1 Corinthians chapter 4

vs 10

Paul wants to make it clear that suffering is a part of the Christian life. He has talked about suffering in the last couple of verses, about bad things happening, but them not being the end of him. God allows the suffering, but not the destruction. Paul sees this as a picture of the resurrection of Christ. He was allowed to suffer, and even to die. Paul might even die too, I reckon (he did of course). But that will not be the finish. By carrying around the death of Christ in his own body (through suffering), the life of Christ will also be revealed. He is just following his Lord. Of course, blah blah don't go chasing suffering.

vs 11

It's not just in his own body that he is wanting the life of Christ to be revealed. The idea is not just that eternal life make his own body good for resurrection, but that this life is revealed to all people. At least all people around him. This is a very similar sentiment to the one Paul writes about in Colossians. He takes up Christ's death in his own body, so that it can be revealed to others. Christ might have died for everyone, but not everyone saw it, or even heard about it.

vs 12

And this is just what Paul did for the Corinthians. And a whole lot of other people too.

vs 13

That's probably a little bit of a stretch, but Paul does it, so it's ok.

vs 14

Just as Jesus was raised, Paul expects himself and all his spiritual children to also be raised, and then to be in God's presence. What Paul was before talking about, but in the framework of suffering for the gospel, he is now talking about in the framework of faith in God's power to bring them back, to raise them from the dead.

vs 15

By "all this" I take it Paul is talking about the suffering, and the proclaiming. So that is for the benefit of the Corinthians, but it is also in the service of God, because this message, which is reaching people all over the world, not just in Corinth, means more people are praising God's glory.

vs 16

I wonder if, outwardly, Paul really was wasting away? The assumption is that Paul may have been 60+ in years when he was doing his whole ministry thing. That's pretty darn old. So he certainly would have been a little wasted in that way. But did this work take it out of him? Was he a wisened little creature? All the stress and beatings? Anyway, he didn't care, because inwardly he was being renewed. And one day, outwardly he'd be renewed too.

vs 17

I wish, I really wish, I had this attitude. I got quite upset last night because a cinema didn't have eftpos, and their ATM was broken, so I couldn't buy tickets to see a movie. I mean, in the end, who cares? Ok, sure, I've been under a bit of stress recently, but perhaps a lot of our stress problems would go away if we understood more about eternal glory, and worried less about "light and momentary" problems.

vs 18

And here's the problem I guess - what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen, while eternal, is still unseen. That's the trick, isn't it? Focussing our eyes on what isn't seen.

2 Corinthians chapter 4

vs 1

That's the ministry of glowing faces that we just read about. This ministry of shining the glory around. Paul is suggesting that beacuse it comes from God's mercy, rather than, say, from a visual experience of God or from the giving of Law, he gets courage from that.

Also worth noting that his ministry doesn't come from made up words, or from a desire to make money.

vs 2

When Paul says he renounces it, does it mean he is personally repenting of it? I wonder. I mean, if he means that he's speaking out against it, I would have used the term 'denounce' - but all three translations I'm looking at use the same word.

Anyway, while I look up the greek, the rest of the verse seems to make it clear that in Paul's opinion, clear and open truth is a much more worthy thing - it commends you to the people you're talking to (most people respect honesty and openness as against to deception - at least in that culture I guess). And this is going on in the sight of God, which I suppose keeps you honest.

Ok, apeipomen, apparently, can mean to declare, to forbid, or to give up (renounce). It's used in the NT all of... once. Here. The fact that they've gone with 'renounce' seems significant to me. Even Marshall, who translated my interlinear and is known to disagree at times, uses the word renounce. Is there something you're not telling us, Paul? Something about your former Pharisaical life?

vs 3

Not everyone sees Paul's ministry as all glory and sunshine. But that's not his problem. They're going to die from their lack of glory and sunshine. Spiritual vitamin E deficiency.

vs 4

Satan is just as powerful a lower-case-g-god as that carving of a buddha you have in your cupboard. Oooooh, boogie boogie boogie! Nevertheless, he has managed to cloud the eyes of unbelievers enough (probably through them not wanting to see, mind) that even when a spiritual shiny like Paul radiates some glory onto them, they don't see it. So here Paul isn't talking about the inability of his feeble human frame to adequately shine God's glory without him screwing it up with sin or whatever - no, it's the fault of Satan (and in my opinion, their own stubbornness) that the gospel passes them by, even when you wave it at them as eloquently as Paul did.

Take some comfort - even Paul reckons that people aren't taking up the gospel. This verse sounds like it was written yesterday, but it was in fact written in the hallowed times of the first century too.

vs 5

Paul's message is that Jesus is Lord, that Paul isn't, and that Paul is the servant of Christ and the church. I'm good at the "Jesus is Lord, I'm not" bit. It's the "And if you're a church, then I'm your servant" that gets me. Sure, I'm a member of the leadership (which, when you're not getting paid, there's no recognised heirarchy and people don't treat you with a whole lot of respect or deference, I assure you is a pretty underfoot role sometimes) but I still have a problem thinking of myself as being a servant to the church. Is what I'm doing best for the church, or is it just how I want the church to be? Is what I want for the church the best thing for the church?

vs 6

So the light that Paul is talking about is well defined - the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. And Paul links this back to creation - not for any theological reason I don't think - just to round out the character of God a bit.

vs 7

Or perhaps it is to bring in this point. After all, God made us out of clay, or dirt or dust. The idea that God would use such things as instruments is incredibly humbling to us, as those instruments, because as Paul says, it shows that God's the one doing the things, not the clay jars. But it is also extremely exalting of us, that he uses us and not, say, real clay jars.

vs 8-9

In one sense, all of these things would happen to a human, and they'd just turn out crushed, despaired, abandoned and destroyed. Because we're just jars of clay. But God is the one with the power here, and he doesn't let them happen. He does, though, let the other stuff happen. Worth remembering that.

1 Corinthians chapter 3

vs 10

This language is kind of reminiscent of the language in Hebrews. Which is fair enough, considering that they're both talking about comparisons of the old covenant to the new. Paul wants to make it clear, absolutely clear, that the old covenant is fading away, and that the new one far surpasses it. A comment against some of the judaizing influences in the church?

Of course, it did have glory. But in comparison to the new covenant, it's nothing.

vs 11

The greater covenant has the greater glory. And if this one is meant to last forever (which, in Paul's view, the old one was most certainly not meant to!) then it should be all the more glorious!

vs 12

Again, this is an excellent comparison between the members of the old covenant and the members of the new covenant. Paul says that it is the hope of the new covenant that drives him ever onward in boldness, preaching the joy of that covenant. How many of the members of the old covenant were driven to go and preach it across the world? You can probably think of one (Jonah), and he was driven more from behind.

vs 13

While I'm sure Moses did this for good reason, it does show a shut in and exclusive covenantal agreement that's going on. It's a good symbol for what Paul's trying to say.

vs 14

Because he now says that this attitude of covering the radiance of God has perpetuated beyond Moses' face, and now covered the radiance of the whole covenant! And that is so true of where the Jews were at in the first century. Their ruling religious leaders were not vital and innovative and dynamic - they were pompous and static, unable to accept change that was even prophecied in their own scriptures and by their own high priest.

Paul makes it clear that nothing removes that barrier except Christ. A worthwhile thing to remember in our dealings with Israelis.

vs 15

The veil is over their hearts. They can't see the glory of the everlasting covenant, which is contained within those words! Instead, its radiance is veiled, and all they see is the same old covenant of Moses.

vs 16

This is such a wonderful picture. Now, we might say that when you become a Christian and learn about Christ a bit, a lot of the Old Testament suddenly seems to unlock. But as new Christians from a non-Jewish background, there's really no comparison, because we don't really learn the OT all that much. But if you'd grown up with it, then it would be an enormous revelation to you, like a veil coming off your eyes. You might call it hindsight, or whatever, but the connections are certainly there, any Christian will tell you that.

vs 17

Is Paul talking about a freedom from the bondage of the old covenant? Possibly. I don't even think it would be too much to read this as talking about the renewal of our minds through the Spirit in order to allow us to better understand the new covenant through the old. You could say "Free your mind". Neo.

vs 18

It helps if you read this verse backwards. The Spirit of God, who is God, is transforming us into God's likeness, with ever increasing glory. And as such, we who are being transformed are reflecting that glory in the same way that Moses did - except this time, the glory is out there for all to see, instead of stuck behind a veil.

2 Corinthians chapter 3

Short chapters so far.

vs 1

To base a whole doctrine of letters of commendation on this verse is extremely shaky and irresponsible! I don't think Paul is praising this idea. I think he's slamming it. I think Paul is saying that letters of commendation are superfluous. Certainly they are for Paul, if no one else. It sounds like the Corinthians were trying to regulate who could come to their church through letters. Now, it's sort of understandable, what with the church being in a persecuted state, but it sounds more like they're trying to put themselves in a position of authority through choosiness.

vs 2

Paul feels that since he planted the church, he is really commended to it by that fact. But more than that, he feels that this will stand him in good stead with other churches too. Which is certainly a more positive comment than would be expected in 1 Corinthians.

vs 3

Paul is actually praising them here, saying that they are a better commendation than any letter, because they are from Christ, a result of his ministry. But remember, he is also saying to them that he shouldn't need to commend himself to them, beacuse he planted their church.

vs 4

And so Paul has his confidence and recommendation from God and Christ, rather than from a church, or even his ministry.

vs 5

Paul relies entirely on God, even for that which commends him - his ministry in churches like Corinth. Because even the competence in his ministry comes from God.

vs 6

The point being here, people, that the new covenant is one if Spirit, not of laws - laws like requiring letters of commendation! I mean, come on! This shows such a malaise in the Brethren movement if we are still struggling with problems so obviously stupid.

vs 7

Paul is not saying that the old covenantal way of things was not glorious. It came from God, so of course it was.

vs 8

But the fact is that the ministry directly of God's Spirit is going to be more glorious. Paul will tell us why tomorrow.

