"Spirit and truth"

bobthecockroach · 02-03-2012, 01:35 PM

What does it mean to worship in "spirit and truth"?

See John 4 if you don't know what I'm talking about, but I imagine most know this passage well enough for me to not quote it here.

Talked about this with my weekly Bible study group, and I have some thoughts, but I'm curious to see what others think before I pollute the discussion with my thoughts.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 02-03-2012, 07:49 PM

In context Jesus is contrasting is Gerazim vs Jerusalem.

In some sense, I would think Jesus is saying that the rival temples of the Samaritans and Jews were not going to be relevant, and indeed, in a generation, the second of these to fall would. (The Samaritan temple had already been gone for some time)

I think what Jesus is saying is that rather than going to a temple in a holy location, fulfilling a shadow of Christ, they would be able to worship the God incarnate in fullness of truth wherever they were.

I would take the "in Spirit" part as a contrast to Gerazim and Jerusalem, and to in essence mean anywhere, as Jesus is talking to a people about to be dispersed again.

athanatos · 02-03-2012, 07:55 PM

Isn't it that the Samaritans were not worshiping in truth ("we [the Jews] worship what we do know"), largely because they were contradicting the prescribed worship ordinances (i.e. erroneously, falsely)?

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 02-03-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by athanatos

Isn't it that the Samaritans were not worshiping in truth ("we [the Jews] worship what we do know"), largely because they were contradicting the prescribed worship ordinances (i.e. erroneously, falsely)?

Yes. But in a sense, wouldn't the Jews be as well compared to the incarnate Christ? I don't think the Jews are the contrast to their worship, but rather Jesus is contrasting himself to both.

bobthecockroach · 02-04-2012, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

In context Jesus is contrasting is Gerazim vs Jerusalem.

In some sense, I would think Jesus is saying that the rival temples of the Samaritans and Jews were not going to be relevant, and indeed, in a generation, the second of these to fall would. (The Samaritan temple had already been gone for some time)

I think what Jesus is saying is that rather than going to a temple in a holy location, fulfilling a shadow of Christ, they would be able to worship the God incarnate in fullness of truth wherever they were.

I would take the "in Spirit" part as a contrast to Gerazim and Jerusalem, and to in essence mean anywhere, as Jesus is talking to a people about to be dispersed again.

This is basically my reading.

And "in truth" relates to Jesus saying that they worshiped what they did not know. Worshiping in spirit and truth means worshiping without regard to location (or perhaps more generically without regard to ritual) and based on knowing God, based on his revealing of himself in the Bible and in history, not based on whatever ideas of "God" we happen to come up with on our own.

The only reason I bring it up is that this verse often seems to be taken to mean whatever the speaker wants when discussing worship music. Spirit becomes about how loud you sing... as if it was referring to school spirit. Or it becomes about some emotion you feel while worshiping.

athanatos · 02-04-2012, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Yes. But in a sense, wouldn't the Jews be as well compared to the incarnate Christ? I don't think the Jews are the contrast to their worship, but rather Jesus is contrasting himself to both.

Yes. Because Jesus negates both, "neither on this hill nor in Jerusalem" (i.e. as Samaritans, or as Jews) but will worship in "spirit and in truth" --> correct worship, anywhere, because Christ is in them through the Holy Spirit.

athanatos · 02-04-2012, 08:39 AM

Cute doggeh picture btw, Bill.

**Ted Logan** · 02-06-2012, 10:40 AM

I have some thoughts on this passage that I think are worth sharing, but I'm also writing a sermon at the moment, so I'll try to post them soon (as in, in the next couple weeks at latest). For now, the succinct version is this:

I think you have to take "spirit" and "truth" diachronically through John's Gospel. I think both point to the presence of Christ (the time is coming and has now come, v 23) first in the flesh and then by virtue of the giving of the Spirit. Worship "in spirit and in truth" was not possible before the first Advent, and is now possible because of a) the giving of the Spirit (worship in Spirit is coupled with "God is Spirit", v 24) and the presence of Christ the Truth (cf. John 14:6). The passage points to a qualitative difference between the Old and New Covenants, and to the fact that the New Covenant is a better one.

Also, I think D.A. Carson's thoughts on this passage are worth reading in his Pillar New Testament Commentary on the Gospel according to John (esp. pp. 223-226), but one point on which I disagree with him (if I understand him right) is that I don't think believers prior to Pentecost were privileged with the continuous indwelling of the Holy Spirit though obviously the Spirit was the agent in their regeneration (on this, you can see Graham Cole's argument in his book He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Foundations of Evangelical Theology series, pp. 143-145 in the Excursus, "Were OT Believers Regenerate?" and on pp. 194-198 under the heading, "Pentecost and Beyond: The Bestowal of the Holy Spirit"). Carson and Cole are both Reformed and Evangelicals (Carson is a member of the Evangelical Free Church and Cole is an Anglican), but it seems that they differ on this point. Cole points to Richard Gaffin as an example of one who disagrees with him, as well.