to get better, and they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.” The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.”
John 4:51–53

The official’s obedience was particularly striking in the Second Temple period because actions were direct. For the miracle to take place, the miracle worker must be present. There are instances of healing of this kind in the Talmud, particularly:

There was the case in which the son of Rabban Gamaliel fell ill. He sent two disciples of sages to R. Hanina b. Dosa to pray for mercy for him. When he saw them, he went up to his upper room and prayed for mercy for him. When he came down, he said to them, “Go, for his fever has left him.”

They sat down and wrote down the hour, and when they came back to Rabban Gamaliel, he said to them “By the Temple service! You were neither early nor late, but that is just how it happened. At that very moment, his fever left him and he asked us for water to drink.”
B. Barakoth 34b

It would be easy to read the point of this passage as something like: “Faith accepts God at his word regardless of prior belief or (apparent) physical reality.” Jesus, however, does not say anything like this. Instead, he says, “You know I have performed signs in the past, even here. You know what kind of person I am. You know I have claimed to be the Son of God. You should trust who I am based on those things rather than constantly asking for signs and wonders.”

In other words, faith rests in the character and the person rather than in a constant flow of miracles–and faith is certainly not a transaction.

Which meant he was also a Jew.

Why she chose to continue her journey, we don’t know—but it led to one of those fascinating conversations scattered throughout the Scriptures.

Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.)
John 4:7

What does this mean?

Perhaps Abraham’s Servant standing by the well, waiting for one of Abraham’s relatives to come and draw passed through her mind.

Behold, I am standing by the spring of water, and the daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water. Let the young woman to whom I shall say, ‘Please let down your jar that I may drink,’ and who shall say, ‘Drink, and I will water your camels’—let her be the one whom you have appointed for your servant Isaac. By this I shall know that you have shown steadfast love to my master.”
Genesis 24:13–14

Or perhaps Jacob, fleeing Esau, is standing by the well waiting for someone to come draw water from the well so he can quench his thirst passed through her mind.

Now as soon as Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother’s brother, Jacob came near and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth and watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother. Then Jacob kissed Rachel and wept aloud.
Genesis 29:10–11

A man, alone, speaking to a woman at a well was not proper at all. It was most unexpected. The woman, perhaps unsure how to answer, draws a distinction between them.

The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
John 4:7–9

Throughout the Gospels, the Samaritans are used as a foil for the unloving attitude of the Jewish leadership and Israel as a nation (for instance, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan) and as outside the primary scope of Jesus’ ministry.

Samaritans were hated by pious Jews, not just because of the argument over the proper place to worship but also because they were not of “pure Jewish blood.” We often fail to appreciate the fine distinction between what might be called ritual purity and heart purity in the Mosaic Law. Ritual impurity could be transmitted, like a disease, from one person to another—or even from a dead body to a living person. Impurity of the heart, however, is personal.

Samaritans were ritually impure, able to transmit their impurity to others. Samaritans, then, were avoided by those who held themselves in strict separation from the world.

Jesus doesn’t address either the question of meeting a woman at a well or the separation between Jews and Samaritans.

Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 
John 4:10

Living water? Living water means water in motion—a spring, stream, waterfall, or water pouring out of a cloven stone. Still water was dangerous in the ancient world. They had no way to purify water other than the simplest of methods, primarily boiling. Still water, then, meant death, while moving water—bubbling, gurgling, and running—meant life. Hence, moving water was living. For the Samaritan woman, living water fulfills her thirst directly, enables her to cook, and provides for her washing.

The Samaritan woman is confused by the direction the conversation is taking.

The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?”
John 4:11

“Where?”—is more than just a question about the physical location of this living water or how Jesus can reach it. In John’s context, it is a question about who Jesus is.

Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
John 8:14

Reaching back to the context this woman would have known well, it is also a question about a person’s spiritual state.

But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”
Genesis 3:9

Her next question ties who and where together, challenging Jesus’ standing.

Are you greater than our father Jacob?
John 4:12

She is accusing rather than inquiring—clearly, this man sitting before her, dusty, alone, tired, and thirsty, cannot be greater than Jacob, who dug this well and was a mighty man of God.

Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.
John 13–14

She must have been shocked, and perhaps a bit put off, by Jeus’s answer.

Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.
John 4:15

We often read this as confusion; she still thinks about physical, rather than spiritual, water. Given her previous question was a challenge—”Are you greater than Jacob?”—is perhaps better read as a challenge as well:

“You cannot even get to the water at the bottom of this well, and you’re offering water that will keep me from being thirsty ever again? Yeah, right …”

Jesus’ answer, however, startles her.

