A
small child learns rapidly from its mother what is meant by the word
must. When
she says ‘You must …’ the child knows that
must does not
mean might,
should,
could or
ought. It
realises that choice is not involved, that there is no alternative
to what is demanded, and that must means what is
essential and mandatory. The child knows that this word
brooks no discussion, allows no argument and prohibits any protests.
The path is clear and the matter has to end. Sadly, many Christians
lack the intelligence of a little child. They think that when God
says must, some measure of choice is allowed, some liberty is
condoned and some freedom is permitted. However, God always means
what He says and says what He means. Thus when
God’s Word
says must it means MUST.
This is a simple lesson, but one of paramount
importance.
Now this word
must
occurs several times in the Gospel of John, but I would like to
consider just three of these occasions, and link them together. The
first is in John 3: 14, 15, the second in John 3: 7, and the third
in John 4: 24. However, before I go any further, I need to point out
that while the words used in English translations of these verses
may vary, there is absolutely no variation in the original Greek.
The word in each case is dei which means it is necessary
or must.
The first Scripture tells
us that “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus
must (dei) the Son of man be lifted up, that every one who
believes on him may [not perish, but] have life eternal” (John 3:
14, 15). The second Scripture says “Do not wonder that I said to
thee, It is needful (dei) that
ye should be born anew”
(John 3: 7). The third Scriptures declares that “God [is] a spirit;
and they who worship him must (dei) worship [him] in spirit
and truth” (John 4: 24). In all three cases, these are the words of
the Son of God. Reading each quotation in context the reader will
see that the first must is in relation to the Son, the second
in relation to the Holy Spirit and the third in relation to the
Father. Each of these three musts
are of equal
force and of
equal importance.
They each refer to what is absolutely essential.
No true Christian would question the force of the first
must in John 3: 14, 15. It refers to the death of Christ on the
cross: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus
must the Son of man be lifted up”. There was no other way to secure
our eternal blessing: Christ had to die. Even though
the words were spoken to Israel’s teacher (see v10), the Lord speaks
of Himself as Son of man—a title that links Him universally with
all men—rather than as Son of David (which would link Him
with Israel). The death of Christ was absolutely essential for man’s
eternal blessing, whether Jew or Gentile. No believer would even
think to challenge the force of the word
must in this
passage.
My second Scripture may
command universal lip service among Christians, but in reality there
are many who indirectly question its simple force. It is not just
that God had to do a work for me by Christ but that it
was equally essential that He had to do a work
in me by the Holy Spirit. I was not just lost but dead (see
Eph. 2: 1). Thus my unconverted state was so appalling that although
Christ had died for me, I just would not believe. The reader will
note that the word in John 3: 7 is ye and not
thou and
carries emphasis: “It is needful that ye should be born
anew”. Nicodemus came to the Lord as Israel’s representative. Now if
Israel needed to be born again as a nation (hence the word is
ye
and not thou), then what of the Gentiles who were strangers
to the covenants of promise?
The truth of new birth is
problematic for those who believe that it is within man’s natural
capability to have faith in the work of Christ. Note that chapter
three of John is introduced by the last three verses of chapter two.
The words “many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he
wrought” (v23) is a prime example of a ‘faith’ which has its seat in
man’s natural capability. They saw and thus they believed. What was
its worth? The reason is given in the following verses. “But Jesus
himself did not trust himself to them, because he knew all [men],
and that he had not need that any should testify of man, for himself
knew what was in man” (vs 24, 25). In contrast to this ‘faith’ of
the many, chapter three begins with “But there was a man …” (v1).
All believers would acknowledge that real faith is essential,
knowing that without faith it is impossible to please God (see Heb.
11: 6). But where does faith, if real, and of divine value, have its
seat? Is it in what is born of the flesh or what is born of the
spirit (see John 3: 6)? Rom. 7: 18 tells me “in my flesh, good does
not dwell” and so faith cannot reside there! Again, as “that which
is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3: 6), and thus cannot change,
faith must spring from spirit and not flesh, from the divine nature
(see 2 Pet. 1: 4) and not human nature. How is that divine nature
acquired? How do we become children of God? By birth, new birth: “to
those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood,
nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God” (John 1: 13).