2 Corinthians chapter 2

vs 10

Paul is commending the forgiving action of the church by lending his support to their forgiveness. But what does it mean to forgive in the sight of Christ? Does this verse support the confessional method of the catholics? Perhaps they use it in that way. I think what Paul is saying is that if the Corinthians forgive someone, and he also forgives them, then you can be sure that, since Paul has forgiven them, it is right in Christ's sight to forgive them.

And he's also done it for their sake, which is nice, but the next bit is somewhat of a curler.

vs 11

I'm not 100% here, but hear me out. Satan is deceptive, and he could very well use the putting of a person out of the church as a way of fragmenting and dividing the church. That's why we've got to do everything in love and with forgiveness, because that combat's Satan's schemes. Satan, for all his evil, isn't really all that creative apparently.

vs 12-13

These verses, in my opinion, could poke big damn holes in the language of God "opening doors" for you. Paul freely says that God opened a door for him to preach the gospel in Troas, and what could be more beneficial than preaching the gospel? What is closer to God's will? And hasn't God shown Paul what he wants him to do by "opening a door" for him? But he doesn't do it.

However, it is possible that Paul is talking about his own fear and inability to do God's will even when God opens a door for him. So when he ends up in Troas and wants to preach, he freaks out because he doesn't have Titus there. So instead, he goes to Macedonia.

Or perhaps Paul is saying that, even though God had opened a door, Paul still had no peace of mind, but he preached there anyway until saying goodbye to them and going off to Macedonia.

To be honest, these verses seem very out of place. Whatever the meaning of these verses, it has to be taken in context of verse 14-17.

vs 14

The point of this verse is that, whatever happened in verse 12-13, God is to be thanked, because he always leads us in the conquering march home. And he always spreads the fragrance of his gospel around. So no matter where Paul went in the end, it was to God's glory. Not because of how good Paul is, but just because no matter what, we're always led by Christ in victory.

vs 15

Whether 'we' here means Paul and Timothy or is inclusive of all the Corinthians too, I think it's safe to say that this verse is inclusive of us all. As Christians, we all exist as the fragrance of Christ. And this is to everyone! Everyone should smell Christ on us, because it should be that pervasive in our lives.

vs 16

And not everyone likes the smell. Some people think it smells of death. I don't think Paul means too much behind that - I think he's just using the smell of death to offset the smell of life (which is obviously the renewing life of the gospel). I don't think he means they smell the death of their social life, or of their own lives, or their free will, or anything like that. What they do smell is judgement, even if they don't know it yet.

Paul also asks who is equal to the task of being the smell of both death and life, which leads me to believe that he is talking more about his own ministry and that of Timothy, than including the Corinthians in this. But that doesn't matter, as Paul is still an example for us.

vs 17

Paul never sought to make the spreading of the word a stumbling block to people by making a profit out of it. He would have legitimately made a profit, or at least a living, out of preaching, and it would have been culturally viable in Corinth or anywhere in Greece. But he wanted to be above reproach, and so sought not to be a financial drain on those to whom he was preaching. That doesn't mean he didn't accept gifts, especially from other churches.

But his aim was not to make money, but instead to speak about Christ with sincerity. Paul and Timothy are the original Blues Brothers, sent on a mission from Gahd.

2 Corinthians chapter 2

vs 1

This could suggest that Paul had already made one painful visit to them, and a second one would be too much. And considering Paul's language in 1 Corinthians, I think we can safely say that that visit would have been suitably painful enough.

vs 2

Seems like slightly odd logic here, but I guess you're going to be hardpressed to get joy and be glad from people who you have upset. Obviously the first trip, upsetting though it was, was necessary. Perhaps he means that a second upsetting trip would not be.

vs 3

Sounds like he also had confidence that they would do what he said. But the note that is worth making here, I think, is that Paul is very much keen to see the relationship repaired. He's certainly not burning off the Corinthians because they were a bunch of idiots.

vs 4

Ok, so there might have been some painful words in there, but they were not just to hurt them. They were to make the Corinthians realise that Paul had their best interests at heart, and really cared for them. As I said, he could have just burned them off.

Which brings me to my rant about the stupidity of absolute positivism which is sweeping our nation. This idea that you can't tell anyone anything negative ever is absolute crap. Life has bad parts. We need a language which can describe bad things. Not everything has a "good side", that is yin-yang taoist bullcrap. Sometimes, people need to hear that what they are doing is wrong. They need to hear 'no' as well as 'yes'. What happens when you take away one of these things? The other one becomes meaningless! Clips around the ear all round I say. Re-empower the emasculated authority figures!

vs 5

There were some particular people and instances that we learned of in Paul's former book which were particularly grieving. Paul is saying that even though they did grieve him, the grief was created more directly for the church as a body at Corinth, as they were present in this whole thing. The damage done to the church was greater than that done to Paul, because mostly I guess it is done to Paul's joy and gladness in the church, whereas the church had to more directly suffer the consequences of removing someone from fellowship.

vs 6

Well, at least there doesn't need to be any further punishment, which is nice.

vs 7

I think right here we see why the NT times punishment by a church of "putting them out of fellowship" just doesn't work here! How many people, when put out of their church today, would be "overwhelmed by excessive sorrow"? And how many would be so desirous of getting back in to the church that ousted them in the first place?

vs 8

Love should never have been out of the picture. In the same way that Paul made one painful visit out of love, and stopped the second one out of the same love, they should have put the person out of fellowship in love, only to receive him back with the same love.

vs 9

Is Paul really saying that this was like a communal testing of Abraham sort of thing? Sacrifice the sinful one, and Paul will return him to you eventually? Perhaps he is using that sort of metaphor.

2 Corinthians chapter 1

vs 13

I don't get this, but for some reason the NIV has very slightly different verse numbering here than the NASB or the KJV, or even Marshall's greek.

Anyway, the verse is a good reminder to us that when the authors of Biblical books wrote them, they wrote them to a certain people at a certain time, and those people would have needed to have an understanding of what the letter meant to them.

vs 14

I think Paul is again talking about the legitimacy of his credentials, rather than encouraging them to boast about him being the person who started their church. Or else, he could be saying to them that their reason for even being Christians is only through Paul, just as Paul's work is legitimised through their witness.

vs 15-16

I am assuming by "first" he is referring to verse 16 where he indicates he was going to visit Corinth in two directions from his trip to Macedonia.Paul happily sees their ability to send him onward to Judea on his return journey as a blessing for them, and is therefore willing to state as much.

Imagine if a missionary came to your church and said "I am glad that I have come here, so that I can give you the blessing of sending me onward on my next missionary trip".

vs 17

It sounds like Paul didn't make it to Corinth. Which, when you consider how often he gets arrested, stoned, chased away etc, is probably not surprising. He hasn't said it yet, but already he is defending himself because of the fact that he didn't make it to Corinth even though he planned to.

vs 18-19

If someone else used this as an excuse for why they didn't come visit the church, or they missed a preaching engagement or something, I think we'd scoff at them. The Corinthians may well have scoffed a little anyway. It's an interesting logic - becausePaul, Silas and Timothy's gospel of Christ is a Christ that was always "yes", that is, always doing the will of the Father, the expectation should be that Paul would always be a "yes" person too.

I wonder if I'm reading that right. It's a hard call for a Christian if I am.

vs 20

God is always a "yes" God, in that any promise he makes, he keeps, and in fact has fulfilled in Christ. That's a great attribute of God - someone who always keeps their promises is very trustworthy. The very essence of trustworthiness in fact!

So Paul wants to tell them that he's a "yes" missionary - that he keeps the promises he makes.

vs 21

We cannot stand without God to make us stand. Even our response to God's great gift of grace has to come from him. We suck.

vs 22

It's God's work of anointing, sealing and guaranteeing that not only gives us our hope of what's to come, but which keeps us as members of his household. If we had to do something to stay under his roof, we'd be out on our asses. That's the extent to God keeping his promises to us - he does all the work.

vs 23

So Paul says that in the end, he decided that Corinth was better off if he didn't go there and bust some heads first. The idea that Paul 'spared' them is pretty powerful. I'm not sure quite how much time there is between 1 and 2 Corinthians, time for at least one more letter apparently, but probably not years and years. In which case, probably not good to have the Paul of 1 Corinthians fame come and kick butt just yet.

vs 24

Paul's not saying this to lord his position over them, or to make them feel bad, but to show them that he's got their best interests at heart, because he wants them to be full of the joy of the Lord. He wants them to stand firm in the faith. And he's asking them to trust him, that these are his motives.

