vs 31
I think a lot of people think you can be a disciple just by following someone around. And you know what? Jesus' disciples didn't even do that! When he hit that cross, they did the barney! But Jesus is saying that the important thing about being a disciple is that they hold to his teachings. Now you might think he means the Sermon on the Mount or something, but you will notice that in the book of John so far, Jesus has said precious little about good morals or what we would call "practical" teaching. So how do they obey his teaching?
Jesus' teaching has focused on him being the Son of God, the Messiah. If you hold to that, there are practical things you must do. It's a worldview that completely changes your life. Likes those people who wear tinfoil hats because they think the government reads their minds - if you believe something, it influences your actions.
vs 32
You can't know the truth about Jesus just as head knowledge. If it's not affecting your life, then you don't really know it.Yes, you can say you've heard it. You have an aquaintance with it. But you don't really know it. Which is a shame, because if you did know it, it will set you free.
vs 33
They understand Jesus about as well as the Pharisees do. They think Jesus is talking about physical freedom. It's a funny how quickly people can forget. As descendents of Abraham, they have been slaves to the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, and now the Romans. Now we can argue about some of those - obviously they don't think they are slaves under the Romans (although I think the disciples would probably still like Jesus to get rid of them). But the Jews define themselves as those who are God's people because he set them free from the slavery of Egypt.
vs 34
So Jesus sets it out. Anyone who rebels against God, that's sin, is a slave to it. You can't claim to know and worship God, and then say "But I'm still going to do this thing that God doesn't like, and it's my right as a person to do that". If you put something between you and God, even your own desires, then that means you don't really worship God 100%. And that's really the only % that God expects and demands.
Perhaps that's why in the West we have so much trouble worshipping God - because we have so much freedom, and we can't imagine completely surrendering to someone more powerful than us. In the non-Western world, you do it all the time - terrorists, paramilitaries, tribal chiefs - there are heaps of big powerful people who put demands on your life, and you don't have a choice but to submit. You don't elect terrorists. And you don't elect God. But only one of them deserves your devotion.
vs 35
Jesus is playing off two relationships which were common at the time. A slave might become well liked by the family, but if they go through a rough patch, they can just sell him. He doesn't inherit or get the family name or anything. But a son has pride of place - they get spoiled like nothing else in Middle Eastern culture, too.
vs 36
If Jesus is God's Son, then he has the power to set us free from sin. And that is freedom indeed. Freedom from death, freedom from ourselves, freedom to worship God the way he wants to be worshipped.
vs 37
Now of course those who are his disciples aren't ready to kill him, but the others still are. And the reason they are is because they think they've got God tied up in a nice little box. They think that by making laws about everything, they can get a handle on God and therefore control him. So when someone comes and tells them that what they are doing is wrong, they can either accept that and loosen their stranglehold on the power, or just kill them. Their power is more important to them than God. And don't say that they thought they were worshipping God - they killed the guy who disagreed with them, they knew they were doing the wrong thing.
vs 38
Jesus is criticising them for following the rules made up by their fathers, instead of what God tells them, especially what he tells them through Christ.
vs 39
They think Abraham is their father. But Jesus says that sons follow their fathers, and these people are not acting like Abraham's children.
vs 40
When God's messengers came to Abraham, he put them up in his tent and offered them food. Not exactly the response Jesus has gotten from these people so far.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
John chapter 8
vs 21
I think John more than anyone else shows us that Jesus had a pretty solid message, and that he stuck to it. It might seem a little repetitive at times, but when your audience is mostly listening and reading, one of the best ways to get them to remember is repetition.
This time, though, he's being really harsh. But this is one good example of words of Jesus that are not true for all time. Surely he is commenting on their present state, and saying that the only thing that can save them is if they change their attitude. Rather than look for him, they should acknowledge that they have found him.
vs 22
We might almost think of it as assisted suicide, in that Jesus probably knew full well that he could be killed if he got the wrong people off-side. But that does not negate in any way the responsibilities of the killers. Good old concept of negative responsibility.
vs 23
Can he really make who he is any clearer? This is as much a condemnation of their attitude as it is an assurance of his deity though. If they had their minds set on heaven and not on earth, then they would recognise him.
vs 24
Jesus is my bro here, backing me up in what I said in verse 21. Their condemnation is conditional on their lack of belief. But Jesus is sort of making another point here, that you might not pick up at first. Read verse 21 again, and then read the Pharisee's response in verse 22. Jesus said to them "You, you guys I am talking to right now, you guys are going to die in your sins, and then that's it for you. It's bad. No good future for you guys." Their response was "What did he say about where he was going?" They are completely closed off to the idea of them dying in their sins, so much so that Jesus has to repeat it again. "LISTEN UP GUYS! If you don't follow me, you're dead in your sins, idiots!"
vs 25
Now they want to know who he is. And his answer is always a little bit mysterious. Jesus does claim to be the messiah, and just before he said that he comes from heaven. But Jesus mostly relies on other people witnessing to who he is. Testimony of two or three witnesses and all that.
vs 26
Jesus wants them to know that even though what he is saying is almost constantly condemning the Pharisees, it is still true because it comes from God. He's just passing on God's message as God's servant. The fact that the Pharisees have gotten themselves into a position where they require condemnation and judgement is their own fault, and now they are copping it.
vs 27
But of course if you don't want to hear something, you don't hear it. To give them the benefit of the doubt, who really did understand it when he was saying it? It's easy to look back and see what he was saying with hindsight, but we're still only about a third of the way through the story.
vs 28
Jesus regularly uses this phrase "lifted up", which is a harkening to the brass snake being lifted up. They might have thought he was talking about a time when they accepted and exalted him, which of course to them was unlikely. But of course, he's talking about his crucifixion. But then, they still don't accept him after that. It's the resurrection which will be the big kicker.
And yes, even then the Pharisees didn't all accept him. But more did than we realise I think. A lot of the early converts to Christianity were priests and religious leaders. Read Acts.
vs 29
Jesus might not be pleasing the religious leaders with what he says and does, but then that's not his job is it? His job is do do what God told him to do, and so he does that instead. It doesn't always make people happy, but then God somehow deals with all the bitching and complaining that people do to and about him.
vs 30
See, there you go. Even then, Pharisees were changing sides. Only the more stubborn or clueless were left, and we all know what happens when you get stubborn and clueless people together to make decisions, particularly religious ones.
I think John more than anyone else shows us that Jesus had a pretty solid message, and that he stuck to it. It might seem a little repetitive at times, but when your audience is mostly listening and reading, one of the best ways to get them to remember is repetition.
This time, though, he's being really harsh. But this is one good example of words of Jesus that are not true for all time. Surely he is commenting on their present state, and saying that the only thing that can save them is if they change their attitude. Rather than look for him, they should acknowledge that they have found him.
vs 22
We might almost think of it as assisted suicide, in that Jesus probably knew full well that he could be killed if he got the wrong people off-side. But that does not negate in any way the responsibilities of the killers. Good old concept of negative responsibility.
vs 23
Can he really make who he is any clearer? This is as much a condemnation of their attitude as it is an assurance of his deity though. If they had their minds set on heaven and not on earth, then they would recognise him.
vs 24
Jesus is my bro here, backing me up in what I said in verse 21. Their condemnation is conditional on their lack of belief. But Jesus is sort of making another point here, that you might not pick up at first. Read verse 21 again, and then read the Pharisee's response in verse 22. Jesus said to them "You, you guys I am talking to right now, you guys are going to die in your sins, and then that's it for you. It's bad. No good future for you guys." Their response was "What did he say about where he was going?" They are completely closed off to the idea of them dying in their sins, so much so that Jesus has to repeat it again. "LISTEN UP GUYS! If you don't follow me, you're dead in your sins, idiots!"
vs 25
Now they want to know who he is. And his answer is always a little bit mysterious. Jesus does claim to be the messiah, and just before he said that he comes from heaven. But Jesus mostly relies on other people witnessing to who he is. Testimony of two or three witnesses and all that.
vs 26
Jesus wants them to know that even though what he is saying is almost constantly condemning the Pharisees, it is still true because it comes from God. He's just passing on God's message as God's servant. The fact that the Pharisees have gotten themselves into a position where they require condemnation and judgement is their own fault, and now they are copping it.
vs 27
But of course if you don't want to hear something, you don't hear it. To give them the benefit of the doubt, who really did understand it when he was saying it? It's easy to look back and see what he was saying with hindsight, but we're still only about a third of the way through the story.
vs 28
Jesus regularly uses this phrase "lifted up", which is a harkening to the brass snake being lifted up. They might have thought he was talking about a time when they accepted and exalted him, which of course to them was unlikely. But of course, he's talking about his crucifixion. But then, they still don't accept him after that. It's the resurrection which will be the big kicker.
And yes, even then the Pharisees didn't all accept him. But more did than we realise I think. A lot of the early converts to Christianity were priests and religious leaders. Read Acts.
vs 29
Jesus might not be pleasing the religious leaders with what he says and does, but then that's not his job is it? His job is do do what God told him to do, and so he does that instead. It doesn't always make people happy, but then God somehow deals with all the bitching and complaining that people do to and about him.
vs 30
See, there you go. Even then, Pharisees were changing sides. Only the more stubborn or clueless were left, and we all know what happens when you get stubborn and clueless people together to make decisions, particularly religious ones.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
John chapter 8
vs 12
John repeats the claims of Jesus in his first chapter - but here is Jesus claiming it for himself. Obviously he does not mean he is light in that when you're a Christian you can see in the dark. If we will have the light of life, then surely that means we are currently in the darkness of death.
vs 13
In the OT, you needed two or three witnesses for your testimony to be valid. This doesn't seem like a legal case to me - Jesus is just speaking - but they seem to feel the need for other people to validate his testimony. Because, you know, John the Baptist and blind people who can see and lame people who can walk aren't good enough.
vs 14
Jesus takes umbrage at basically being called a liar, and tells them that he knows where he's from and where he's going, which is more than he can say for the Pharisees.
vs 15
I've sort of having my feelings changed on judgement and judging others. I don't think the Brethren are the healthiest place to grow up as a mature Christian to have a biblical understanding of judgement and active faith. Let me explain that though. The Christian Brethren, and our doctrines and practices, have been criticised as antinomian. That means we think as long as someone "prays the prayer" that they are now forever saved, and there is nothing more they need to doto be saved. In fact, we go a step further and say there's absolutely nothing we can do to be saved (very Lutherish) and we therefore devalue any sort of activity that is not spiritual or missionary (in as far as it makes people "pray the prayer").
Jesus says he stands in judgement of no one. What he means, obviously, is that he stands in judgement of no one yet. Because he has judged people. He has judged the Pharisees several times and found them wanting. So how can he stand here and say that he doesn't judge people when he obviously has, not to mention when in the end times he will sit as judge?
The reason is because I think he is making a difference between weighing up someone's actions and attitude having some sort of ability of discrimination (being able to make a character judgement, if you will) and making an end times judgement (making a legal judgement).
We cannot and we must not pretend to guard the gates of heaven, judging people in a legal sense as to whether they will be in heaven or not. But we can and must discriminate between people regarding their status with God, and we can really only do that based on their character and actions. John himself says that a person who says "I love God" but hates their brother is not living a Christian life. That doesn't mean I condemn them to hell. Jesus will do that, if the person is a hypocrite. I will leave the legal judgement to Him who judges justly. But it means that I should be wary of this so that I can help the person, and also be wary that they might not be on the side I think they're on. This isn't a matter of doctrinal difference or a matter of peripheral cultural activity. We've got to be sensitive to these and weed them out so as not to be unfair. But you can't just take people at their word as to whether they are Christian or not. It doesn't mean treat all new people with suspicion, it just means that as time goes on, if they walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, and swim like a duck...
vs 16
Ahhh, so Jesus might end up judging in the legal sense, and if he does, his judgements will be valid, because God stands next to him and upholds his judgements. See, even Jesus was not adverse to a little bit of hyperbole.
vs 17
Like I was saying before. Interesting he calls it their own Law - not his law.
vs 18
Jesus and God make two pretty powerful witnesses.
vs 19
They just don't get it, though. They think he's talking about his earthly father (who we are to understand from other gospels is not the biological father), but of course he's talking about his heavenly father, who would stand beside him in judgement.
Jesus points out to them that if they really knew Jesus and who he was, they'd know who his Father is. But they're thick as two short planks.
vs 20
Then we just get a wrapup verse about where he was, and why he wasn't arrested. The theme of "not getting arrested" goes through the gospels. It must have been an exciting time to be a disciple.
John repeats the claims of Jesus in his first chapter - but here is Jesus claiming it for himself. Obviously he does not mean he is light in that when you're a Christian you can see in the dark. If we will have the light of life, then surely that means we are currently in the darkness of death.
vs 13
In the OT, you needed two or three witnesses for your testimony to be valid. This doesn't seem like a legal case to me - Jesus is just speaking - but they seem to feel the need for other people to validate his testimony. Because, you know, John the Baptist and blind people who can see and lame people who can walk aren't good enough.
vs 14
Jesus takes umbrage at basically being called a liar, and tells them that he knows where he's from and where he's going, which is more than he can say for the Pharisees.
vs 15
I've sort of having my feelings changed on judgement and judging others. I don't think the Brethren are the healthiest place to grow up as a mature Christian to have a biblical understanding of judgement and active faith. Let me explain that though. The Christian Brethren, and our doctrines and practices, have been criticised as antinomian. That means we think as long as someone "prays the prayer" that they are now forever saved, and there is nothing more they need to doto be saved. In fact, we go a step further and say there's absolutely nothing we can do to be saved (very Lutherish) and we therefore devalue any sort of activity that is not spiritual or missionary (in as far as it makes people "pray the prayer").
Jesus says he stands in judgement of no one. What he means, obviously, is that he stands in judgement of no one yet. Because he has judged people. He has judged the Pharisees several times and found them wanting. So how can he stand here and say that he doesn't judge people when he obviously has, not to mention when in the end times he will sit as judge?
The reason is because I think he is making a difference between weighing up someone's actions and attitude having some sort of ability of discrimination (being able to make a character judgement, if you will) and making an end times judgement (making a legal judgement).
We cannot and we must not pretend to guard the gates of heaven, judging people in a legal sense as to whether they will be in heaven or not. But we can and must discriminate between people regarding their status with God, and we can really only do that based on their character and actions. John himself says that a person who says "I love God" but hates their brother is not living a Christian life. That doesn't mean I condemn them to hell. Jesus will do that, if the person is a hypocrite. I will leave the legal judgement to Him who judges justly. But it means that I should be wary of this so that I can help the person, and also be wary that they might not be on the side I think they're on. This isn't a matter of doctrinal difference or a matter of peripheral cultural activity. We've got to be sensitive to these and weed them out so as not to be unfair. But you can't just take people at their word as to whether they are Christian or not. It doesn't mean treat all new people with suspicion, it just means that as time goes on, if they walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, and swim like a duck...
vs 16
Ahhh, so Jesus might end up judging in the legal sense, and if he does, his judgements will be valid, because God stands next to him and upholds his judgements. See, even Jesus was not adverse to a little bit of hyperbole.
vs 17
Like I was saying before. Interesting he calls it their own Law - not his law.
vs 18
Jesus and God make two pretty powerful witnesses.
vs 19
They just don't get it, though. They think he's talking about his earthly father (who we are to understand from other gospels is not the biological father), but of course he's talking about his heavenly father, who would stand beside him in judgement.
Jesus points out to them that if they really knew Jesus and who he was, they'd know who his Father is. But they're thick as two short planks.
vs 20
Then we just get a wrapup verse about where he was, and why he wasn't arrested. The theme of "not getting arrested" goes through the gospels. It must have been an exciting time to be a disciple.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
John chapter 8
It's hard to know whether to bother writing stuff on this first bit of the chapter. As it says, it isn't in the best manuscripts, and as such it really isn't the most trustworthy part of the Bible.
Just some info on these verses for you:
They aren't found in virtually any greek manuscript before medieval times, or in the early Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Georgian or Armenian manuscripts. All the early church fathers seem to skip the narrative when they are commenting on John, going straight from 7:52 to 8:12. Later manuscripts mark it off as of questionable authenticity. Some manuscripts even put it in after John 7:44, 7:36 or 21:25, or even after Luke 21:38!
But anyway, I will look at it because it's here, it's a well known story, and there are other possible sources from which the story came which could make it an authentic story of Jesus, even if not canonical.
vs 1
Jesus is now at the Mount of Olives.
vs 2
The temple seems to be a fairly regular place for Jesus to speak. It's not surprising - have a look some day at google earth, and check out the Dome of the Rock, and then the Temple Mound that it's on - it's huge.
vs 3
You always have to ask the question "how did they know? How did she get caught?" and the less popular but equally stirring "Where's the man?"
vs 4
The Pharisees are obviously trying to get Jesus to do something - they come publicly, bringing this woman, and say all this in front of the group that he's teaching.
vs 5
Moses did say that. And no doubt the Pharisees would have done it, too. But actually, it turns out that in first century Palestine, it was very rare, especially in built up city areas (like Jerusalem), so instead they sought to gain political capital out of the poor woman. I guess the idea is that Jesus is prissy, and he's going to say "No, don't stone her" and prove he's not really a true teacher of the Bible, or he's going to say "Yes, she must be stoned" and show that the Pharisees are right and that he's a hard-ass. Also, it seems that stoning adulterers was not a very popular passtime among the Jews of the first century, and so it would have made Jesus less popular.
vs 6
As it says here, they wanted to trap him, and as probably weren't going to stone her, their motives are fairly obvious.
What did Jesus write? Nobody knows. There are some fairly excellent suggestions in this commentary I have here, but in the end we don't know for sure.
vs 7
The fact that they kept on questioning him obviously means that whatever he was writing was not seen well by them, or they did not feel it sufficient. So while it delayed them a little, it didn't accomplish much.
So then he stands up and says what he says. Now here's something I've never heard before. According to Carson, Jesus was not expecting the accusers to be sinless paragons of perfection. He was not even saying to them that if they are lustful they are no better (he does say that, in Matthew, just not here). Carson suggests that Jesus was saying "If you are without THIS SIN, then chuck your stones".
