31 January 1999
Mike Tueller
This week we have a lot of fairly diverse material to cover, and there won't be many connections to make until the end; so I hope you'll pardon a somewhat choppy presentation: we'll just hop from episode to episode.
I should also note that there is a lot of important material here, including some that is doctrinally significant. Unfortunately, in a fashion typical for John, it's mixed up with a lot of material which is obscure to say the least. We can try to draw out meanings together, but, for some passages, the results will not repay the effort spent, so we may just have to pass over some things that look tantalizing.
1. The Wedding at Cana.
I'd like to start with some material that wasn't on your reading list, but which we won't cover otherwise, in John chapter 2. Jesus has just called His disciples in Galilee, and now goes to a wedding with His disciples and His mother.
Read John 2:3-5.
We don't have time to read the next verses, but, as is well known, Jesus fills several stone hydriae (very large pots) with water, which, when served, is recognized to be wine.
Verse 4 has caused problems for Mormons for quite a while. Let's look at it more closely.
The first problem is the form of address Jesus uses with His mother, "woman." On this Talmage said:
The noun of address, "Woman," as applied by a son to his mother may sound to our ears somewhat harsh, if not disrespectful; but its use was really of opposite import. To every son the mother ought to be preeminently the woman of women....and so on for about a page (Jesus the Christ, p. 144). With all due respect to Elder Talmage, the truth is we really don't know what sort of connotation the address "woman" would have. The fact that it sounds rude to our ears implies nothing about how people of Jesus's or John's day would have heard it. Personally, I think it likely that the term had no implications whatsoever, neither positive nor negative, and was a mere statement of fact. What's more, the connotations of terms of address can change radically through time. For instance, fifty years ago it was not uncommon for children to call their father "sir" as an address of respect. Any child using such an address with his father today probably intends it anything but respectfully.
So let's not worry about "woman." The rest is tougher. It seems, in the question "what have I to do with thee," that Jesus is refusing to have anything to do with His mother or what she wants done. However, in verse 5, it seems that Mary accepts His response as a positive one, because she tells the servants that He will direct them. Anyone guessing "mistranslation" here?
Interestingly, after checking thirteen translations, I haven't found any that try to avoid the implication of refusal in Jesus's answer. The Joseph Smith Translation, as you may have noticed already from footnote a, does go the other way, implying acceptance of the task.
The real reason I find this so interesting is that it doesn't seem to me that the original Greek necessarily implies refusal. Translated extremely literally, Jesus's response is "What is (that is, what pertains) to me and to you, woman?" The phrasing (i.e., saying "me and...you" instead of "us") implies that different things pertain to them (hence "what have I to do with thee?"), but it does not actually say so. Grammatically speaking, the sentence puts Jesus and Mary on an equal basis. To my mind, Jesus is really saying, "what chore is there of yours that is also mine?"; in other words, very much as Joseph Smith rendered it, "what can I do for you?" (While I hesitate to take a position against a great host of translators, I do not hesitate forever, and I see no other way to translate the verse in context. This verse deserves a little fuller treatment, which I would be happy to explain to anyone who is interested.)
Let's read the final word on this episode:
Read John 2:11.
At least as far as John is concerned, this is Jesus's first miracle (literally, "sign"). We can see that it had an immediate impact on His disciples.
2. Nicodemus.
Let's move on now to the famous Nicodemus episode.
Read John 3:1-2.
A few things by way of preliminary. It's long been recognized that the Pharisees get a bad rap in the gospels which they sometimes don't deserve. You may remember that I told you that the Sadducees were the ones who tended to be the nobility, and also the ones who Hellenized, taking Greek names and customs. Well, here we see a man with a Greek name, described as "a ruler of the Jews." I don't think there's much chance that this man was really a Pharisee.
Anyway, what is Nicodemus's attitude, as we see it here? (Though he seems to be making a serious inquiry, and is convinced, at least to some degree, of Jesus's importance, he does not dare to visit by day.)
Read John 3:3-4.
So Jesus tells Nicodemus that he needs to be born again. Or does He? If you look at footnote 3b you'll notice that the Greek word that is used here, anôthen, has two meanings, either "from above" or "again." This play on words catches Nicodemus.
How would you characterize his response? (It may seem at first that his answer is merely stupid: he acts as if Jesus's meaning is literal, when it seems pretty clear that it is not. However, I think it's quite probable that Nicodemus knew the meaning was not literal, and was only using this question as a springboard to get Jesus to explain the deeper meaning.)