Go, call your husband, and come here … I have no husband … You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband.
John 4:16–18

Yet, she still has one more challenge.

Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.
John 4:19–20

After Jesus answers this and some further discussion, she finally starts to understand who this might be—and indeed, he is greater than Jacob.

The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”
John 4:25–26

Now, the woman believes.

Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.” So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. John 4:39–40

With this basic structure of the text, we can look at several interesting questions Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman raises—but these will need to wait for future dispatches.

. . . he left Judea and departed again for Galilee. And he had to pass through Samaria.
John 4:3-4

Why is Jesus compelled to go through Samaria? Consider Matthew 15:24–27:

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”

Jesus did not consider the Samaritan woman Jewish:

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
John 4:22

It is possible Jesus wanted to spread the Gospel among the Samaritans, but it seems odd that this would be his only reason, given the passages above. Jesus—being God—could be spreading the Gospel in an unconventional place while also achieving another goal. One intriguing possibility is illustrated in this map.

There were two common routes from Judea to Galilee:

• The shorter, more direct, red-dashed line via Samaria.
• The longer, orange line via Jericho, up the east side of the Jordan Valley, and then crossing back over the Jordan River at the edge of the Decapolis into Galilee.

Josephus states the shorter route through Samaria took about three days:

. . .for Samaria was already under the Romans, and it was absolutely necessary for those that go quickly [to Jerusalem] to pass through that country; for in that road you may, in three days’ time go from Galilee to Jerusalem.
Josephus Life, Book 7, §269

For some time, at least, it was common for Jews to pass along this road between Galilee and Judea:

Now there arose a quarrel between the Samaritans and the Jews on the occasion following:—It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans; and at this time there lay, in the road they took, a village that was called Ginea, which was situated in the limits of Samaria and the great plain, where certain persons thereto belonging fought with the Galileans, and killed a great many of them.
Josephus Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 6, §118

Josephus does not indicate when this took place, only that it did so “in the past,” so Samaria might not have been so open to Jews, particularly Galileans, during the time of Jesus as it might have been just prior to the time of Christ.

Regardless of whether common Jews would travel the route via Samaria, pious Jews—Pharisees in particular—would not. While Gentiles were considered unclean, Samaritans were considered “even more unclean” because of their habits in eating and prayer, which differed from strict Pharisaical practice.

If Jesus wanted to travel between Judea and Galilee without being under the Pharisees’ watchful eyes, the path through Samaria would be ideal—especially if he befriended the Samaritans, who could ensure no word leaked out about his travels.

Beyond spreading the Gospel among the Samaritans—something Jesus declared, in other places, to be outside his mission—Jesus is also “creating space” he can use in the future. While we tend to think of everything Jesus does as purely spiritual, we will find there are many times when Jesus deals with the practical matters of running a religious movement in an often hostile land.

A second question arises because of his destination: why Galilee?

Consider the map above again. Everything shown on this map, other than the Decapolis, was originally under the control of Herod the Great—but when he died, Rome split his Kingdom into four parts, one for each of his children:

• A northern part was given to Philip
• Perea and Galilee were given to Antipas (called Herod Antipas)
• Judea was given to Herod Archelaus
• A small portion along the coast was given to Salome (not shown on this map)

Around 6 years after Jesus was born, the Roman Emperor decided Herod Archelaus was unfit to rule, so he converted Judea to direct Roman rule through a Procurator.

Why does this history matter? Imagine you are Philip or Antipas. While you serve as king over a small piece of territory at the pleasure of the Roman Emperor, you are going to:

• Hate Roman rule. The land of Israel, by rights, should be completely under your control.
• Hate your brother, who rules over some part of the land you hold should right be yours.
• Particularly hate the Procurator who rules over Judea, as this usurps your family’s rule.

If you had just made the Temple’s rules angry by, say, cleansing the Temple, but you wanted to remain in Israel proper, where would you go? You would go to some part of Israel not directly controlled by Rome. Working in this area would offer at least some protection from Judea’s Roman ruler.

Further, Judea was considered somewhat cosmopolitan. Perhaps not as cosmopolitan as the ten Greek-style Roman cities being built in the Decapolis, but more than the back woods of Galilee. The back woods of Galilee, however, had a much higher concentration of Jews—and even religious Jews—than Judea.