Now it is pretty well known that our prudish Western Christian culture demonises adultery as if it were a sin cardinal than any other (perhaps murder and rape). I'm talking about Christians here, not your average thug who sleeps with a different man/woman every night. If a preacher is caught in adultery, in Australia or America, that's it - they're worthless, chucked away. In non-Western cultures, especially some African ones, it's not as big a deal. They tell the guy to get married, or if he is married, they send him away with his wife for a month or two, and then he's expected to clean up his act and get back to preaching. I have a funny feeling that Palestinian culture was and possibly is the same (don't think Muslims would see it differently, by the way - how often do you hear of a man getting stoned for adultery? It's always women, just like here in these verses).
So what is incredible is that 1) They were all guilty of it at one time, but that's probably not as incredible as...
vs 8
(Jesus writes some more, the tension is building!)
vs 9
... 2) Jesus publicly calls them adulterers, and they admit it by leaving. Those who came to shame Jesus are instead shamed publicly by him. Ouch.
They don't even take the woman with them - now that they've been shamed, they just leave her there, she's valueless to them.
vs 10
But she's not valueless to Jesus. When they've all gone, he asks her what's happened. He talks to her, a convicted adulterer, and asks her to explain to him what's going on. Where did everybody go? Is no one condemning you now?
vs 11
The answer, of course, is no one. And because none of the wacky hypocrites condemns her, the pure hearted and perfect Messiah also doesn't condemn her. But his message is more than that. She must repent. What he says to her is the very definition of repent - turn away from what you've been doing, and don't do it anymore.
Just some info on these verses for you:
They aren't found in virtually any greek manuscript before medieval times, or in the early Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Georgian or Armenian manuscripts. All the early church fathers seem to skip the narrative when they are commenting on John, going straight from 7:52 to 8:12. Later manuscripts mark it off as of questionable authenticity. Some manuscripts even put it in after John 7:44, 7:36 or 21:25, or even after Luke 21:38!
But anyway, I will look at it because it's here, it's a well known story, and there are other possible sources from which the story came which could make it an authentic story of Jesus, even if not canonical.
vs 1
Jesus is now at the Mount of Olives.
vs 2
The temple seems to be a fairly regular place for Jesus to speak. It's not surprising - have a look some day at google earth, and check out the Dome of the Rock, and then the Temple Mound that it's on - it's huge.
vs 3
You always have to ask the question "how did they know? How did she get caught?" and the less popular but equally stirring "Where's the man?"
vs 4
The Pharisees are obviously trying to get Jesus to do something - they come publicly, bringing this woman, and say all this in front of the group that he's teaching.
vs 5
Moses did say that. And no doubt the Pharisees would have done it, too. But actually, it turns out that in first century Palestine, it was very rare, especially in built up city areas (like Jerusalem), so instead they sought to gain political capital out of the poor woman. I guess the idea is that Jesus is prissy, and he's going to say "No, don't stone her" and prove he's not really a true teacher of the Bible, or he's going to say "Yes, she must be stoned" and show that the Pharisees are right and that he's a hard-ass. Also, it seems that stoning adulterers was not a very popular passtime among the Jews of the first century, and so it would have made Jesus less popular.
vs 6
As it says here, they wanted to trap him, and as probably weren't going to stone her, their motives are fairly obvious.
What did Jesus write? Nobody knows. There are some fairly excellent suggestions in this commentary I have here, but in the end we don't know for sure.
vs 7
The fact that they kept on questioning him obviously means that whatever he was writing was not seen well by them, or they did not feel it sufficient. So while it delayed them a little, it didn't accomplish much.
So then he stands up and says what he says. Now here's something I've never heard before. According to Carson, Jesus was not expecting the accusers to be sinless paragons of perfection. He was not even saying to them that if they are lustful they are no better (he does say that, in Matthew, just not here). Carson suggests that Jesus was saying "If you are without THIS SIN, then chuck your stones".
Now it is pretty well known that our prudish Western Christian culture demonises adultery as if it were a sin cardinal than any other (perhaps murder and rape). I'm talking about Christians here, not your average thug who sleeps with a different man/woman every night. If a preacher is caught in adultery, in Australia or America, that's it - they're worthless, chucked away. In non-Western cultures, especially some African ones, it's not as big a deal. They tell the guy to get married, or if he is married, they send him away with his wife for a month or two, and then he's expected to clean up his act and get back to preaching. I have a funny feeling that Palestinian culture was and possibly is the same (don't think Muslims would see it differently, by the way - how often do you hear of a man getting stoned for adultery? It's always women, just like here in these verses).
So what is incredible is that 1) They were all guilty of it at one time, but that's probably not as incredible as...
vs 8
(Jesus writes some more, the tension is building!)
vs 9
... 2) Jesus publicly calls them adulterers, and they admit it by leaving. Those who came to shame Jesus are instead shamed publicly by him. Ouch.
They don't even take the woman with them - now that they've been shamed, they just leave her there, she's valueless to them.
vs 10
But she's not valueless to Jesus. When they've all gone, he asks her what's happened. He talks to her, a convicted adulterer, and asks her to explain to him what's going on. Where did everybody go? Is no one condemning you now?
vs 11
The answer, of course, is no one. And because none of the wacky hypocrites condemns her, the pure hearted and perfect Messiah also doesn't condemn her. But his message is more than that. She must repent. What he says to her is the very definition of repent - turn away from what you've been doing, and don't do it anymore.
Friday, January 26, 2007
John Chapter 7
Happy Oz Day! In honour of Australia's heritage, I'll do an Aussie Bible study today.
vs 45
I'm not actually sure what the job of your average temple guard was. I mean, I can't imagine arresting preachers was on their regular to do list. But that is what their bosses had told them to do, and they had done pretty spectacularly badly. The chief priests and Pharisees were spitting chips, because they couldn't understand why they hadn't done this simple thing.
Now, a bunch of people had wanted to seize Jesus, but no one could - there was surely something supernatural going on.
vs 46
But that's not what the guards say. They just say that they were so impressed by his yammering that they just stood there and listened. Not really the best response from the hired muscle.
vs 47
Their bosses are not amused, and accuse them of being deceived by Jesus, as if anyone who listened to Jesus was already being deceived.
vs 48
Nicodemus may have. Shows how much they know. It also shows how hard their hearts had been made by legalism - and I can tell you, that all legalists have the same hard-hearted mentality.
vs 49
They attribute it to their special knowledge of the Law and all its inner workings, which protects them from the truth. And so it seems to. But in fact, it means they are the cursed ones, not the general public, or "mob".
vs 50
Ahh, speak of the Nicodemus and out he comes. He doesn't out and out defend Jesus, but he does point out that the more radical of the Pharisees has his head up his arse.
vs 51
Nicodemus doesn't say "Oooh, Oooh, I'm a Jesus Freak, look at me!", but he does point out that he deserves a fair go. People with closed ears should also close their mouths. As my mum used to say, you've got two ears and one mouth - use them in that ratio. She didn't say that, actually, because ratio is not a word she would have used. I've always talked too much.
vs 52
Their response is an immediate ad hominem argument - the mating call of the loser in debating. Sure, a prophet doesn't come out of Galilee, and neither does Jesus you fools!
See, when we do things like criticise the Catholic church, we don't realise that it is full of excellent Bible scholars and that there are probably plenty of Christians who work within the Catholic church. Yes, it has some crazy stuff. But are you saying our churches don't? Far out! The Brethos are a bunch of lunatics. I mean, we've got a lot of valuable doctrines and practices, but we also have an inability to get past using stone-age tools, whereas other churches have nuclear weapons! Spiritually, I mean, not in reality. We're anti-intellectual, anti-change, anti-theology, anti-women, anti-youth, anti-service, anti-paid leadership. We're just as anti-biblical as the Catholics, it's just that they've been doing it longer.
vs 53
This doesn't appear in the more reliable manuscripts, so don't go basing any hard theology on it. I don't know exactly how you would do that with this verse, but tomorrow's verses are the same - it's a nice story, but you've got to take it with a grain of salt.
vs 45
I'm not actually sure what the job of your average temple guard was. I mean, I can't imagine arresting preachers was on their regular to do list. But that is what their bosses had told them to do, and they had done pretty spectacularly badly. The chief priests and Pharisees were spitting chips, because they couldn't understand why they hadn't done this simple thing.
Now, a bunch of people had wanted to seize Jesus, but no one could - there was surely something supernatural going on.
vs 46
But that's not what the guards say. They just say that they were so impressed by his yammering that they just stood there and listened. Not really the best response from the hired muscle.
vs 47
Their bosses are not amused, and accuse them of being deceived by Jesus, as if anyone who listened to Jesus was already being deceived.
vs 48
Nicodemus may have. Shows how much they know. It also shows how hard their hearts had been made by legalism - and I can tell you, that all legalists have the same hard-hearted mentality.
vs 49
They attribute it to their special knowledge of the Law and all its inner workings, which protects them from the truth. And so it seems to. But in fact, it means they are the cursed ones, not the general public, or "mob".
vs 50
Ahh, speak of the Nicodemus and out he comes. He doesn't out and out defend Jesus, but he does point out that the more radical of the Pharisees has his head up his arse.
vs 51
Nicodemus doesn't say "Oooh, Oooh, I'm a Jesus Freak, look at me!", but he does point out that he deserves a fair go. People with closed ears should also close their mouths. As my mum used to say, you've got two ears and one mouth - use them in that ratio. She didn't say that, actually, because ratio is not a word she would have used. I've always talked too much.
vs 52
Their response is an immediate ad hominem argument - the mating call of the loser in debating. Sure, a prophet doesn't come out of Galilee, and neither does Jesus you fools!
See, when we do things like criticise the Catholic church, we don't realise that it is full of excellent Bible scholars and that there are probably plenty of Christians who work within the Catholic church. Yes, it has some crazy stuff. But are you saying our churches don't? Far out! The Brethos are a bunch of lunatics. I mean, we've got a lot of valuable doctrines and practices, but we also have an inability to get past using stone-age tools, whereas other churches have nuclear weapons! Spiritually, I mean, not in reality. We're anti-intellectual, anti-change, anti-theology, anti-women, anti-youth, anti-service, anti-paid leadership. We're just as anti-biblical as the Catholics, it's just that they've been doing it longer.
vs 53
This doesn't appear in the more reliable manuscripts, so don't go basing any hard theology on it. I don't know exactly how you would do that with this verse, but tomorrow's verses are the same - it's a nice story, but you've got to take it with a grain of salt.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
John Chapter 7
vs 32
Abusing their authority to wipe out people they didn't like. We would call it a disregard for people's freedoms and human right. Of course, freedom and human rights didn't really exist back then - oppressive governments call this sort of action protection of security and stability. It is a fair call to say that Jesus was causing trouble and destabilising the jewish worldview. And yes, those were crimes punishable by death, and still are in some parts of the world.
vs 33-34
Jesus of course means heaven. And he is looking forward to a time when it will be too late to look for the savior. Once you have died in your sins, if you then go looking for the saviour to take them away, it will be too late for you.
vs 35
Of course, the Jews again misunderstand him. Carson makes the point that the Jews, who thought they knew where he had come from, could not imagine him going somewhere they couldn't just follow.
vs 36
This confused them, and so they may have thought he meant something different, but weren't sure what. Remember that ideas of eternity in heaven are in their infantile stage in Judaism - they aren't really built up well in the OT.
vs 37-38
Jesus seems to be repeating his "living water" idea. Perhaps if we lived a little more on the bread line, we'd realise how valuable this sounds - never having to go and fetch water.
vs 39
John really goes into some details of the future here, but also explains what Jesus means. He is talking about a spiritual river of live given by the Holy Spirit. Now this is something that was prophesied about in the OT - the giving of God's Spirit to all his children. But it won't happen, as John points out, till Jesus is glorified.
vs 40-41
His words and the authority he gives them makes people know that Jesus is something special. Some call him "the Prophet", others call him "the Christ". But some are still not convinced - he is from Galilee, not Bethlehem (as far as they know) so how could he be the Christ?
vs 42
what did I say? People were switched on. They really want to find this Messiah guy, but they don't fool around either - the Bible does make some things clear about him.
vs 43
Just like people are divided now.
vs 44
Even if they wanted to seize him, they couldn't - his words are powerful and authoritative, almost mezmerising. Not in a hypnotic way, but in a way that they are so new and fresh that you can't help but listen. It's a bit like good science-fiction - you think "ahh, they'll never do this" but then you wistfully dream of flying cars. And then, in 30 years time, you have flying cars and you think "Wow, that guy was ahead of his time".
Abusing their authority to wipe out people they didn't like. We would call it a disregard for people's freedoms and human right. Of course, freedom and human rights didn't really exist back then - oppressive governments call this sort of action protection of security and stability. It is a fair call to say that Jesus was causing trouble and destabilising the jewish worldview. And yes, those were crimes punishable by death, and still are in some parts of the world.
vs 33-34
Jesus of course means heaven. And he is looking forward to a time when it will be too late to look for the savior. Once you have died in your sins, if you then go looking for the saviour to take them away, it will be too late for you.
vs 35
Of course, the Jews again misunderstand him. Carson makes the point that the Jews, who thought they knew where he had come from, could not imagine him going somewhere they couldn't just follow.
vs 36
This confused them, and so they may have thought he meant something different, but weren't sure what. Remember that ideas of eternity in heaven are in their infantile stage in Judaism - they aren't really built up well in the OT.
vs 37-38
Jesus seems to be repeating his "living water" idea. Perhaps if we lived a little more on the bread line, we'd realise how valuable this sounds - never having to go and fetch water.
vs 39
John really goes into some details of the future here, but also explains what Jesus means. He is talking about a spiritual river of live given by the Holy Spirit. Now this is something that was prophesied about in the OT - the giving of God's Spirit to all his children. But it won't happen, as John points out, till Jesus is glorified.
vs 40-41
His words and the authority he gives them makes people know that Jesus is something special. Some call him "the Prophet", others call him "the Christ". But some are still not convinced - he is from Galilee, not Bethlehem (as far as they know) so how could he be the Christ?
vs 42
what did I say? People were switched on. They really want to find this Messiah guy, but they don't fool around either - the Bible does make some things clear about him.
vs 43
Just like people are divided now.
vs 44
Even if they wanted to seize him, they couldn't - his words are powerful and authoritative, almost mezmerising. Not in a hypnotic way, but in a way that they are so new and fresh that you can't help but listen. It's a bit like good science-fiction - you think "ahh, they'll never do this" but then you wistfully dream of flying cars. And then, in 30 years time, you have flying cars and you think "Wow, that guy was ahead of his time".
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
John chapter 7
vs 21
Jesus' reply to their fairly clear question is long and drawn out. John doesn't feel the need to repeat the actual teaching that Jesus was giving which impressed them so much, just this bit.
He starts by saying that they were all wowed by a miracle he did.
vs 22
Moses is named because of the law, but of course circumcision was given long before in the book of Genesis. In any case, the point is that you can circumcise a child on the sabbath so as to prevent that child from breaking God's law.
vs 23
And yet, when Jesus heals someone on the sabbath (the guy at the pool) people go nuts and start talking about wanting to kill him. Jesus was doing God's work on the sabbath, making a person well, and telling them to stop sinning. Why do you want to kill someone for doing that?
Well, the truth is he did more than that. He told the guy, once well, to carry his mat home with him. So not only did Jesus break the sabbath, but he told someone else to as well. This is part of Jesus' push to show that he has authority over the sabbath - not because he heals people, but because he is the Son of God.
vs 24
And so Jesus calls to this group to judge by what is right, and not by silly rules that have been made up. He calls on the people to use biblical and godly principles, not the literal letter of stupid laws.
OH HOW WE COULD LEARN THE SAME LESSON!
Sorry, we had an idiot write us a letter this week telling us that churches can't have names because of the verse in 1 Corinthians which says that "some follow Apollos, some Paul, some Cephas, some Christ". Of course, what he didn't realise is that by using the term "we are the believers who meet together in Jesus' name" or something equally stupid, he was committing the exact same sin as those who "follow Christ".
Anyway, don't be legalists boys and girls. It's frustrating.
vs 25
Aha! So either some people did know that the Jewish leaders were trying to kill him, or the people just didn't realise that it was Jesus who is speaking. I mean, guy in tunic with beard, they do all look the same. But Jesus is making himself known by saying that he is the miracle man, and now people recognise why he said that bit about being killed.
vs 26
And so now people start asking questions - if he's here, why aren't they killing him? Have the changed their minds? Is he really the Christ?
vs 27
And yet, rather than believing that someone who walks like a duck, preaches like a duck and does miracles like a duck is the duck of God, they go back to a piece of (pretty incorrect) Jewish myth that no one will know where the Messiah comes from. In fact, prophecy says he'll come from Bethlehem, go figure.
vs 28-29
Rather than Jesus saying "Firstly, you don't know where I'm from, because I was born in Bethlehem, and all you people seem to think I'm from Nazareth. Secondly, I'm the son of God, you idiots!", he takes their argument and runs with it. Sure, they know where he is from in a sense. But he has come from God, and they don't know God, so in another sense they don't know where he's from (news of his Holy-Spirit conception hasn't gotten out you see).
vs 30
What does this mean? Does it mean that he escaped just in time? Or that angels came down and kicked some ass? Or just that the people trying to seize Jesus went all floppy and didn't work anymore? Whatever it was, Jesus wasn't ready to be crucified just yet.
vs 31
Some people, see, took him at his word. He quacks like the duck of God, let's just say he is the duck of God. When the real duck comes, will its miracles be any better?
Jesus' reply to their fairly clear question is long and drawn out. John doesn't feel the need to repeat the actual teaching that Jesus was giving which impressed them so much, just this bit.
He starts by saying that they were all wowed by a miracle he did.
vs 22
Moses is named because of the law, but of course circumcision was given long before in the book of Genesis. In any case, the point is that you can circumcise a child on the sabbath so as to prevent that child from breaking God's law.
vs 23
And yet, when Jesus heals someone on the sabbath (the guy at the pool) people go nuts and start talking about wanting to kill him. Jesus was doing God's work on the sabbath, making a person well, and telling them to stop sinning. Why do you want to kill someone for doing that?
Well, the truth is he did more than that. He told the guy, once well, to carry his mat home with him. So not only did Jesus break the sabbath, but he told someone else to as well. This is part of Jesus' push to show that he has authority over the sabbath - not because he heals people, but because he is the Son of God.
vs 24
And so Jesus calls to this group to judge by what is right, and not by silly rules that have been made up. He calls on the people to use biblical and godly principles, not the literal letter of stupid laws.
