John chapter 6

vs 11

It's a fairly simple way of explaining what happened, isn't it? Because, in our culture of facts in the minutae, we want to know exactly how he managed it. The simple fact is that it's a miracle, now matter how it happened. We can't fault John for not trying to explain an event which he had never seen before, and we're just going to have to accept that it happened somehow.

vs 12

Jesus seems fairly conscious about waste, good for him. You could probably do a whole sermon on conservation and prudence from that, if you had no life. For me, his words are simply a prompt to show that there was more leftovers than there was food to begin with. So this was a real multiplication miracle, and not just an expansion in stomachs miracle. Both would be miracles, but now we know a little more info.

vs 13

No fish was left over, and I'm sure that has been the focus of many sermons, essays and books of people I wouldn't read. If Jesus had some sort of meaning in that, then it is lost to us, because it is never explained. 12 baskets full of bread were collected, though, which is pretty incredible, especially after everyone has eaten.

What did they do with the bread? I don't know. Did they carry it with them? Give it out? Give it to the poor? All we know is that it was not wasted.

vs 14

This miracle did its part in convincing many people that Jesus was a great prophet, and quite possibly the one who had been prophesied. Anyone with 5000 men at his disposal becomes a political power. 5000 people is a lot. 5000 men with religious fervour and farming implements is a force that would create a bloody though shortlived resistance movement.

vs 15

Jesus knows that they are wanting to militate, that they think he should be king of Israel so that he can save them as the Bible predicts. But he's not keen. He does the runner, and hides on a hill by himself.

It sounds almost blasphemous to describe Jesus that way, doesn't it? But that's what he does. Jesus doesn't want to be crowned king. He could have been born as king. Moreover, he thinks that his kingliness should be evident to people without him sitting on a throne. But that's because he is king of all of earth and all of heaven, not just king of Israel. Who would settle for Israel if the whole world belongs to them?

But this shows us another thing about the Jews - many of them were looking for a political and military saviour. Jesus isn't that, and as such they were going to be disappointed.

vs 16-17

Obviously they had some instructions regarding what to do - I mean, you wouldn't just get into a boat and do the scarper because your Master has done the runner and hidden somewhere, right?

Well, perhaps you would. I mean, you've got to really ask yourself, why did the disciples get in that boat without Jesus there? Perhaps they thought he had already crossed over? Or perhaps they were going home too? How did they expect Jesus to "join them" on the boat? Did Jesus have a speed boat or something?

vs 18

Strong winds, or something. I am given to understand that the whole experience was less than pleasant, and is not uncommon over the Sea of Galilee. But then, perhaps that's just because I don't like boats.

vs 19

Three and a half miles is a long way. The waters must have been rough enough to be slowing them down, because Jesus caught up to them walking. Now, the fact that he was walking on water was not lost on them, and they were scared. Why? One of the other gospel writers says they thought he was a ghost, which is kinda scary. Also shows how superstitious they were, and what their feelings about ghosts was. I'm not saying that there's no such thing as ghost (although off the top of my head I'd have to say that ghosts are demons parading as people, because the way I understand the afterlife, the person would either say "Worship Jesus, heaven is great", or "Ahh, help me, hell is real!" or perhaps "I seem to be in some sort of limbo, why isn't Jesus back yet?" or "I don't quite understand the thing I'm seeing here"), just that they obviously thought they were something worth being scared of.

vs 20

Jesus assures them he's not a ghost, and then no doubt they are onto their next adventure. This is a quick little miracle, isn't it? I guess even John can put miracles in just for the sake of showing that Jesus is awesome.

John chapter 6

Possibly the longest chapter in the new testament!

vs 1

Verses 1-4 are all just setting the scene. This gives us a lot of historical and geographical background for the situation. In an age where conserving paper was of considerable value to the writer, I think we cannot discount the importance of these verses to our understanding of what John's purpose is for writing.

Jesus has now crossed to the far shore of the sea of Galilee. I don't know which one is the far one. I don't know what side they started on. But now he's on the other side.

vs 2

This is going to be one of those times where a large crowd is involved. But this large crowd are not disciples - they are hangers on - wanting to see miracles or to have sick people healed. There's nothing wrong with doing that per se, but when the Son of God is walking the earth, you'd think he'd be more than a sideshow attraction.

vs 3

Jesus is currently up on a mountainside, and he's only with his disciples. So there, down the mountain, is the sprawl of crowds, but Jesus is having some disciple time.

vs 4

Finally, we know it's near another passover, which helps us to put it in a little bit of a time reference.

vs 5

This starts the real discussion of the most recorded miracle of Christ (aside from his resurrection) - the feeding of the 5000. It's the only major miracle recorded in all 4 gospels. It is interesting that he asks Philip particularly. Why? I don't have any idea. But he does.

vs 6

Jesus is asking the question to test Philip, but probably more generally as a test to all the disciples. Jesus, it seems, already had a plan.

vs 7

So Philip has at least considered the situation - there is about 5000 men down there, and even if they had 2/3 of a year of wages, they couldn't even give them all a little bit to eat. So Philip has at least looked at and considered the situation.

vs 8-9

Andrew takes some initiative, and points out that someone brought some food - the famous five loaves and two fish. He also makes the remark that this won't go far. Darn right - it was one boy's dinner!

vs 10

Something's obviously going to happen if Jesus is giving wierd instructions. The 5000 men sat down at Jesus' behest. The truth probably is that there were women and children there (we know at least one boy was there holding some bread and fish), but because of the cultural norm, they probably wouldn't have eaten until the men had eaten and had their fill. Culturally, yes, this can mean women and children (particularly girls) can go hungry. So Jesus follows the cultural rule, but only in such a way as to make sure everyone gets something.