2 Corinthians chapter 1

John is over, and I really should do some OT books to fit with my studies, but instead... 2 Corinthians!

vs 1

Paul has an interesting title here - an apostle not because he hung out with Jesus, but purely because of God's will in revealing Jesus to him in a vision. And Timothy helped write this book too. And the book is addressed to the Corinthians per se, but also to all the Christians throughout Achaia. Now, considering the contents of the book, it is obviously addressed to a certain group of people, but we'll find that much of the book is widely applicable to everyone, including us.

vs 2

Never read that line before!

vs 3

God's names here are going to outline the first section of this book. The idea that God is a comfortor and is full of compassion is going to be important. They are important facets of God's character anyway, but obviously for this group of people, it is going to be of more keen importance.

vs 4

The word comfort gets used a lot here. The idea at the moment is that God comforts us, and then with that comfort he provides, we are able to help others in need of comfort. It's like sharing one big security blanket.

vs 5

Christians of the time were generally fairly aware of the fact that the suffering of Christ overflowed to them. I don't know if we see it so much in the west, but it's certainly out there. Paul's point is, though, that God's comfort, in this case Christ's comfort, also flows over into us. Sort of a ying-yang balancing act, perhaps? No, I think God's comfort is supposed to far outweigh the momentary sufferings.

vs 6

The idea that the distress and suffering of others can produce comfort and salvation might be somewhat odd, but of course our salvations are built on nothing less than the suffering of Christ. And even in Colossians, Paul says that he suffers in his body for the sake of the message, so in that way Christians can suffer for the salvation of others. Not sure about the comfort, except of course that our salvation brings eternal comfort. And perhaps the idea that someone is prepared to suffer for our benefit is comforting too.

But Paul goes further, and says that God's comforting of him is also for their comfort - the idea being that when they themselves suffer some sort of trial or harm, they will endure it all the better because they saw Paul suffer similar trials, but endured them because of the comfort God gave him.

vs 7

The hope for anyone who is able to share in both the sufferings and the comfort of serving Christ is always going to be far greater than someone who never suffers for Christ, because they will always feel like their relationship with God is abstract and distant in comparison. You look at the people who had really living, vital faith, and they all suffered for Christ, and were all comforted by God in that suffering and endured it. Of course, we're not meant to seek out suffering, but when we actively seek to dodge it, we're going to miss out in a way.

vs 8

Even Paul, the great apostle of travelling and getting into adventures, could not endure all the suffering he went through, and he wanted to die at some point. That's the low point for a Christian, made even harder when you know you'll go somewhere far better!

vs 9

But Paul admits that his own failings were because he was relying on himself and his own endurance to get through these trials, and that was never going to work. In the end, he points out, if you're being worked to death, then that's fine, because God is the God who raises from the dead.

vs 10

Suffering and trials don't last forever. They sometimes seem like they do, of course. But God delivers his people from suffering - Paul testifies that he has done it, that he will do it again, and that he continues to do it now.

vs 11

Paul's deliverance comes in part because of the intersession of the Corinthians in prayer for him. And Paul sees his deliverance as a gracious favour granted by God due to the prayers of many for him.

vs 12

Paul seems forever having to defend his actions and his integrity from criticism. I think it's worth noting that he does this, and yet he doesn't come off as pompous or selfish. I think we often as Christians feel that we aren't allowed to defend ourselves against criticism, or that when we do we lose something of our modesty. Well, Paul isn't modest, he's humble, but he still understands the position to which God has called him. And as far as he's concerned, he has always been upright in his dealings with the Corinthians. He also fully attributes his ability to say this on God's grace, rather than because he's an expert at making relationships work or anything.

John chapter 21

vs 13

A fairly typical picture of the Lord giving thanks for food and distributing it. This is one of the enduring pictures of Christ in the gospels.

vs 14

That this is the third resurrection appearance to the disciples shows us how haphazard they were. I imagined Jesus hanging around for a month or so after his resurrection, but it doesn't seem that was the case. there was a full week of silence between the first and second appearance to the disciples. Now, this doesn't mean these are the only times Jesus appeared - John says this is the third time he appeard to his disciples - and the number three doesn't count the other appearance he records to Mary Magdelene.

vs 15

Is Jesus asking Peter whether he loves him more than the disciples love him, or whether he loves Jesus more than he loves the disciples? The truth is, the greek is vague. Peter actually must have understood, because he says yes. Jesus doesn't question him. Instead, he says "Feed my lambs".

vs 16

A second time, and Jesus asks the same question. "Truly" is not in the greek - just an addition there to break up the monotony I guess.

Peter's answer is, unsurprisingly, similar to the first. Jesus tells him to shepherd his sheep. Interestingly, the KJV repeats "Feed" here, but the greek is poimaino which means to tend a flock. That includes feeding I guess, but the KJV translates that as "feed" 6 times, and also translates "bosko", the word used in vs 15 for "feed" (which actually means feed, coming from the root bibrosko which means "to eat" and bous, which means "cow". So it is a very pastoral word, with regards specifically to feeding a flock. Compare with the root of poimaino, which is poimen, "a herdsman or shepherd").

The point (apart from the fact that the KJV obscures the meaning somewhat by using the same english word for 2 different greek words) is that these words are very pastoral. Their overtones of care and tending to a flock should not be lost on us, as they were certainly not lost on Peter. O think there's a bit of linguistic play going on here too. The word Jesus uses for sheep in this verse is only used twice in the whole Bible, and that both in John. It's probaton, and you can see the similarity with poimaino.

vs 17

Jesus asks a third time, and Peter is a little miffed. He obviously has no idea that Jesus is making Peter accept him three times, just as he had previously denied him three times.

There are some other interesting points here though. First is Peter's confession that Jesus "knows all things". That confession in and of itself does not mean that Jesus did. Although a fairly persuasive argument certainly could be put that he knew all things post-resurrection, this verse, being post-resurrection, doesn't really help us with a discussion of Jesus' pre-resurrection knowledge.

Secondly, the use of the word "love" here in these last three verses might shock you. I have heard many times in sermons about the wonderful word "agapeo" which resounds like a trumpet the love of God, and is separated from the other greek words for love "Phileo" and "erao" (or "eros"). The truth is that, in the last three verses, Jesus has said, "Peter, agapeo?" And Peter responded, "Yes, phileo". "Peter, agapeo?" "Yes my lord, phileo!" And now he says, "Peter, phileo?" "You know all things, you know I phileo!"

If you stick to grimly to "agapeo" meaning some sort of godly love, and phileo not, then you must interpret these verses as Jesus asking Peter for a certain kind of love, and Peter not giving it to him, and so Jesus finally gives in and accepts the lesser love. Or, you can accept that these words were somewhat crossed over in their meanings and that even Jesus used them interchangeably.

For your pedantic interest, the NIV on www.biblegateway.com has, incorrectly, put "Feed my sheep" in verse 18.

vs 18-19

We never read of Peter's actual martyrdom in the Bible, but we have to assume that, by the time this is written, Peter has been martyred. We're not assuming that like the liberal scholars who believe that Jesus couldn't possibly prophecy such things, and therefore this must have been written afterwards. I think we're assuming it because the way it is mentioned, it talks as if those reading it would already know about the death that Peter would die. In fact, it would seem, Peter is going to die very similarly to Jesus. Which is an honour, I guess.

vs 20

That would be John. Always hanging around with Peter. And Jesus.

vs 21

Peter's question obviously relates to what Jesus has just told Peter about his death. Now, just reading Jesus' words, I wouldn't have understood what he said to mean something about death. But if you imagine Jesus saying it in the flesh, and stretching out his hands as he says the words, I think I would have gotten the picture a lot faster.

So Peter is asking "Well, is that going to happen to John too?"

vs 22

Jesus knows Peter's heart, and so answers him on that level. Peter is in fact asking "Will John suffer as much as I will?" Jesus response is "Take your eyes off John, take your eyes of suffering, and put them on me." I think it's comforting to know that God's plan for our lives might include suffering, or it might not, but whatever it does include for us is our concern. We must follow Jesus through whatever is put in our path. And others will have a different path. There is no normative Christian experience of martyrdom.

vs 23

John is here dispelling a too-literalistic interpretation of Jesus' words. Jesus didn't say he would live forever, he only used John as an example. But what Jesus did say is somewhat true - John is traditionally the apostle who lived the longest, well into his nineties.

vs 24

And John finally reveals that the author of this gospel is none of ther than that disciple. Which is cool. I have always felt an affinity for John. I guess he's the most well known of the authors of the four gospels (Matthew being the only other gospel written by an actual Apostle).

vs 25

John is rambling on a bit now, but it's a wonderful sentiment, to think that this period, this three and a half years of Jesus' life, which we have covered in 4 gospels, only begins to scrape the surface of all the things Jesus did. We know only enough, so little, but enough, to know him as our saviour and Lord and Son of God. In a way, we can be jealous of the Apostles, because they would have seen so much more of him than they could record.

John chapter 21

vs 1

It does seem a little odd that John would go on after chapter 20, but apparently he does. And this end section is not like the spurious end of Mark either - it is well attested to.

