Jesus and the Woman at the Well: A lesson in cross-cultural ministry (Part Two)

Introduction

In Part One we looked at the overall context of our subject verses of John 4:1-42. Thereafter we detailed the content of verses 1-15. Therein we reviewed the contrasting attitudes of Nicodemus from Chapter 3 and the subject Samaritan woman, the specific context of these verses and Jesus’ message of eternal life (“Living Water”). We’ll now pick up with the subject verses for this Part Two.

John 4:16-30

¹⁶ He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” ¹⁷ “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. ¹⁸ The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” ¹⁹ “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. ²⁰ Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” ²¹ Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ²² You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³ Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” ²⁵ The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” ²⁶ Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”

²⁷ Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?” ²⁸ Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, ²⁹ “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” ³⁰ They came out of the town and made their way toward him.

Perceived Obstacles to Mission (vv. 16-26)

Verse 15 is the last reference or allusion to “Living Water. “ Instead, Jesus moves the dialogue to a very personal level when he asks the woman to bring her husband to him. To this point the woman has been rather cynical. However, one can imagine that Jesus’ request to produce her husband may have changed the tone of the conversation to become more serious. Cynicism can often be found on the road to pain. But once the missionary/evangelist comes to the recipient’s point of pain, truth begins to emerge. The woman responds to Jesus truthfully but fails to tell the truth in its entirety when she tells Jesus that she has no husband. Nevertheless, Jesus continues his dialogue with the woman. It is interesting to note that none of Jesus’ female followers (Except his mother Mary) had a husband. Not the sisters, Mary or Martha, nor did Mary Magdalene. Nevertheless, Jesus interacted with them on the same level as he did the men he came in contact with. In his encounter with the Samaritan woman, Jesus begins the painful process of revealing the woman’s deep, dark secrets in order to reach her heart. Jesus reveals his divine knowledge when he recounts the number of her past marriages and the fact that she is living with another man.

“Technically it was not contrary to the Mosaic law for a woman to be married five times, but Jewish teachers forbade a woman to be married more than twice—or at most (in the eyes of some) three times; this woman must have had a series of divorces and now lived with a man without marriage.”[1]

Ultimately, Jesus’ reason for this line of questioning does not seem to be for the purpose of exposing the woman’s sinful indiscretions. Instead, it is with the ultimate goal of demonstrating Jesus’ specific and supernatural knowledge of her life. It seems clear that Jesus made his point when the woman acknowledges him as a prophet. D. A. Carson makes an important observation when he writes,

“The least the woman means is that Jesus’ precise knowledge of her past proves him to be inspired. But the syntax of the Greek allows the translation ‘I can see that you are the prophet.’ Because the Samaritans accepted only the books of the Pentateuch as canonical, they understood the words of Deuteronomy 34:10, ‘No prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face’, to be absolute and in force until the coming of the prophet like Moses (Dt. 18:15-19), the second Moses, the Taheb (as they called this promised ‘messianic’ figure).”[2]

            Certainly this may be one understanding of why the woman now uses the title of “prophet” for Jesus but based on the woman’s comment in v. 25, it is unlikely that she understands Jesus to be this long-awaited “prophet” who is the Messiah. Instead, she seems to have begun to make the transition from her earlier position of cynical skepticism to what might now be described as tentative belief that Jesus is more than just an ordinary man.

Some have suggested that this section is a metaphor to describe the religious life of Samaria. The metaphor claims that the five husbands represent the five gods of Samaria. However, even though Josephus specifically states that each nation (five in total) brought their own god to Samaria after being resettled there by the king of Assyria, 2 Kings 17:24-33 makes clear that the five nations fashioned for themselves seven gods and also worshipped Yahweh. However, “That distinction does not seem to have occurred to Josephus. A more serious problem is how well the reference to the woman’s present husband, who ‘is not your husband,” could serve as a metaphor for the Samaritan worship of Yahweh.”[3] Although this dialogue may have some parallels to Samaritan religious life in a metaphorical sense, it is far more likely that the dialogue actually occurred as recorded by John without the need for a metaphorical interpretation.

The dialogue that begins in v. 20 appears to be a complete non-sequitur. However, there are at least two explanations for the abrupt move to another topic. The first is merely a guess without personally witnessing the woman’s demeanor or changes in body language. However, it is not unreasonable to imagine the conversation and the woman’s shame and discomfort at the revelation that this stranger knows about her what she thought only the locals knew about her. It’s not hard to imagine her saying something like, “Well enough about me, let’s talk about something else.” Truth can be a difficult thing to swallow all in one bite. Nevertheless, the truth has been revealed and the dialogue can now move on to the next stage. “To free herself from the shame of her past (and present) in the eyes of this prophet, to deflect any more of his questions, she refers to the historic religious division between Jews and Samaritans.”[4] As previously stated, the point of Jesus’ dialogue with the woman about her marital status seems less about trying to identify any particular sin in her life but instead seems to serve the greater purpose of demonstrating his supernatural knowledge of her life. This seems particularly evident since Jesus never returns to the topic once she begins her new line of questioning about the appropriate locality of worship.

A more likely explanation for a divergence in the dialogue is the real possibility that this is a matter she has been unable to resolve and is looking for a clearer understanding in what the Samaritans believe versus what the Jews believe. Perhaps she senses that this prophet just might have an answer to the question that has long been grinding away in her mind—“Where should I worship God?” This issue was long standing and well known to Jews and Samaritans. The woman wanted to know who was right. The Samaritans, who insisted, based on Deuteronomy, that Mt. Gerizim was the proper place to worship. Or the Jews who believed that Jerusalem was the proper place to worship, based on Scriptural authentication.