John Chapter 5

vs 37

God did testify that Jesus is the Son of God to John TB. God did not choose to speak to the Pharisees, at least not in a direct voice as he did to John TB. The thing that always gets me about this is that when Herod asked the religious leaders where the new king of the Jews would be born, they knew the answer exactly. They knew their Bibles, and that was God's revelation to them. But they ignored it.

What does Jesus mean by "they haven't seen God's form"? Horao means "to see with the eyes", but also "to see with the mind, or perceive", but it also means "to take care, to take heed". Eidos is simpler, just meaning outward appearance.

In one sense, of course, no one has seen God (even John says it in John 1:18). But Jesus is standing right in front of them! So does he mean they don't perceive or heed who he is? That's the most obvious meaning to me.

vs 38

God's word is not in the Pharisees. They know all about it, like I said before, they ignored God's word. And this is obvious by the fact that they do not believe in what God said.

vs 39-40

See, Jesus knows what they are all about! Their eternal life is somehow tied up in their knowledge of the Scriptures. We know from other sources that the Pharisees heavily believed that their status as children of Abraham connected them to God's promise to Abraham, but Jesus is saying that he surpasses all that. He's right there, from God, and they don't believe him. The scripture talks directly about him, but they refuse to come to him and accept who he says he is.

vs 41-42

It makes me sick in the stomach to hear Jesus say these words to religious leaders. God is so important, it is a damnation of our sinful natures to see that we can manage to put him out of that place.

vs 43

And that is true - all the big-name Rabbis would tool around with a posse, just like Jesus did. Some of them were pretty radical, but they would have been more accepted than Jesus, because all of them would have kept the sabbath in that legalistic way. It had become ingrained. And even if they were teaching wierd and out there stuff (like the saducees denying resurrection) they were more accepted than Jesus.

vs 44

So often in our churches, we can get that social club mentality. We worry about the people in the group, we discuss new ideas in the group, we organise programs, we invite people to see the group grow, we do activities - all the things that a Rotary club or a social club would do - and we forget that our group is meant to be focused on God, worshipping God, and seeking to serve God. We have to worry about pleasing God more than about pleasing people (of course, most of what God wants us to do will be pretty pleasing, at least to some people).

vs 45

Jesus is getting harsh now. He is setting before them their own arguments, their own rules, and he's going to show them how hypocritical they are. Moses, the author of the OT Law, will be their judge.

vs 46

Where did Moses write about Jesus, you ask? Good question. With 20/20 hindsight, you can see Jesus pretty clearly in the Pentateuch, right? The promise to Adam and Eve, for example. The sacrificial lamb, for example. It sounds hard to us to judge them by only those first five books, but they read these things deeply, and the correct conclusions they came to out of them are startling. They put our study of the OT to shame. But yet they still miss Jesus.

vs 47

That's a slap in the face to the Pharisees. As far as they were concerned, their theology was built on what Moses wrote. Their laws were built on what Moses wrote! And Jesus says they ignore Moses. Jesus can be harsh.

John chapter 5

vs 25

Jesus may or may not be talking about physically dead people, but certainly the spiritually dead hear him and are given life.

vs 26

So it's not just that Jesus is alive, but that he has life in himself, in the same way that God has life, and was able to impart that life onto his creation.

vs 27

There is obviously a great deal of importance in this title which Jesus chooses for himself. It is by this title that Jesus judges. Perhaps Jesus judges because as a man he knows what we've been through. We usually think of him as a great intercessor for that, but perhaps it makes him a good judge too.

vs 28-29

This is very true of people who will actually be dead. But again it could be taken figuratively. Notice that Jesus uses a picture of complete resurrection, not just of the good guys. Perhps the bad guys would wish they stayed dead.

vs 30

God tells Jesus how to judge? Pretty incredible. And one of the reasons that Jesus is an impartial judge is because he serves God. So when he is judging the people he is talking to (who will kill him later) he is actually telling them that he will judge even them impartially.

vs 31

Remember, you need the testimony of two or three witnesses.

vs 32

Who is Jesus talking about? The next few verses tells us. It's not actually John the baptist - Jesus says he doesn't accept human testimony. God testifies for Christ.

vs 33

John TB does too, and they obviously respect John TB, because they sent people to him to ask about Jesus, and his answer was correct. So now, do they throw away the testimony of the person they respect?

vs 34

John TB is just another witness to these people, in the hope that they might accept and be saved. Because it is hard to accept the somewhat nebulous testimony of God (if you weren't there to hear it, anyway), but you can hear people talk just fine.

vs 35

If they listened to him before, if they even thought he was the Christ, then why do they not listen to who he said he is (the person who would identify the Christ) and accept Jesus is the Christ?

vs 36

If they look at the work of Jesus, they will see who he is. I mean, he healed a guy who had been sick for years and years. Do they think "Is this the Christ?" or only "He did it on WHAT day?" Funny how sometimes we can ignore the big picture to pick on a little nonsense thing.