OH HOW WE COULD LEARN THE SAME LESSON!
Sorry, we had an idiot write us a letter this week telling us that churches can't have names because of the verse in 1 Corinthians which says that "some follow Apollos, some Paul, some Cephas, some Christ". Of course, what he didn't realise is that by using the term "we are the believers who meet together in Jesus' name" or something equally stupid, he was committing the exact same sin as those who "follow Christ".
Anyway, don't be legalists boys and girls. It's frustrating.
vs 25
Aha! So either some people did know that the Jewish leaders were trying to kill him, or the people just didn't realise that it was Jesus who is speaking. I mean, guy in tunic with beard, they do all look the same. But Jesus is making himself known by saying that he is the miracle man, and now people recognise why he said that bit about being killed.
vs 26
And so now people start asking questions - if he's here, why aren't they killing him? Have the changed their minds? Is he really the Christ?
vs 27
And yet, rather than believing that someone who walks like a duck, preaches like a duck and does miracles like a duck is the duck of God, they go back to a piece of (pretty incorrect) Jewish myth that no one will know where the Messiah comes from. In fact, prophecy says he'll come from Bethlehem, go figure.
vs 28-29
Rather than Jesus saying "Firstly, you don't know where I'm from, because I was born in Bethlehem, and all you people seem to think I'm from Nazareth. Secondly, I'm the son of God, you idiots!", he takes their argument and runs with it. Sure, they know where he is from in a sense. But he has come from God, and they don't know God, so in another sense they don't know where he's from (news of his Holy-Spirit conception hasn't gotten out you see).
vs 30
What does this mean? Does it mean that he escaped just in time? Or that angels came down and kicked some ass? Or just that the people trying to seize Jesus went all floppy and didn't work anymore? Whatever it was, Jesus wasn't ready to be crucified just yet.
vs 31
Some people, see, took him at his word. He quacks like the duck of God, let's just say he is the duck of God. When the real duck comes, will its miracles be any better?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
John Chapter 7
vs 11
They were looking for Jesus, and probably fully expecting him to turn up to the feast, because he is after all some sort of Rabbi.
vs 12
People's opinions of him varied - some people thought he was good, other people believed what the Pharisees were saying about him, and so thought he was deceitful.
vs 13
But to show you the kind of power the Pharisees at the time had, no one wanted to mention him at all in hearing distance. They were afraid of what the Pharisees would do. And fair enough. They could have you stoned to death.
vs 14
He had balls, this plucky young man. Sure, he might have waited before revealing himself, but he did go, and he did end up coming out openly. And it's not like there was safety in numbers - he was up the front talking and could have easily been arrested.
vs 15
Jesus had this going for him too - his teaching was really authoritative, and people were constantly amazed. And all this without having formally studied.
vs 16
Jesus has an answer for this though, and I think we should take him at his word. His understanding of the Scriptures and the power and authority of his teaching don't come from personal knowledge or a keen mind - they come from God.
vs 17
And further than that, Jesus says that those people who choose to do God's will will be able to test and approve his teaching as being correct. Which makes sense really - if you're not trying to follow God's will and walk close with God, how would you know whether what he's teaching is good or bad?
vs 18
Jesus always humbles himself before God. Like Philippians says, he doesn't need to put himself on the same level as God, because he is God. So instead, he humbles himself before God in service to him.
And he says that because he does that, you can tell that he is trustworthy and truthful. See, humility doesn't mean false modesty - Jesus is happy to claim that he is trustworthy and truthful, he doesn't need someone else to say it for him. Humility is putting yourself in your rightful place.
vs 19
Jesus then accuses his crowd of loving Moses more than him. I mean, we wouldn't call that humble, but he is better than Moses. The problem is, they all love Moses so much, but they don't actually do what he said to do. Bad form!
And then he accuses them of wanting to kill him. Now, it is probably unfair to say that most of the Jews wanted to kill him. They would chant as much later, but at the moment they don't really. But the Jewish leaders, who no doubt were listening, did want to kill him, so he wasn't just making stuff up.
vs 20
Of course, the crowd has no idea, and so they accuse him of being whacked out on goof balls, or at least demon posessed. Wouldn't be the first time either.
In fact, you can imagine that, because some people thought he was deceitful, that could have been a heckler. They even had them back then.
They were looking for Jesus, and probably fully expecting him to turn up to the feast, because he is after all some sort of Rabbi.
vs 12
People's opinions of him varied - some people thought he was good, other people believed what the Pharisees were saying about him, and so thought he was deceitful.
vs 13
But to show you the kind of power the Pharisees at the time had, no one wanted to mention him at all in hearing distance. They were afraid of what the Pharisees would do. And fair enough. They could have you stoned to death.
vs 14
He had balls, this plucky young man. Sure, he might have waited before revealing himself, but he did go, and he did end up coming out openly. And it's not like there was safety in numbers - he was up the front talking and could have easily been arrested.
vs 15
Jesus had this going for him too - his teaching was really authoritative, and people were constantly amazed. And all this without having formally studied.
vs 16
Jesus has an answer for this though, and I think we should take him at his word. His understanding of the Scriptures and the power and authority of his teaching don't come from personal knowledge or a keen mind - they come from God.
vs 17
And further than that, Jesus says that those people who choose to do God's will will be able to test and approve his teaching as being correct. Which makes sense really - if you're not trying to follow God's will and walk close with God, how would you know whether what he's teaching is good or bad?
vs 18
Jesus always humbles himself before God. Like Philippians says, he doesn't need to put himself on the same level as God, because he is God. So instead, he humbles himself before God in service to him.
And he says that because he does that, you can tell that he is trustworthy and truthful. See, humility doesn't mean false modesty - Jesus is happy to claim that he is trustworthy and truthful, he doesn't need someone else to say it for him. Humility is putting yourself in your rightful place.
vs 19
Jesus then accuses his crowd of loving Moses more than him. I mean, we wouldn't call that humble, but he is better than Moses. The problem is, they all love Moses so much, but they don't actually do what he said to do. Bad form!
And then he accuses them of wanting to kill him. Now, it is probably unfair to say that most of the Jews wanted to kill him. They would chant as much later, but at the moment they don't really. But the Jewish leaders, who no doubt were listening, did want to kill him, so he wasn't just making stuff up.
vs 20
Of course, the crowd has no idea, and so they accuse him of being whacked out on goof balls, or at least demon posessed. Wouldn't be the first time either.
In fact, you can imagine that, because some people thought he was deceitful, that could have been a heckler. They even had them back then.
Monday, January 22, 2007
John Chapter 7
vs 1
Jesus was not always dicing with death it seems - sometimes he just avoided those who wanted to kill him.
vs 2-3
His brothers, it seems, just want Jesus to get over this whole Messiah thing. Jesus doesn't want to go to Judea because he'll be killed. They think he is wasting his time in a backwater like Galilee, and instead he should go to the big smoke.
vs 4
They think he wants to be a big important public figure, like John the Baptist. In fact, they might have thought that he was pretending to be John the Baptist, that he'd gone a bit loony or something.
vs 5
But they had no idea. They didn't believe him, and that must have really hurt Jesus. But it was also a living example of his words that he had come to put brother against brother.
vs 6
Jesus would of course go to Judea. He would perform miracles. He would also be killed there. But now is not the right time. It is all about timing, and the brothers, unsurprisingly, can't see why it's wrong.
vs 7
He openly calls them accomplices with the world, and therefore evil. When your old est brother is saying things like that, you might get the idea that the animosity in the family could be coming from both sides just a little.
vs 8
Some manuscripts do not have "yet", and in fact the NASB doesn't have "yet" or any approximation of yet. Jesus tells his brothers to go to the feast, and that he isn't going to go. Either he isn't going yet, or isn't ready to go yet, or isn't going with them, or he's just plain lying because he is going to go in fact.
vs 9
Yes, stayed for the time being.
vs 10
Jesus went up secretly. And that's fair enough, because after all, people wanted to kill him. But did he lie to his brothers? Is that considered a lie, if he was lying to them so they thought that he wasn't going and hence couldn't tell people that he was there, and hence they wouldn't look to kill him?
Jesus was not always dicing with death it seems - sometimes he just avoided those who wanted to kill him.
vs 2-3
His brothers, it seems, just want Jesus to get over this whole Messiah thing. Jesus doesn't want to go to Judea because he'll be killed. They think he is wasting his time in a backwater like Galilee, and instead he should go to the big smoke.
vs 4
They think he wants to be a big important public figure, like John the Baptist. In fact, they might have thought that he was pretending to be John the Baptist, that he'd gone a bit loony or something.
vs 5
But they had no idea. They didn't believe him, and that must have really hurt Jesus. But it was also a living example of his words that he had come to put brother against brother.
vs 6
Jesus would of course go to Judea. He would perform miracles. He would also be killed there. But now is not the right time. It is all about timing, and the brothers, unsurprisingly, can't see why it's wrong.
vs 7
He openly calls them accomplices with the world, and therefore evil. When your old est brother is saying things like that, you might get the idea that the animosity in the family could be coming from both sides just a little.
vs 8
Some manuscripts do not have "yet", and in fact the NASB doesn't have "yet" or any approximation of yet. Jesus tells his brothers to go to the feast, and that he isn't going to go. Either he isn't going yet, or isn't ready to go yet, or isn't going with them, or he's just plain lying because he is going to go in fact.
vs 9
Yes, stayed for the time being.
vs 10
Jesus went up secretly. And that's fair enough, because after all, people wanted to kill him. But did he lie to his brothers? Is that considered a lie, if he was lying to them so they thought that he wasn't going and hence couldn't tell people that he was there, and hence they wouldn't look to kill him?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
John Chapter 6
vs 61
The way this verse is worded makes you think that in the last verse, the disciples were talking amongst themselves, but that Jesus was aware of what they were saying. They were grumbling just like true Israelites.
Jesus' notion is that they find this idea offensive - whether it is that they must consume his flesh and blood (which is rightly offensive, but does fit in with the sacrificial idea - the Jewish sacrifices were eaten afterwards) or that their saviour and Messiah must suffer.
vs 62
Jesus makes the pertinent statement that he is the one from heaven - the way he says things are is the way it is!
vs 63
But more than that, Jesus is talking about eternal life here, and to understand that, he says, you must understand that it is a spiritual truth, and that the body counts for nothing. Now don't get this wrong - there is a bodily resurrection, and Christianity is not just a spiritual ghosts-wearing-halos type of afterlife. But this crude matter is perishable, and our eternal bodies (through this spiritual message) will be spiritual, eternal bodies. Spiritual does not mean lacking physical form, by the way - angels seem to be able to wield swords and move boulders. Just because they're invisible doesn't mean they are insubstantial.
vs 64
I think this verse is referring to a) the large group of disciples who are about to leave and b) Judas Iscariot specifically. We don't even know if Judas knows yet.
vs 65
It doesn't matter how smooth a testimony you give, or how big the miracle is, in the end if God doesn't bring you to Christ, you won't be there. This could be predestination, or more loosely the Pauline idea of God given faith. But the truth is that there are some people who aren't coming to Christ. Is it because they don't understand? Jesus doesn't say that (although some people would say he intimates it in the other gospels when talking about parables), but I don't think that's a necessary conclusion. I think it is possible that at least some of these people Jesus is talking to now, for example, realised what he was saying, and yet turned their backs on it knowingly.
vs 66
We don't know how many turned away. Many, it would seem. We're still pretty early in John, too.
vs 67
Jesus gives all Twelve the option of going. I think even for Jesus, this was a big moment of disappointment. To have the vast majority of his followers take their ball and go home, that has to be painful, even if you were expecting it.
vs 68-69
But at a time of great pain, Peter gives this stunning testimony of Christ. He shows by his words that these disciples valued eternal life over anything else they might have on offer. And not only do they value it intrinsicly, but they know, to them it is obvious, that Jesus has the words that lead them to eternal life. Their faith is in his being the Holy One of God, who cannot lead them astray, even by such strange and hard teaching.
vs 70-71
Perhaps Jesus is still a little bitter over everyone else leaving him, or perhaps he is preparing the 12 for the fact that one of them is a no-good stinking mutant commie traitor. John helpfully tells us that this is Judas Iscariot, just in case we hadn't read the story before. He doesn't save it till the end - it's not a murder mystery.
The way this verse is worded makes you think that in the last verse, the disciples were talking amongst themselves, but that Jesus was aware of what they were saying. They were grumbling just like true Israelites.
Jesus' notion is that they find this idea offensive - whether it is that they must consume his flesh and blood (which is rightly offensive, but does fit in with the sacrificial idea - the Jewish sacrifices were eaten afterwards) or that their saviour and Messiah must suffer.
vs 62
Jesus makes the pertinent statement that he is the one from heaven - the way he says things are is the way it is!
vs 63
But more than that, Jesus is talking about eternal life here, and to understand that, he says, you must understand that it is a spiritual truth, and that the body counts for nothing. Now don't get this wrong - there is a bodily resurrection, and Christianity is not just a spiritual ghosts-wearing-halos type of afterlife. But this crude matter is perishable, and our eternal bodies (through this spiritual message) will be spiritual, eternal bodies. Spiritual does not mean lacking physical form, by the way - angels seem to be able to wield swords and move boulders. Just because they're invisible doesn't mean they are insubstantial.
vs 64
I think this verse is referring to a) the large group of disciples who are about to leave and b) Judas Iscariot specifically. We don't even know if Judas knows yet.
vs 65
It doesn't matter how smooth a testimony you give, or how big the miracle is, in the end if God doesn't bring you to Christ, you won't be there. This could be predestination, or more loosely the Pauline idea of God given faith. But the truth is that there are some people who aren't coming to Christ. Is it because they don't understand? Jesus doesn't say that (although some people would say he intimates it in the other gospels when talking about parables), but I don't think that's a necessary conclusion. I think it is possible that at least some of these people Jesus is talking to now, for example, realised what he was saying, and yet turned their backs on it knowingly.
vs 66
We don't know how many turned away. Many, it would seem. We're still pretty early in John, too.
vs 67
Jesus gives all Twelve the option of going. I think even for Jesus, this was a big moment of disappointment. To have the vast majority of his followers take their ball and go home, that has to be painful, even if you were expecting it.
vs 68-69
But at a time of great pain, Peter gives this stunning testimony of Christ. He shows by his words that these disciples valued eternal life over anything else they might have on offer. And not only do they value it intrinsicly, but they know, to them it is obvious, that Jesus has the words that lead them to eternal life. Their faith is in his being the Holy One of God, who cannot lead them astray, even by such strange and hard teaching.
vs 70-71
Perhaps Jesus is still a little bitter over everyone else leaving him, or perhaps he is preparing the 12 for the fact that one of them is a no-good stinking mutant commie traitor. John helpfully tells us that this is Judas Iscariot, just in case we hadn't read the story before. He doesn't save it till the end - it's not a murder mystery.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
John Chapter 6
vs 51
If Jesus didn't sound like some sort of wierdo cannibalist demon worshipper yet, he does now. If this is a fairly accurate recording of what he said, then I think we can understand the Jewish crowd's reaction - if you're reacting to the obvious truth, that is.
But even if they see past the obvious and to the fact that he is calling himself the Messiah, and saying that he's going to suffer and give up his body in this role, that is just as unpalatable to a lot of Jews.
vs 52
See, they didn't all just disagree or think he was an idiot - they argued. Probably the literalists against all the metaphoricalists, who in turn had different opinions about what he meant.
vs 53
So Jesus is going to clear it up for them... or not. He is pushing the metaphorical stuff all the way. This seems to be John's version of a parable - Jesus pushes a metaphor to the limit, and those who take it literally are those who miss out (sounds a bit like some modern conservative churches really).
Really, they are not going to fully understand, no one is going to really understand that Jesus is talking about a sacrifice in which we can partake spiritually (by accepting his death for our sins) but also a ceremony which would be celebrated as a breaking of bread and wine. They could have understood that he was speaking in metaphors, but they would never see the actual truth of the matter till it hit them after the fact.
vs 54
Jesus strongly links what he is talking about with eternal life, and the resurrection on the last day.
vs 55
I think the NIV obfuscates matters a bit here. The NASB says "My flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" or something like that. Rather than fighting over what is "real", it is much easier to accept Jesus saying that his body and blood are the "true" food and drink, which will sustain you eternally. I'm sticking to that, anyway. Perhaps a better translation would be "the real".
vs 56
Well, you could read that literally, in that you really have a bit of Jesus in you. But this is starting to unlock the truth of what Jesus is saying - that those who participate in Christ's sufferings, even by understanding and accepting, will have Christ in them.
vs 57
True life only comes through Christ. I mean, yes we all live now (again, only because of Christ) but our true eternal lives depend exclusively on Christ, and nothing else.
vs 58
Jesus is talking about true manna here, a spiritual manna that has really come down from heaven. It is a food that, when you eat it, you won't die eternally, but live eternally.
vs 59
Now, perhaps I've got this wrong, but I wouldn't stand up in a church and say this stuff - you know, it would just feel wrong. I'd do it out under a tree or something. But obviously Jesus thought that the people who needed to hear this were in the Synagogue, so that's where he went.
vs 60
Now by chapter 6, Jesus seems to have quite a few disciples. But they are having trouble either understanding this most recent statement of Christ, or they are getting a bit of an understanding (about him suffering) and they are unable to accept that. It's a hard teaching either way. Just what would we expect, when the result is eternal life?
If Jesus didn't sound like some sort of wierdo cannibalist demon worshipper yet, he does now. If this is a fairly accurate recording of what he said, then I think we can understand the Jewish crowd's reaction - if you're reacting to the obvious truth, that is.
But even if they see past the obvious and to the fact that he is calling himself the Messiah, and saying that he's going to suffer and give up his body in this role, that is just as unpalatable to a lot of Jews.
vs 52
See, they didn't all just disagree or think he was an idiot - they argued. Probably the literalists against all the metaphoricalists, who in turn had different opinions about what he meant.
vs 53
So Jesus is going to clear it up for them... or not. He is pushing the metaphorical stuff all the way. This seems to be John's version of a parable - Jesus pushes a metaphor to the limit, and those who take it literally are those who miss out (sounds a bit like some modern conservative churches really).