“The Samaritans worshiped, but their system of worship was incomplete and flawed because it had no clear object. Because the Samaritans only used the Pentateuch…as their Scriptures, they did not know what the rest of the Old Testament taught about worship. The Jews, with whom Jesus explicitly indentified himself here, did know whom they worshiped, for they had the full revelation in the Old Testament Scriptures. These Scriptures revealed that salvation comes through the Jews, for the Messiah would come from the Jewish race.”[5]

Jesus wasn’t so much trying to drive home the point that she was wrong and the Jews were right but that she was wrong insofar as her information was limited. The point of missions is not to point out an incorrect or incomplete belief system. This merely serves to construct barriers to continued dialogue. Instead, the missionary effort must seek a point of commonality and begin to build upon that foundation using a better understanding or broader revelation of truth. Jesus makes this distinction between the limited knowledge of the Samaritans (whether self-imposed or otherwise) and the full revelation endorsed by the Jews. However, Jesus goes on to teach her that there is greater truth yet to be revealed. “Both Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim are rejected as places where God is encountered. The longstanding feud between Bethel [the cult capital of Samaria] and Zion is pointless, for only in Jesus do we encounter God, and only Jesus supplies the Spirit, without which we cannot offer true worship.”[6] In other words, pursuant to vv. 23-24,

“The distinction between true worshippers and all others turns on factors that make the ancient dispute between the conflicting claims of the Jerusalem temple and Mount Gerizim obsolete. Under the eschatological conditions of the dawning hour, the true worshippers cannot be identified by their attachment to a particular shrine, but by their worship of the Father in spirit and truth.”[7]

Verse 25 records a very interesting comment made by the woman. It is difficult to glean from this text how much the woman knows of the Messiah. However, the Samaritans, more so than the Jews, understood that the Messiah would be a teacher. And, in this case, would clarify what seemed to be her continuing question about appropriate worship. The text doesn’t indicate so much that she disbelieved Jesus but that she had not yet reached the point of replacing her long held beliefs with what he was telling her to be a reality whose time has arrived. She seems to make the comment in a tone that longs for an answer she can claim as the definitive truth. However, she does not yet believe that it is Jesus who holds that truth—or more accurately who is that truth. This is an important point of transition—the point at which those who have held certain long-standing beliefs and/or practices are on the precipice of making a paradigmatic shift in their thinking and system of beliefs. At this point, the woman is looking back at what was while alternately looking ahead to what might be. In her mind, she longs for the One, the Prophet, the long-awaited Messiah to lead her to the right decision. It’s at this point, v. 26, that Jesus makes his final move to push her off the precipice toward what might be. Jesus makes an overt proclamation to this woman that he rarely makes to anyone in Scripture. The pinnacle of their entire dialog comes with the simple phrase, “I who speak to you am he.” Unfortunately, we know too much about the story. We know what happens next and how the story ends but if we could just linger here for a moment we might just be able to sense the years of shame, pain, sorrow and frustration melt away from this woman’s physical body. And in its place we might see a woman who is perhaps standing a bit taller and maybe for the first time in a long time, holding her head up. Maybe she suspected it as the conversation progressed but suspecting something much anticipated and actually hearing it are two completely different things. Many of us remember a time when we formally expected to receive a great prize or honor. But until we heard it announced, there was still the real possibility that it wasn’t going to happen. There is tremendous joy and relief once we hear our names announced even though we expected it. This must have been the way this woman felt when she heard Jesus proclaim that he was the Messiah. You can almost see the tumblers of her mind fall into place as the conversation she had with Jesus flashed through her mind. By the time Jesus made his proclamation, it didn’t take much to push her over the edge.

The NIV translation of Jesus’ proclamation diminishes some of the impact that the Greek imparts. Bearing in mind that the Samaritans only used the Pentateuch as their Scripture and the Johannine overt use of divine revelation, it is not unreasonable to insist that the, “I am” (Gk. Ego eimi) played a more prominent part in Jesus’ proclamation. “This expression may be a mere self-identification…but the pronoun ‘he’…does not exist in the Greek sentence.”[8] The literal translation instead reads:

“I am the one speaking to you.” “The phrase is emphatic and unusual. As we will see later (8:58), it is not always just a term of self-identification that bears a predicate…It is also the divine name of God uttered on Mount Sinai to Moses…When this term (Heb. Yahweh) was translated into Greek, it became ego eimi (‘I am’), and throughout John we will see Jesus’ absolute use of this phrase without a predicate to disclose more of his divine identity.”[9]

At some point there must be divine revelation that is the culmination or focal point of any missionary effort. It moves the focus from previously accepted beliefs and traditions to a new, more complete understanding of spiritual truth. Furthermore, it moves a person from being human-centered insofar as we may follow the teachings or traditions of a particular person (i.e. Jacob and other patriarchs in the case of the Samaritan woman) to becoming Chrsitocentric. Being Christ-centered provides a point of unity which is generally important but takes on a more prominent role in an environment where disharmony exists because of conflicting beliefs, practices and traditions as was the case between Samaritans and Jews.

Jesus’ disciples re-enter the scene in v. 27 and we are immediately transported back in time where prejudices, in this case against women, create a barrier to mission as they wondered why Jesus was speaking to a woman. They are completely oblivious to the fact that not only had Jesus transcended gender prejudices but he broke down the religious barriers that prevented this woman from being in a true relationship with God. The disciples were still trapped within the confines of their old way of thinking. However, within the next few days of watching Jesus in action among the Samaritan villagers, they too would be set free to transcend previously held prejudices and accept that all peoples are entitle to an opportunity to be in relationship with the one who revealed himself to the Samaritan woman as the “I AM.”