John chapter 5

vs 13

Ok, so perhaps the sheeps gate wasn't deserted except for the sick people, but I assume the crowd was either something to do with sheep, or something to do with the gate and lots of human traffic.

vs 14

Jesus finds the guy again, and his message to him is a strong one. It's hard to think of some people as sinners - religious leaders, children, the disabled and so on - we often think that they have a special dispensation because of their situation(soldiers fit in here too a little, because although we expect them to sin, we also know they've got a tought job and we forgive them a little faster). But Jesus makes a link between sin and wellbeing.

It is not a causal link, although from these words it could easily seem that way. The OT is very strong on the fact that bad things don't only happen when you sin. In fact, Ecclesiastes has a very much "nice guys finish last" attitude. But there is a link between sin and its consequences. Jesus may even be talking about eternal consequences - hell is worse than disability.

vs 15

Now how do we judge this man? The religious leaders asked him who healed him, and he didn't know. Now that he does know (obviously there was more to the conversation) he goes and tells them. Is he dobbing Jesus in? Or is he simply telling the leaders what they asked him? It's not easy to tell, just from these verses.

vs 16

The result is obvious though - Jesus because regarded as a Sabbath-breaker, and so they persecute him. I think there are a lot of Christian groups (liberal, conservative and charismatic) who think they they've got the only right way of doing things, and get on their high horse and persecute other Christians who do things in other, still valid ways. That's bad. Don't be like that.

vs 17

Jesus' defense is that God works on the Sabbath, and because he's doing God's work, then he will work too. But, as we find out from the next verse, by calling God his father, Jesus is putting himself as equal with God - and therefore, if God works, he can work.

vs 18

No one likes to be told they are wrong, I guess, but killing someone is a big step. I know I get frustrated with people that seem to just spout heresy all the time, and it's like they are doing it on purpose to frustrate you. Don't know if I'd go so far as to kill them. What I'm saying is that if you weren't prepared to believe that Jesus was telling the truth, then you would think of him as a terribly frustrating heretic. Understandable, but not condonable.

I just want to make the point that in the culture of the time, the son and the father were the same thing when it came to authority and position - so we shouldn't see Jesus as being under the Father because he is the Son. That makes him equal with God. It is his humanity which humbles him, not his Sonship.

vs 19

So Jesus is doing not just God's work planned for him - he is doing the very work of God himself. If that is true, then really his actions are unquestionable.

vs 20

So how does it work exactly? Does God show Jesus what sort of things are going to happen, and Jesus goes and does the things? I don't know. The fact is, though, that God loves Jesus as his Son, and so Jesus does God's own work. And Jesus says it's only going to get more hardcore.

vs 21

I assume that Jesus is referring to the end times raising of the dead, although he might be referring to those few miracles in the OT where this happens too. Jesus will do this stuff too - he will raise people from their spiritual death into an eternal life. I also think he will raise people on the last day and give them life, but that's not what this verse is about, because he is talking about giving life to who he chooses.

vs 22

This is a bold step to take if you're not the Son of God. Jesus is claiming that all judgement will be done by him. We often think of God as the big judge and Jesus as some sort of lawyer for us. But Jesus is judge. That might screw up an analogy for a talk at kids camp or something, but it's the truth.

vs 23

The reason, or at least one reason, that Jesus is judge is so that he will receive honour along with the father. Because father and son are equal, Jesus and God deserve equal honour, and therefore if you don't honour the Son of God, you are not honouring God. Jesus lays it down for these religious leaders - if they choose to harass and persecute Jesus, then they are taking the risk that if he's the Son of God, they're in deep crap.

vs 24

But it's not all bad. If people do believe in Jesus, and God, and in the message that Jesus is teaching, they will have eternal life. Jesus has the power to give people life, just as he said. So Jesus is offering these religious leaders both sides of the coin - they can accept God which means accepting him, and they get eternal life. Or they can deny Jesus, which means denying God, and that's not going to go so well for them.

John chapter 5

vs 1

"Some time later" really gives us no idea how long it is. There are any number of Jewish festivals, and the fact that John doesn't name it shows again that this gospel is written for gentiles as much as anybody. This might also be why he left out the festival's name - he didn't want it to become more important than it should -the story of Jesus should take precedence.