Really, they are not going to fully understand, no one is going to really understand that Jesus is talking about a sacrifice in which we can partake spiritually (by accepting his death for our sins) but also a ceremony which would be celebrated as a breaking of bread and wine. They could have understood that he was speaking in metaphors, but they would never see the actual truth of the matter till it hit them after the fact.
vs 54
Jesus strongly links what he is talking about with eternal life, and the resurrection on the last day.
vs 55
I think the NIV obfuscates matters a bit here. The NASB says "My flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" or something like that. Rather than fighting over what is "real", it is much easier to accept Jesus saying that his body and blood are the "true" food and drink, which will sustain you eternally. I'm sticking to that, anyway. Perhaps a better translation would be "the real".
vs 56
Well, you could read that literally, in that you really have a bit of Jesus in you. But this is starting to unlock the truth of what Jesus is saying - that those who participate in Christ's sufferings, even by understanding and accepting, will have Christ in them.
vs 57
True life only comes through Christ. I mean, yes we all live now (again, only because of Christ) but our true eternal lives depend exclusively on Christ, and nothing else.
vs 58
Jesus is talking about true manna here, a spiritual manna that has really come down from heaven. It is a food that, when you eat it, you won't die eternally, but live eternally.
vs 59
Now, perhaps I've got this wrong, but I wouldn't stand up in a church and say this stuff - you know, it would just feel wrong. I'd do it out under a tree or something. But obviously Jesus thought that the people who needed to hear this were in the Synagogue, so that's where he went.
vs 60
Now by chapter 6, Jesus seems to have quite a few disciples. But they are having trouble either understanding this most recent statement of Christ, or they are getting a bit of an understanding (about him suffering) and they are unable to accept that. It's a hard teaching either way. Just what would we expect, when the result is eternal life?
Friday, January 19, 2007
John Chapter 6
vs 41
Jews grumbling? That would never happen! They'r grumbling because Jesus says came down from heaven, and that he's the bread of life.
vs 42
Where, obviously, he did not, because they know his parents, and they probably knew him as a child. Now this kid that they know has grown up, and he has delusions of grandeur? This would be a hard thing to get over. I mean, even though Jesus has the testimony of John the Baptist on his side, prople still aren't convinced, especially if they knew him for ages.
I have this same problem trying to witness to my family. They don't see a changed person, a Christian whose life has turned around. They see their brother or son. Because there is more to sharing the gospel than relationship - there also needs to be pre-evangelistic groundwork. That's what my sermon is on this Sunday, hence the harping.
vs 43
Hooray! How long have you wanted to hear God tell the Israelites "Stop your bitching!"
vs 44
That is so the truth! We can forget that when we're doing evangelism sometimes, and it can be really demoralising. You know, I've only brought one person to Christ, but I've shared the gospel with heaps of people, and been a witness to even more. But how many of them did I try to convince with fine sounding arguments? Probably more than I should have. In fact, God plays such a major part in this that we need to rely on him to do his work.
vs 45
Why doesn't Jesus quote it exactly? Well, there are no verse numbers yet, but why not name the prophet? Probably he did, but John couldn't remember where it is from. It happens in the Bible from place to place.
But the point is clear - God is doing his own ministering and teaching to people, and it is those people who will come to Christ, not necessarily the ones who we teach and minister to.
vs 46
I think this verse is specifically talking about Jesus - only Jesus has seen the Father. If we are talking about actually, physically (or reality-wise) seen, though, then we must admit that this means Jesus has some sort of residual or latent memory of his eternal being. You might not have a problem with that, but it is a position that has its problems.
vs 47
Wow, these verses get short. Short, snappy sentences. But Jesus wants to stress that what he is saying is true (lit. Amen Amen) - and if you believe, eternal life is yours.
vs 48
He really is. You have to believe that. It may be hard to get past the fact that he's a human like everyone else, because he's not a human like everyone else. He is perfect. He is sinless. He has God's authority. He is the bread of life.
vs 49
All other gifts of God have been great miracles which have bouyed the faith of Jews for generations. And yet, even miracles of the greatest supply did not give his people eternal life. It might have helped them live, but eventually they were all gone. In fact, manna was a gift to a disobedient people because of their disobedience. Well, so is the bread of life - it is a liferaft.
vs 50
Oh, this gets wierd. This is where we get into the whole "Christians are cannibals" thing, and I have been told it gets really difficult to explain it to cannibalistic tribes (who think you really do eat someone) and to everyone else for whom cannibalism is abhorrent (who can't understand why a holy man would suggest it).
Jews grumbling? That would never happen! They'r grumbling because Jesus says came down from heaven, and that he's the bread of life.
vs 42
Where, obviously, he did not, because they know his parents, and they probably knew him as a child. Now this kid that they know has grown up, and he has delusions of grandeur? This would be a hard thing to get over. I mean, even though Jesus has the testimony of John the Baptist on his side, prople still aren't convinced, especially if they knew him for ages.
I have this same problem trying to witness to my family. They don't see a changed person, a Christian whose life has turned around. They see their brother or son. Because there is more to sharing the gospel than relationship - there also needs to be pre-evangelistic groundwork. That's what my sermon is on this Sunday, hence the harping.
vs 43
Hooray! How long have you wanted to hear God tell the Israelites "Stop your bitching!"
vs 44
That is so the truth! We can forget that when we're doing evangelism sometimes, and it can be really demoralising. You know, I've only brought one person to Christ, but I've shared the gospel with heaps of people, and been a witness to even more. But how many of them did I try to convince with fine sounding arguments? Probably more than I should have. In fact, God plays such a major part in this that we need to rely on him to do his work.
vs 45
Why doesn't Jesus quote it exactly? Well, there are no verse numbers yet, but why not name the prophet? Probably he did, but John couldn't remember where it is from. It happens in the Bible from place to place.
But the point is clear - God is doing his own ministering and teaching to people, and it is those people who will come to Christ, not necessarily the ones who we teach and minister to.
vs 46
I think this verse is specifically talking about Jesus - only Jesus has seen the Father. If we are talking about actually, physically (or reality-wise) seen, though, then we must admit that this means Jesus has some sort of residual or latent memory of his eternal being. You might not have a problem with that, but it is a position that has its problems.
vs 47
Wow, these verses get short. Short, snappy sentences. But Jesus wants to stress that what he is saying is true (lit. Amen Amen) - and if you believe, eternal life is yours.
vs 48
He really is. You have to believe that. It may be hard to get past the fact that he's a human like everyone else, because he's not a human like everyone else. He is perfect. He is sinless. He has God's authority. He is the bread of life.
vs 49
All other gifts of God have been great miracles which have bouyed the faith of Jews for generations. And yet, even miracles of the greatest supply did not give his people eternal life. It might have helped them live, but eventually they were all gone. In fact, manna was a gift to a disobedient people because of their disobedience. Well, so is the bread of life - it is a liferaft.
vs 50
Oh, this gets wierd. This is where we get into the whole "Christians are cannibals" thing, and I have been told it gets really difficult to explain it to cannibalistic tribes (who think you really do eat someone) and to everyone else for whom cannibalism is abhorrent (who can't understand why a holy man would suggest it).
Thursday, January 18, 2007
John Chapter 6
vs 31
Jesus was right! These Jews aren't even after another miracle, they just want someone to give them free food. And now they expect the new Messiah to provide it to them. This might be a bit of a Middle Eastern thing, or at least from a culture which highly values its first sons. You always pamper your first son, he gets the best of everything, never has to work etc. That value then gets passed onto the nation as a whole (being children of God), and they feel as if they should get special attention. That's what it sounds like here. The Saudi Arabs are the same, I have heard - they feel like they are the special race of Allah, and so they slack off.
Their attitude could also be one of degrees - "Even our ancestors ate bread from heaven, as it were. You have only matched them. If you are the Messiah, you should do something greater than what has been done in the past".
vs 32
Jesus' response is to tell them that it's not Moses, or the Law, who gave them their bread to eat, but instead they should be seeking after the true bread of heaven.
vs 33
But this bread isn't actually bread, it is metaphorical bread. The bread of God is a person, who comes from heaven and gives life to the world. That would be Jesus. In the Middle East, bread is life - it was certainly the staple food of the people, and I hear they treated it with a special reverence. So it is not unbelievable that the bread of heaven (where no one is hungry) really is life.
vs 34
Of course, they want this heavenly bread instead. Do they really understand what he means? After all, he did just say that the bread from heaven was a person. Were they listening, or are they just answering with their stomachs?
vs 35
What Jesus says is true, if you take the long view, but it is also true immediately if you are talking about spiritual hunger and spiritual thirst. In heaven, no one will be hungry or thirsty, so those who follow Jesus will get that. But also, the Christian, while always pursuing further spiritual depth, should have a satisfaction that does not exist in the seeking non-believer.
vs 36
The problem for these people is that they have seen Jesus, they have heard his words, he has out and out told them he is the bread from heaven, and yet they still don't believe him.
vs 37
Ok, I cheated on this verse. I'm preaching on John this weekend, and so I have a commentary here. But this is the only verse I've looked up so far from chapter 6. According to the scholars (thank you Don Carson), Jesus is referring to the people that God will give him to fill his Kingdom, basically saying that although this crowd frustrates the will of God by not coming and being saved, Jesus knows that God's plan eventually will be fulfilled. The second part of the verse is a 'litotes', and means literally that whoever then does come to Jesus to join the kingdom, he will surely preserve and look after.
vs 38
This verse is not saying that Jesus had some other motive for coming to earth (like perhaps some sort of "Coming to America" fratboy party time) that was not according to God's will - it is simply pointing out that Jesus is obedient to God as the Son being obedient to the Father.
vs 39
So now we see why he makes the promise to preserve those who come to him - God's will is that all those he gives to Jesus should be kept close, and not lost. Jesus will therefore make it as easy as possible for them to come to God and stay near God. Looking at Christianity from a perfectly intrinsic perspective, you might think that God could have made it easier. But he does have the whole sin thing to deal with, and yet he has still basically opened his arms and said "Just accept my Son, and you're in". Everything on top of that is really window dressing, which makes me wonder how much God is disappointed in us for making it any harder for people to come to him than it already is.
vs 40
In many of the verses we've just looked at, Jesus has flipped from the group (all those who God has given him) and the individual (who he will protect, preserve, and raise up on the last day). Someone (Carson again) pointed out that John's gospel is the one most focused on the idea of individual, personal salvation. All the others are more concentrated on the whole people of God, the ecclesia. Perhaps that is one reason why I like John so much - because it is so relevant to our day and age.
Jesus was right! These Jews aren't even after another miracle, they just want someone to give them free food. And now they expect the new Messiah to provide it to them. This might be a bit of a Middle Eastern thing, or at least from a culture which highly values its first sons. You always pamper your first son, he gets the best of everything, never has to work etc. That value then gets passed onto the nation as a whole (being children of God), and they feel as if they should get special attention. That's what it sounds like here. The Saudi Arabs are the same, I have heard - they feel like they are the special race of Allah, and so they slack off.
Their attitude could also be one of degrees - "Even our ancestors ate bread from heaven, as it were. You have only matched them. If you are the Messiah, you should do something greater than what has been done in the past".
vs 32
Jesus' response is to tell them that it's not Moses, or the Law, who gave them their bread to eat, but instead they should be seeking after the true bread of heaven.
vs 33
But this bread isn't actually bread, it is metaphorical bread. The bread of God is a person, who comes from heaven and gives life to the world. That would be Jesus. In the Middle East, bread is life - it was certainly the staple food of the people, and I hear they treated it with a special reverence. So it is not unbelievable that the bread of heaven (where no one is hungry) really is life.
vs 34
Of course, they want this heavenly bread instead. Do they really understand what he means? After all, he did just say that the bread from heaven was a person. Were they listening, or are they just answering with their stomachs?
vs 35
What Jesus says is true, if you take the long view, but it is also true immediately if you are talking about spiritual hunger and spiritual thirst. In heaven, no one will be hungry or thirsty, so those who follow Jesus will get that. But also, the Christian, while always pursuing further spiritual depth, should have a satisfaction that does not exist in the seeking non-believer.
vs 36
The problem for these people is that they have seen Jesus, they have heard his words, he has out and out told them he is the bread from heaven, and yet they still don't believe him.
vs 37
Ok, I cheated on this verse. I'm preaching on John this weekend, and so I have a commentary here. But this is the only verse I've looked up so far from chapter 6. According to the scholars (thank you Don Carson), Jesus is referring to the people that God will give him to fill his Kingdom, basically saying that although this crowd frustrates the will of God by not coming and being saved, Jesus knows that God's plan eventually will be fulfilled. The second part of the verse is a 'litotes', and means literally that whoever then does come to Jesus to join the kingdom, he will surely preserve and look after.
vs 38
This verse is not saying that Jesus had some other motive for coming to earth (like perhaps some sort of "Coming to America" fratboy party time) that was not according to God's will - it is simply pointing out that Jesus is obedient to God as the Son being obedient to the Father.
vs 39
So now we see why he makes the promise to preserve those who come to him - God's will is that all those he gives to Jesus should be kept close, and not lost. Jesus will therefore make it as easy as possible for them to come to God and stay near God. Looking at Christianity from a perfectly intrinsic perspective, you might think that God could have made it easier. But he does have the whole sin thing to deal with, and yet he has still basically opened his arms and said "Just accept my Son, and you're in". Everything on top of that is really window dressing, which makes me wonder how much God is disappointed in us for making it any harder for people to come to him than it already is.
vs 40
In many of the verses we've just looked at, Jesus has flipped from the group (all those who God has given him) and the individual (who he will protect, preserve, and raise up on the last day). Someone (Carson again) pointed out that John's gospel is the one most focused on the idea of individual, personal salvation. All the others are more concentrated on the whole people of God, the ecclesia. Perhaps that is one reason why I like John so much - because it is so relevant to our day and age.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
John chapter 6
vs 21
Did I say Jesus had a speedboat? Jesus is a speedboat! When they finally decide to let him on the boat (if he was a ghost, how were they going to stop him?) it immediately reaches its destination. I am assuming it's not because they were 100ft from land.
vs 22
The crowd are pretty cluey. I don't know if they were all Inspector Morse or what, but somehow they work this stuff out. What conclusion do they draw?
vs 23
Well, some boats turn up from elsewhere, and they don't have Jesus or any of the disciples in them. So now they are thinking "He's done the runner!"
vs 24
The fact that they can just jump on these boats and cross to Capernaum is really wierd. I don't know if they paid the boat owners, or if they hijacked the boats, it's quite bizzare. Because remember, this is a huge crowd of people.
vs 25
They don't want their teacher to go away. They've all just seen him dispense with the trivialities of work, and provide them free food. But perhaps they feel a little bit rejected by him absconding in the night. So they ask him how long he's been there.
vs 26
Jesus, though, knows their hearts, and gets right to the head of the matter. He questions their devotion to him - they aren't even following him because he performed a miracle! They are only doing it because he gave them bread. If he'd been a rich king and had just bought everyone bread, they'd probably still follow him, that's his opinion.
vs 27
Now, Jesus talks again about eternal life, this time linking it with bread instead of water. In the context of the miracle he had performed, people may well have though that he was offering to sell them bread that never runs out, as if he were the bread equivalent of the tim-tam genie.
Of course, that's not what he is offering. He is offering eternal life, which can be accepted as easily as they accepted the bread they took the day before, but will mean life forever with God for them. He says that he can give it to them, just as he was able to give them normal bread, and the reason is because God has given him his seal. The words "of approval" are just added here - it is really just the seal of God.
vs 28
I say he can give it to them - in fact, Jesus does say that they should work for it. So they ask him what work they need to do to get such bread.
vs 29
The work is easy compared to the work they have to do to get regular bread - they just need to believe that Jesus is sent by God and is who he claims he is, the Son of God. The problem is that, once you believe a claim like that, you are compelled to do what he says. And that shows that the cost is more than just believing. Believing anything has a cost. You are throwing your two cents in with anything you believe. Belief is an acceptance of existance, but it is more than that - because something exists, and you believe it exists, then that necessarily changes your worldview. Jesus isn't asking them simply to believe in God - his audience is already there, they come from a culture where God is obviously present. He is asking them to believe in the one God sent - which is him. You can't accept Jesus' existence without accepting his claims or at least explaining them away - especially when he's right in front of you telling you so.
vs 30
So now they, who saw five loaves of bread feed 5000 men, want to see a miracle that will convince them of who he is. And they seem pretty keen for it to be bread-based, too. When you use an analogy, someone takes it too far and it always comes back to bite you in the ass.
Did I say Jesus had a speedboat? Jesus is a speedboat! When they finally decide to let him on the boat (if he was a ghost, how were they going to stop him?) it immediately reaches its destination. I am assuming it's not because they were 100ft from land.
vs 22
The crowd are pretty cluey. I don't know if they were all Inspector Morse or what, but somehow they work this stuff out. What conclusion do they draw?
vs 23
Well, some boats turn up from elsewhere, and they don't have Jesus or any of the disciples in them. So now they are thinking "He's done the runner!"
vs 24
The fact that they can just jump on these boats and cross to Capernaum is really wierd. I don't know if they paid the boat owners, or if they hijacked the boats, it's quite bizzare. Because remember, this is a huge crowd of people.
vs 25
They don't want their teacher to go away. They've all just seen him dispense with the trivialities of work, and provide them free food. But perhaps they feel a little bit rejected by him absconding in the night. So they ask him how long he's been there.
vs 26
Jesus, though, knows their hearts, and gets right to the head of the matter. He questions their devotion to him - they aren't even following him because he performed a miracle! They are only doing it because he gave them bread. If he'd been a rich king and had just bought everyone bread, they'd probably still follow him, that's his opinion.
vs 27
Now, Jesus talks again about eternal life, this time linking it with bread instead of water. In the context of the miracle he had performed, people may well have though that he was offering to sell them bread that never runs out, as if he were the bread equivalent of the tim-tam genie.