At the beginning of this pericope, the woman came to draw water and to do so during a time of day that afforded the best opportunity to avoid contact with any of the other Samaritan villagers. Now, after encountering Jesus, she leaves behind her water and runs headlong for the people she desperately wanted to avoid earlier. What has changed? She’s still a Samaritan. She’s still a woman. Her past remains the same. However, she has been changed by the person whom she believes to be not just a prophet but the Prophet—and she can’t keep it to herself! It’s difficult to say why she left her water jar behind, perhaps she forgot it in the excitement, maybe she didn’t want to be bothered by it because she assumed she would return shortly or perhaps she left it as a courtesy for Jesus to use—it’s not clear from the text. However, it is far from unimportant or else why would John not simply have said that she left to go back and tell the other villagers? Why mention the water jar at all? Is it really that important that we know the fate of her water jar? Most readers would have forgotten about it by this point. Instead, considering John’s extensive use of symbolism throughout his writings, it is at least worth considering that leaving behind her water jar is not unlike the disciples and probably many other followers of Jesus who left behind their old lives of fishing or tax collecting or farming to embrace this new life of following Jesus. The Samaritan woman came to draw well water—old water. She left behind the old water because she had received new water—Living Water!

In v. 29, the “Spring of water welling up” referred to in v. 14 was about to erupt on the Samaritan villagers as the woman gives testimony of her encounter with Jesus.

“Because of her sex, nationality and deplorable marital history, the woman represents the lowest grade of humanity to whom Jesus’ mission of salvation could be directed. If such a woman, then, can be deemed worthy of Jesus’ self-revelation, then nobody can be excluded from his saving mission.”[10]

Whether it was in the way she spoke of her encounter with Jesus—that he, a complete stranger, knew everything about her past or for the simple fact that this woman, who wanted no attention, was now taking center stage to tell them about Jesus. Something about the woman’s testimony must have been compelling as Robert Maccini writes:

“A Samaritan woman came to draw water. But she did so much more. She encountered at the well a stranger with miraculous knowledge whom she recognized as a prophet and perhaps more than a prophet. On her testimony, her fellow villagers made their first steps toward what eventually would become their recognition of Jesus as the savior of the world.”[11]

Next week we’ll continue with the Conclusion of this lesson and begin with: “A Lesson for Missionaries.”

---

[1] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary-John, (Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 61

[2] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), p 221.

[3] Hendrikus Boers, Neither on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem, (Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1988) p. 172.

[4] Gary M. Burge, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), p. 146.

[5] Bruce Barton, et. al., Life Application New Testament Commentary, (Wheaton, IL, Tyndale House Publishing, 2001) p. 390.

[6] David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2004) p. 421.

[7] The Gospel According to John, pp. 224-225.

[8] The NIV Application Commentary, p. 148.

[9] Ibid., p.148

[10] Teresa Okure, The Johannine Approach to Mission, (Tubingen, Germany, Gulde-Druck GmbH, 1988), p. 184.

[11] Robert Gordon Maccini, Her Testimony is True: Women as Witnesses according to John, (Sheffield, England, Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) p. 144.

Jesus and the Woman at the Well: A lesson in cross-cultural ministry (Part 1)

Introduction

It is often said that the “The world is getting smaller.” But what does that mean? Intuitively, it is ridiculous to suggest that the world is physically smaller today than it was at any time in the past. Yet it is an unmistakable fact that today it only takes hours to travel the circumference of the earth. Technology, both in travel and communication, makes touching the farthest ends of the earth (and beyond) a reality of everyday life. However, ministry/evangelism in cross-cultural settings is far more complex than simply jumping on a plane or picking up the phone to fulfill Jesus’ Great Commission. Instead, cross-cultural ministry has a systematic, intentional and most importantly a relational element that is essential to any ministry effort. The purpose of this lesson is to take a closer look at the way Jesus modeled cross-cultural ministry generally and how that was practiced more specifically in his encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well recorded in John 4:1-42. First let’s take a look at the biblical text for Part One.

            John 4:1-15

            The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, ² although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. ³ When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. ⁴ Now he had to go through Samaria. ⁵ So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. ⁶ Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour. ⁷ When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” ⁸ (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) ⁹ The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) ¹⁰ Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” ¹¹ “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? ¹² Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?” ¹³ Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, ¹⁴ but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” ¹⁵ The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

Greater Context

In order to understand the cross-cultural intersection of this Johannine passage, it is essential that the reader have a clear understanding of the greater context within which the passage would have been understood. Jesus’ earthly ministry spanned a geographical area from Judea in the South of Israel to Galilee in the North. Interestingly, Samaria finds its home right between the two. Generally, Jews and Samarians were staunch enemies. Jews believed that they were the true descendants of Abraham while the Samarians were merely half-breeds by inter-marrying with non-Israelites after the Assyrian captivity (721 BC). “The Assyrians colonized the area by settling it with people from a number of Mesopotamian Towns, including Cuthah. These colonists adopted the Israelite faith alongside their own religion and their descendants…are the Samaritans of later times.”[1] Israel believed the Samaritan Torah, priesthood and ritual practices were syncretistic to pagan practices and thereby not only illegitimate but abhorrent. Samaritans, on the other hand, believed they were the true descendants or Abraham. “Samaritans have always believed that they are the direct descendants of a faithful nucleus of ancient Israel. From their perspective, Israel’s apostasy began as early as the time of Eli when the nation’s cultic center was removed from Gerizim to Shiloh (and thence to Jerusalem)…For them, therefore, the question of origins should be directed more toward Judaism than to themselves.”[2] Samaritans believed the true holy mountain was Mt. Gerizim in Samaria not Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Consequently, Jews and Samaritans had a well known and distinct hatred for one another. Yeshua Ben Sira, author of the deuterocanonical book Sirach (circa 10-175 BCE), states that “His soul is vexed with two ethnic groups, the Edomites…and the Philistines, and especially with a third group which is [the]…‘foolish people’ dwelling in Shechem”[3] (Samaritans). This is the broad historical/geographical context within which this pericope must be understood.