One interesting thing about John is how many times Jesus visits Jerusalem. The other gospels sort of pretend that Jesus spends 3 1/2 years trekking towards the city. But John shows that he actually visits it several times.

vs 2

Sheep gate could also mean "place pertaining to sheep". So if you're ever there, look for the five covered collonades and the pool. It's almost a tourist guide. Probably not there anymore.

vs 3

A bunch of sick people sat around here, which probably did not make this gate a popular place to be. You will notice in the NIV that there's a verse missing, and that it is from "less important manuscripts". By less important, they mean late. So it is possible that this story is a traditional one that somehow found its way into the copied scripts at a later time. What does that mean? It means don't base any theology on it.

The fact is that the only thing this missing verse adds to the story is that an angel stirs the waters. Everything else we already know from the surrounding verses.

vs 5

That's a long time to be alive, let alone to be an invalid. It's a fairly sad life, considering that most all of your kinfolk and fellow citizens see you as unclean and will give you a wide berth.

vs 6

Here's a question - it says that Jesus learned that he had been in this condition a long time. Could we perhaps suppose that Jesus doesn't know everything? It doesn't really matter - even if Jesus knew exactly what was wrong with this man, and how long he had been ill for, he still learned it according to John 5:6. What does this mean? It means he must have been there, talking to people like this man! These sickies, who no one would go near for fear of becoming unclean, were being talked to by Jesus.

And when Jesus finds out that he's been sick for so long, he asks him if he even wants to get well. It reminds me of the leper sketch in Monty Python's Life of Brian. It sounds stupid, but some people who are sick sometimes learn to value their sickness as part of their personality.

vs 7

The guy's response shows that he does want to be well, because he does try to get into the pool, but he's so crippled that others get in before him and he just can't. I can't think of anything more frustrating, actually.

vs 8

Jesus dispenses with angel-spilling whirlpools and just tells the guy to be well. We find out later that his command to the man is more loaded than just for him to be well, but at the moment, we see him just telling the guy to get better. Doesn't seem like a big deal, until...

vs 9

until it actually works, that is. I mean, we can go around all day telling people "get well soon" but it doesn't make them actually get cured. That is what we can safely call power over sickness I think.

Now we find out that this took place on the Sabbath.And we are about to discover the meaning of the term "legalist". The Sabbath and food laws were more legislated than probably any other part of Jewish religious practices.

vs 10

This is actually complete crap. The closest you will get is Jer 17:21, which says you can't carry a load on the Sabbath, and is much more linked with the idea of trading than of carrying your mat. Does that mean that if your feet hurt, you can't carry your shoes? Or if your hat blows off, you can't pick it up again? Legalist insanity. The guy's a beggar anyway, what has God done for him? Where were these Jews when he was sick and needing someone to help him into the pool?

vs 11

And this is the proof of the pudding. These legalists tell him he can't carry his mat, but have done nothing for him. Jesus healed him and told him to carry his mat, so he does that. Jesus didn't tell him to break any biblical laws, only the laws of the crazy religious leaders. Human laws.

vs 12

Now the religious leaders are suspicious. There is someone going around telling people to break the laws of their forefathers. Sure, he might be healing people too, but that's secondary to the fact that he's telling people to break these laws, the laws which give them power over people. He must be stopped!

John Chapter 4

vs 41

This is perhaps the less surprising of the two - you would expect that many people would become believers upon the teaching of Jesus directly to them. So to imagine that a bunch of them listened to a woman who has had 5 husbands, that's pretty incredible.

vs 42

And they were really listening too - this verse shows that they had an understanding of who Jesus is - not just some nebulous prophet or Messiah, about whom nobody really knew much, but they saw him as a saviour.

vs 43

Little trip planner update there. Of course, this verse doesn't have much spiritual significance, but it does show how much social interaction we have lost through the speed of our travels, and how a deadline could be stretched by a couple of days without a problem.

vs 44

I think the reason this is in parentheses is because of the word "for". There's no parentheses in ancient greek as far as I know. Jesus knew what sort of reception he'd get regarding his position, but he went anyway.

vs 45

What he had done in Jerusalem, it seemed, was the clearing of the temple. It's something I guess you wouldn't have missed. And even here, in his hometown, people recognised that he had done this.

vs 46

So already, you see, he's done a bit of a trip. Now he returns to where he was at the beginning of chapter 2. This time, though, there's no wedding - instead, there is a sick boy. He wasn't in Galilee, though, he was in Capernaum. That's a pretty long way. Although everywhere is a long way by foot it seems.

vs 47

News has obviously spread about Jesus. So far, John hasn't told us that Jesus has healed anyone else, so you've got to wonder if this guy is really at his wits' end.

vs 48

This seems an odd thing to say to a guy who has come and asked his son to be healed. You would think that means he believes. But of course, from looking at other healing stories in other gospels, you know that not everyone who is healed is a master of faith at the time.

vs 49

This guy probably hasn't thought through the consequences of Jesus being who he claims to be - he just wants his son to live. We often see the immediate problem before seeing the bigger picture problem, which Jesus came to deal with. If people knew that Jesus was offering eternal life and a repaired relationship with God, you would assume they'd ask for that.