Hence as faith finds its origin in the new nature,
new birth must precede faith. Without new birth, faith is
absent. Thus new birth is absolutely essential: “It is needful (dei)
that ye should be born anew” (John 3: 7). It is one of the
great musts of Scripture. It is through the work of the Holy
Spirit that a new, divine nature is acquired in which there can be
no change. For if “that which is born of the flesh is flesh”, it is
equally true that “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John
3: 6).
This brings us to my
third Scripture. Sadly, over this verse, I expect that it will have
to be recorded of my readers that “there was a division among them”
(John 9: 16). This is because while man will often bow to what is
essential for his own good, as in the former two
musts, it is
often a different matter when it comes to what is due to God in the
final must (see Luke 17: 11–19 for an explicit example of
this). However, if you allow that little word
must to have
its full force in connection with the work of Christ on the Cross
for you, and in relation
to the work of the
Holy Spirit in you, then you have to give it
the
same meaning and force in regard to the worship of God.
Let us look at the Scripture containing my third
must and, as
ever, we must note the setting. The Lord had turned his back on
Judaea (see John 4: 3) and was in the shadow of Samaria’s mountain
when the conversation with the woman at the well took place. She
says “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in
Jerusalem is the place where one must worship” (John 4: 20, and
another example of dei). Tradition and place are in her
thoughts. They dominate the thoughts too of many today in connection
with worship. How much of so–called ‘worship’ is steeped in
tradition, where what is done in the present is determined by what
was done in the past! Again, not only do places such as Rome,
Canterbury and York loom large in the religious mind as distinct and
special, but even material buildings, whether grandiose cathedrals
or lowly chapels are often identified with worship. Is it not an
assumption with many that worship can only take place in a ‘place of
worship’—a place sanctified by man? Indeed, it is regarded as normal
for people to speak of buildings as ‘places of worship’.
What is the Lord’s response to the words of this woman? “Woman,
believe me, [the] hour is coming when ye shall neither in this
mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father” (v21). The Lord looks
forward to the present day when both Judea’s city and Samaria’s
mountain would be immaterial to worship.
Thus in Christianity
there is no physical place of worship. Yet most Christians
still ask ‘Where do you worship?’! Why? It can only be
because
Christendom has gone back to Judaism[1].
The Lord continues and says to the woman “Ye worship ye know not
what; we worship what we know, for salvation is of the Jews” (v22).
Judaism was a religion established by God with a revelation of the
true God, and Jerusalem was the place where His sanctuary was.
Samaria’s mountain had no divine sanction. It was the centre of a
false religion, a vain copy of Judaism, and a pretence of what was
true. The Jew could say “we worship what we know”. Hence for God to
be worshipped, He must be known. So why do churches post notices
inviting all and sundry to ‘Come and worship with us’? How can a
world which knows not God, worship Him whom they know not?
Only the believer can worship[2].
Let us continue with the Lord’s reply to the woman. “But [the] hour
is coming and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the
Father in spirit and truth; for also the Father seeks such as his
worshippers” (v23). The Lord does not just now say the “hour is
coming” but adds “and now is”. Historically Christian worship was
then still future but because Israel had already rejected her
Messiah (see John 1: 11) it was morally present and the Lord speaks
of it as such using the words “and now is”. Note that the phrase
“the true worshippers” infers the presence also of false
worshippers! Note also, that it does not say that the Father seeks
worshippers—God does not need to do that, for there are multitudes
of angelic beings who worship Him. What the Father seeks is those
who worship “in spirit and truth”. So what does this phrase mean?
Context must never be
ignored in interpretation. “In spirit” is in contrast to the formal
fleshly legality of Jerusalem and “in truth” is in contrast to the
false pretence of Samaria. But there is more. The construction of
the phrase “in spirit and truth” in Greek allows the
words to be
expressed adverbially with the second noun being used to intensify
the first.