Contrasting Attitudes (vv. 1-3)

These verses seem somewhat out place in this particular section. However, in light of the events of Chapter 3, they provide a paradigm shift between Jesus’ actions among the Jews to his actions among the Samaritans. Specifically, Chapter 3 contains the well known exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus. Nicodemus, a Pharisee, proves to be the perfect opposite to the woman at the well—the focal point of the verses that follow. “Nicodemus was a man, a Jew, and a respected member of society who came to Jesus by night. She was a woman, a Samaritan, and a marginal member of society who encountered Jesus in broad daylight.”[4] There are numerous parallels in the two encounters that must be considered in the overall context of John’s writing. For example, they both encounter Jesus alone, they are both engaged in a conversation with Jesus, Nicodemus acts as a representative of all Jews when he uses the pronoun “we” (John 3:2) when addressing Jesus and the Samaritan woman acts as a representative of all Samaritans when she uses the pronoun “our” and “we” (John 4:20). However, the end result is that although the encounters between Jesus and these two characters have numerous parallels, the end result is that Scripture does not indicate that Nicodemus went away from his encounter any more enlightened then when he arrived (even though he re-enters the scene at Jesus’ death with myrrh and aloe to anoint Jesus’ body) while the Samaritan woman left believing and proclaiming the message to others. Ultimately, this is Jesus’ mission—to bring the light of understanding—the light that is Jesus himself—into the darkness of people’s ignorance and presuppositions of God. “Light and darkness are such prominent Johannine motifs that their presence in the narrative signals important theological meanings.”[5]

Specific Context (vv. 4-6)

In the opening verse of this section, the Greek verb “edei” (meaning “he had to”) has been understood in two different ways. The first view, held by most scholars, is that Jesus passed through Samaria on his way to Galilee because it was the shortest, most convenient route. The only other route from Jerusalem was to cross the Jordan near Jericho, travel through Gentile territory and then cross back again near the Lake of Galilee.

“Popular commentators have sometimes insisted that the longer route through Transjordan was the customary route for Jewish travelers, so great was their aversion to Samaritans; this in turn suggests that the ‘had to’ language (edei) reflects the compulsion of divine appointment, not geography. Josephus, however, provides ample assurance not only that the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans was strong, but also that Jews passing from Judea to Galilee or back nevertheless preferred the shorter route through Samaria.”[6]

This, however, does not explain the use of the word edei by the author. It seems odd to say of Jesus that he “had to” go through Samaria. Why not simply state that Jesus returned to Galilee? In fact, why mention his route at all? Unless, of course, Jesus was compelled in some way to return to Galilee by way of Samaria. Consequently, a divine calling to mission must be considered especially in light of v. 34 that follows.

“Since Jesus lives only for the Father’s will and can do nothing except what he sees the Father doing, there can be no other imperative in his life than the Father’s will. Moreover, viewed positively, the situation of open hostility between the Jews and Samaritans which is well exploited in the passage makes his going there on mission all the more striking. Equally, the extraordinary reception given him by the woman and the Samaritans contrasts sharply with his poor reception by the Jews…Johannine usage of the verb consistently refers to the eschatological necessity of God’s plan of salvation executed by Jesus…Consistent Johannine usage thus leads one to see edei as expressing the divine will for Jesus. In short, his encounters in Samaria form part of his divine mission from the Father.”[7]

Although the precise location of Sychar is not entirely clear, there is no doubt that the area was significant—particularly to Samaritans. Jacob’s well was a central landmark that connected Samaritans to their patriarchal heritage. Joseph’s tomb, located on the piece of land given to him by his father Jacob in Genesis 33, would have been nearby. Also nearby was Shechem which was formerly the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. And finally, Mt. Garizim where the Samaritans worshipped would also have been near Sychar. In any event, it is in Sychar, amidst these cultural landmarks that Jesus encounters the Samaritan woman.

“Jesus arrived at Jacob’s well about the sixth hour, almost certainly about noon…when the heat of the day and the progress of the journey explains Jesus’ thirst and tiredness.”[8] Here again is an important contrast to Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus who came under the concealment of night versus the Samaritan woman who comes to Jesus during the brightest time of day. “The night blankets both the godly and the wicked, and it is the coming of the light that reveals the true character of each. The light will expose the identity of the wicked, who flee as the dawn removes their concealment, while it reveals the true character of the righteous, who gratefully emerge from the shadows of night to conduct their affairs openly in the broad light of day.”[9] Ultimately, God’s mission and ours are the same—to introduce those who have been living in darkness to the Light of the world that is Jesus (Jn. 8:12).

The Message (vv. 7-15)

While the opening dialogue between Jesus and this woman seems hardly out of place in today’s Western culture, it was wildly out of place in their culture. There would have been countless reasons why Jesus, according to his peers, should not have been talking to this woman. First and foremost was the simple fact that she was a woman. Second, she was a hated Samaritan. And finally, it is possible that she was a woman of poor reputation. The woman herself knows just how out of place her dialogue with Jesus is when she comments on the fact that he is a Jew and she is a Samaritan woman.

“To speak to a Samaritan was bad enough, but Jesus also spoke to a woman in public. Such an act was to trample underfoot the highly revered religious values of the Hebraic community. Remember, the rabbis, who reflected the agrarian-patriarchal values of Jesus’ day, taught: ‘He who talks with a woman [in public] brings evil upon himself’ (Aboth 1:5). Another rabbinic teaching declared: ‘One is not so much as to greet a woman’ (Berakhoth 43b).