vs 50

Perhaps as a test, Jesus tells the man that he doesn't need to go all the way to Capernaum, and that his son will be fine. The guy takes Jesus at his word. This is probably not as incredible as it seems - after all, even Elijah did healings from afar, like with Naaman. So it has biblical precedent. But most often, people don't think about biblical precedent when their son is dying.

vs 51

No email, no pager, no mobile phone, just messengers. And you were obviously pretty lucky if, like this guy, you ran into them on the way.

vs 52

Remember what I was saying about learning the times? Well, the NASB has them in it, but they don't know whether the speakers are using Jewish time or Roman time, and that apparently makes a difference. It was either 1pm or 7pm. I think most people go for the Jewish time. Not important, but interesting.

vs 53

It's interesting that this man's beliefs were contingent on seeing a miracle. He had heard about Jesus and what he had done, or else he wouldn't have asked him to heal his son. Now we look back at Jesus' words to him about requiring a miracle, and we see that Jesus wasn't far off the mark at all.

vs 54

Obviously it wasn't the second per se, but it's the second one John calls a miracle. Actually, he calls it a miraculous sign, and perhaps that is important.

John Chapter 4

vs 31

The disciples are regularly telling Jesus to do things, but out of love of course.

vs 32

And Jesus was always making enigmatic statements to them, that they would regularly get confused at.

vs 33

Like this time. They think Jesus is talking about food someone snuck to him while he was away.

vs 34

Jesus explains, saying that doing the work of the father sustains him in a way food never could.

vs 35

And now he is sharing with them that the same sustenance can be for them too. Just as we look to fields to provide food for us, and know when they will be ripe, so Jesus is saying that, for our own sustenance in doing the work of the father, the fields of spiritual harvest are ripe.

vs 36

Even now, people are being reaped for the kingdom. The Samaritan woman is probably one of the most recent. And more are seeking.

vs 37

This is a great saying, one that we really need to learn as Christians. See, everyone wants to reap - everyone wants to be the person that "led that person to Christ". But the reaper can't reap without sowers - those people out there planting the seed of Christianity into people's lives. We all need to do that. And then both will be glad.

vs 38

The disciples are in a unique position, one that probably will never be repeated in quite the same way. God had set up Israel and many non-Jewish God fearers to expect a coming Messiah. He had planted the seed in them through the OT. The disciples could now just go around and reap of all the people who had that seed planted in them - reaping from what they did not sow.

vs 39

There is even a reaping among the Samaritans. And it came from the testimony of just one woman. That shows you just how much sowing God had done through the years. People were ready. Times will never be like that again.

vs 40

Jesus stayed 2 days with the Samaritans. Most Jews would have been totally freaked that he'd even accept any sort of invitation or hospitality from them. But there you go. The lesson he's teaching from all this is what he said to the woman in the first place - that there is a time coming, and that has come, where people will worship in spirit and in truth - not at temples or mountains.

John chapter 4

vs 21

Jesus response to the woman acknolwedges that her people did worship on the mountain, and also that the Jews did worship in Jerusalem. But he is looking further ahead - there will be a time where worship will not be tied to a specific place or thing. Jesus has come to give us a personal relationship with God. Notice that Jesus includes the woman with his language.

vs 22

Jesus has no problem producing and establishing the Jewish religious primacy over the Samaritans. The OT makes it clear enough that he is right on this front - especially that salvation, or a saviour, will come from the Jews and not the Samaritans.

vs 23

But according to Jesus, God does not truly desire worshippers who go to the temple, or worshippers who go to the mountain. He desires worshippers that worship him in spirit and in truth. People who understand their worship, and who desire to serve and worship God. And the time for this is come, according to Jesus.

vs 24

What does Jesus mean by worshipping in spirit? He says that God is spirit, and therefore we must worship God in spirit. Is this a reflection on the materialist sacrificial worship of the day? Perhaps. Or maybe this is a reflection of the eternal-mindedness that his worshippers must have, or the awareness of the spiritual kingdom.

vs 25

Even Samaritans knew that there was a Messiah coming - the Bible makes it clear - and even they had hope that he would set things straight. Perhaps she makes this statement because that was a typical end to such debates, "We don't know, but the Messiah will clear it up when he comes". But perhaps, because of Jesus saying that the time is now come in verse 23, she feels the need to mention the Messiah, just out of hope.

vs 26

Jesus has no qualms about saying who he is here. Quite different from the 'messianic secret' of the other gospels.

vs 27

As I said, it was quite surprising for a single man to be talking to a woman by herself in public. Not only that, but she was a Samaritan. So when the disciples stumble upon this, they are surprised, but interestingly they don't say anything about it at the time, either to her ("What do you want?") or to Jesus ("Why are you talking to her?"). The first question could have been to Jesus; after all, he talked to her because he wanted something - a drink.

vs 28

She leaves, and John records that she left her water jar behind. It is that sort of little detail that speaks volumes to me about the truth of the gospels. The suggestion seems that she left it behind because she left quickly.