Read John 3:5.
So this is Jesus's explanation. But what does it really mean?
Jesus's answer is just as confusing as when He started. After all, the word "spirit" in Greek (pneuma), just as in Hebrew, means both "breath" and "spirit." And, as we know, our physical, non-metaphorical birth occurs with a flow of water and the drawing of the first breath. Thus, Jesus's explanation fits our physical birth just as well as it does our baptism and receipt of the Holy Ghost. This parallel is made most explicit in the Pearl of Great Price:
Read Moses 6:59.
So Jesus may be being confusing, but He is still showing, to those who are in tune, that the physical birth and baptism are parallel. Now, all He needs to do is indicate to Nicodemus that inspiration is required to complete the puzzle. He does this in verses 7 and 8.
Read John 3:7-8.
I must say that verse 8 is among the most confusing I've read. It's going to take a little to try to unpack the meaning. First of all, we see the words "wind" and "Spirit" in this verse. These are the same word: once again, pneuma, the same as "breath." Next, the word "sound." This is the Greek word phônê, which can mean just any sound, but usually means an articulate sound; it is usually translated "voice." Here it might be better to think "voice"; when we think of "sound," we think of the natural phenomenon of the wind's blowing, but when we say "voice," we might think more of a traveling wind trying to speak a message. Now that we've translated these terms a little differently, we can see that "the wind" and "the Spirit" really operate in a similar way: they go wherever they wish and cannot be seen, but still communicate a message.
Good enough, but then we have the last sentence: "so is every one that is born of the Spirit." What does this mean? Does Jesus really intend to say that if we are born of the Spirit, we'll be able to blow around as we wish, communicating unseen? I don't think so.
If we're willing to turn to the post-Nicene fathers for a hint, though, I think we can find some useful information in St. Augustine's Twelfth Tractate on John:
For He goes on to say: "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest its voice, but knowest not whence it cometh, or whither it goeth." None sees the Spirit; and how do we hear the Spirit's voice? There sounds a psalm, it is the Spirit's voice; the gospel sounds, it is the Spirit's voice; the divine word sounds, it is the Spirit's voice. "Thou hearest its voice, and knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." But if thou art born of the Spirit, thou too shall be so, that one who is not born of the Spirit knows not, as for thee, whence thou comest, or whither thou goest. For He said, as He went on, "So is also every one that is born of the Spirit."
The parallel St. Augustine draws here is a good one. What he's getting at is this: It's not that the actual person will become like a wind or a spirit, but rather that they will communicate like the Spirit: when an inspired man speaks, the real message of his speech is invisible to the non-believer: it is not contained merely in the words, but rather in some sort of spiritual communication, intelligible only to another believer; the invisible medium by which that communication travels to another believer is what we call the Holy Ghost. In short, Jesus is saying, in terms Nicodemus is going to miss, what He later said in the Doctrine and Covenants:
Read D & C 50:17-22.
Well, we'd better move on to some other episodes now. But I encourage you to read on in chapter 3 on your own. Nicodemus is looking for Jesus's basic doctrines, and Jesus gives them to him, but in a way that Nicodemus finds pretty hard to understand. Jesus keeps talking right up through verse 21, and those verses are full of gems.
3. John the Baptist's fame fades.
Before we pass on to another really significant episode, I'd like to just look at one thing in passing: a few words about John the Baptist.
Read John 3:26-30.
I especially love verse 29. The analogy is nice and simple, and therefore very much like John the Baptist. He says, "I can't be jealous that I'm not marrying the bride, because I was never the groom. I'm just happy to be here." And how happy was he? The last sentence of the verse tells us that his joy was full.
I love John's humble attitude. I'm sure most of us have experienced something like a fullness of joy at one time or another, but usually it coincides with the fulfillment of our ambitions, too. Have any of us ever managed to have a fullness of joy while our star was fading? If you have, you--and John the Baptist--have my admiration.
4. The Samaritan woman.
There are a lot of things to think about regarding the episode of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Let's just go through it rather simply, and then we'll look at it in a couple different ways.
Read John 4:6-9.
So, it's noon on the way through Samaria, and the sun is surely hot. Jesus is alone, and asks for a drink from a Samaritan woman at the well. What is unusual here? (The woman, of course, is right--Jews don't have dealings with Samaritans.)
Jesus doesn't really answer her question, but rather presses on:
Read John 4:10-11.