Not only did Jesus speak to the woman in public and thereby openly violate one of the rabbinic religious doctrines, but he also did more than just talk; he taught her theology…This was an unthinkable act to a faithful Jewish male. Again, we need to recall that the oral law taught: ‘Let the words of the Law [Torah] be burned rather than taught to women…If a man teaches his daughter the Law, it is as though he taught her lechery’ (Sotah 3:4).”[10]

The Samaritan woman makes it clear that she understands this sentiment with her parenthetical comment that “Jews do not associate with Samaritans.” Or alternatively interpreted as “Jews do not use dishes Samaritans have used.” Although most scholars prefer the former interpretation, the latter would tend to offer an explanation to v. 11 when the woman comments that Jesus has nothing to draw water with. No doubt the woman has something to draw water with since that is why she is there in the first place. However, she obviously assumed that Jesus would never drink or use her vessel or dishes. This is reflective of the “Popular sentiment, to the effect that all ‘daughters of the Samaritans are menstruants from the cradle’ and therefore perpetually in a state of ceremonial uncleanness.”[11] As a consequence, anything a menstruating woman comes in contact with would be considered unclean. Hence, if Jesus were particularly interested in Jewish purity laws as opposed to his mission to reach this woman, he would not touch her water vessel (to say nothing of even talking with her).

What is less obvious from the text is why the woman would be drawing water from the well during the hottest time of the day. Additionally, “Women were more likely to come in groups to fetch water.”[12] However, later verses perhaps shed some light on her social standing when it is revealed that she has had multiple husbands and is living with a man that is not her husband. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest that she came to the well alone and in the middle of the day in order to avoid the shame and ridicule of the other women in the community.

Having hereby established the radical nature of Jesus’ actions to this point, it is clear that there are two primary principles of missions being employed by Jesus in this portion of the text. First, we must meet those to whom we have been sent within the context of their own culture. And two, we must be willing to dialogue with those to whom we have been sent. Jesus begins to break down cultural barriers that have existed for centuries by being present in the woman’s culture and engaging in dialogue with her. But missions is an intentional process and Jesus is only beginning the process that will eventually lead to a breakthrough of belief.

In v. 10 Jesus begins to make the transition from his need for water to her need for what Jesus describes as “Living Water.” Nevertheless, “On a physical, non-symbolic level, hunger and thirst are common missionary motifs, hardship which the missionary must bear for the sake of the ‘Good News.’”[13] However, as is often the case when Jesus tries to convey a spiritual truth to his audience, in this case the Samaritan woman, his hearers confuse Jesus’ spiritual meaning with their earthly understanding.

“As a resident of Shechem, the woman knows the location of every water source. But here Jesus says something unexpected: He is able to provide ‘living water.’ ‘Living water’ refers to water that flows as in a spring, river, or stream, that is, moving water. Other water stood still, and one could find it in a well, cistern, or pond…Everyone knew that Shechem had no rivers or streams. Even Jacob had to dig a well in order to water his flocks here. How could a Jewish outsider, someone who barely knew the terrain, offer water that no one else had found? There is no living water in Shechem.”[14]

Instead, the woman fails to realize the theological meaning of Jesus’ use of “Living Water” which is well attested to in the Old Testament where “Yaweh himself can be called the fountain of living water (Jer. 2:13).”[15] Another interesting and relevant point to be gleaned from Jeremiah 2:13 is the fact that the woman is relying on “their own cisterns,” in this case Jacob’s well, both physically and spiritually. Yet the woman clearly has a blind spot to this reality—perhaps because of the Samaritans’ limited use of Scriptures beyond that of the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, Jesus has not yet brought her to the point of considering an alternative meaning. What Jesus has not made clear to this woman, or the reader, is what is meant by his reference to “The gift of God.” But the seed has been planted.

Verse 11 has an interesting parallel to Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus. Recalling part of their discussion, Jesus instructs Nicodemus that he must be “Born again” in order to see the Kingdom of God. And Nicodemus asks Jesus if a man can re-enter the womb and be born again. Likewise, the Samaritan woman seems completely confused when she asks Jesus what he was going to use to draw water and how, since Jacob’s well was so deep. Furthermore, she wants to know how some stranger would insist that he knows a better source of water in Shechem than their revered ancestor, Jacob. Jesus seemed to respond in frustration to Nicodemus’ failure to grasp what Jesus was trying to tell him. This frustration is perhaps the result of trying to teach the Pharisee something he should already have known considering the theological context of his life. However, Jesus demonstrates great patience with the Samaritan woman’s confusion and understands the development processes of human understanding which is crucial in cross-cultural ministry settings. Verse 12 clearly illustrates that the woman is stuck in the box of familiarity. This is a crucial and delicate point in the dialogue. Like all cultures, certain things are considered norms or tradition because their practice or understanding has been passed down through the generations. For example, “The description of Jacob’s giving ‘us’ the well and of his drinking from it, along with his sons and flocks, is not found in the O. T. and could have come from popular tradition in the locality.”[16] These norms or traditions are not necessarily bad or wrong, but they must be acknowledged in order to begin constructing a bridge to a new understanding. Jacob’s legacy in general and this particular well more specifically, is a cornerstone to this woman’s theological construct. Therefore, it is on this cornerstone that Jesus begins building the bridge to a new theological understanding.