vs 29

Jesus small action of knowing about the woman's marriages is what she names as the thing that could make Jesus the Christ - a miracle. But when he did it at first, all she thought is that he was a prophet. There is something more to her query - not least, surely, the fact that he openly said he was the Christ.

vs 30

And people, even Samaritans, were interested enough in the idea that the Christ could be around, that they are prepared to take the word of a woman (worth less than that of a man in this culture), and a woman who has had 5 husbands no less, that someone out near Jacob's Well is saying he is the Christ. They may not have been clamouring to become his disciples, but they at least were interested enough to go take a look. If someone ran into Brisbane or Manly saying they'd just met a man, within walking distance, who said he was the holy one sent from God, how many Aussies do you think would stop what they were doing and go see? It's another indicator to me that the people were conscious that the Messiah was coming, and so were looking for him.

John chapter 4

vs 11

She doesn't really know what he means by this "living water" - she sees he doesn't have a way of drawing water from the well, so she is suspicious.

vs 12

She also might have thought that he was making some sort of Jewish quip at her, and so she throws in this comment about Jacob, who the Samaritans said was their father. I don't think she's being rude, but the offer he has made is an odd one, and she's not quite sure where he's going with it.

vs 13-14

The 'water' Jesus is offering is eternal life, it's not really water at all. Christians are still thirsty for regular water, but there will be a time when we will live out eternity without such thirsts. But even in expressing this, Jesus is still a little mysterious. Of course, there was probably more of this conversation, but John only includes what he thinks is necessary to get his point across.

vs 15

Now, has she misunderstood, or is she again making another quip? Jesus knows that if she becomes a Christian, she will still have to come and draw water from this well. Does she understand that, and so is calling him out on his mysterious expression (I'm sure she knows full well that Jews still drink water), or does she simply not understand, and so requests this water to save her weary feet?

vs 16

Jesus now starts his revelation of who he really is. He has basically told her (he has told her he can give her eternal life), but now he sets out to show her who he is. He does this by showing how much he knows about her (same thing he did with Nathanael).

His question also shows that it is a natural assumption that all people will be married, and that the 'natural' state of your average adult in the ancient Middle East was married.

vs 17-vs 18

Her reply is truthful, but still dodging the truth. Jesus calls her on it, though. He then shows how he knows impossible things about her, and uses it to point out that while she was telling the truth in a legalistic way, she knows full well that she does have a man, and that she is not a "good woman" in that she has a non-marriage relationship and lied to Jesus; perhaps not a lie in the exact truth of the situation, but only a half-truth.

vs 19

This is enough, this show of knowledge, to convince her that he is a prophet. Jesus did so much stuff, and most people wouldn't even accept him as a prophet, let alone the Son of God.

vs 20

So she asks him a question. It's not really framed as a question - it is more of an accusatory statement about the Jews, and about him as a Jewish prophet. It's hard to tell what her attitude was to Jesus throughout this conversation - has it always been touched with an edge of icy coldness, or is it a more simple, straightforward conversation than that? Hard to tell, but we certainly can't discount the coolness of relations between Samaritans and Jews generally.

John Chapter 4

vs 1

The Pharisees were obviously keeping a fairly close ear (if not eye) on Jesus, because large movements like John TB's baptism movement and Jesus' teaching movement were after all religious issues.

vs 2

Not too close an eye, though, because they thought Jesus was baptising people, but in fact it was not Jesus but his disciples who were doing so. How odd that John would say he was only a chapter earlier. So obviously people were getting baptised into discipleship with Jesus, although Jesus wasn't doing it personally.

vs 3

The Lord is obviously Jesus, but what he heard is debatable. The NASB makes it clear that Jesus is reacting to hearing about what the Pharisees are hearing about. The NIV makes it less clear, but could be construed as Jesus reacting to hearing about his disciples baptising.

vs 4-5

That's not good news - Jews hated Samaritans, and vice versa. The geography talk is not of much interest to me, except to show that it points to a real point, a real place in the world where Jesus actually was. It sort of lends creedence.

vs 6

I've really got to learn what time these hours are. The message says it was noon. This is a long trip, so Jesus gets tired from walking.When you look at it on a map, it's a hugely long way to walk.

vs 7-8

Even today, if I was to go to modern day Samaria and ask a lone woman to get me a drink, I would be breaking a lot of rules. Jesus was breaking a lot of rules too.

Why Jesus didn't go with them into the town is a bit of a mystery. With a more rounded knowledge of the gospel story, it could be that he wanted to keep his message for the Jews, and not allow the Samaritans access to it, in the same way that he dodges teaching gentlies.

vs 9

There's a footnote about using dishes - well, the Jews didn't use the dishes anyone else had used, the prudes. But there is other historical evidence that Jews and Samaritans weren't really the best of friends - regular skirmishes etc. And that doesn't even begin to discuss the fact that she's a woman, and they shouldn't have been talking alone anyway. But she is so curious about his so obvious lack of decorum, that she asks the (fairly obvious) question about why he would do this.

vs 10

Jesus' reply is basically couched in terms of his royalty - he is born a Jew, sure, but he is God, and as he created her and all Samaritans (and everything else), religious cleanliness is pretty secondary to him. So failing to answer her question, he instead tells her (in a fairly toffee way) that if she had any idea who he was, it would be her asking, pleading with him to have a drink - but not of regular, boring well water. Of living water.