So, John wants to tell us about another appearance Jesus made to the disciples. And this one was out in the open near the Sea of Gailee.

vs 2

That's a rather large group of the disciples, just apparently hanging around. And this is after Jesus has appeared to them. They don't seem all that purposeful.

vs 3

I'm not sure if fishing at night is a normal thing. Perhaps it is. Anyway, they catch nothing. Gives you a fair indication of the size of the boat, though. I would assume that you can't just walk up to the sea of Galilee and steal a boat that size - I'm assuming it's Peter's boat he left behind.

vs 4

So they went out fishing all night together (like a typical bunch of blokes, who brought the beer? Oh, that's right, Thomas). Jesus sits on the shore watching them. They must just think it's some guy who thinks fishing is a spectator sport.

vs 5

"Haven't you any fish?" is a nice way of saying "You've been out there all night, and you haven't caught a bloody thing? I thought you were a fisherman by trade Peter. Obviously you suck at it!"

vs 6

Now I will admit freely that I have never been massive-net fishing. So I don't know thing one about doing it. I've been line fishing plenty of times. And I am pretty sure that throwing your net out on the other side of the boat is not a sure-fire method of catching fish. In fact, I would say it's a stupid solution. They do it though, and lo and behold they catch so many fish they can't even get them in the boat. That's pretty awesome. Perhaps I should try fishing off the other side of the boat sometime.

vs 7

So John, looking out at this strange guy who had given them fishing instructions sees that it's Jesus, and he says so. Peter then proceeds to do a Forrest Gump. One thing about the picture that the Bible paints about Peter - it is fairly consistent. It must have been quite the personality trait to have been recorded so faithfully.

vs 8

Well of course they weren't far from shore, I mean, Jesus was calling out to them, and they were replying. Lucky there's a couple of other fishermen aboard though, otherwise Peter's loss from the ship may well have a caused them to be stuck out there. Not everyone knows how to steer a boat, after all. I think it's great that Peter is keen to go see Jesus, but he is abandoning that huge catch of fish that Jesus gave him in the first place. Love the creator and not the creation, I guess.

vs 9

Bread and fish. It's funny - you see these similar food types all the way through both testaments, and you might think "Wow, these foods are really holy", bread and wine in particular. But the simple fact is that they were the food that was everywhere. They didn't have as much choice as we did. These foods are not special. You could try and link this miracle to the feeding the 5000 miracle if you wanted. I think you'll just find that bread and fish were common, especially if you were living around the Sea of Galilee.

vs 10

I guess Jesus had enough for himself, and rather than bust out another miracle, he thinks one is enough (the huge catch of fish) and that they can just bring some and eat.

vs 11

Apart from what this story tells us about Jesus and his disciples, it also tells us a bit about fishing on the Sea of Galilee at the time. I mean, what was a big catch for them? Well, apparently, 153 fish was huge, and you would expect the net to break with that many fish. The exact number, 153, is just another bit of evidence that John who is writing it is an eye witness - how else would you know the exact number of fish?

vs 12

Jesus asks them to have breakfast, and then we have this wierd sentence about none of them asking who he was, because they all knew it was Jesus. Does that mean that Jesus looked different, and they recognised him another way. Or is it a cultural thing where you're meant to ask someone who they are if they invite you to breakfast? Probably not that.

Ok, so he looked different, but they all knew it was him. The language still seems a little guarded. They dared not ask him? I guess after the ribbing Thomas got for believing only when he saw him, none of them were prepared for their names to go down in history as "blind idiot Nathan" or whatever.

John chapter 20

vs 21

Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection. And we know that he commanded them to go into the world and preach the gospel. But this does not fit our more typical model for that. It's interesting to know that our sent-ness is in the same model of the Father sending Christ. So when people talk about Christ as the model missionary, they're not wrong. I mean. how much bigger a cultural shift do you want?

vs 22

Again, this isn't how we imagine the disciples getting the Holy Spirit. We think far more of Acts and Pentecost. John seems to see it differently here.

vs 23

Wait, what now? Now the disciples can forgive sins? I mean, we were all with Jesus when the Pharisees said that God alone could forgive sins, and Jesus is God, so we're happy with that. But now the disciples can too? Sounds almost catholic, doesn't it? Well, these things have to come from somewhere.

I guess what he actually means is that the message of forgiveness is theirs now too, and that they should spread it around. If you think about it in that way, then the responsibility in the second clause is not a power-trip, it is instead a weighty responsibility, because anyone they don't forgive (that is, share the message of forgiveness with) won't be forgiven. Now, some people might have problems with that, especially in the light of the "what happens to people who don't hear the gospel" arguments. I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm a bit like a whale biologist in that way.

vs 24

Poor Tom missed out on this visit. He must've been out buying the beer.

vs 25

Really, he was dumb to say that, wasn't he? Poor guy gets ridiculed for the rest of eternity because he's now "Doubting Thomas". But don't think we're out of the woods. Eternity may start now, but only a fraction of it happens on this earth where people don't know how dumb you are. Imagine eternity up in heaven, where the books have been read out. Are people going to be like "Hey, that's Ben the guy who kept spending money on himself!" or will they say "Hey, that's Ben who went and did some cool thing for God which we all know about now".

vs 26

Jesus is a regular teleporter now. But he waited a week before he revealed himself again. Were they only meeting together once a week? I guess they had to be out making a living somehow.

vs 27

"Remember Thomas? He was the guy who doubted the disciples' words and wanted to poke his finger inside Jesus' holes". I'd really love to stop ridiculing him, but John started it!

vs 28

Thomas doesn't stick his fingers in. He just falls to his knees and gives appropriate praise. It doesn't say anything about knees - he could have hugged him for all I know.

vs 29

And that would include, gee, almost everyone who becomes a Christian from this point forward. Very few of us get to see even visions of Jesus. But we still believe, and we're blessed for it. Especially since we don't get a choice now - it's either believe in Jesus without seeing him, or that's it, no other choice.

vs 30-31

These two verses sum up the entire reason John was written. Some people believe that all the stuff written after this was post-script, and added later. Perhaps. But regardless, this bit states to us what John's purpose was in writing this book. Which is awesome. All people should write such things. He even gives us a bit of an idea how he's framed the book. It's framed around the miracles - of which there are seven or eight big ones I think. And he uses the surrounding situation of those miracles to tell us about Jesus, in such a way that we will believe that he is the Christ, and so that we might then have eternal life. Interesting that this comes just after Jesus' commission to the disciples to tell people about him and give them forgiveness. John through this book has probably directly reached more people than all the other disciples. But then, tradition tells us that some of them went and started some really big church movements, so it depends how you look at it.

John chapter 20

vs 11

While the disciples go home to brood or think or whatever, Mary just sits there and cries. But when she plucks up the courage to look in the tomb herself, she sees something that neither disciple sees.

vs 12

I try not to look too deeply into things - a lot of the details, especially in John (being an eyewitness account) will simply be because he remembers them. But look at this - John and Peter, whom we would rank pretty highly in disciple world, didn't get to see any angels, they just saw linen strips. But Mary Magdelene, who stayed by the tomb and wept, saw them. Is this just God's way of giving her comfort because she's so upset? Or of exalting the lowly above the highly rated?

vs 13

Mary must be fairly overwhelmed with grief, because according to John she doesn't have the typical fear reflex - she's too sad. She misses Jesus. I can sort of understand, from this verse, why people might think she was married to him. But Jesus' words explain the situation just as reasonably - those who have been forgiven much love much.

vs 14

Mary Magdelene was the first person to see Jesus, and she didn't even recognise him. Now, to be fair, no one does at first. Is it just that they don't expect Jesus to be alive, so they assume he's someone else? Some people would argue that, especially from Isaiah which says that he's not pretty, or that his looks were nothing special. Others would say that it's a function of the glorified body that he looks different somehow.

vs 15

Mary must have thought that this garden had a lot of gardeners - that's three people in white she's seen! She goes with the most logical approach - the gardeners have somehow moved this stone away, taken Jesus' body, and dumped it. She therefore offers to take the body from them, so that she can treat it respectfully. After all, they might have removed it because it wasn't Jesus' tomb.

vs 16

All he has to say is her name, and suddenly she knows who it is. She calls out to him with joy. Does she say "Husband!" No. She says "Teacher!"

vs 17

Depends what translation you read here (NIV says don't hold on to me, NASB says Stop clinging to me, KJV says Touch me not), but to be honest none of them make the key issue clear. Which, of course, is why? Why can't she cling to him? Well, let's try and be logical about this. Can it be because he isn't fully substantial yet? I don't think it can. Why? Because he was bodily resurrected - his body isn't lying on that stone, so where is it? It's in front of her. He's got a body, no worries there.

So why can't she cling to him? Because he's got to go back to heaven, and I guess he doesn't want her to fly up with him. He's not superman, after all. Besides, he has a job for her - to tell the disciples (he calls them his brothers - awesome). Interestingly, his message is not that he is risen (perhaps he thought that should have been obvious to them) but instead that he is going to the Father, who is also their Father, to God, who is also their God.

vs 18

And so she goes and tells them. Apparently they were incredulous, but it doesn't say so here - that's the testimony of another gospel.

vs 19

Your leader has been killed. The people who killed him are still out there, and are in charge. His body's missing. So you're afraid. Huddled together in some room somewhere. You've heard that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdelene - was he an angel? A ghost? A vision?

Suddenly, he appears in the room and says "What up?" I want to run a pool on how many people fell off their chairs. I mean, he didn't even knock.

vs 20

But when he shows them his physical signs (of his physical body), they knew it was him. And they were overjoyed, which is understandable.

But here's a curly one. Jesus went to be with the Father (that's what he said to Mary - it was his excuse for her not being allowed to cuddle him). Now he's here. God is perfect. And he can't allow imperfection in his presence, right? So is Jesus body, marred as it was by his death (he just showed them his scars), perfect in the eyes of God? If it isn't, then how did Jesus go before God with it? Perhaps God doesn't require perfection to be before him. If Jesus' body is perfect, then perhaps we just don't understand what the term perfect means.

I am personally for number two. I think our culture misunderstands the ANE cultural meaning of "perfect" in the same way we misunderstand the ANE cultural understanding of "truth". In this case, perfection isn't being some pristine model free from damage. Perfection and holiness are synonyms - so Jesus' body is holy (and he is completely holy) because he has used his body to perfectly obey God. Whether you have holes in you or whatever is not going to make any difference.