One
scholar gives the overall sense as ‘in a truly spiritual manner’.
This same Greek construction for “in spirit and in truth” is used in
the next verse when the Lord uses that demanding word
must.
The Lord says “God [is] a spirit; and they who worship him must
worship [him] in spirit and truth” (v24). Thus the
manner
of worship must be absolutely in keeping with the nature of God: God
is spirit and His worship must be truly spiritual. He cannot be
worshipped by the flesh, by our natural senses. God is not
worshipped as a result of the eyes looking at beautiful icons,
stained–glass windows or attractive gothic architecture. He is not
worshipped with the ears listening to harmonious choir–singing. He
is not worshipped by the sense of touch in fingering beads, nor by
the sense of smell in inhaling sweet incense. No, the worship of God
must be truly spiritual. Again, no place is left for taste or choice
as to what kind of worship we like. There is no room for preference
in the matter. The word is must. Much that is offered up to
God under the category of worship today is on the level of the
strange fire of Nadab and Abihu (see Num. 3: 4). If it was not for
the fact that today is one of grace, God would have long since
intervened in judgment, (as He did in Israel centuries ago).
Can any
reader honestly claim that worship is “in spirit and truth” or
truly spiritual when the order, choice of hymns and so on
is fixed by one man, days before it is rendered? Is it in “in spirit
and truth” or truly spiritual when just one man (or nowadays,
sometimes one woman) leads the assembled company? Where is the room
left for the One who is the “Spirit of truth” to act (John 15: 26;
16: 13)? The reader will surely see the connection between the
phrase “in spirit and truth” and the One who is the “Spirit of
truth”. Worship to God must be under the control of the Spirit of
God. Men appointing a man to lead them in worship is a abomination
to Him.
Again, how many of us have an unwritten, but nonetheless fixed
‘order of service’ when we come together to worship God, and the
‘right’ things are said at the ‘right’ time? Is this worshipping “by
[the] Spirit of God” (Phil. 3: 3)? What is prescriptive is generally
OT in character and enforced by the same legalistic frame of mind.
The NT often speaks of what was “from the beginning” (1 John 2: 7),
but the omissions are also significant. For example, why is it that
we do not have any description given of an apostle breaking bread?
Or why has not a single hymn that was in use in any Christian
assembly in NT times been preserved to us? Indeed, why do we not
even know the words with which the Lord gave thanks at the
institution of His supper? It can only be because
our worship must be ‘truly spiritual’.
No leeway is allowed in worship, just as no leeway is permitted in
the divine work that secures our eternal blessing. What is mandatory
in the former is equally mandatory in the latter. It is
not
‘should worship in spirit and truth’, it is
not
‘ought to worship in spirit and truth’, it is
not ‘might worship in spirit and truth’, it is
not ‘could worship in spirit and truth’.
No, the word is MUST. “God [is] a spirit; and they who
worship him must worship [him] in spirit and truth” (John 4:
24). Let us then be those who desire in every way to walk in
accordance with the divine command.
[1] The
Jews had an earthly sanctuary where God was to be
worshipped. Thus the Ethiopian eunuch had “come to worship
at Jerusalem” (Acts 8: 27). In Christianity, however, we
come before God, not in an earthly temple but in the
spiritual sanctuary (see Heb. 10: 19: 22). To worship we do
not go up to Jerusalem, Rome, or even the ‘meeting room’. It
is by the Spirit that we get into the presence of God.
[2] The
believer approaches God “through the veil, that is, his
flesh” (Heb. 10: 20; see also Heb. 6: 19, 20). None then are
entitled to draw nigh who do not acknowledge His death as
the way of entry. Few in Christendom understand this – hence
the widespread view that worship is open to all. But how can
unbelievers worship when they have no right of access within
the veil, having no appreciation for themselves of the death
of Christ? The only way they can ‘worship’ is by partaking
of outward forms and ceremonies – a worthless delusion, and
a delusion the professing Church helps to perpetuate!