John chapter 3

vs 25

Arguments were thick and fast regarding jewish law I am sure, because it had been so complicated by the body of law created by the elders. I'm assuming this had something to do with baptism, because that is what they end up talking about.

vs 26

Oh no, John TB is going out of business! Well, not really, but lots of people were going to Jesus to be baptised. John is still dangerous enough to be killed by Herod though, so it obviously doesn't mean that he became a has-been.

vs 27

That is a fairly good attitude I think. It's not like John TB did anything great to deserve his position - he was appointed there by God.

vs 28

John TB also knew what that position meant. He was sent to herald the Christ, not to be it. It was not a position that was going to be forever. His ministry had a beginning and an end. There are probably quite a lot of Christian workers who could be helped by learning that lesson too.

vs 29

The marriage illustration is a common one, but it serves us well, because of course we still have weddings, and it seems they weren't all that different in principle. The bride and groom are the most important people there. Everything you might do to serve them will be well appreciated, but you are not going to get the glory on the wedding day - it all goes to the happy couple.

vs 30

John was ready for himself to fade in the mind's eye of the public. If only all of us could have the same attitude in our ministries. Again, the quote marks could end here, with the rest of the chapter being from John the author. The two bits that may or may not be in quotes are pretty similar, so it is possible both are explanitory notes by John the author.

vs 31

This seems like a lot of repetition, doesn't it? But John TB is also explaining to his disciples just how important the Christ will be. That was another thing that wasn't clear to a lot of Jews. John was a prophet, but he is only from earth, so he is not as good as the one who has come from heaven. Perhaps John didn't even really understand fully - but at least he knew that, as Jesus had said, he was from heaven.

Or John the author is explaining it to the reader.

vs 32

This does seem like an odd thing for John TB to say, considering the context that everyone is going to Jesus to be baptised.

vs 33

Of course, nobody in the last verse is just hyperbole. It's something we've got to get used to - hyperbole is used a lot in the NT especially, but it is a cultural thing that is still in existence in the Middle East today, and was used in many of the documents around that time. This is a classic example of why we shouldn't take words like "any" and "all" too seriously, but we should let their context do the talking.

vs 34

Jesus quite obviously speaks the words of God, being God and all. This might not be fully understood by John TB (probably more fully understood by John the author though). The idea is that God has given Jesus his Spirit without any limit. The greek is more literally "without measure". This is fairly specifically to Jesus, to explain his ability to speak the words of God.

vs 35

This is yet again another reference to the supremacy of Christ - not just over John TB, though, but over all things.

vs 36

This is a quite extraordinary verse, and a quite extraordinary thing for John TB to say. It's not impossible, though. Here's what I think are some reasonable conclusions:

John wrote this bit, not John TB. If John wrote this and the other bit in chapter three, then they form two commentary passages about Jesus' life and actions, and show that he knew the gospel well - big deal, he wrote a Gospel, he should know!

John TB did say this stuff, because Jesus said the other stuff to Nicodemus, but not only to him - he had said similar things to John TB, and that is probably partly how John TB recognised Jesus as the Messiah, and so John TB was able to repeat such things to his disciples.

John Chapter 3

vs 13

When it comes to people talking about heaven, there's only one person's word you can really trust, and that is the Son of Man. Ironically, John would go on to write Revelation, but even then that is just a vision - John didn't get to heaven till he died.

vs 14-15

It's a fairly incredible comparison to make, and I wouldn't blame anybody for not being able to follow what he was saying at the time - but considering John is possibly the latest gospel written, looking back in hindsight, any Christian reading this should be able to put together the raising of the snake by Moses and the crucifixion of Christ. In his own words, apparently, he states that he will be doing this for the sake of eternal life for others. There is a little translation argument about whether it says "whoever believes in him" or "will in him have eternal life". The subject of the "in him" is still the same, Christ, and so the difference is miniscule. You can't read it and say that you have to have belief inside yourself.

Now we hit an interesting problem. You will notice that there is a note (in the NIV) which says that "some interpreters end the quotations after verse 15". The question, then, is whether John 3:16 and onward to vs 21 are the words of Jesus to Nicodemus, or even the words of Jesus at all - they could be the words of John. This might bother some people, but it's really not a big deal. The fact is that quotation marks don't exist in ancient greek, so you pretty much have to work it out from the context. Even if we had the original manuscript, it wouldn't be much help in this case.