There's a third option which I won't discount - those holes in Jesus' hands and feet and side are perfect reminders of what he has done for us, and an eternity with them is an eternity of a badge of honour, showing Jesus' perfect submission to God in all things, including bringing us to Him. What could be more perfect than that?

John chapter 20

vs 1

I think the other gospels tell us that the body hadn't been completely prepared before burial, so we can assume that's why Mary was going to the tomb. John doesn't give her a motivation. John also, interestingly, doesn't tell us a stone was rolled in front of the tomb, only that it's rolled away. No mention of soldiers or anything.

vs 2

Her first response is to run to the two nearest disciples, Peter and the other one (John). In fact, as you read, you find that (at least in my opinion) John is being very short with words here, as we only now find that Jesus isn't in the tomb.

vs 3-4

John's a bit of a sprinter it seems. Obviously both think this is something important enough that it warrants doing more than a light jog.

vs 5

John got there first, but he didn't go in - he just looked inside to see what was going on - and sure enough, there was no body. The wierd thing is that the strips of linen used to wrap the body are still there. I mean, if you're going to steal the body, would you leave the linen there? Would you unwrap a corpse first? Ewww.

vs 6-7

Peter, good old unstable quick to jump Peter dives into the tomb, does a commando roll, and finds out the same thing that John finds. Interestingly, even the cloth that wrapped Jesus' head was neatly folded. If you were going corpse stealing, surely you wouldn't neatly fold the cloth?

vs 8

What does John believe? I think just that the body isn't there, at this point.

vs 9

Because it seems that still, at this point, they don't understand that Jesus must resurrect. So what did happen? I guess they assume that some bunch of extremely strong people moved the stone, and stole the body, and neatly folded its garments for some reason.

vs 10

So they go home. What else can they do, I guess? They can't put Jesus back in the tomb, they don't know where he is.

John chapter 19

vs 31

Lovely. I could go into all the stuff about how, if your legs are broken when you're on cross, you suffocate because your lungs collapse. Instead, just read this sentence and tell me that the Jews weren't complete pricks. Instead of leaving me nailed to a cross, you want to nail me to a cross, then break my legs, then watch me suffocate faster? Anus. I don't know, perhaps you think it's kind, instead of leaving them there. I guess my opinion is that it's kinder not to crucify people at all.

vs 32

And the soldiers did so. The enormity didn't really come to me about this until I realised just what would be involved in actually breaking someone's legs.

vs 33-34

But they don't break Jesus' legs. Instead, they stab him with a spear, just to make sure. And apparently, blood and water came out, and this is meant to be a mark that they stabbed him somewhere that is going to be fatal. I'll let doctors talk about that. In my opinion, if a centurion stabs you, you're dead. They're not council workers, they're trained killers.

vs 35

Is the man who saw John? Or is it someone else who has told John, perhaps one of the centurions? Regardless, he was an eyewitness, and the veracity john seeks to give this claim may mean that he is attempting to combat a belief that Jesus didn't die. So here it is, Muslims! Here it is, JWs, or Mormons, or whoever of you heretics wants to tangle with it.

vs 36-37

Another scripture fulfilled, and another. Interestingly, unlike Matthew, John doesn't point out scriptural fulfilments all the way through, only at the important bit, which is apparently now. This may be to help people realise that the death of the Messiah was prophesied, and that it is not something which discounts Jesus' claims.

vs 38

I'm sure if Joseph took the body, and Jesus was still alive, he wouldn't have dumped him in a tomb over the weekend. You might hide him in your basement and nurse him back to heath, but not in a tomb. Again, I think we highly underestimate the ability of ancient peoples to know when someone's dead.

Interestingly, it is a secret follower of Jesus who has the guts to come and take his body, and give him a good burial. I don't think Joseph of Arimathea gets enough praise. Where were the disciples?

vs 39

Nicodemus was also there - unmentioned in any other gospel. Nic may well have been another secret disciple. If so, again my props go out to him. I don't actually know what that means, but if it's good, he deserves them.

vs 40

Remember, this is the day of preparation before the Sabbath (an important sabbath too), and by touching Jesus' dead body, they are defiling themselves. But they still do it.

vs 41-42

I wonder if either of them actually owned that tomb? I also wonder if tomb larceny was common. Anyway, along with testimonies to two unsung heroes of Christianity, we can also be assured that Jesus is quite dead, and also buried. Well, entombed. It might not be his tomb, but it's a tomb.

John chapter 19

vs 21

Understandably, the Jewish leaders didn't want Jesus to be acknowledged as the king of the Jews. But they are now paying a price for the claim they made that "They have no king but Caesar". Now everyone who walks past will see that Rome has crucified their king - the Jews truly are subjugated.

vs 22

Pilate very possibly also wanted these Jews to see that the blood of Christ was on their own hands, and that he was being killed for no other reason than his claim to be king. And he wasn't about to change the sign. He bowed to their pressure, he killed the innocent man - let them suffer the indigity of having their king crucified.

vs 23

So Jesus wore 5 pieces of clothing. That's a lot. I'm guessing undergarment, undertunic, overtunic, sandals, and head covering. What's also interesting is that they're dividing up his clothes after he is crucified, but before he's dead. So you know that undergarment you see in all the Jesus films? Sounds to me like he wasn't wearing it.

vs 24

They don't want to tear the undergarment, because it's made of a nice piece of fabric. And so the soldiers fulfil some scripture and cast lots for it. It's not a coincidence that this is a reflection of a davidic messianic psalm - it speaks of the suffering that David went through even though he was king. Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

vs 25

So were there three women, or four women? The NIV doesn't make it clear at all. Thankfully, both the NASB and the KJV put an 'and' in the right place, and indicate that there were three women there, not four. And if you're wondering, that 'and' is there in the greek.

Another startling thing this shows is the huge number of people called Mary. The most popular names in America in 2005 were Jacob and Emily, and have been since 1999 - go figure. Expect lots of Jacobs and Emilies from America in the next few years.

(off topic, but Michael pushed Jacob to second place in 1997-1998, but Emily stays at the top till 1995 - if Emily works out to be the top name of 2006, then it will have had a reign of 10 years! Michael and Jessica get a similar run of a decade or so of popularity before that)

The point being, folks, that just because you find a tomb with Mary's name on it, doesn't mean it's Jesus' mother, or his aunt, or Mary Magdelene.

vs 26-27

It's obvious why John would record such a fact. Probably not for his own glory (I mean, he doesn't even name himself), but simply because he knew about it, and Mary would be a key major eyewitness source for legitimating the gospel account. Also it shows that a good jew looks after his mum. Aww.

vs 28

Jesus was really into fulfilling scripture. Good of him to remember to do so while nailed to a large tree, wasn't it? I am assuming that he was also thirsty. Seriously though, the idea that this event fulfils scripture is a testimony to Jews that it should be taken seriously.

vs 29

And I've got to say, I think their ingenuity regarding getting a drink to someone who's nailed to a cross is quite exemplary. I would never have thought of using a sponge. I wonder what they made sponges out of back then, and why one was hanging around (possibly for giving people on crosses drinks).

vs 30

I think almost every gospel records Jesus as saying something different as his last words. Each one, I am sure, has a specific meaning to that gospel. It's hard to work out which words he really said last. I guess it doesn't matter, as long as he said all of them. This is a good example, though, of the fact that the authors of the gospel, while interested in recording history, are not so tied to a modern historical writing pattern that they value accuracy above all else. They have purposes for their text beyond recording an event - they wish these writings to create a certain atmosphere and paint a certain picture in the hope of illiciting a certain response. As such, they record choice pieces of history which back up the point they want to make. This doesn't make thiem inaccurate - just specific.

So in this case, John records Jesus' words of finality. That the job he came to earth to do is finished. It's the end cap on the overarching sense of control over the whole affair that Jesus has been seen to display to this point, even to the point of him "giving up his spirit".

John chapter 19

vs 11

Two sections here. Firstly, Jesus scorns the power of Pilate over him, because God gives all authorities their power, and Pilate would be nothing without God giving him the power over Jesus. You get the feeling that Jesus could have taken that power away anytime he wants.

Secondly, a "greater sin" has been committed than Pilate's eventual crucifixion of Jesus. Does this absolve Pilate? Hell no. A greater sin by someone else just means this he is still sinning. But the religious leaders are the ones who are really in deep, because they handed their own Messiah over to a foreign authority to kill.

vs 12

Pilate has Jesus on the one side, claiming to be the Son of God, and the Jews on the other, claiming he will be a traitor if he doesn't crucify him because Jesus claims to be a king. Let me point out, at this point, that there are plenty of kings under Caesar. So the Jews are full of crap. Of course, Jesus was a king of kings, and therefore was more powerful than Caesar, but he also claimed that his kingdom was not worldly.

vs 13

Interesting thing to translate into Aramaic. My guess is that John does this so that people who have heard of Gabbatha will know what it is if they don't speak Aramaic. Pilate has taken the decision to judge over Jesus.

vs 14

Pilate has taken his judgey seat, and so now he's going for the looking and doing things officially style. He pronounces Jesus as their king. Does he really believe that? Is he saying it mockingly? Did Jesus have an air of royalty?

vs 15

Now riddle me this - you are the governor of a province, who is under the authority of Caesar. The people who you rule over are prepared to kill their king and are swearing allegiance to you. Does this make you uncomfortable? I mean, they swear fealty to you one minute - but then, may be just as likely to crucify you next. People who change their allegiances easily are not all that trustworthy.

vs 16

However, if there's thousands of the buggers, you don't get a choice. It's placate them, or cause another huge bloodbath. Even at this stage, Pilate is prepared to sacrifice an innocent man - for him, it saves Judea from another bloody rebellion.

vs 17

Again, repeated in Aramaic in case you've heard the name, so you know what it means.

vs 18

And then they crucify him. Can I point out at this point that the passion narrative of John does not include all the beatings, the lashings, the pain and anguish. It's very quick. Well, relatively quick. It mostly involves arguing instead of beating the snot out of Jesus.

vs 19

You've got to wonder why Pilate would do that. I mean, I think they displayed charges against all criminals, so something was going to go up there. But he's stirring. He knows that it's going to upset the Jews. But I think he's reaffirming his place in leadership over them. You want someone dead? Fine. But I'm going to make it clear that I killed your king, so that you really are under Caesar's rulership.

vs 20

Lots of people read that sign. Lots of people saw Jesus hanging there. And if they couldn't recognise him from the beating he'd taken, they would at least know what the sign said.