Of course, that's not what he is offering. He is offering eternal life, which can be accepted as easily as they accepted the bread they took the day before, but will mean life forever with God for them. He says that he can give it to them, just as he was able to give them normal bread, and the reason is because God has given him his seal. The words "of approval" are just added here - it is really just the seal of God.
vs 28
I say he can give it to them - in fact, Jesus does say that they should work for it. So they ask him what work they need to do to get such bread.
vs 29
The work is easy compared to the work they have to do to get regular bread - they just need to believe that Jesus is sent by God and is who he claims he is, the Son of God. The problem is that, once you believe a claim like that, you are compelled to do what he says. And that shows that the cost is more than just believing. Believing anything has a cost. You are throwing your two cents in with anything you believe. Belief is an acceptance of existance, but it is more than that - because something exists, and you believe it exists, then that necessarily changes your worldview. Jesus isn't asking them simply to believe in God - his audience is already there, they come from a culture where God is obviously present. He is asking them to believe in the one God sent - which is him. You can't accept Jesus' existence without accepting his claims or at least explaining them away - especially when he's right in front of you telling you so.
vs 30
So now they, who saw five loaves of bread feed 5000 men, want to see a miracle that will convince them of who he is. And they seem pretty keen for it to be bread-based, too. When you use an analogy, someone takes it too far and it always comes back to bite you in the ass.
Monday, January 15, 2007
John chapter 6
vs 11
It's a fairly simple way of explaining what happened, isn't it? Because, in our culture of facts in the minutae, we want to know exactly how he managed it. The simple fact is that it's a miracle, now matter how it happened. We can't fault John for not trying to explain an event which he had never seen before, and we're just going to have to accept that it happened somehow.
vs 12
Jesus seems fairly conscious about waste, good for him. You could probably do a whole sermon on conservation and prudence from that, if you had no life. For me, his words are simply a prompt to show that there was more leftovers than there was food to begin with. So this was a real multiplication miracle, and not just an expansion in stomachs miracle. Both would be miracles, but now we know a little more info.
vs 13
No fish was left over, and I'm sure that has been the focus of many sermons, essays and books of people I wouldn't read. If Jesus had some sort of meaning in that, then it is lost to us, because it is never explained. 12 baskets full of bread were collected, though, which is pretty incredible, especially after everyone has eaten.
What did they do with the bread? I don't know. Did they carry it with them? Give it out? Give it to the poor? All we know is that it was not wasted.
vs 14
This miracle did its part in convincing many people that Jesus was a great prophet, and quite possibly the one who had been prophesied. Anyone with 5000 men at his disposal becomes a political power. 5000 people is a lot. 5000 men with religious fervour and farming implements is a force that would create a bloody though shortlived resistance movement.
vs 15
Jesus knows that they are wanting to militate, that they think he should be king of Israel so that he can save them as the Bible predicts. But he's not keen. He does the runner, and hides on a hill by himself.
It sounds almost blasphemous to describe Jesus that way, doesn't it? But that's what he does. Jesus doesn't want to be crowned king. He could have been born as king. Moreover, he thinks that his kingliness should be evident to people without him sitting on a throne. But that's because he is king of all of earth and all of heaven, not just king of Israel. Who would settle for Israel if the whole world belongs to them?
But this shows us another thing about the Jews - many of them were looking for a political and military saviour. Jesus isn't that, and as such they were going to be disappointed.
vs 16-17
Obviously they had some instructions regarding what to do - I mean, you wouldn't just get into a boat and do the scarper because your Master has done the runner and hidden somewhere, right?
Well, perhaps you would. I mean, you've got to really ask yourself, why did the disciples get in that boat without Jesus there? Perhaps they thought he had already crossed over? Or perhaps they were going home too? How did they expect Jesus to "join them" on the boat? Did Jesus have a speed boat or something?
vs 18
Strong winds, or something. I am given to understand that the whole experience was less than pleasant, and is not uncommon over the Sea of Galilee. But then, perhaps that's just because I don't like boats.
vs 19
Three and a half miles is a long way. The waters must have been rough enough to be slowing them down, because Jesus caught up to them walking. Now, the fact that he was walking on water was not lost on them, and they were scared. Why? One of the other gospel writers says they thought he was a ghost, which is kinda scary. Also shows how superstitious they were, and what their feelings about ghosts was. I'm not saying that there's no such thing as ghost (although off the top of my head I'd have to say that ghosts are demons parading as people, because the way I understand the afterlife, the person would either say "Worship Jesus, heaven is great", or "Ahh, help me, hell is real!" or perhaps "I seem to be in some sort of limbo, why isn't Jesus back yet?" or "I don't quite understand the thing I'm seeing here"), just that they obviously thought they were something worth being scared of.
vs 20
Jesus assures them he's not a ghost, and then no doubt they are onto their next adventure. This is a quick little miracle, isn't it? I guess even John can put miracles in just for the sake of showing that Jesus is awesome.
It's a fairly simple way of explaining what happened, isn't it? Because, in our culture of facts in the minutae, we want to know exactly how he managed it. The simple fact is that it's a miracle, now matter how it happened. We can't fault John for not trying to explain an event which he had never seen before, and we're just going to have to accept that it happened somehow.
vs 12
Jesus seems fairly conscious about waste, good for him. You could probably do a whole sermon on conservation and prudence from that, if you had no life. For me, his words are simply a prompt to show that there was more leftovers than there was food to begin with. So this was a real multiplication miracle, and not just an expansion in stomachs miracle. Both would be miracles, but now we know a little more info.
vs 13
No fish was left over, and I'm sure that has been the focus of many sermons, essays and books of people I wouldn't read. If Jesus had some sort of meaning in that, then it is lost to us, because it is never explained. 12 baskets full of bread were collected, though, which is pretty incredible, especially after everyone has eaten.
What did they do with the bread? I don't know. Did they carry it with them? Give it out? Give it to the poor? All we know is that it was not wasted.
vs 14
This miracle did its part in convincing many people that Jesus was a great prophet, and quite possibly the one who had been prophesied. Anyone with 5000 men at his disposal becomes a political power. 5000 people is a lot. 5000 men with religious fervour and farming implements is a force that would create a bloody though shortlived resistance movement.
vs 15
Jesus knows that they are wanting to militate, that they think he should be king of Israel so that he can save them as the Bible predicts. But he's not keen. He does the runner, and hides on a hill by himself.
It sounds almost blasphemous to describe Jesus that way, doesn't it? But that's what he does. Jesus doesn't want to be crowned king. He could have been born as king. Moreover, he thinks that his kingliness should be evident to people without him sitting on a throne. But that's because he is king of all of earth and all of heaven, not just king of Israel. Who would settle for Israel if the whole world belongs to them?
But this shows us another thing about the Jews - many of them were looking for a political and military saviour. Jesus isn't that, and as such they were going to be disappointed.
vs 16-17
Obviously they had some instructions regarding what to do - I mean, you wouldn't just get into a boat and do the scarper because your Master has done the runner and hidden somewhere, right?
Well, perhaps you would. I mean, you've got to really ask yourself, why did the disciples get in that boat without Jesus there? Perhaps they thought he had already crossed over? Or perhaps they were going home too? How did they expect Jesus to "join them" on the boat? Did Jesus have a speed boat or something?
vs 18
Strong winds, or something. I am given to understand that the whole experience was less than pleasant, and is not uncommon over the Sea of Galilee. But then, perhaps that's just because I don't like boats.
vs 19
Three and a half miles is a long way. The waters must have been rough enough to be slowing them down, because Jesus caught up to them walking. Now, the fact that he was walking on water was not lost on them, and they were scared. Why? One of the other gospel writers says they thought he was a ghost, which is kinda scary. Also shows how superstitious they were, and what their feelings about ghosts was. I'm not saying that there's no such thing as ghost (although off the top of my head I'd have to say that ghosts are demons parading as people, because the way I understand the afterlife, the person would either say "Worship Jesus, heaven is great", or "Ahh, help me, hell is real!" or perhaps "I seem to be in some sort of limbo, why isn't Jesus back yet?" or "I don't quite understand the thing I'm seeing here"), just that they obviously thought they were something worth being scared of.
vs 20
Jesus assures them he's not a ghost, and then no doubt they are onto their next adventure. This is a quick little miracle, isn't it? I guess even John can put miracles in just for the sake of showing that Jesus is awesome.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
John chapter 6
Possibly the longest chapter in the new testament!
vs 1
Verses 1-4 are all just setting the scene. This gives us a lot of historical and geographical background for the situation. In an age where conserving paper was of considerable value to the writer, I think we cannot discount the importance of these verses to our understanding of what John's purpose is for writing.
Jesus has now crossed to the far shore of the sea of Galilee. I don't know which one is the far one. I don't know what side they started on. But now he's on the other side.
vs 2
This is going to be one of those times where a large crowd is involved. But this large crowd are not disciples - they are hangers on - wanting to see miracles or to have sick people healed. There's nothing wrong with doing that per se, but when the Son of God is walking the earth, you'd think he'd be more than a sideshow attraction.
vs 3
Jesus is currently up on a mountainside, and he's only with his disciples. So there, down the mountain, is the sprawl of crowds, but Jesus is having some disciple time.
vs 4
Finally, we know it's near another passover, which helps us to put it in a little bit of a time reference.
vs 5
This starts the real discussion of the most recorded miracle of Christ (aside from his resurrection) - the feeding of the 5000. It's the only major miracle recorded in all 4 gospels. It is interesting that he asks Philip particularly. Why? I don't have any idea. But he does.
vs 6
Jesus is asking the question to test Philip, but probably more generally as a test to all the disciples. Jesus, it seems, already had a plan.
vs 7
So Philip has at least considered the situation - there is about 5000 men down there, and even if they had 2/3 of a year of wages, they couldn't even give them all a little bit to eat. So Philip has at least looked at and considered the situation.
vs 8-9
Andrew takes some initiative, and points out that someone brought some food - the famous five loaves and two fish. He also makes the remark that this won't go far. Darn right - it was one boy's dinner!
vs 10
Something's obviously going to happen if Jesus is giving wierd instructions. The 5000 men sat down at Jesus' behest. The truth probably is that there were women and children there (we know at least one boy was there holding some bread and fish), but because of the cultural norm, they probably wouldn't have eaten until the men had eaten and had their fill. Culturally, yes, this can mean women and children (particularly girls) can go hungry. So Jesus follows the cultural rule, but only in such a way as to make sure everyone gets something.
vs 1
Verses 1-4 are all just setting the scene. This gives us a lot of historical and geographical background for the situation. In an age where conserving paper was of considerable value to the writer, I think we cannot discount the importance of these verses to our understanding of what John's purpose is for writing.
Jesus has now crossed to the far shore of the sea of Galilee. I don't know which one is the far one. I don't know what side they started on. But now he's on the other side.
vs 2
This is going to be one of those times where a large crowd is involved. But this large crowd are not disciples - they are hangers on - wanting to see miracles or to have sick people healed. There's nothing wrong with doing that per se, but when the Son of God is walking the earth, you'd think he'd be more than a sideshow attraction.
vs 3
Jesus is currently up on a mountainside, and he's only with his disciples. So there, down the mountain, is the sprawl of crowds, but Jesus is having some disciple time.
vs 4
Finally, we know it's near another passover, which helps us to put it in a little bit of a time reference.
vs 5
This starts the real discussion of the most recorded miracle of Christ (aside from his resurrection) - the feeding of the 5000. It's the only major miracle recorded in all 4 gospels. It is interesting that he asks Philip particularly. Why? I don't have any idea. But he does.
vs 6
Jesus is asking the question to test Philip, but probably more generally as a test to all the disciples. Jesus, it seems, already had a plan.
vs 7
So Philip has at least considered the situation - there is about 5000 men down there, and even if they had 2/3 of a year of wages, they couldn't even give them all a little bit to eat. So Philip has at least looked at and considered the situation.
vs 8-9
Andrew takes some initiative, and points out that someone brought some food - the famous five loaves and two fish. He also makes the remark that this won't go far. Darn right - it was one boy's dinner!
vs 10
Something's obviously going to happen if Jesus is giving wierd instructions. The 5000 men sat down at Jesus' behest. The truth probably is that there were women and children there (we know at least one boy was there holding some bread and fish), but because of the cultural norm, they probably wouldn't have eaten until the men had eaten and had their fill. Culturally, yes, this can mean women and children (particularly girls) can go hungry. So Jesus follows the cultural rule, but only in such a way as to make sure everyone gets something.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
John Chapter 5
vs 37
God did testify that Jesus is the Son of God to John TB. God did not choose to speak to the Pharisees, at least not in a direct voice as he did to John TB. The thing that always gets me about this is that when Herod asked the religious leaders where the new king of the Jews would be born, they knew the answer exactly. They knew their Bibles, and that was God's revelation to them. But they ignored it.
What does Jesus mean by "they haven't seen God's form"? Horao means "to see with the eyes", but also "to see with the mind, or perceive", but it also means "to take care, to take heed". Eidos is simpler, just meaning outward appearance.
In one sense, of course, no one has seen God (even John says it in John 1:18). But Jesus is standing right in front of them! So does he mean they don't perceive or heed who he is? That's the most obvious meaning to me.
vs 38
God's word is not in the Pharisees. They know all about it, like I said before, they ignored God's word. And this is obvious by the fact that they do not believe in what God said.
vs 39-40
See, Jesus knows what they are all about! Their eternal life is somehow tied up in their knowledge of the Scriptures. We know from other sources that the Pharisees heavily believed that their status as children of Abraham connected them to God's promise to Abraham, but Jesus is saying that he surpasses all that. He's right there, from God, and they don't believe him. The scripture talks directly about him, but they refuse to come to him and accept who he says he is.
vs 41-42
It makes me sick in the stomach to hear Jesus say these words to religious leaders. God is so important, it is a damnation of our sinful natures to see that we can manage to put him out of that place.
vs 43
And that is true - all the big-name Rabbis would tool around with a posse, just like Jesus did. Some of them were pretty radical, but they would have been more accepted than Jesus, because all of them would have kept the sabbath in that legalistic way. It had become ingrained. And even if they were teaching wierd and out there stuff (like the saducees denying resurrection) they were more accepted than Jesus.
vs 44
So often in our churches, we can get that social club mentality. We worry about the people in the group, we discuss new ideas in the group, we organise programs, we invite people to see the group grow, we do activities - all the things that a Rotary club or a social club would do - and we forget that our group is meant to be focused on God, worshipping God, and seeking to serve God. We have to worry about pleasing God more than about pleasing people (of course, most of what God wants us to do will be pretty pleasing, at least to some people).
vs 45
Jesus is getting harsh now. He is setting before them their own arguments, their own rules, and he's going to show them how hypocritical they are. Moses, the author of the OT Law, will be their judge.
vs 46
Where did Moses write about Jesus, you ask? Good question. With 20/20 hindsight, you can see Jesus pretty clearly in the Pentateuch, right? The promise to Adam and Eve, for example. The sacrificial lamb, for example. It sounds hard to us to judge them by only those first five books, but they read these things deeply, and the correct conclusions they came to out of them are startling. They put our study of the OT to shame. But yet they still miss Jesus.
vs 47
That's a slap in the face to the Pharisees. As far as they were concerned, their theology was built on what Moses wrote. Their laws were built on what Moses wrote! And Jesus says they ignore Moses. Jesus can be harsh.
God did testify that Jesus is the Son of God to John TB. God did not choose to speak to the Pharisees, at least not in a direct voice as he did to John TB. The thing that always gets me about this is that when Herod asked the religious leaders where the new king of the Jews would be born, they knew the answer exactly. They knew their Bibles, and that was God's revelation to them. But they ignored it.
What does Jesus mean by "they haven't seen God's form"? Horao means "to see with the eyes", but also "to see with the mind, or perceive", but it also means "to take care, to take heed". Eidos is simpler, just meaning outward appearance.
In one sense, of course, no one has seen God (even John says it in John 1:18). But Jesus is standing right in front of them! So does he mean they don't perceive or heed who he is? That's the most obvious meaning to me.
vs 38
God's word is not in the Pharisees. They know all about it, like I said before, they ignored God's word. And this is obvious by the fact that they do not believe in what God said.
vs 39-40
See, Jesus knows what they are all about! Their eternal life is somehow tied up in their knowledge of the Scriptures. We know from other sources that the Pharisees heavily believed that their status as children of Abraham connected them to God's promise to Abraham, but Jesus is saying that he surpasses all that. He's right there, from God, and they don't believe him. The scripture talks directly about him, but they refuse to come to him and accept who he says he is.
vs 41-42
It makes me sick in the stomach to hear Jesus say these words to religious leaders. God is so important, it is a damnation of our sinful natures to see that we can manage to put him out of that place.
vs 43
And that is true - all the big-name Rabbis would tool around with a posse, just like Jesus did. Some of them were pretty radical, but they would have been more accepted than Jesus, because all of them would have kept the sabbath in that legalistic way. It had become ingrained. And even if they were teaching wierd and out there stuff (like the saducees denying resurrection) they were more accepted than Jesus.
vs 44
So often in our churches, we can get that social club mentality. We worry about the people in the group, we discuss new ideas in the group, we organise programs, we invite people to see the group grow, we do activities - all the things that a Rotary club or a social club would do - and we forget that our group is meant to be focused on God, worshipping God, and seeking to serve God. We have to worry about pleasing God more than about pleasing people (of course, most of what God wants us to do will be pretty pleasing, at least to some people).
vs 45
Jesus is getting harsh now. He is setting before them their own arguments, their own rules, and he's going to show them how hypocritical they are. Moses, the author of the OT Law, will be their judge.
vs 46
Where did Moses write about Jesus, you ask? Good question. With 20/20 hindsight, you can see Jesus pretty clearly in the Pentateuch, right? The promise to Adam and Eve, for example. The sacrificial lamb, for example. It sounds hard to us to judge them by only those first five books, but they read these things deeply, and the correct conclusions they came to out of them are startling. They put our study of the OT to shame. But yet they still miss Jesus.
vs 47
That's a slap in the face to the Pharisees. As far as they were concerned, their theology was built on what Moses wrote. Their laws were built on what Moses wrote! And Jesus says they ignore Moses. Jesus can be harsh.