In v. 15 Jesus finally gets around to describing the “gift” referred to previously in v. 10. But how is such living water a gift? The answer lies in the means of transfer. V. 10 describes the transaction as a simple request and fulfillment of the request. The key to understanding this gift comes from the Greek word dwvsw (“I will give”) which is primarily understood to mean “To give as an expression of generosity.”[17] There is nothing in the text that would suggest that anything more than a simple request is needed to receive the gift offered by Jesus—the gift of salvation that leads to eternal life. Unfortunately, the Samaritan Scriptures, as previously stated, ended at the Pentateuch or else this woman may have had a better understanding of what Jesus was trying to convey based on God’s promise as recorded in Isaiah 55:1-3 “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters…that your soul may live.” However, as is common in cross-cultural ministry, understanding is not universal. In other words, not everyone has all knowledge in common. Understanding this reality will likely avoid much frustration and confusion on the part of those conveying the Good News and on the part of those receiving it. This is further illustrated by the woman’s response to Jesus in v.15 when “She asks for the magic water that Jesus has, so that she may not have to come daily for ordinary water!”[18] It is difficult to ascertain the woman’s attitude when making this statement but it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that she was being somewhat disingenuous. Nevertheless, “Although the woman does not know it, her request for ‘this water’ is indeed a request for the blessings of salvation or of life promised in the messianic days.”[19]

Next week we’ll continue with Part Two and begin with: “Perceived Obstacles to Mission.”

---

[1] Craig A. Evans & Stanley E. Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Background, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 1057.

[2] Ibid., p. 1057

[3] James D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect, (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 119.

[4] Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community,(Minneapolis, MN, Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995), p. 48.

[5] Gary M. Burge, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), p. 139.

[6] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991) p. 216.

[7] Teresa Okure, The Johannine Approach to Mission, (Tubingen, Germany, Gulde-Druck GmbH, 1988) pp. 85-86.

[8] The Gospel According to John, p. 217.

[9] Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, p. 133.

[10] Alvin J. Schmidt, Veiled and Silenced: how culture shaped sexist theology, (Macon, GA, Mercer University Press, 1990) p. 166.

[11] The Gospel According to John, p. 219.

[12] The Gospel According to John, p. 217

[13] The Johannine Approach to Mission, p. 105

[14] The NIV Application Commentary, pp. 143-144.

[15] Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, v. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing House, 1986) p. 987.

[16] Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, v. 1, (New York, NY, Crossroad Publishing Co.) p. 429.

[17] Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 2000) p. 242.

[18] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary-John, (Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999) p. 61.

[19] The Johannine Approach to Mission, pp. 105-106.

Tough Love

This has been somewhat of a sad week for me from a spiritual perspective. I am convinced that the Church is the light to a world that is in desperate need of direction and hope. Jesus is Lord and Savior and the Church must reflect his magnificence. Last week, I wrote about the world’s problem with “hate” and the need for the transforming power of unrestrictive love (See posting: Title: “So Easy to Hate--So Hard to Love,” Label: Pastoral Care, Date: 5/9/12). I’d like to clarify something about my teaching on unrestrictive love. Unrestrictive love is the selfless act of seeking the best interest of others above all else. Please understand that this is no way intended to convey a message of acceptance for any and all behavior! Let me illustrate; my youngest daughter is almost 19 and my oldest daughter is almost 21. I love them both with every fiber of my being and I know my wife, Laura, does as well. However, there have been times in each of their lives when we have had to intervene in their lives and insist that they modify their behavior and/or attitude. Those times were painful and difficult but they are now both such amazing, godly young women. If you think I'm trying to pat myself on the back you're missing my point entirely (especially since I credit God first and foremost and then their mother for the way they’ve turned out!). Instead, I share this with you because seeking the best interest for another may in fact mean having a difficult conversation with them or disciplining them. Although this is an extremely difficult relational dynamic that is often neglected within our homes, it is virtually abandoned in our churches today. I have only met one pastor, the one who inspired me to pursue a life of ministry, who has had the courage to discipline a church member. It was a beautifully loving act that brought about correction, reconciliation and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, however, church discipline is rarely if ever practiced in our churches. Most churches thrive on the message of Grace to the exclusion of virtually everything else. This is particularly true in today’s mega-churches although I have no doubt the attitude is pervasive in many other churches as well irrespective of size. The thinking behind this strategy is that it is far better for unrepentant sinners to attend church and continue to hear the gospel message than for unrepentant sinners to be kept outside the Church. Please hear what I’m saying, I’m not saying that sinners in need of salvation should somehow “clean-up” before they come to church to hear the gospel message. That would be foolish; the sick don't first get well before they go to the hospital, they go to the hospital to get well! No, I’m talking about those who have already accepted Christ as their savior and consider themselves part of the Church yet knowingly sin without any sincere desire to stop their sinful behaviors or attitudes. Church leaders and confessing Christians must be willing to draw a line in the sand established by the teaching of Scripture when it comes to sinful behavior and attitudes and have the courage to say, “This far and no farther!” If church leaders and confessing Christians are unwilling to do so then it gives the impression to a watching world that we are more concerned with money or being popular or that we have a serious God-complex and think we are responsible for everyone’s salvation! How about this; let God be responsible for salvation and we be responsible to be obedient to what he tells us to do!

So what lit my fuse this week that has inspired this particular teaching? Well one event occurred nationally and another locally. The local event may not seem like a big deal to you but it made me very sad. I live in what could be described as a very liberal area of Colorado; politically, socially, morally and spiritually. Consequently, it is not at all unusual to see a bumper sticker that spells out “COEXIST” using various symbols representing the letters. Let me explain each letter in case you are unfamiliar with this particular expression:

“C” Uses the symbol of Islam

“O” Uses the symbol of peace

“E” Uses the symbol for males/females

“X” Uses the symbol for Judaism

“I” Is dotted with the Wiccan Pentacle

“S” Uses the symbol for Confucianism

“T” Uses the symbol of the Cross for Christianity

The message advances the idea of harmonious and peaceful equality of all peoples and faiths. A nice sentiment but that’s not possible with Jesus! For example, what in the world would a Wiccan (witchcraft) Pentacle, which is also the symbol for Satanism, have to do with the Cross of Jesus; are you kidding me!?! It must be Jesus and nothing and no one else. If that means speaking out against everything that presumes a position of equality with Jesus then we must speak out. Sometimes that means strife and conflict but that’s not necessarily unbiblical. Jesus must be the hill we are willing to die on. Remember that Jesus himself said that he did not come to bring peace but the sword; it’s Jesus and only Jesus (Matt. 10:34-36)! Certainly Christians can all agree on that can’t we? We can excuse the ignorance of an unbelieving world, but last week while driving home from work, I noticed on the car in front of me plastered right next to a “COEXIST” sticker was the sticker from a very popular, local “evangelical” church. That's what broke my heart! I’m not saying this particular church has a duty to inspect the car of everyone in their church and legislate who can or can't use their bumper sticker; that would be ridiculous. However, I am familiar with this particular church’s ministry philosophy and they are concerned primarily with getting people, including believers, unbelievers and unrepentant sinners, through the doors and thereafter hope they keep coming back every week to hear something that might somehow transform their lives. I wonder what would happen if this church and others (and that would be most others) would tell unrepentant sinners that they cannot return until they are prepared to repent and seek forgiveness for their sins. I might be wrong but my guess is the term “mega-church” would become an extinct historical phenomenon as opposed to a present reality. In fact, I wonder how many churches would be able to fill a living room let alone a sports arena as some are in the habit of doing.

Nationally, our President, who professes to be a Christian, announced last week that he now endorses same-sex marriages! The purpose of this writing is not intended to be political or an endorsement of any specific political candidate or a dissertation on the politics of same-sex marriage. It will be sufficient for the purposes of this writing to stipulate that homosexuality falls under the biblical category of “sexual immorality.” It was considered to be sexually immoral in the Old Testament and is consistently condemned as sexually immoral in the New Testament as well; there is no equivocation or gray area in this respect (cf. Lev. 18:22, 24 and Rom. 1:18-32). Having established that position, the President’s announcement wasn’t, for me at least, the saddest part of this particular issue. No, the worst part was the comment made by his pastor/mentor of an evangelical mega-church in Florida. The pastor said he wished the President would have contacted him before he made the announcement to give him an opportunity to talk him out of it. The pastor disagreed with the President. However, he closed his comments by reiterating that he nevertheless supports the President! Really!?! How does that help the President correct an unbiblical attitude about an act of clear sexual immorality? This has absolutely nothing to do with politics as far as I’m concerned. What is the President and his pastor saying to other Christians? The office of the President of the United States of America is perhaps the most powerful position in the world. With that position comes significant influence and persuasion. If the President, a Christian, endorses sexual immorality and that position is then punctuated by a prominent evangelical pastor then what should other Christians do? Perhaps this pastor thinks he is practicing unrestrictive love but he is actually allowing the President, those who are influenced by the President and perhaps those in his own church to destroy themselves; that hardly defines love! If a child wants to play in traffic, does it show unrestrictive love to support their right to do so or would you drag them out of the street and discipline them until they understand the gravity of their actions?

Lest you think that I am merely spouting my own opinions, Paul had to deal with an issue of sexual immorality in the church in Corinth. Let’s look at what Paul has to say:

1 Corinthians 5:1-13

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife.

² And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? ³ Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. ⁴ When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, ⁵ hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

⁶ Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? ⁷ Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. ⁸ Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

⁹ I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. ¹¹ But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

¹² What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³ God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

As always, it is important to place this text in its proper context. Corinth was a major metropolitan city. It was an extremely influential trade center and the most important city in the region. The church in Corinth was established by Paul during his second journey through the area and consisted primarily of Gentiles. The city was renowned for its idolatry and immorality. It is within this context that Paul addresses a particular form of sexual immorality within the Corinthian church.

In v. 1 we learn that there is a particularly serious case of sexual immorality within the church that has come to Paul's attention; a man within the church is having a sexual relationship with his mother (probably his step-mother, based on the text, but that does not mitigate the affront that the sin creates). The force of the Greek makes clear that this is more than a one-time event. Instead, this particular relationship is ongoing. To make matters worse, incest was a sexual immorality that was particularly heinous not only in Judaism, but according to Paul, within the Greek culture as well. The Greeks who tolerated pretty much everything thought this was heinous! Paul uses the Greek word, porneia, from which the English word, pornography, is derived to identify this incident of sexual immorality. However, porneia is a general term that encompasses any sexual immorality. “The word was picked up in Hellenistic Judaism, always pejoratively, to cover all extramarital sins and aberrations, including homosexuality.”[1] “Sexual immorality” is a very broad biblical category that encompasses all sex-based sins. Rather than trying to list them all, a good, basic biblical definition of sexual immorality would be any sexual activity (including, but not limited to, intercourse) outside the context of traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

As bad as the sexual immorality was that Paul describes in v. 1, what really has Paul burning is the fact that no one in the church is doing anything about it. Not only that but they are acting as though nothing has happened; as though grace now mitigates all sin and makes it irrelevant. The Greek word translated by the NIV as “pride” can also be translated as; “self-important,” “arrogant,” or “complacent.” Instead, Paul insists that they should have been grieving for the one who had fallen into sin not basking in their new-found graces. Paul then says something that is at the heart of the message I’m trying to convey through this particular teaching. Paul says that they should have removed the sinner from their fellowship. Anthony Thiselton writes, “A formal state of mourning would stamp the life and worship of the church objectively and publicly in a way which it would thereby make it intolerable for the offender to remain, and would then in all probability have made his own choice to leave (or to change his lifestyle). He would know that he blighted the church's life.”[2] In case those who read this part of Paul’s letter were not quite sure what he meant by “removing this sinner from their fellowship,” he makes his point perfectly clear later in this section of verses.

In vv. 3-4 Paul reiterates his authority to pass judgment on this follower even though he is not present with them physically but is united with them in spirit/Spirit. His point is not to be understood as saying that only he has the right to pass judgment on this person because of his position but that he has done so where they have failed to do so.