John chapter 19

vs 1

It's such a short verse, and yet there is a lot of pain contained within that short description. However, it is still better than being killed.

vs 2-3

But more than just flogging him, they violently mock him. What's the point of this, you may wonder? Well, it seems to me that Pilate is trying to punish Jesus (for committing no crime other than being hated by his fellow Jews) so much that they will let him free. So he's probably hoping that a mixture of violence and mockery will save Jesus' life. It might not be the path we choose to save someone's life.

vs 4-5

After all this punishment, Pilate then reaffirms Jesus' innocence. Maybe now that they have seen him mocked, scorned, beaten and flogged, that will placate them. Of course, it never will.

vs 6

Remember, Ciaphas had a vision about Jesus dying for the good of the nation. So they're not going to stop until he dies.

And for the third time, Pilate says that he finds no reason to charge this man, certainly not with death. So he tells them to take him and kill him. He is, now at least, less worried about saving Jesus, and more worried about committing a crime against humanity in killing an innocent person. He doesn't want to be implicated. But he is also condemning himself - for if he has stated publicly three times that Jesus is innocent, and yet still punishes him and has him killed, then he cannot wash his hands of it.

vs 7

Now they had plenty of laws which, according to them, people had to die. They killed them all the time. Why not Jesus? Just like everyone else, they don't want the blood on their hands. Passover had been a time of rioting and rebellion in the past, and the high priest was probably using that to stir up sentiment and get the governor to do something.

vs 8

Pilate is well and truly freaked now. It's not just a political issue, it is a religious issue. This guy claims to be the Son of God. It probably isn't a claim you hear often, but it's one you don't want to screw up. But surely the Jews would not crucify their own Messiah?

vs 9

Pilate does try to get to the bottom of it, but Jesus doesn't speak to him. Was Pilate really trying to get to the truth of the situation? What is truth, after all? Or was he just trying to get Jesus to admit that he wasn't really the Messiah?

vs 10

Pilate obviously gets a little flustered when Jesus won't talk to him. So he does the carrot-and-stick thing. He could free Jesus, or he could crucify him. But he has shown already that he doesn't want to crucify Jesus, so what's the game here? He is trying everything he can to not bow down to pressure to kill an innocent man. And again, anything you can do to make Jesus feel like a criminal will only make this feel easier. So he won't talk to you? Must be guilty of something - disrespect if nothing else.

John Chapter 18

vs 31

Pilate, smartly, did not want to get involved in petty Israeli politics. If they want to play their silly games and punish one of their own, then let them do it themselves.

The Jews complain, though, because they don't have the right to kill anyone. Did that ever stop them? No. They would have stoned people all day long.

vs 32

Jesus had to die all up in the air like, and stoning generally did not have that effect. What was the reason? Apparently anyone who hangs on a tree is cursed, according to the OT. Stoning would have not been shaming enough, it seems.

But more than that - if Jesus had only been killed by the Jews, then the gentlies would not also have been complicit. Peter makes it fairly clear in Acts that this is so.

vs 33

So now Jesus is inside a gentile home (which obviously means its not unclean to be there, because otherwise Jesus wouldn't be perfect, would he?). Pilate asks Jesus fairly directly about his kingship. After all, that seems to be what the Jews want him killed for. But they haven't really told Pilate. So Pilate may well recognise Jesus, and have even heard him, or at least heard of him.

vs 34

Jesus wants to know if that is what Pilate thinks for himself, or merely if that is what he has heard. So Jesus is dragging Pilate right into this whole cafuffle.

vs 35

And Pilate doesn't want to be there. He doesn't want a bar of it. You could easily read his first response as "Do I look like I care?" He's no Jew, and he probably only really cares about internal Jewish politics as much as it means he needs to stop revolts and so on. He doesn't make much of a king if his own people hand him over. So what has he actually done? What crime has he committed? You never know - as a governor, Pilate might have been willing to deal with Jesus as royalty. Highups always like hob-nobbing with other highups. Of course, there is already a king of the Jews, Herod the tetrarch I believe, but he's not local.

vs 36

Jesus states plainly about his kingdom, and talks about his arrest as if it were really neither here nor there. Now Pilate is a Roman, not a Jew, but even so Jesus speaks of his kingdom as belonging to another world, another place.

vs 37

Pilate is happy, because at least he has gotten Jesus to admit that he's a king. And Jesus is a king, and admits it. But not a king in the worldly, political sense. He's the king of truth. His whole purpose is to point to the truth and testify to it. And he more or less states that those who are in his kingdom are because they are on the side of truth.

vs 38-39

Pilate returns with a fairly philosophical question. If he'd asked "What is the truth?" then it might have been a different matter. But I think he is brushing Jesus off. He doesn't want to get involved in this conversation. It is getting too confronting. In fact, the sooner he can get this strange guy out of his palace the better. So he goes and tells the Jews that he can't find any legal reason to kill this guy, and how about he releases him from custody becuase, hey, it's Passover, and Pilate's a hero.

vs 40

By this time, somewhat of a crowd seems to have gathered. Apparently it isn't too difficult to create crowds like this in the Middle East - you just call your relatives and tell them to come hang out in front of the governor's palace, and then you call in some favours, and other people just hang around to see what's happening. Then the Pharisees give them a guilt trip about serving God by chanting to get some guy killed, and it all happens fairly quickly.

Now, as Pilate, you would begin to worry about now. You've got someone who you don't think is guilty, but the people you are administering want him dead. You've had a couple of riots before. They have been bloody. Now, they are chanting that they want a known rebel released. I mean, what would you do in his position?

John chapter 18

vs 21

It's unsurprising Jesus tells them to ask other people. I mean, they never listened to Jesus in the first place - why would they listen to him now?

But more than that - if you ask someone what they said, they could change their story. Better to get corroborating evidence from people who heard.

vs 22

Well, obviously it is how he talks to the high priest, because he just did. In fact, Ciaphas is the high priest, not Annas. But the two are interchangeable. I believe that one was high priest as far as Roman authorities went, and the other was as far as Jewish authorities went. But what did he say that was actually wrong? Possibly there was something in his voice that doesn't translate well to paper. Or perhaps hitting him made them feel better.

vs 23

What Jesus said was true. Perhaps a little smart-arsey. But he's right - why hit him if he spoke t the truth? Because you want to hate this person, so you hit them to make you feel better. Makes them feel like a criminal if you try to get a rise out of them so they yell and scream and so on.

vs 24

So now he goes to the high priest. Well, the other one. I actually think the KJV translation makes more immediate sense (it's noted in the NIV), but I don't really think it's a breaking issue.

vs 25

We all want to know about Jesus, and we're very interested in what's going to happen. So now is a perfect time to mention Peter and what's happening outside.

In fact, he is still standing around the fire, denying he is a disciple of Jesus. At this point, Jesus could even be being led past him out the door towards the palace. Who knows. But Peter, for a second time, has denied Jesus.

vs 26

You'd think you'd remember the face of someone who cut your relative's ear off. So they're starting to get the picture here. After all, if he's not at this house for the sake of the high priest, why is he here?

vs 27

Peter denies his Lord a third time, and then the rooster crows. It doesn't tell us how he felt, or what he did next. In fact, Peter sort of falls out of the picture for a while, and we have to wait till later to hear from him. But he is a very important figure in the gospel of John. So look out for him.

vs 28

We, however, go back to Jesus, who has seen Ciaphas (their confrontation is unmentioned, unless you take the note on vs 24), and is now being led to the palace. But the Jews can't enter, because Passover is that weekend, and they want to partake in it, so they stay outside. I'm not actually 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure that they would have been fine. But I guess it is the house of a gentile. But they didn't force Jesus to go in, so it's not obvious.

vs 29

Pilate knew better than to stuff around with the Jews. Even though they've come early in the morning, and they won't come into his house, he deals with them outside, sort of on their terms. He sees what's going on, and wants to know what they're charging this man with. He's the governer, after all. And he has to keep the state stable. Which means sometimes doing things to make the natives happy.

vs 30

That's probably the weakest prosecution I've ever heard. It's so lame, in fact, that it really makes you wonder. Certainly, Pilate would have had to have been wondering what was going on at this point. Why not just straight out and tell him what crimes he had committed? But no, instead they play a silly game which is illogical. I can just imagine Pilate sighing and muttering "Going to be one of those days".

John chapter 18

vs 11

Is Peter going to stop all these soldiers anyway? On his own? An argument for the "Peter, master swordsman" school I guess.