Friday, January 12, 2007
John chapter 5
vs 25
Jesus may or may not be talking about physically dead people, but certainly the spiritually dead hear him and are given life.
vs 26
So it's not just that Jesus is alive, but that he has life in himself, in the same way that God has life, and was able to impart that life onto his creation.
vs 27
There is obviously a great deal of importance in this title which Jesus chooses for himself. It is by this title that Jesus judges. Perhaps Jesus judges because as a man he knows what we've been through. We usually think of him as a great intercessor for that, but perhaps it makes him a good judge too.
vs 28-29
This is very true of people who will actually be dead. But again it could be taken figuratively. Notice that Jesus uses a picture of complete resurrection, not just of the good guys. Perhps the bad guys would wish they stayed dead.
vs 30
God tells Jesus how to judge? Pretty incredible. And one of the reasons that Jesus is an impartial judge is because he serves God. So when he is judging the people he is talking to (who will kill him later) he is actually telling them that he will judge even them impartially.
vs 31
Remember, you need the testimony of two or three witnesses.
vs 32
Who is Jesus talking about? The next few verses tells us. It's not actually John the baptist - Jesus says he doesn't accept human testimony. God testifies for Christ.
vs 33
John TB does too, and they obviously respect John TB, because they sent people to him to ask about Jesus, and his answer was correct. So now, do they throw away the testimony of the person they respect?
vs 34
John TB is just another witness to these people, in the hope that they might accept and be saved. Because it is hard to accept the somewhat nebulous testimony of God (if you weren't there to hear it, anyway), but you can hear people talk just fine.
vs 35
If they listened to him before, if they even thought he was the Christ, then why do they not listen to who he said he is (the person who would identify the Christ) and accept Jesus is the Christ?
vs 36
If they look at the work of Jesus, they will see who he is. I mean, he healed a guy who had been sick for years and years. Do they think "Is this the Christ?" or only "He did it on WHAT day?" Funny how sometimes we can ignore the big picture to pick on a little nonsense thing.
Jesus may or may not be talking about physically dead people, but certainly the spiritually dead hear him and are given life.
vs 26
So it's not just that Jesus is alive, but that he has life in himself, in the same way that God has life, and was able to impart that life onto his creation.
vs 27
There is obviously a great deal of importance in this title which Jesus chooses for himself. It is by this title that Jesus judges. Perhaps Jesus judges because as a man he knows what we've been through. We usually think of him as a great intercessor for that, but perhaps it makes him a good judge too.
vs 28-29
This is very true of people who will actually be dead. But again it could be taken figuratively. Notice that Jesus uses a picture of complete resurrection, not just of the good guys. Perhps the bad guys would wish they stayed dead.
vs 30
God tells Jesus how to judge? Pretty incredible. And one of the reasons that Jesus is an impartial judge is because he serves God. So when he is judging the people he is talking to (who will kill him later) he is actually telling them that he will judge even them impartially.
vs 31
Remember, you need the testimony of two or three witnesses.
vs 32
Who is Jesus talking about? The next few verses tells us. It's not actually John the baptist - Jesus says he doesn't accept human testimony. God testifies for Christ.
vs 33
John TB does too, and they obviously respect John TB, because they sent people to him to ask about Jesus, and his answer was correct. So now, do they throw away the testimony of the person they respect?
vs 34
John TB is just another witness to these people, in the hope that they might accept and be saved. Because it is hard to accept the somewhat nebulous testimony of God (if you weren't there to hear it, anyway), but you can hear people talk just fine.
vs 35
If they listened to him before, if they even thought he was the Christ, then why do they not listen to who he said he is (the person who would identify the Christ) and accept Jesus is the Christ?
vs 36
If they look at the work of Jesus, they will see who he is. I mean, he healed a guy who had been sick for years and years. Do they think "Is this the Christ?" or only "He did it on WHAT day?" Funny how sometimes we can ignore the big picture to pick on a little nonsense thing.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
John chapter 5
vs 13
Ok, so perhaps the sheeps gate wasn't deserted except for the sick people, but I assume the crowd was either something to do with sheep, or something to do with the gate and lots of human traffic.
vs 14
Jesus finds the guy again, and his message to him is a strong one. It's hard to think of some people as sinners - religious leaders, children, the disabled and so on - we often think that they have a special dispensation because of their situation(soldiers fit in here too a little, because although we expect them to sin, we also know they've got a tought job and we forgive them a little faster). But Jesus makes a link between sin and wellbeing.
It is not a causal link, although from these words it could easily seem that way. The OT is very strong on the fact that bad things don't only happen when you sin. In fact, Ecclesiastes has a very much "nice guys finish last" attitude. But there is a link between sin and its consequences. Jesus may even be talking about eternal consequences - hell is worse than disability.
vs 15
Now how do we judge this man? The religious leaders asked him who healed him, and he didn't know. Now that he does know (obviously there was more to the conversation) he goes and tells them. Is he dobbing Jesus in? Or is he simply telling the leaders what they asked him? It's not easy to tell, just from these verses.
vs 16
The result is obvious though - Jesus because regarded as a Sabbath-breaker, and so they persecute him. I think there are a lot of Christian groups (liberal, conservative and charismatic) who think they they've got the only right way of doing things, and get on their high horse and persecute other Christians who do things in other, still valid ways. That's bad. Don't be like that.
vs 17
Jesus' defense is that God works on the Sabbath, and because he's doing God's work, then he will work too. But, as we find out from the next verse, by calling God his father, Jesus is putting himself as equal with God - and therefore, if God works, he can work.
vs 18
No one likes to be told they are wrong, I guess, but killing someone is a big step. I know I get frustrated with people that seem to just spout heresy all the time, and it's like they are doing it on purpose to frustrate you. Don't know if I'd go so far as to kill them. What I'm saying is that if you weren't prepared to believe that Jesus was telling the truth, then you would think of him as a terribly frustrating heretic. Understandable, but not condonable.
I just want to make the point that in the culture of the time, the son and the father were the same thing when it came to authority and position - so we shouldn't see Jesus as being under the Father because he is the Son. That makes him equal with God. It is his humanity which humbles him, not his Sonship.
vs 19
So Jesus is doing not just God's work planned for him - he is doing the very work of God himself. If that is true, then really his actions are unquestionable.
vs 20
So how does it work exactly? Does God show Jesus what sort of things are going to happen, and Jesus goes and does the things? I don't know. The fact is, though, that God loves Jesus as his Son, and so Jesus does God's own work. And Jesus says it's only going to get more hardcore.
vs 21
I assume that Jesus is referring to the end times raising of the dead, although he might be referring to those few miracles in the OT where this happens too. Jesus will do this stuff too - he will raise people from their spiritual death into an eternal life. I also think he will raise people on the last day and give them life, but that's not what this verse is about, because he is talking about giving life to who he chooses.
vs 22
This is a bold step to take if you're not the Son of God. Jesus is claiming that all judgement will be done by him. We often think of God as the big judge and Jesus as some sort of lawyer for us. But Jesus is judge. That might screw up an analogy for a talk at kids camp or something, but it's the truth.
vs 23
The reason, or at least one reason, that Jesus is judge is so that he will receive honour along with the father. Because father and son are equal, Jesus and God deserve equal honour, and therefore if you don't honour the Son of God, you are not honouring God. Jesus lays it down for these religious leaders - if they choose to harass and persecute Jesus, then they are taking the risk that if he's the Son of God, they're in deep crap.
vs 24
But it's not all bad. If people do believe in Jesus, and God, and in the message that Jesus is teaching, they will have eternal life. Jesus has the power to give people life, just as he said. So Jesus is offering these religious leaders both sides of the coin - they can accept God which means accepting him, and they get eternal life. Or they can deny Jesus, which means denying God, and that's not going to go so well for them.
Ok, so perhaps the sheeps gate wasn't deserted except for the sick people, but I assume the crowd was either something to do with sheep, or something to do with the gate and lots of human traffic.
vs 14
Jesus finds the guy again, and his message to him is a strong one. It's hard to think of some people as sinners - religious leaders, children, the disabled and so on - we often think that they have a special dispensation because of their situation(soldiers fit in here too a little, because although we expect them to sin, we also know they've got a tought job and we forgive them a little faster). But Jesus makes a link between sin and wellbeing.
It is not a causal link, although from these words it could easily seem that way. The OT is very strong on the fact that bad things don't only happen when you sin. In fact, Ecclesiastes has a very much "nice guys finish last" attitude. But there is a link between sin and its consequences. Jesus may even be talking about eternal consequences - hell is worse than disability.
vs 15
Now how do we judge this man? The religious leaders asked him who healed him, and he didn't know. Now that he does know (obviously there was more to the conversation) he goes and tells them. Is he dobbing Jesus in? Or is he simply telling the leaders what they asked him? It's not easy to tell, just from these verses.
vs 16
The result is obvious though - Jesus because regarded as a Sabbath-breaker, and so they persecute him. I think there are a lot of Christian groups (liberal, conservative and charismatic) who think they they've got the only right way of doing things, and get on their high horse and persecute other Christians who do things in other, still valid ways. That's bad. Don't be like that.
vs 17
Jesus' defense is that God works on the Sabbath, and because he's doing God's work, then he will work too. But, as we find out from the next verse, by calling God his father, Jesus is putting himself as equal with God - and therefore, if God works, he can work.
vs 18
No one likes to be told they are wrong, I guess, but killing someone is a big step. I know I get frustrated with people that seem to just spout heresy all the time, and it's like they are doing it on purpose to frustrate you. Don't know if I'd go so far as to kill them. What I'm saying is that if you weren't prepared to believe that Jesus was telling the truth, then you would think of him as a terribly frustrating heretic. Understandable, but not condonable.
I just want to make the point that in the culture of the time, the son and the father were the same thing when it came to authority and position - so we shouldn't see Jesus as being under the Father because he is the Son. That makes him equal with God. It is his humanity which humbles him, not his Sonship.
vs 19
So Jesus is doing not just God's work planned for him - he is doing the very work of God himself. If that is true, then really his actions are unquestionable.
vs 20
So how does it work exactly? Does God show Jesus what sort of things are going to happen, and Jesus goes and does the things? I don't know. The fact is, though, that God loves Jesus as his Son, and so Jesus does God's own work. And Jesus says it's only going to get more hardcore.
vs 21
I assume that Jesus is referring to the end times raising of the dead, although he might be referring to those few miracles in the OT where this happens too. Jesus will do this stuff too - he will raise people from their spiritual death into an eternal life. I also think he will raise people on the last day and give them life, but that's not what this verse is about, because he is talking about giving life to who he chooses.
vs 22
This is a bold step to take if you're not the Son of God. Jesus is claiming that all judgement will be done by him. We often think of God as the big judge and Jesus as some sort of lawyer for us. But Jesus is judge. That might screw up an analogy for a talk at kids camp or something, but it's the truth.
vs 23
The reason, or at least one reason, that Jesus is judge is so that he will receive honour along with the father. Because father and son are equal, Jesus and God deserve equal honour, and therefore if you don't honour the Son of God, you are not honouring God. Jesus lays it down for these religious leaders - if they choose to harass and persecute Jesus, then they are taking the risk that if he's the Son of God, they're in deep crap.
vs 24
But it's not all bad. If people do believe in Jesus, and God, and in the message that Jesus is teaching, they will have eternal life. Jesus has the power to give people life, just as he said. So Jesus is offering these religious leaders both sides of the coin - they can accept God which means accepting him, and they get eternal life. Or they can deny Jesus, which means denying God, and that's not going to go so well for them.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
John chapter 5
vs 1
"Some time later" really gives us no idea how long it is. There are any number of Jewish festivals, and the fact that John doesn't name it shows again that this gospel is written for gentiles as much as anybody. This might also be why he left out the festival's name - he didn't want it to become more important than it should -the story of Jesus should take precedence.
One interesting thing about John is how many times Jesus visits Jerusalem. The other gospels sort of pretend that Jesus spends 3 1/2 years trekking towards the city. But John shows that he actually visits it several times.
vs 2
Sheep gate could also mean "place pertaining to sheep". So if you're ever there, look for the five covered collonades and the pool. It's almost a tourist guide. Probably not there anymore.
vs 3
A bunch of sick people sat around here, which probably did not make this gate a popular place to be. You will notice in the NIV that there's a verse missing, and that it is from "less important manuscripts". By less important, they mean late. So it is possible that this story is a traditional one that somehow found its way into the copied scripts at a later time. What does that mean? It means don't base any theology on it.
The fact is that the only thing this missing verse adds to the story is that an angel stirs the waters. Everything else we already know from the surrounding verses.
vs 5
That's a long time to be alive, let alone to be an invalid. It's a fairly sad life, considering that most all of your kinfolk and fellow citizens see you as unclean and will give you a wide berth.
vs 6
Here's a question - it says that Jesus learned that he had been in this condition a long time. Could we perhaps suppose that Jesus doesn't know everything? It doesn't really matter - even if Jesus knew exactly what was wrong with this man, and how long he had been ill for, he still learned it according to John 5:6. What does this mean? It means he must have been there, talking to people like this man! These sickies, who no one would go near for fear of becoming unclean, were being talked to by Jesus.
And when Jesus finds out that he's been sick for so long, he asks him if he even wants to get well. It reminds me of the leper sketch in Monty Python's Life of Brian. It sounds stupid, but some people who are sick sometimes learn to value their sickness as part of their personality.
vs 7
The guy's response shows that he does want to be well, because he does try to get into the pool, but he's so crippled that others get in before him and he just can't. I can't think of anything more frustrating, actually.
vs 8
Jesus dispenses with angel-spilling whirlpools and just tells the guy to be well. We find out later that his command to the man is more loaded than just for him to be well, but at the moment, we see him just telling the guy to get better. Doesn't seem like a big deal, until...
vs 9
until it actually works, that is. I mean, we can go around all day telling people "get well soon" but it doesn't make them actually get cured. That is what we can safely call power over sickness I think.
Now we find out that this took place on the Sabbath.And we are about to discover the meaning of the term "legalist". The Sabbath and food laws were more legislated than probably any other part of Jewish religious practices.
vs 10
This is actually complete crap. The closest you will get is Jer 17:21, which says you can't carry a load on the Sabbath, and is much more linked with the idea of trading than of carrying your mat. Does that mean that if your feet hurt, you can't carry your shoes? Or if your hat blows off, you can't pick it up again? Legalist insanity. The guy's a beggar anyway, what has God done for him? Where were these Jews when he was sick and needing someone to help him into the pool?
vs 11
And this is the proof of the pudding. These legalists tell him he can't carry his mat, but have done nothing for him. Jesus healed him and told him to carry his mat, so he does that. Jesus didn't tell him to break any biblical laws, only the laws of the crazy religious leaders. Human laws.
vs 12
Now the religious leaders are suspicious. There is someone going around telling people to break the laws of their forefathers. Sure, he might be healing people too, but that's secondary to the fact that he's telling people to break these laws, the laws which give them power over people. He must be stopped!
"Some time later" really gives us no idea how long it is. There are any number of Jewish festivals, and the fact that John doesn't name it shows again that this gospel is written for gentiles as much as anybody. This might also be why he left out the festival's name - he didn't want it to become more important than it should -the story of Jesus should take precedence.
One interesting thing about John is how many times Jesus visits Jerusalem. The other gospels sort of pretend that Jesus spends 3 1/2 years trekking towards the city. But John shows that he actually visits it several times.
vs 2
Sheep gate could also mean "place pertaining to sheep". So if you're ever there, look for the five covered collonades and the pool. It's almost a tourist guide. Probably not there anymore.
vs 3
A bunch of sick people sat around here, which probably did not make this gate a popular place to be. You will notice in the NIV that there's a verse missing, and that it is from "less important manuscripts". By less important, they mean late. So it is possible that this story is a traditional one that somehow found its way into the copied scripts at a later time. What does that mean? It means don't base any theology on it.
The fact is that the only thing this missing verse adds to the story is that an angel stirs the waters. Everything else we already know from the surrounding verses.
vs 5
That's a long time to be alive, let alone to be an invalid. It's a fairly sad life, considering that most all of your kinfolk and fellow citizens see you as unclean and will give you a wide berth.
vs 6
Here's a question - it says that Jesus learned that he had been in this condition a long time. Could we perhaps suppose that Jesus doesn't know everything? It doesn't really matter - even if Jesus knew exactly what was wrong with this man, and how long he had been ill for, he still learned it according to John 5:6. What does this mean? It means he must have been there, talking to people like this man! These sickies, who no one would go near for fear of becoming unclean, were being talked to by Jesus.
And when Jesus finds out that he's been sick for so long, he asks him if he even wants to get well. It reminds me of the leper sketch in Monty Python's Life of Brian. It sounds stupid, but some people who are sick sometimes learn to value their sickness as part of their personality.
vs 7
The guy's response shows that he does want to be well, because he does try to get into the pool, but he's so crippled that others get in before him and he just can't. I can't think of anything more frustrating, actually.
vs 8
Jesus dispenses with angel-spilling whirlpools and just tells the guy to be well. We find out later that his command to the man is more loaded than just for him to be well, but at the moment, we see him just telling the guy to get better. Doesn't seem like a big deal, until...
vs 9
until it actually works, that is. I mean, we can go around all day telling people "get well soon" but it doesn't make them actually get cured. That is what we can safely call power over sickness I think.
Now we find out that this took place on the Sabbath.And we are about to discover the meaning of the term "legalist". The Sabbath and food laws were more legislated than probably any other part of Jewish religious practices.
vs 10
This is actually complete crap. The closest you will get is Jer 17:21, which says you can't carry a load on the Sabbath, and is much more linked with the idea of trading than of carrying your mat. Does that mean that if your feet hurt, you can't carry your shoes? Or if your hat blows off, you can't pick it up again? Legalist insanity. The guy's a beggar anyway, what has God done for him? Where were these Jews when he was sick and needing someone to help him into the pool?
vs 11
And this is the proof of the pudding. These legalists tell him he can't carry his mat, but have done nothing for him. Jesus healed him and told him to carry his mat, so he does that. Jesus didn't tell him to break any biblical laws, only the laws of the crazy religious leaders. Human laws.
vs 12
Now the religious leaders are suspicious. There is someone going around telling people to break the laws of their forefathers. Sure, he might be healing people too, but that's secondary to the fact that he's telling people to break these laws, the laws which give them power over people. He must be stopped!