V. 5 can be very confusing but is one of the two primary purposes behind Paul's instruction to remove this particular sinner from their fellowship. What does Paul mean when he says, “hand this man over to Satan?” It is doubtful that Paul meant an actual physical act of delivering this person to Satan. Instead, “The language means to turn him back out to Satan’s sphere. This does not mean that Satan would not directly attack him in some way, but that is incidental to the language, not its primary intent. In contrast to the gathered community of believers who experience the Spirit and power of the Lord Jesus in edifying gifts and loving concern for one another, this man is to be put back out into the world, where Satan and his ‘principalities and powers’ still hold sway over people’s lives to destroy them.”[3] How, you might be asking, does being separated from the community of believers help this man? Well, according to Paul, it serves the purpose of destroying the man’s sinful nature and making it possible for him to be ultimately saved. “What Paul was desiring by having this man put outside the believing community was the destruction of what was ‘carnal’ in him, so that he might be saved ‘eschatalogically’...In this case, as most often in Paul, ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ designate the whole person as viewed from different angles. ‘Spirit’ means the whole person as oriented towards God. ‘Flesh’ means the whole person as oriented away from God. The ‘destruction’ of the sinful nature would thus belong to the same kind of imagery as in ‘crucifying’ it (Gal. 5:24; cf. Rom. 7:5-6).”[4]

Vv. 6-8 Describe the second of the two primary purposes behind Paul’s instruction to remove this sinner from their fellowship. The purpose is to maintain the purity of their community. Paul uses the illustration of yeast to make his point. Just as yeast works its way into and throughout an entire batch of dough, so does immorality work its way into and throughout an entire community of believers (v. 6). Let me illustrate Paul’s point by using a more contemporary illustration. According to a recent Gallup poll, nearly 80% of Americans profess to be Christians. However, 51% of Americans agree with the President’s approval of same-sex marriages. I may not be great at math but that represents a clear majority of professing Christians who approve of same-sex marriage! How could this happen? I suspect that some small sexual immorality was tolerated at some point and has now begun to work its way throughout the entire believing community. Paul implores the church to remove the yeast (the sinful man) so that they can be a fresh batch of dough without yeast (v. 7). Once the sinful man is removed, they can then celebrate community without the contamination of this sinful man (v. 8).

Vv. 9-11 Expand on what Paul intends when he instructs the church to remove this man from their fellowship. We might think that this simply means that he is no longer welcome at spiritual gatherings. But this would necessarily imply that there is a distinction between the sacred and the secular. This would never have been Paul’s understand of life. Instead, Paul’s instruction “not to associate with” according to Fee means not, "To ‘mix up together’; in the context of social intercourse it means [not] to ‘mingle with’ or ‘associate with’ in a close way."[5] The past tense grammatical context of vv. 9-10 would seem to imply that Paul had written them previously about either this matter or a similar matter. Whatever the case may have been, Paul makes his point crystal clear in v. 11 when he says that they are not to “associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral...” (along with a long list of other sinful behaviors and attitudes). In fact, they are not to even share a meal with such a person. It is quite clear that Paul is drawing a line in the sand that the community of believers are to separate themselves in every way from this man. It is, however, important to note that Paul is only speaking of disassociating with believers who are unrepentant and not unbelievers who don’t know any better. This is an important distinction and a matter of grace I will discuss below.

Vv. 12-13 Paul wants to make sure that it is understood that judgment for those outside the Church is prosecuted differently than judgment inside the Church. Thiselton writes, “If people wonder about those outside, outsiders do not escape responsibility for their lifestyles; they have God as their judge, but it is not for the church to try to impose its corporate house rules upon them. This does not imply that the church should keep silent about what God has ordained for the welfare of humanity. But it places its imposition of ‘rules of conduct’ for the internal affairs of the church and the external affairs of the world on different footing. Against the laissez-faire, consumerism culture of today, Paul asserts that to become part of the Christian community is to explicitly place oneself under the discipline of the Christian lifestyle.”[6]

What About Grace?

Some of you who have been reading this might have been asking yourselves this question; where does grace fit in? Well that’s a great question to ask in the context of discipline and love. Let me try and explain. Grace is the hand that welcomes the unbeliever through the doors of the church to hear the message of salvation. Grace prays diligently and waits patiently for unbelievers to make a commitment to become followers of Christ. Grace welcomes unbelievers to the community of faith through confession, repentance and baptism. Grace is patient with mistakes and setbacks in the believer's life of faith. Grace lovingly removes an unrepentant sinner from the community of faith as an act of love for the unrepentant sinner and an act of Grace for those who remain in the community of faith. Grace prays diligently and waits patiently at the door for an unrepentant sinner to repent and return. Grace welcomes an repentant sinner back to the community of faith through confession, repentance and forgiveness. This is a picture of true Grace; this is a picture of true Love!

Paul’s instruction to the church in Corinth and for us today is not rooted in hatred for sinners. On the contrary, Paul’s instructions are rooted in love for those who are still lost, for those who have become lost and for the well-being of the Church overall. If we are to fulfill our mission to go to all corners of the world to make disciples of all nations, it is incumbent on us that we properly instruct the disciples we have already made. Sometimes that’s painfully difficult; sometimes that’s confrontational; sometimes that’s painful; sometimes that requires Tough Love. In the end, however, it will be worth it for those within the Church and for those outside the Church as well. Craig Blomberg writes, “A holy congregation, which graciously cleans its own house to preserve its purity but which does not expect the same standards of obedience from the unregenerate, can profoundly impact an unholy world.”[7]

---

[1] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing, 1987), p. 200.

[2] Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000) p. 388).

[3] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 209.

[4] Ibid., p. 212.

[5] Ibid., p. 222.

[6] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. p. 417.

[7] Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p. 115.