But the point is that Jesus is going to let them take him. He's going to do what God has given him to do obediently. But it will also mean that those who do it to him are fully complicit.

vs 12-13

The historical narrative comes into play now. Jesus is arrested, and taken to Annas. I don't really understand why he was taken to Annas instead of Ciaphas. Some cultural thing?

vs 14

As we read earlier, after the raising of Lazarus.

vs 15

No we start on the descriptions of Peter's denials. The focus goes off Jesus, and onto two of his disciples - Peter, and probably John. Apparently, John knew the high priest, which is an interesting turn for the books, isn't it? So he was able to follow Jesus right into the courtyard.

vs 16-17

Peter is left outside until John comes and gets him. And Peter makes his first denial about Jesus right in front of another disciple! I mean, omg! I had never noticed that. Now, I've always thought of Peter as just lying to save his ass in these denials. But can it be that, perhaps after the rebuke of Jesus with the whole sword incident, and the fact that his master has been captured by the fuzz, Peter is now disillusioned, and he has actually disowned Jesus? He's just watching with dulled interest as to what his fate will be? I don't know, that is speculation. But to me, it is changed to know that he made his denial in front of another disciple.

vs 18

Or perhaps Peter was just cold, and wanted to stand next to the fire. This kind of detail really tells you that someone was there to see it. I mean, there is very little gospel truth in this verse. Why is it recorded for us? So that we have some sort of allegorical story about selling out to the world? Or just because it happened, and it shows that it's an eye witness account.

vs 19

Ok, back to Jesus. While Peter is warming himself by the fires of the officials who are going to kill his Lord, Jesus is being grilled by the high priest. I think I'm safe in assuming he's still bound up as a prisoner. Interesting that he was being question about his disciples, as well as his teaching. So the plan was obviously to try and round up some disciples too.

vs 20

But Jesus isn't going to gratify this prick with a response. Jesus has told everyone who he is, what he's teaching, and why it's important to listen to him. He's done it not just in the bush or amongst the 12 - he's done it in synagogues, at the temple, and wherever good Jews are congregated. If you didn't know what Jesus was saying, you must have been on mars, under a rock, with a bag over your head and your fingers in your ears. And yes, that included some stuff about how the Pharisees are hypocrites and how outward worship was not enough for God. Nothing new in that - the OT and the prophets had given both messages (not about Pharisees particularly of course) at one stage or another. But then, the prophets were all pretty much killde by their own people too. So everything seems to be going according to plan!

John chapter 18

vs 1-2

Jesus has now finished his long prayer. And so he leaves, with the disciples, for an olive grove. This was normal, so the disciples weren't disturbed about it - he had been there with them several times - and that's how Judas knew where they'd be.

vs 3

Can you say "lynch mob"? Well, they are soldiers, so he is going to be arrested, but you get the feeling don't you?

vs 4-5

He knew who they wanted. I mean, who are they going to arrest, Matthew? Simon the Zealot? This is one of those classic God questions, like "Where are you?" or "Where is your brother?" - it forces them to admit to what they are doing. I'm not suggesting necessarily that this is in a larger pattern of "God Questions" or anything though. But Jesus replies that he is who they seek, and their reaction is startling.

vs 6

The power of Jesus is flowing pretty obviously here. Just at his claiming of that name, these people fall to the ground, making his authority obvious.

vs 7

So he asks them again, and they have to be bloody sure that they want to take him. The respond again that he's the one they want.

vs 8-9

Jesus protects his disciples by basically ordering the mob to let them go. John sees this as a fulfilment of his earlier words. But the disciples aren't going to go that easily.

vs 10

Peter, hot-blooded as always, whips out a sword, and of comes Malchus' ear. I don't think I need to tell you where he was aiming if he got the guy's ear. Now, I don't know much about ANE swordplay, but he was either striking upwards or downwards. Medieval strokes generally go downwards, in which case you'd think the blade would get imbedded in the poor guy's shoulder, but it might have glanced off his skull. An upward stroke would be far less likely to take an ear off, me thinks (upwards strokes are generally going for the belly or the groin).

So Peter just tried to plant a sword in this guy's head. Those who would like to suggest that Peter is some sort of swordplay genius and was aiming for his ear, you go ahead and claim that. I won't dispute it, because the evidence is nowhere clear enough to prove he wasn't. Except that, of course, he was a fisherman.I think I'll stick with Peter trying to kill someone. Great move as one of Jesus' disciples, eh?

John chapter 17

vs 19

We don't have a word like "holify", but that is basically what Jesus is saying - that he will make himself truly holy, separate for God's use, so that the disciples are also holified. How is Jesus going to do this? I think it is through this prayer.

vs 20

Hey, that sounds like us! Woo, we get a mention in the Bible!

vs 21

Jesus' prayer for the church from his ascension onwards is for unity, and for close relationship with God and himself. The purpose is so that the world will recognise the Christ as coming from God, as having divinity. I don't often think of that as a function. You think more of the Bible proving that. But the existence of the church, its closeness to God and closeness to itself should also show it.

vs 22

Christ has given his church his glory, again for the sake of unity!

I think we always read into this from the future, because we live post-Protestant split, post-Pentecostal split, and there are just huge factions in the church that never seem to meet. But remember, this was also written to the church back then. Even if it was more divided by geography and culture, it was called to be unified too.

vs 23

Again, this unity is for the purpose of showing the world the love of the Father, and the origin of Christ from the Father.

vs 24

Jesus wants all Christians past and present and future to go to be with him, so that they can see the full glory which they have believed in even without seeing. It's a mighty glory, an eternal glory, and we're going to get to see it. That's pretty awesome.

vs 25

I think the "they" in this verse is actually referring back to the church global, rather than to the world. So the idea is that even though the world (which the church is in, but not of) didn't know God, Jesus did, and the church knows Jesus, and because of that they are able to know God, because they can understand that Jesus was sent by God. It's actually clearer in the other translations, like the NASB, I think.

vs 26

It is because Jesus reveals God to us that we are able to have the love God has for Jesus in us (allowing us to love Jesus), and that Jesus himself abides in us (which is a much greater mystery).

John Chapter 17

vs 10

Jesus here is talking particularly about the disciples, and how if they belong to Jesus, they also belong to God. He is also thankful to God for them, because even though they're a bunch of stumbling fools sometimes, they are still bringing glory to him.

vs 11

Jesus knows that for these guys, the suffering has only begun. And he's not going to be with them to work his magic and stop people from stoning them all the time. Of course, the disciples know this too, and are probably fearful, and as I said before, this prayer is as much for their sake is it is for Jesus talking to God. So now they know, through Jesus' words, that they will be protected. But notice the reason. It's not just so that they feel special, or so they never suffer. Those things are going to happen. No, it is to give them unity as a group. So they don't split up like a band that's had a falling out over a girl.

vs 12

I'm sure they were at least a little bit aware of the protection that Jesus had given them. Notice that twice now Jesus has linked this protection to the authority that God has given him.

Judas is, of course, the natural exception. Doomed to destruction. Painful.

vs 13

Jesus is leaving, but he doesn't want to leave the disciples with nothing. He wants them to be full of joy, and part of that will be knowing that all of Jesus' authority was from God, that he is united with the Father, and that they will receive his protection even after he is gone.

vs 14

And there is another encouraging statement - not only are they not of the world, but they share this status with Jesus. So the world may hate them, but as Jesus said, it only hates them because it hated him first.

vs 15

They are in the world, but they are not of the world. The world hates them, and sometimes it would be more comfortable to be protected from the world by being removed from it. A sort of respite care from the world. Jesus doesn't want that, though. He wants them to be in the world, continuing to be not of the world, so that they are witnesses to him, and continue bringing glory to him. And for that, they will need protection against the evil one.

vs 16

Restatement simply taken care of in one verse.

vs 17

A new point now - as they are apart from the world, make them apart from the world for a sacred use. And how are they to be set apart for a holy use by God? through the truth. And truth is God's word. Interesting, isn't it, that the disciples are set apart, and they are set apart to be used by God for holy purposes, and they are prepared for such by the truth. The truth of God's word prepares us for use by him. Interesting.

vs 18

Jesus was similarly sent (of course being the Son of God makes this a little different). And now, with their preparation, so the disciples are sent into the world.

John Chapter 17

vs 1

Wow, this is a powerful chapter. Now, we have to face the fact that John may not be recording this word for word - after all, could he have remembered every word after hearing this prayer once, perhaps up to 50 years or more before?

I'm not saying it's not possible - God could have granted him the gift of a perfect memory. Or he could have remembered the jist of it, and written it down.

Anyway, onto the verse!

Jesus has said several times before that he was praying for the benefit of those around him. Do you ever feel self conscious about the things you say in public prayer, like you're wanting people to get a message, as well as bringing something to God? I do. Jesus didn't seem to mind doing it though.

God is going to glorify his name through Christ. So he will glorify Christ, so that God can be glorified.

vs 2

Jesus has been glorified - he has been given authority over all people. But Jesus makes it clear that he doesn't save them all. He's got authority over all, but he saves those who God gives him. John doesn't mind this paradox, and so I guess neither should we.

vs 3

See, did Jesus have to tell God that? No, of course not. But then, I guess we don't have to tell God anything. But I think this sentence is peculiarly for us and the disciples to hear.