The Sadducees, who were very attached to Greek culture (even to the point of undergoing operations to reverse their circumcision), would concentrate in Judea, particularly around Jerusalem and along Herod’s coastal cities. The Sadducees also just happened to be part of the Jewish ruling class who supported the money changers in the Temple, and a Sadducee held the office of Chief Priest.

Thus, by moving the center of his ministry to Galilee, Jesus accomplished three things while building his ministry:

• Avoiding the ire and interest of the Roman Procurator
• Avoiding the watchful eyes of the Sadducees
• Working among a higher density of Jews who would be more likely to be interested in his message

For some time, then, Jesus could build his ministry relatively freely.

We should never underrate Jesus’ many miracles, nor that he is God. We should also never underestimate his humanness and ability to use worldly situations to achieve his ends without resorting to miracles.

We must go through John 3:1–15 to get to John 3:16.

Along the way, we’ve already seen Jesus using familiar concepts from the Tanach while talking to Nicodemus. One of these is wind and water combined with the concepts of that which comes from above. Keep this in mind as we approach the next step along the way to John 3:16.

This passage contains one of the oddest uses of pronouns in the Scriptures, as shown in the figure.

There is one sentence in the English translation that has just a few plurals:

• “We speak …”
• “We bear witness …”
• “We have seen …”
• “Y’all do not receive …”
• “Our testimony.”

Who is “we,” and who is “y’all?”

Jesus would say “we” here because the Levitical Law requires more than one witness to establish truth. But who are the other witnesses? They could be:

• Jesus and the disciples
• Jesus and the Spirit
• Jesus and the Father
• Jesus and the Scriptures

The first, the disciples, can be safely ruled out—the disciples have not been a factor in this conversation so far, and we don’t yet have any of the great proclamations of faith or miracles on their part. They will be witnesses after the resurrection, but at this point, they are not witnesses Nicodemus would accept.

The second, the Spirit, would make sense if any other mention of the Spirit existed in this passage. If the reference to “wind and Spirit” is actually “wind and water,” the second witness being the Spirit no longer fits the context.

The third, the Father, does not fit the context. What clue in the text implies Nicodemus would understand Jesus’ words as the Father?

The fourth is the most likely, especially as Jesus is speaking to a “Teacher of Israel.” What witness would Nicodemus most likely accept? The Scriptures.

Jesus gives a specific example of the witness of the Scriptures—the bronze serpent in the wilderness. A “Teacher of Israel” should have understood that the path to salvation isn’t like in the Law, but in faith placed in the one God sends. Jesus is the one God sends (John 13:3), so looking upon Jesus in faith is the path to salvation.

Jesus extends this to all the “Teachers in Israel” by using the second person plural—we Southerners would say “y’all” here. In effect, Jesus is saying:

Israel is as dead as Ezekiel’s bones. Here is a message you can take back to your fellow teachers of Israel. If they want to save themselves and Israel, they should look to the prophecies and examples of the Scriptures. As God brought the dry bones back to life, and as Israel was saved in the wilderness by looking on the one God sent, so Israel can be saved by looking on the Son of God, who God sent to bring Israel back to life.

This is the message that Nicodemus rejected, and the message Jesus knew the Jewish leadership—and the Jewish nation, as a nation (we should mind the enigmatic relationship between nations and individual people)—will reject.

With this background, we finally get to John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16

When the modern reader encounters this passage, they often read it something like this:

God’s feelings of love towards individual humans—including me!—are so deep and warm and strong that God sent his one and only son—he has no other children!—to die on the cross to save ME.

This kind of reading does not fit into the context—and when you take the text out of its context, you’re left with the con.

To understand a better reading within context, let’s look at a few of the individual words.

• “So” is Οὕτως, which means “thus,” or “in this way”
• “Only” is μονογενῆ, which has a range of meanings, from “the only one” to “the one who is unique”

One point to remember when reading this passage is all the times great Biblical figures had more than one son, but one of their sons is unique. Abraham had many sons, but Isaac was his unique son. Jacob had many sons, but Joseph—and then Judah—was his unique son. David had many sons, but Solomon was his unique son.

The sense of unique here is not “the only one.” It is, instead, “the chosen one.” God has other children:

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’ ”
Exodus 4:22–23

But God has one unique Son, born Jesus of Nazareth in the town of Bethlehem, the Son of David. In this context, a better reading of this passage would probably be:

God loved the world in this way: He gave his unique son to cover the sins of those who look on him in faith.

Whosoever will.