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
John Chapter 4
vs 41
This is perhaps the less surprising of the two - you would expect that many people would become believers upon the teaching of Jesus directly to them. So to imagine that a bunch of them listened to a woman who has had 5 husbands, that's pretty incredible.
vs 42
And they were really listening too - this verse shows that they had an understanding of who Jesus is - not just some nebulous prophet or Messiah, about whom nobody really knew much, but they saw him as a saviour.
vs 43
Little trip planner update there. Of course, this verse doesn't have much spiritual significance, but it does show how much social interaction we have lost through the speed of our travels, and how a deadline could be stretched by a couple of days without a problem.
vs 44
I think the reason this is in parentheses is because of the word "for". There's no parentheses in ancient greek as far as I know. Jesus knew what sort of reception he'd get regarding his position, but he went anyway.
vs 45
What he had done in Jerusalem, it seemed, was the clearing of the temple. It's something I guess you wouldn't have missed. And even here, in his hometown, people recognised that he had done this.
vs 46
So already, you see, he's done a bit of a trip. Now he returns to where he was at the beginning of chapter 2. This time, though, there's no wedding - instead, there is a sick boy. He wasn't in Galilee, though, he was in Capernaum. That's a pretty long way. Although everywhere is a long way by foot it seems.
vs 47
News has obviously spread about Jesus. So far, John hasn't told us that Jesus has healed anyone else, so you've got to wonder if this guy is really at his wits' end.
vs 48
This seems an odd thing to say to a guy who has come and asked his son to be healed. You would think that means he believes. But of course, from looking at other healing stories in other gospels, you know that not everyone who is healed is a master of faith at the time.
vs 49
This guy probably hasn't thought through the consequences of Jesus being who he claims to be - he just wants his son to live. We often see the immediate problem before seeing the bigger picture problem, which Jesus came to deal with. If people knew that Jesus was offering eternal life and a repaired relationship with God, you would assume they'd ask for that.
vs 50
Perhaps as a test, Jesus tells the man that he doesn't need to go all the way to Capernaum, and that his son will be fine. The guy takes Jesus at his word. This is probably not as incredible as it seems - after all, even Elijah did healings from afar, like with Naaman. So it has biblical precedent. But most often, people don't think about biblical precedent when their son is dying.
vs 51
No email, no pager, no mobile phone, just messengers. And you were obviously pretty lucky if, like this guy, you ran into them on the way.
vs 52
Remember what I was saying about learning the times? Well, the NASB has them in it, but they don't know whether the speakers are using Jewish time or Roman time, and that apparently makes a difference. It was either 1pm or 7pm. I think most people go for the Jewish time. Not important, but interesting.
vs 53
It's interesting that this man's beliefs were contingent on seeing a miracle. He had heard about Jesus and what he had done, or else he wouldn't have asked him to heal his son. Now we look back at Jesus' words to him about requiring a miracle, and we see that Jesus wasn't far off the mark at all.
vs 54
Obviously it wasn't the second per se, but it's the second one John calls a miracle. Actually, he calls it a miraculous sign, and perhaps that is important.
This is perhaps the less surprising of the two - you would expect that many people would become believers upon the teaching of Jesus directly to them. So to imagine that a bunch of them listened to a woman who has had 5 husbands, that's pretty incredible.
vs 42
And they were really listening too - this verse shows that they had an understanding of who Jesus is - not just some nebulous prophet or Messiah, about whom nobody really knew much, but they saw him as a saviour.
vs 43
Little trip planner update there. Of course, this verse doesn't have much spiritual significance, but it does show how much social interaction we have lost through the speed of our travels, and how a deadline could be stretched by a couple of days without a problem.
vs 44
I think the reason this is in parentheses is because of the word "for". There's no parentheses in ancient greek as far as I know. Jesus knew what sort of reception he'd get regarding his position, but he went anyway.
vs 45
What he had done in Jerusalem, it seemed, was the clearing of the temple. It's something I guess you wouldn't have missed. And even here, in his hometown, people recognised that he had done this.
vs 46
So already, you see, he's done a bit of a trip. Now he returns to where he was at the beginning of chapter 2. This time, though, there's no wedding - instead, there is a sick boy. He wasn't in Galilee, though, he was in Capernaum. That's a pretty long way. Although everywhere is a long way by foot it seems.
vs 47
News has obviously spread about Jesus. So far, John hasn't told us that Jesus has healed anyone else, so you've got to wonder if this guy is really at his wits' end.
vs 48
This seems an odd thing to say to a guy who has come and asked his son to be healed. You would think that means he believes. But of course, from looking at other healing stories in other gospels, you know that not everyone who is healed is a master of faith at the time.
vs 49
This guy probably hasn't thought through the consequences of Jesus being who he claims to be - he just wants his son to live. We often see the immediate problem before seeing the bigger picture problem, which Jesus came to deal with. If people knew that Jesus was offering eternal life and a repaired relationship with God, you would assume they'd ask for that.
vs 50
Perhaps as a test, Jesus tells the man that he doesn't need to go all the way to Capernaum, and that his son will be fine. The guy takes Jesus at his word. This is probably not as incredible as it seems - after all, even Elijah did healings from afar, like with Naaman. So it has biblical precedent. But most often, people don't think about biblical precedent when their son is dying.
vs 51
No email, no pager, no mobile phone, just messengers. And you were obviously pretty lucky if, like this guy, you ran into them on the way.
vs 52
Remember what I was saying about learning the times? Well, the NASB has them in it, but they don't know whether the speakers are using Jewish time or Roman time, and that apparently makes a difference. It was either 1pm or 7pm. I think most people go for the Jewish time. Not important, but interesting.
vs 53
It's interesting that this man's beliefs were contingent on seeing a miracle. He had heard about Jesus and what he had done, or else he wouldn't have asked him to heal his son. Now we look back at Jesus' words to him about requiring a miracle, and we see that Jesus wasn't far off the mark at all.
vs 54
Obviously it wasn't the second per se, but it's the second one John calls a miracle. Actually, he calls it a miraculous sign, and perhaps that is important.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
John Chapter 4
vs 31
The disciples are regularly telling Jesus to do things, but out of love of course.
vs 32
And Jesus was always making enigmatic statements to them, that they would regularly get confused at.
vs 33
Like this time. They think Jesus is talking about food someone snuck to him while he was away.
vs 34
Jesus explains, saying that doing the work of the father sustains him in a way food never could.
vs 35
And now he is sharing with them that the same sustenance can be for them too. Just as we look to fields to provide food for us, and know when they will be ripe, so Jesus is saying that, for our own sustenance in doing the work of the father, the fields of spiritual harvest are ripe.
vs 36
Even now, people are being reaped for the kingdom. The Samaritan woman is probably one of the most recent. And more are seeking.
vs 37
This is a great saying, one that we really need to learn as Christians. See, everyone wants to reap - everyone wants to be the person that "led that person to Christ". But the reaper can't reap without sowers - those people out there planting the seed of Christianity into people's lives. We all need to do that. And then both will be glad.
vs 38
The disciples are in a unique position, one that probably will never be repeated in quite the same way. God had set up Israel and many non-Jewish God fearers to expect a coming Messiah. He had planted the seed in them through the OT. The disciples could now just go around and reap of all the people who had that seed planted in them - reaping from what they did not sow.
vs 39
There is even a reaping among the Samaritans. And it came from the testimony of just one woman. That shows you just how much sowing God had done through the years. People were ready. Times will never be like that again.
vs 40
Jesus stayed 2 days with the Samaritans. Most Jews would have been totally freaked that he'd even accept any sort of invitation or hospitality from them. But there you go. The lesson he's teaching from all this is what he said to the woman in the first place - that there is a time coming, and that has come, where people will worship in spirit and in truth - not at temples or mountains.
The disciples are regularly telling Jesus to do things, but out of love of course.
vs 32
And Jesus was always making enigmatic statements to them, that they would regularly get confused at.
vs 33
Like this time. They think Jesus is talking about food someone snuck to him while he was away.
vs 34
Jesus explains, saying that doing the work of the father sustains him in a way food never could.
vs 35
And now he is sharing with them that the same sustenance can be for them too. Just as we look to fields to provide food for us, and know when they will be ripe, so Jesus is saying that, for our own sustenance in doing the work of the father, the fields of spiritual harvest are ripe.
vs 36
Even now, people are being reaped for the kingdom. The Samaritan woman is probably one of the most recent. And more are seeking.
vs 37
This is a great saying, one that we really need to learn as Christians. See, everyone wants to reap - everyone wants to be the person that "led that person to Christ". But the reaper can't reap without sowers - those people out there planting the seed of Christianity into people's lives. We all need to do that. And then both will be glad.
vs 38
The disciples are in a unique position, one that probably will never be repeated in quite the same way. God had set up Israel and many non-Jewish God fearers to expect a coming Messiah. He had planted the seed in them through the OT. The disciples could now just go around and reap of all the people who had that seed planted in them - reaping from what they did not sow.
vs 39
There is even a reaping among the Samaritans. And it came from the testimony of just one woman. That shows you just how much sowing God had done through the years. People were ready. Times will never be like that again.
vs 40
Jesus stayed 2 days with the Samaritans. Most Jews would have been totally freaked that he'd even accept any sort of invitation or hospitality from them. But there you go. The lesson he's teaching from all this is what he said to the woman in the first place - that there is a time coming, and that has come, where people will worship in spirit and in truth - not at temples or mountains.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
John chapter 4
vs 21
Jesus response to the woman acknolwedges that her people did worship on the mountain, and also that the Jews did worship in Jerusalem. But he is looking further ahead - there will be a time where worship will not be tied to a specific place or thing. Jesus has come to give us a personal relationship with God. Notice that Jesus includes the woman with his language.
vs 22
Jesus has no problem producing and establishing the Jewish religious primacy over the Samaritans. The OT makes it clear enough that he is right on this front - especially that salvation, or a saviour, will come from the Jews and not the Samaritans.
vs 23
But according to Jesus, God does not truly desire worshippers who go to the temple, or worshippers who go to the mountain. He desires worshippers that worship him in spirit and in truth. People who understand their worship, and who desire to serve and worship God. And the time for this is come, according to Jesus.
vs 24
What does Jesus mean by worshipping in spirit? He says that God is spirit, and therefore we must worship God in spirit. Is this a reflection on the materialist sacrificial worship of the day? Perhaps. Or maybe this is a reflection of the eternal-mindedness that his worshippers must have, or the awareness of the spiritual kingdom.
vs 25
Even Samaritans knew that there was a Messiah coming - the Bible makes it clear - and even they had hope that he would set things straight. Perhaps she makes this statement because that was a typical end to such debates, "We don't know, but the Messiah will clear it up when he comes". But perhaps, because of Jesus saying that the time is now come in verse 23, she feels the need to mention the Messiah, just out of hope.
vs 26
Jesus has no qualms about saying who he is here. Quite different from the 'messianic secret' of the other gospels.
vs 27
As I said, it was quite surprising for a single man to be talking to a woman by herself in public. Not only that, but she was a Samaritan. So when the disciples stumble upon this, they are surprised, but interestingly they don't say anything about it at the time, either to her ("What do you want?") or to Jesus ("Why are you talking to her?"). The first question could have been to Jesus; after all, he talked to her because he wanted something - a drink.
vs 28
She leaves, and John records that she left her water jar behind. It is that sort of little detail that speaks volumes to me about the truth of the gospels. The suggestion seems that she left it behind because she left quickly.
vs 29
Jesus small action of knowing about the woman's marriages is what she names as the thing that could make Jesus the Christ - a miracle. But when he did it at first, all she thought is that he was a prophet. There is something more to her query - not least, surely, the fact that he openly said he was the Christ.
vs 30
And people, even Samaritans, were interested enough in the idea that the Christ could be around, that they are prepared to take the word of a woman (worth less than that of a man in this culture), and a woman who has had 5 husbands no less, that someone out near Jacob's Well is saying he is the Christ. They may not have been clamouring to become his disciples, but they at least were interested enough to go take a look. If someone ran into Brisbane or Manly saying they'd just met a man, within walking distance, who said he was the holy one sent from God, how many Aussies do you think would stop what they were doing and go see? It's another indicator to me that the people were conscious that the Messiah was coming, and so were looking for him.
Jesus response to the woman acknolwedges that her people did worship on the mountain, and also that the Jews did worship in Jerusalem. But he is looking further ahead - there will be a time where worship will not be tied to a specific place or thing. Jesus has come to give us a personal relationship with God. Notice that Jesus includes the woman with his language.
vs 22
Jesus has no problem producing and establishing the Jewish religious primacy over the Samaritans. The OT makes it clear enough that he is right on this front - especially that salvation, or a saviour, will come from the Jews and not the Samaritans.
vs 23
But according to Jesus, God does not truly desire worshippers who go to the temple, or worshippers who go to the mountain. He desires worshippers that worship him in spirit and in truth. People who understand their worship, and who desire to serve and worship God. And the time for this is come, according to Jesus.
vs 24
What does Jesus mean by worshipping in spirit? He says that God is spirit, and therefore we must worship God in spirit. Is this a reflection on the materialist sacrificial worship of the day? Perhaps. Or maybe this is a reflection of the eternal-mindedness that his worshippers must have, or the awareness of the spiritual kingdom.
vs 25
Even Samaritans knew that there was a Messiah coming - the Bible makes it clear - and even they had hope that he would set things straight. Perhaps she makes this statement because that was a typical end to such debates, "We don't know, but the Messiah will clear it up when he comes". But perhaps, because of Jesus saying that the time is now come in verse 23, she feels the need to mention the Messiah, just out of hope.
vs 26
Jesus has no qualms about saying who he is here. Quite different from the 'messianic secret' of the other gospels.
vs 27
As I said, it was quite surprising for a single man to be talking to a woman by herself in public. Not only that, but she was a Samaritan. So when the disciples stumble upon this, they are surprised, but interestingly they don't say anything about it at the time, either to her ("What do you want?") or to Jesus ("Why are you talking to her?"). The first question could have been to Jesus; after all, he talked to her because he wanted something - a drink.
vs 28
She leaves, and John records that she left her water jar behind. It is that sort of little detail that speaks volumes to me about the truth of the gospels. The suggestion seems that she left it behind because she left quickly.
vs 29
Jesus small action of knowing about the woman's marriages is what she names as the thing that could make Jesus the Christ - a miracle. But when he did it at first, all she thought is that he was a prophet. There is something more to her query - not least, surely, the fact that he openly said he was the Christ.
vs 30
And people, even Samaritans, were interested enough in the idea that the Christ could be around, that they are prepared to take the word of a woman (worth less than that of a man in this culture), and a woman who has had 5 husbands no less, that someone out near Jacob's Well is saying he is the Christ. They may not have been clamouring to become his disciples, but they at least were interested enough to go take a look. If someone ran into Brisbane or Manly saying they'd just met a man, within walking distance, who said he was the holy one sent from God, how many Aussies do you think would stop what they were doing and go see? It's another indicator to me that the people were conscious that the Messiah was coming, and so were looking for him.
Friday, January 05, 2007
John chapter 4
vs 11
She doesn't really know what he means by this "living water" - she sees he doesn't have a way of drawing water from the well, so she is suspicious.
vs 12
She also might have thought that he was making some sort of Jewish quip at her, and so she throws in this comment about Jacob, who the Samaritans said was their father. I don't think she's being rude, but the offer he has made is an odd one, and she's not quite sure where he's going with it.
vs 13-14
The 'water' Jesus is offering is eternal life, it's not really water at all. Christians are still thirsty for regular water, but there will be a time when we will live out eternity without such thirsts. But even in expressing this, Jesus is still a little mysterious. Of course, there was probably more of this conversation, but John only includes what he thinks is necessary to get his point across.
vs 15
Now, has she misunderstood, or is she again making another quip? Jesus knows that if she becomes a Christian, she will still have to come and draw water from this well. Does she understand that, and so is calling him out on his mysterious expression (I'm sure she knows full well that Jews still drink water), or does she simply not understand, and so requests this water to save her weary feet?
vs 16
Jesus now starts his revelation of who he really is. He has basically told her (he has told her he can give her eternal life), but now he sets out to show her who he is. He does this by showing how much he knows about her (same thing he did with Nathanael).
His question also shows that it is a natural assumption that all people will be married, and that the 'natural' state of your average adult in the ancient Middle East was married.
vs 17-vs 18
Her reply is truthful, but still dodging the truth. Jesus calls her on it, though. He then shows how he knows impossible things about her, and uses it to point out that while she was telling the truth in a legalistic way, she knows full well that she does have a man, and that she is not a "good woman" in that she has a non-marriage relationship and lied to Jesus; perhaps not a lie in the exact truth of the situation, but only a half-truth.
vs 19
This is enough, this show of knowledge, to convince her that he is a prophet. Jesus did so much stuff, and most people wouldn't even accept him as a prophet, let alone the Son of God.
vs 20
So she asks him a question. It's not really framed as a question - it is more of an accusatory statement about the Jews, and about him as a Jewish prophet. It's hard to tell what her attitude was to Jesus throughout this conversation - has it always been touched with an edge of icy coldness, or is it a more simple, straightforward conversation than that? Hard to tell, but we certainly can't discount the coolness of relations between Samaritans and Jews generally.
She doesn't really know what he means by this "living water" - she sees he doesn't have a way of drawing water from the well, so she is suspicious.
vs 12
She also might have thought that he was making some sort of Jewish quip at her, and so she throws in this comment about Jacob, who the Samaritans said was their father. I don't think she's being rude, but the offer he has made is an odd one, and she's not quite sure where he's going with it.
vs 13-14
The 'water' Jesus is offering is eternal life, it's not really water at all. Christians are still thirsty for regular water, but there will be a time when we will live out eternity without such thirsts. But even in expressing this, Jesus is still a little mysterious. Of course, there was probably more of this conversation, but John only includes what he thinks is necessary to get his point across.
vs 15
Now, has she misunderstood, or is she again making another quip? Jesus knows that if she becomes a Christian, she will still have to come and draw water from this well. Does she understand that, and so is calling him out on his mysterious expression (I'm sure she knows full well that Jews still drink water), or does she simply not understand, and so requests this water to save her weary feet?
vs 16
Jesus now starts his revelation of who he really is. He has basically told her (he has told her he can give her eternal life), but now he sets out to show her who he is. He does this by showing how much he knows about her (same thing he did with Nathanael).