It's an interesting definition of eternal life. It says that you cannot separate eternal life from the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. They are, by definition, intermingled.

vs 4

Wait, completing the work. What? Don't we all think that the real part of the work is yet to come? And yet Jesus is able to pray that he has completed the work. Ok, he might be looking forward a few hours fully realising that he's going to get completed himself in a moment. But I think it at the very least means that we must value the ministry of Jesus apart from the cross as much as we do the cross itself. And not to even mention the resurrection, which for me is the real important bit.

vs 5

Ok, Jesus had glory with God when he was with him before creation. Fair enough. But when did he lose it? Upon taking a material body? Perhaps. Perhaps simply because he is not in heaven, and you can't be truly glorified until you're in heaven? Perhaps his human frame has limited his god-ness a little (certainly it has ruined his omnipresence). That's a hard one.

vs 6

Part of Jesus' role was to reveal himself to the disciples - who would take the message of Christ crucified and resurrected (and all the other stuff he did, which is also important) to the world. God hand-picked them, and that's cool.

vs 7

The most important thing the disciples had to understand was that Christ gets everything he has from God. That is really important. And it took him until basically now to even get them functionally aware of that.

vs 8

Knowing with certainty and believing have come up several times in John. We seem to think that it's paradoxical to have both, but it seems it isn't. You can believe and know something with certainty. I think anyone with faith would understand this. It's hard to explain though.

Jesus has given them words, and they have accepted them. That is an excellent description of the gospel of John! The other gospels, to a greater of lesser extent, have focused on Jesus and his actions - how they fulfil scripture (Matthew), how they highlight his deity (Mark), and how God worked through Christ to bring about salvation (Luke). John is a theological discourse in comparison - giving us the words that God gave him. Awesome.

vs 9

And now, Jesus prays especially for them. Not for the world, which is under his authority, but for these disciples.

John chapter 16

vs 23

Is Jesus here saying that their requests will go straight to the Father instead of to Jesus, because he won't be around? I think that's what he's saying. That is a pretty mega thing, even for Jews. I mean, most of them probably thought that only the High Priest could really come into the presence of God and ask for stuff. The disciples might have thought they had special privileges because they were around Jesus all the time (and I think we think they had it special too). But Jesus is saying that his time on earth, and the presense of God in a physical form with these disciples, is not the normative pattern which God intended. He merely used it to institute a lasting deal whereby his people can come to him directly. Awesome.

Note that it is still through Jesus' name, that is his reputation and authority, that such requests are made. We are able to make such requests because God has given Jesus the authority.

vs 24

When we say "In Jesus' name", do we really link that with his authority and reputation? I think we tend to baby-ise it a bit, and turn it into a motherhood statement. Especially when we say "Jesus' precious name". Surely that makes it sound like we're hugging the baby Jesus. Bah. When we ask for something in Jesus' name, we aren't huggling him to us, we are bowing before God's throne of authority and name dropping - we are making a request through the authority of our captain. We are requisitioning more support for the war on Satan. Military analogies can only go so far, but I like that one. I think it's a good corrective.

vs 25

And will John, or anyone else, record that plain language? Probably not. But at least Jesus is admitting that he doesn't always say things clearly.

vs 26

Note here that we don't pray to Jesus, and then he itercedes for us and asks the Father for us. It's not a chain of command thing. Jesus is allowing us to ask God, but with his authority. Sweet.

vs 27

This is where the military analogy dies off. God doesn't listen to us because Jesus is our leader and we're his soldiers, and it's a matter of military duty. He listens to us (and opened up the communication lanes for us) because he loves us. This is a labour of love.

vs 28

Jesus doesn't need to hang around on earth forever. His time comes and goes. He comes to earth, and then he goes back to heaven. His work will be complete between those two times.

vs 29-30

What a revelation for the poor disciples! Jesus has finally made it clear to them what's going on. They think they've finally got the message. Are they still surprised when he dies? Oh yeah, I think so. But I think they do realise the authority and power with which Jesus not only speaks, but comes to Earth with. They certainly aren't clueless, but they might not be 100% clued up either. The fact is, though, that they realise that what Jesus is saying now is authoritative - the recognise the authority he is claiming.

vs 31

The translation here is questionable. Both the KJV and NASB use the alternative translation. But I think we get the point. Either Jesus is praising them for finally getting their faith in order, or he is formulating basically the same sentiment in a question form. I don't think he's seriously questioning their beliefs at this point.

vs 32

Even though they do believe, they will still flee, they will still hide, they will still question what just happened in the next 24 hours. Some of them, probably all of them, will doubt. But Jesus wants them to know that even if he's all alone, God is still with him.

vs 33

Jesus started this section by saying that people would kill the disciples and think they were doing the world, and God, a favour. He ends with a similar sentiment. They will suffer. The world does suck for Christians. But Jesus has also just told them that anything they ask the Father for, they will receive because of Jesus' authority. And that is an encouraging thing.

John Chapter 16

vs 12

There isn't long till Jesus is gone. The good news for the disciples is that he will be back after he is dead, and they'll probably listen to him a whole lot better then.

vs 13

The Spirit speaks the words of God, for the guidance of Christians into truth, and to give us a (albeit typically fairly general) idea of what's coming. Interesting that John points this out, when he had something extra special revealed to him, and wrote Revelation.

vs 14-15

So the Lord has given Jesus all things, and the Holy Spirit will take some of that and make it known to the disciples (and to all Christians). We have to step away from the materialistic understanding of "all" to understand this properly, I think. Things like "understanding" and "knowledge" and "wisdom" also belong to the Father. A little more esoteric, but no less available to the Spirit.

vs 16

Jesus is obviously talking about his death and resurrection. It makes perfect sense to us, but at the time, the disciples were obviously less clued in.

vs 17-18

They were having trouble now with what he means. Obviously they're thinking about stuff a little more clearly.

vs 19

And so Jesus begins to explain to them, firstly by recapping where they're at.

vs 20

That pretty much clears up that he is going to die. But his death is not going to be forever - in fact, they will soon change from mourning to joy. So something's going to happen - is he going to come back from the dead?

vs 21-22

Jesus uses a picture of birth to speak of his resurrection. At the moment, yes, it will hurt - not just for him, but for the disciples too. But when he returns, they will be full of joy. And it's an eternal joy in more ways than one - Jesus is alive again, and will never die again. But neither will the disciples. Oh, sure, they all die, some of them pretty horribly, but Jesus has given them his word that they have places in heaven ready for them, and those will last an eternity.

John chapter 16

vs 1

Even though they are disciples, Jesus still wants to prepare them for a hard road ahead; he still wants to prepare them so that they do not stray. That might hurt a little to hear, but it is a good thing to do. As we know, Peter strayed. We don't think of him as losing his salvation generally, and we probably all know some people who we thought were genuine Christians that for some reason or another aren't living life the way they should. Focus has gone from Christ to something else, I guess, whether that be family, work, love life etc.

vs 2

Paul thought just that. Things have gotten bad when you're getting killed, and people killing you think they're doing a service. Far out, are Christians so horrible? Obviously that shows us the close link that religion had to social stability. We occasionaly hear talk in Christian circles of doom and gloom, when this will happen again in the western world. The truth is, I don't think it's going to. But if you want proof that it will happen, go to Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or China, where Christians are being persecuted plenty already.

vs 3

The Jews were epecially heinous, because they thought they were serving God by killing Christians. And yet it proved how little they even knew of God.

vs 4

Since Jesus won't be with them directly when this is happening, he wants to tell them beforehand. Now, he didn't tell them this when they first joined him, and that is a very interesting point. Jesus doesn't even tell them he's going to die early in the piece. Sometime during his ministry his does, sure. But not until the very end does he tell them about the suffering they are going to endure. Just a thought for those people who think that people can't become followers of Jesus without hearing the "full gospel" of doom and gloom straight up.

vs 5-6

They will start asking, but he is pointing out that for the moment they are just upset that he's going anywhere that they can't go. Those that had worked out he was going to die are probably particularly upset. Even the fact that one of them is going to betray him, and Peter is going to disown him, those are all upsetting things. It's a tearjerker's festival.

vs 7

As far as Jesus was concerned, it was worth him leaving for us to get the Holy Spirit. Do we think of it like that? I'll bet we would rather have Jesus walking around and attending out church. Or would we? I mean, do we really want Jesus stirring up trouble in our church, and having people come into the building to drag him out and stone him every few days? Do we really want Jesus to be sitting up on a mountain somewhere as some sort of swammi, who people politely ignore, or at best that we have to log onto the internet to see live webcam of? Better that we all have instant access to the Holy Spirit residing within us, surely.

vs 8

Jesus came into the world to save. The Spirit comes into the world to convict. Then Jesus will return to judge. That seems to be the pattern that is forming here. A conviction about spiritual things comes not from our own reasoned logical processes, but from God's inner workings.

vs 9

I guess the greatest rejection of God since the Garden of Eden is the crucifixion of Jesus, and so that is the mark of sin now, and rather than us saying "Well, we all have taken the fruit and eaten it, metaphorically speaking", we now say "Well, we have all nailed Jesus to that cross".

vs 10

Don't shoot me on this one, but I am guessing that the meaning here is that since Jesus, our perfect example of righteousness, is going to the Father and hence all we've got to use him as an example are the gospel records, the Holy Spirit will now step in and convict us of what is and isn't righteous. So while an example of Jesus is good, remember that the Holy Spirit itself will convict you, which to me sounds at least just as good.

vs 11

Even at this point, Jesus sees Satan as condemned. He hasn't even died yet, but I guess he knows he's going to. He hasn't been resurrected yet, but I guess ditto. The resurrection really does mean judgement. It means that Jesus is coming back at some point in time, and that then judgement's a coming. And the Holy Spirit will convict us of that. For non-Christians, I guess that conviction should make them seriously consider changing sides. For Christians, it's both a joy and a kick in the ass to get back to work. Sounds like we all need these convictions.