There's an interesting Hebraism hiding here. "Living water" in Hebrew could mean nothing more than a spring, where the water seems to be alive because it bubbles up by itself. Naturally, that is what the woman thinks He is talking about. She points out that He doesn't even have a bucket, so a lively spring is a little bit of a stretch for Him. She is interpreting literally. Jesus nudges her to think more metaphorically. Let's see what He says and what she responds:
Read John 4:12-15.
How would you characterize her response? (She answers in complete faith, and desires to have what Jesus is offering, despite the fact that she still only barely understands what it is.)
OK, here's our first exercise about this passage. Let's contrast it with the Nicodemus episode. How did that episode go similarly and differently? (See below)
 | John 3:3: Jesus spoke a metaphor, and Nicodemus took it literally, though he may have known better. Here, the woman took Jesus's metaphor literally, and probably didn't know better.
| John 3:9: Once Jesus responds with deeper and more weighty doctrine, again couched in metaphor, Nicodemus begins to doubt the whole thing, because he is unable to comprehend it. The woman, on the other hand, even though she doesn't comprehend, knows it is something she wants, and seizes the opportunity right away.
| |
There's one more point along these lines to be drawn, but we'll need to read one more scripture to get it:
Read John 4:28-29.
What does it mean that she left her bucket at the well? (See below.)
You see that the woman completely forgot her chore, and went back to the city to tell the people of the wonderful doctrine she had heard. This is a physical analogy to what Jesus just said: once you drink of my water, you'll never thirst. We can see that her physical need paled in comparison to the need to spread His message quickly.
This brings us to a third point of comparison to Nicodemus:
| Nicodemus's nascent belief doesn't ever seem to come to much, though he remains friendly to Jesus (see John 7:50-52; 19:38-40). The woman, on the other hand, convinces a number of Samaritans to listen to Jesus for two days, and many are converted (John 4:39-42). |
That's one profitable way to look at this episode. I'd like to suggest another now. First, let us read a few more verses.
Read John 4:25-27.
I'd like you to take special interest in footnote 26a. This footnote is correct; "I AM" statements are special in the New Testament, just like they are in the Old: they emphasize the eternity and divinity of the speaker. The gospels tend to use these sparingly (two each in Mark and Luke, five in Matthew), except for John, the gospel that focuses most strongly on the divinity of Christ, which has 46 such statements! (Ehrman p. 141).
But that's not interesting enough. What is really interesting, I think, is that this statement is the first. The very first person to whom Jesus declared His divine identity--in a way very much like He declared it to Moses in Exodus--was a woman from Samaria.
You may be thinking that it's awfully strange for Jesus to do this to a Samaritan, but that's not what's really so strange about it. Look at verse 27. The disciples, who have heard none of this conversation, but have seen some of it, "marvelled that he talked with the woman." Are they surprised that He's talking to a Samaritan? No, they're not, because the Greek here actually lacks the definite article: it really says that they marvelled that He talked with "a woman." He was alone with a woman, not His wife, and talked with her: He's exceeded the bounds of social propriety. Of course, if they'd known what He'd been talking about, they'd be even more scandalized. But Jesus didn't see it the way they did. He obviously felt that women deserved His attention. This humble woman, not the ruler Nicodemus, is the first person to whom He proclaims His divinity, and initiates His first major preaching tour, two days in her city.
(We may not have time for the following.)
You may ask, but doesn't Jesus tell her to fetch her husband? Isn't He focusing on the salvation of men, after all, rather than women? How "feminist" is this story of Jesus? Perhaps this question is moot, since Jesus is clearly provoking the confession "I have no husband," but verse 16 may be helpful:
Read John 4:16.
OK, so Jesus tells her to call her husband. And He wants them both to come back, right? Well, don't be so sure. I'm sure Jesus would be happy if she brought anyone back to hear His message, but even if she doesn't, His commandment is clear: she, at least, should return to seize the salvation she has found. How can I be so sure? The command, "come hither," in the original, is a singular imperative. For Jesus, even if His message reaches just one woman, it has been worth it.
This makes me think of a play written by my uncle, Bob Elliott, called "Fires of the Mind" (it was printed in Dialogue many years ago, I believe, and still receives periodic performances--see it some time if you have the chance). The play is about four missionaries serving in Taiwan. One of them, after some time teaching the gospel, and converting only women, positively salivates at the prospect of converting a man.
Jesus, we see, would not have done so.
Sources consulted for this lesson include Ehrman, Bart. 1997. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Last update: 24 January 1999