His question also shows that it is a natural assumption that all people will be married, and that the 'natural' state of your average adult in the ancient Middle East was married.
vs 17-vs 18
Her reply is truthful, but still dodging the truth. Jesus calls her on it, though. He then shows how he knows impossible things about her, and uses it to point out that while she was telling the truth in a legalistic way, she knows full well that she does have a man, and that she is not a "good woman" in that she has a non-marriage relationship and lied to Jesus; perhaps not a lie in the exact truth of the situation, but only a half-truth.
vs 19
This is enough, this show of knowledge, to convince her that he is a prophet. Jesus did so much stuff, and most people wouldn't even accept him as a prophet, let alone the Son of God.
vs 20
So she asks him a question. It's not really framed as a question - it is more of an accusatory statement about the Jews, and about him as a Jewish prophet. It's hard to tell what her attitude was to Jesus throughout this conversation - has it always been touched with an edge of icy coldness, or is it a more simple, straightforward conversation than that? Hard to tell, but we certainly can't discount the coolness of relations between Samaritans and Jews generally.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
John Chapter 4
vs 1
The Pharisees were obviously keeping a fairly close ear (if not eye) on Jesus, because large movements like John TB's baptism movement and Jesus' teaching movement were after all religious issues.
vs 2
Not too close an eye, though, because they thought Jesus was baptising people, but in fact it was not Jesus but his disciples who were doing so. How odd that John would say he was only a chapter earlier. So obviously people were getting baptised into discipleship with Jesus, although Jesus wasn't doing it personally.
vs 3
The Lord is obviously Jesus, but what he heard is debatable. The NASB makes it clear that Jesus is reacting to hearing about what the Pharisees are hearing about. The NIV makes it less clear, but could be construed as Jesus reacting to hearing about his disciples baptising.
vs 4-5
That's not good news - Jews hated Samaritans, and vice versa. The geography talk is not of much interest to me, except to show that it points to a real point, a real place in the world where Jesus actually was. It sort of lends creedence.
vs 6
I've really got to learn what time these hours are. The message says it was noon. This is a long trip, so Jesus gets tired from walking.When you look at it on a map, it's a hugely long way to walk.
vs 7-8
Even today, if I was to go to modern day Samaria and ask a lone woman to get me a drink, I would be breaking a lot of rules. Jesus was breaking a lot of rules too.
Why Jesus didn't go with them into the town is a bit of a mystery. With a more rounded knowledge of the gospel story, it could be that he wanted to keep his message for the Jews, and not allow the Samaritans access to it, in the same way that he dodges teaching gentlies.
vs 9
There's a footnote about using dishes - well, the Jews didn't use the dishes anyone else had used, the prudes. But there is other historical evidence that Jews and Samaritans weren't really the best of friends - regular skirmishes etc. And that doesn't even begin to discuss the fact that she's a woman, and they shouldn't have been talking alone anyway. But she is so curious about his so obvious lack of decorum, that she asks the (fairly obvious) question about why he would do this.
vs 10
Jesus' reply is basically couched in terms of his royalty - he is born a Jew, sure, but he is God, and as he created her and all Samaritans (and everything else), religious cleanliness is pretty secondary to him. So failing to answer her question, he instead tells her (in a fairly toffee way) that if she had any idea who he was, it would be her asking, pleading with him to have a drink - but not of regular, boring well water. Of living water.
The Pharisees were obviously keeping a fairly close ear (if not eye) on Jesus, because large movements like John TB's baptism movement and Jesus' teaching movement were after all religious issues.
vs 2
Not too close an eye, though, because they thought Jesus was baptising people, but in fact it was not Jesus but his disciples who were doing so. How odd that John would say he was only a chapter earlier. So obviously people were getting baptised into discipleship with Jesus, although Jesus wasn't doing it personally.
vs 3
The Lord is obviously Jesus, but what he heard is debatable. The NASB makes it clear that Jesus is reacting to hearing about what the Pharisees are hearing about. The NIV makes it less clear, but could be construed as Jesus reacting to hearing about his disciples baptising.
vs 4-5
That's not good news - Jews hated Samaritans, and vice versa. The geography talk is not of much interest to me, except to show that it points to a real point, a real place in the world where Jesus actually was. It sort of lends creedence.
vs 6
I've really got to learn what time these hours are. The message says it was noon. This is a long trip, so Jesus gets tired from walking.When you look at it on a map, it's a hugely long way to walk.
vs 7-8
Even today, if I was to go to modern day Samaria and ask a lone woman to get me a drink, I would be breaking a lot of rules. Jesus was breaking a lot of rules too.
Why Jesus didn't go with them into the town is a bit of a mystery. With a more rounded knowledge of the gospel story, it could be that he wanted to keep his message for the Jews, and not allow the Samaritans access to it, in the same way that he dodges teaching gentlies.
vs 9
There's a footnote about using dishes - well, the Jews didn't use the dishes anyone else had used, the prudes. But there is other historical evidence that Jews and Samaritans weren't really the best of friends - regular skirmishes etc. And that doesn't even begin to discuss the fact that she's a woman, and they shouldn't have been talking alone anyway. But she is so curious about his so obvious lack of decorum, that she asks the (fairly obvious) question about why he would do this.
vs 10
Jesus' reply is basically couched in terms of his royalty - he is born a Jew, sure, but he is God, and as he created her and all Samaritans (and everything else), religious cleanliness is pretty secondary to him. So failing to answer her question, he instead tells her (in a fairly toffee way) that if she had any idea who he was, it would be her asking, pleading with him to have a drink - but not of regular, boring well water. Of living water.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
John chapter 3
vs 25
Arguments were thick and fast regarding jewish law I am sure, because it had been so complicated by the body of law created by the elders. I'm assuming this had something to do with baptism, because that is what they end up talking about.
vs 26
Oh no, John TB is going out of business! Well, not really, but lots of people were going to Jesus to be baptised. John is still dangerous enough to be killed by Herod though, so it obviously doesn't mean that he became a has-been.
vs 27
That is a fairly good attitude I think. It's not like John TB did anything great to deserve his position - he was appointed there by God.
vs 28
John TB also knew what that position meant. He was sent to herald the Christ, not to be it. It was not a position that was going to be forever. His ministry had a beginning and an end. There are probably quite a lot of Christian workers who could be helped by learning that lesson too.
vs 29
The marriage illustration is a common one, but it serves us well, because of course we still have weddings, and it seems they weren't all that different in principle. The bride and groom are the most important people there. Everything you might do to serve them will be well appreciated, but you are not going to get the glory on the wedding day - it all goes to the happy couple.
vs 30
John was ready for himself to fade in the mind's eye of the public. If only all of us could have the same attitude in our ministries. Again, the quote marks could end here, with the rest of the chapter being from John the author. The two bits that may or may not be in quotes are pretty similar, so it is possible both are explanitory notes by John the author.
vs 31
This seems like a lot of repetition, doesn't it? But John TB is also explaining to his disciples just how important the Christ will be. That was another thing that wasn't clear to a lot of Jews. John was a prophet, but he is only from earth, so he is not as good as the one who has come from heaven. Perhaps John didn't even really understand fully - but at least he knew that, as Jesus had said, he was from heaven.
Or John the author is explaining it to the reader.
vs 32
This does seem like an odd thing for John TB to say, considering the context that everyone is going to Jesus to be baptised.
vs 33
Of course, nobody in the last verse is just hyperbole. It's something we've got to get used to - hyperbole is used a lot in the NT especially, but it is a cultural thing that is still in existence in the Middle East today, and was used in many of the documents around that time. This is a classic example of why we shouldn't take words like "any" and "all" too seriously, but we should let their context do the talking.
vs 34
Jesus quite obviously speaks the words of God, being God and all. This might not be fully understood by John TB (probably more fully understood by John the author though). The idea is that God has given Jesus his Spirit without any limit. The greek is more literally "without measure". This is fairly specifically to Jesus, to explain his ability to speak the words of God.
vs 35
This is yet again another reference to the supremacy of Christ - not just over John TB, though, but over all things.
vs 36
This is a quite extraordinary verse, and a quite extraordinary thing for John TB to say. It's not impossible, though. Here's what I think are some reasonable conclusions:
John wrote this bit, not John TB. If John wrote this and the other bit in chapter three, then they form two commentary passages about Jesus' life and actions, and show that he knew the gospel well - big deal, he wrote a Gospel, he should know!
John TB did say this stuff, because Jesus said the other stuff to Nicodemus, but not only to him - he had said similar things to John TB, and that is probably partly how John TB recognised Jesus as the Messiah, and so John TB was able to repeat such things to his disciples.
Arguments were thick and fast regarding jewish law I am sure, because it had been so complicated by the body of law created by the elders. I'm assuming this had something to do with baptism, because that is what they end up talking about.
vs 26
Oh no, John TB is going out of business! Well, not really, but lots of people were going to Jesus to be baptised. John is still dangerous enough to be killed by Herod though, so it obviously doesn't mean that he became a has-been.
vs 27
That is a fairly good attitude I think. It's not like John TB did anything great to deserve his position - he was appointed there by God.
vs 28
John TB also knew what that position meant. He was sent to herald the Christ, not to be it. It was not a position that was going to be forever. His ministry had a beginning and an end. There are probably quite a lot of Christian workers who could be helped by learning that lesson too.
vs 29
The marriage illustration is a common one, but it serves us well, because of course we still have weddings, and it seems they weren't all that different in principle. The bride and groom are the most important people there. Everything you might do to serve them will be well appreciated, but you are not going to get the glory on the wedding day - it all goes to the happy couple.
vs 30
John was ready for himself to fade in the mind's eye of the public. If only all of us could have the same attitude in our ministries. Again, the quote marks could end here, with the rest of the chapter being from John the author. The two bits that may or may not be in quotes are pretty similar, so it is possible both are explanitory notes by John the author.
vs 31
This seems like a lot of repetition, doesn't it? But John TB is also explaining to his disciples just how important the Christ will be. That was another thing that wasn't clear to a lot of Jews. John was a prophet, but he is only from earth, so he is not as good as the one who has come from heaven. Perhaps John didn't even really understand fully - but at least he knew that, as Jesus had said, he was from heaven.
Or John the author is explaining it to the reader.
vs 32
This does seem like an odd thing for John TB to say, considering the context that everyone is going to Jesus to be baptised.
vs 33
Of course, nobody in the last verse is just hyperbole. It's something we've got to get used to - hyperbole is used a lot in the NT especially, but it is a cultural thing that is still in existence in the Middle East today, and was used in many of the documents around that time. This is a classic example of why we shouldn't take words like "any" and "all" too seriously, but we should let their context do the talking.
vs 34
Jesus quite obviously speaks the words of God, being God and all. This might not be fully understood by John TB (probably more fully understood by John the author though). The idea is that God has given Jesus his Spirit without any limit. The greek is more literally "without measure". This is fairly specifically to Jesus, to explain his ability to speak the words of God.
vs 35
This is yet again another reference to the supremacy of Christ - not just over John TB, though, but over all things.
vs 36
This is a quite extraordinary verse, and a quite extraordinary thing for John TB to say. It's not impossible, though. Here's what I think are some reasonable conclusions:
John wrote this bit, not John TB. If John wrote this and the other bit in chapter three, then they form two commentary passages about Jesus' life and actions, and show that he knew the gospel well - big deal, he wrote a Gospel, he should know!
John TB did say this stuff, because Jesus said the other stuff to Nicodemus, but not only to him - he had said similar things to John TB, and that is probably partly how John TB recognised Jesus as the Messiah, and so John TB was able to repeat such things to his disciples.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
John Chapter 3
vs 13
When it comes to people talking about heaven, there's only one person's word you can really trust, and that is the Son of Man. Ironically, John would go on to write Revelation, but even then that is just a vision - John didn't get to heaven till he died.
vs 14-15
It's a fairly incredible comparison to make, and I wouldn't blame anybody for not being able to follow what he was saying at the time - but considering John is possibly the latest gospel written, looking back in hindsight, any Christian reading this should be able to put together the raising of the snake by Moses and the crucifixion of Christ. In his own words, apparently, he states that he will be doing this for the sake of eternal life for others. There is a little translation argument about whether it says "whoever believes in him" or "will in him have eternal life". The subject of the "in him" is still the same, Christ, and so the difference is miniscule. You can't read it and say that you have to have belief inside yourself.
Now we hit an interesting problem. You will notice that there is a note (in the NIV) which says that "some interpreters end the quotations after verse 15". The question, then, is whether John 3:16 and onward to vs 21 are the words of Jesus to Nicodemus, or even the words of Jesus at all - they could be the words of John. This might bother some people, but it's really not a big deal. The fact is that quotation marks don't exist in ancient greek, so you pretty much have to work it out from the context. Even if we had the original manuscript, it wouldn't be much help in this case.
Of course, if we are happy to accept that the gospel was written by John, and is an accurate account, then I assume we are happy to accept the second half of John chapter 3 as part of his gospel, even if it is John's words and not Jesus'. I don't think the inspiration of the chapter deserves any criticism.
vs 16
What can I say about this verse? This section tells us a lot about God and his love. The sacrificial love of God is something we read about constantly, and is the trademark of his love for us.
vs 17
It is the Law that through its revelation condemned us (or helped), but even though Jesus is the righteous judge, his arrival was not for our condemnation, but our salvation. Judgement has been coming for a long time, and we have been condemned through our inaction and sin for ages.
18
So there is condemnation for those who reject God's Son, but that was not his purpose in coming. His purpose was to allow people to believe in him so that they can no longer face condemnation.
vs 19
This is the fact - that brings us condemnation. When we were living in darkness, we were enjoying the darkness, and so were condemned already. But when the light came in Christ, we already had darkness and were enjoying it fine thank you very much, and so rejected him as well. It is a mark of God's incredible power that he was able to bring our salvation through our active rejection of God and his Son.
vs 20
It's no surprise that we find the light repulsive - it's a lot harder to hide the horrible things you do when someone's shining the spotlight on you.
vs 21
This stands in contrast a little bit with the typical Christian attitude of hiding the good deeds you do, because you aren't looking for praise for them, but God knows you've done them. That is true - God does know them, Jesus talks about left hand not knowing what right hand is doing etc. But John (and perhaps Jesus) points out here that those who do good deeds should not be afraid of doing them in the light, because it should be plainly visible that it is not them who are accomplishing this great thing, but it is God working through them. If you let the glory of your activities go to God, then there shouldn't be a problem.
vs 22
I'd never seen this before - but Jesus was a baptiser, like John TB. It makes me wonder if people would use that as a special mark, "Oh, I was dunked by Jesus himself". Possibly, but it would have lost its potency as 1) they all died out, but 2) because the baptism of the Holy Spirit is shared by all believers, and is just as potent surely.
Notice also that this verse shows that Jesus actually spent time with his disciples. It was an active relationship - he didn't just let them follow him around to see what he did. He taught them, talked to them, spent time with them.
vs 23-24
John TB had yet to be arrested, so it is to be expected that he would do some baptising. What amazes me is that so many people are coming to be baptised by John TB or by Jesus, that there is a need for both of them to be on baptism patrol. There really was a genuine heart for God in Israel, it seems. But God wanted more than just wet people.
When it comes to people talking about heaven, there's only one person's word you can really trust, and that is the Son of Man. Ironically, John would go on to write Revelation, but even then that is just a vision - John didn't get to heaven till he died.
vs 14-15
It's a fairly incredible comparison to make, and I wouldn't blame anybody for not being able to follow what he was saying at the time - but considering John is possibly the latest gospel written, looking back in hindsight, any Christian reading this should be able to put together the raising of the snake by Moses and the crucifixion of Christ. In his own words, apparently, he states that he will be doing this for the sake of eternal life for others. There is a little translation argument about whether it says "whoever believes in him" or "will in him have eternal life". The subject of the "in him" is still the same, Christ, and so the difference is miniscule. You can't read it and say that you have to have belief inside yourself.
Now we hit an interesting problem. You will notice that there is a note (in the NIV) which says that "some interpreters end the quotations after verse 15". The question, then, is whether John 3:16 and onward to vs 21 are the words of Jesus to Nicodemus, or even the words of Jesus at all - they could be the words of John. This might bother some people, but it's really not a big deal. The fact is that quotation marks don't exist in ancient greek, so you pretty much have to work it out from the context. Even if we had the original manuscript, it wouldn't be much help in this case.
Of course, if we are happy to accept that the gospel was written by John, and is an accurate account, then I assume we are happy to accept the second half of John chapter 3 as part of his gospel, even if it is John's words and not Jesus'. I don't think the inspiration of the chapter deserves any criticism.
vs 16
What can I say about this verse? This section tells us a lot about God and his love. The sacrificial love of God is something we read about constantly, and is the trademark of his love for us.
vs 17
It is the Law that through its revelation condemned us (or helped), but even though Jesus is the righteous judge, his arrival was not for our condemnation, but our salvation. Judgement has been coming for a long time, and we have been condemned through our inaction and sin for ages.
18
So there is condemnation for those who reject God's Son, but that was not his purpose in coming. His purpose was to allow people to believe in him so that they can no longer face condemnation.
vs 19
This is the fact - that brings us condemnation. When we were living in darkness, we were enjoying the darkness, and so were condemned already. But when the light came in Christ, we already had darkness and were enjoying it fine thank you very much, and so rejected him as well. It is a mark of God's incredible power that he was able to bring our salvation through our active rejection of God and his Son.
vs 20
It's no surprise that we find the light repulsive - it's a lot harder to hide the horrible things you do when someone's shining the spotlight on you.
vs 21
This stands in contrast a little bit with the typical Christian attitude of hiding the good deeds you do, because you aren't looking for praise for them, but God knows you've done them. That is true - God does know them, Jesus talks about left hand not knowing what right hand is doing etc. But John (and perhaps Jesus) points out here that those who do good deeds should not be afraid of doing them in the light, because it should be plainly visible that it is not them who are accomplishing this great thing, but it is God working through them. If you let the glory of your activities go to God, then there shouldn't be a problem.
vs 22
I'd never seen this before - but Jesus was a baptiser, like John TB. It makes me wonder if people would use that as a special mark, "Oh, I was dunked by Jesus himself". Possibly, but it would have lost its potency as 1) they all died out, but 2) because the baptism of the Holy Spirit is shared by all believers, and is just as potent surely.
Notice also that this verse shows that Jesus actually spent time with his disciples. It was an active relationship - he didn't just let them follow him around to see what he did. He taught them, talked to them, spent time with them.
vs 23-24
John TB had yet to be arrested, so it is to be expected that he would do some baptising. What amazes me is that so many people are coming to be baptised by John TB or by Jesus, that there is a need for both of them to be on baptism patrol. There really was a genuine heart for God in Israel, it seems. But God wanted more than just wet people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)