Of course, if we are happy to accept that the gospel was written by John, and is an accurate account, then I assume we are happy to accept the second half of John chapter 3 as part of his gospel, even if it is John's words and not Jesus'. I don't think the inspiration of the chapter deserves any criticism.

vs 16

What can I say about this verse? This section tells us a lot about God and his love. The sacrificial love of God is something we read about constantly, and is the trademark of his love for us.

vs 17

It is the Law that through its revelation condemned us (or helped), but even though Jesus is the righteous judge, his arrival was not for our condemnation, but our salvation. Judgement has been coming for a long time, and we have been condemned through our inaction and sin for ages.

18

So there is condemnation for those who reject God's Son, but that was not his purpose in coming. His purpose was to allow people to believe in him so that they can no longer face condemnation.

vs 19

This is the fact - that brings us condemnation. When we were living in darkness, we were enjoying the darkness, and so were condemned already. But when the light came in Christ, we already had darkness and were enjoying it fine thank you very much, and so rejected him as well. It is a mark of God's incredible power that he was able to bring our salvation through our active rejection of God and his Son.

vs 20

It's no surprise that we find the light repulsive - it's a lot harder to hide the horrible things you do when someone's shining the spotlight on you.

vs 21

This stands in contrast a little bit with the typical Christian attitude of hiding the good deeds you do, because you aren't looking for praise for them, but God knows you've done them. That is true - God does know them, Jesus talks about left hand not knowing what right hand is doing etc. But John (and perhaps Jesus) points out here that those who do good deeds should not be afraid of doing them in the light, because it should be plainly visible that it is not them who are accomplishing this great thing, but it is God working through them. If you let the glory of your activities go to God, then there shouldn't be a problem.

vs 22

I'd never seen this before - but Jesus was a baptiser, like John TB. It makes me wonder if people would use that as a special mark, "Oh, I was dunked by Jesus himself". Possibly, but it would have lost its potency as 1) they all died out, but 2) because the baptism of the Holy Spirit is shared by all believers, and is just as potent surely.

Notice also that this verse shows that Jesus actually spent time with his disciples. It was an active relationship - he didn't just let them follow him around to see what he did. He taught them, talked to them, spent time with them.

vs 23-24

John TB had yet to be arrested, so it is to be expected that he would do some baptising. What amazes me is that so many people are coming to be baptised by John TB or by Jesus, that there is a need for both of them to be on baptism patrol. There really was a genuine heart for God in Israel, it seems. But God wanted more than just wet people.

John chapter 3

vs 1

Again we have John explaining things, this time about who the Pharisees were. And we are looking at one of them, Nicodemus.

vs 2

Nicodemus says to Jesus that the Pharisees know he is from God, and yet he comes to visit him at night. The word night in greek (nux) metaphorically is used almost exclusively to denote moral deficiency and shameful activities. Now I'm not suggesting that Nicodemus was a bad man in any way, and I am not saying that the use of nux here is metaphorical. But what I am saying is that if Nicodemus went to visit Jesus at night, then he obviously was doing it in secrecy.

So while Nicodemus is confessing that the Pharisees know Jesus must come from God, he still feels ashamed of visiting him (or doesn't want to be seen to support Jesus).

vs 3

It seems a bit of an odd reply to me, a bit of a non-sequitur, but if you think about it, it makes sense. If Nicodemus is saying to Jesus that he thinks Jesus has come from God and God is working through him, then he is also saying that he wants to learn what Jesus has to teach about God. So Jesus teaches him about the Kingdom of God.

What Jesus teaches him is now a crusty old cliche, but from Nicodemus' reply, we can tell it wasn't a worn-out phrase back then. We don't really need to worry about what he meant in this verse, because he explains himself later.

vs 4

What is interesting is Nicodemus' reply. I have heard some preachers adopt the literal "Nicodemus had no clue" position - that Nicodemus thought Jesus was literally talking about being born out of your mum again, and didn't get it - and I have heard other preachers say that Nicodemus as part of the ruling council was not going to be so dumb as to take what Jesus said as a literal empirical necessity.

The latter will usually say that what Nicodemus means, then, is "How can someone who has been a member of the old way of things change how they live, after having lived it for so long?"

To be honest, while I like the idea of the second proposition, I find it a little bit of a stretch, although I will concede that some translations read it as "born from above" rather than "born again", and this might change things a little. I'm happy to take this one as being a literal understanding, because John uses these sorts of discussions regularly in his gospel (where Jesus makes a statement which if taken literally is hard to understand, like when he says you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood in chapter 6), and people often show they don't really understand what he's saying at the time.

vs 5

Jesus does explain himself a lot more clearly this time though. He spells out what he means by "born again". It is not a birth of physical origins (like out of your mum). Rather, it is a birth borne of water (baptism) and the spirit (the Holy Spirit). A new birth, then, is the figurative start of a new life. The confusion of course comes when we realise that the new life is not figurative, but is a real new (eternal) life. And in that way, the new birth is at the same time both figurative (in that we are not born of a mother again) but is also a reality (so that our spiritual rebirth is an actual occurence).

vs 6

So that just in the same way as a woman will physically give birth to a human child (and not an angel or a table or something), God's Holy Spirit will create and spawn new spiritual children.

vs 7

Whatever Nicodemus meant when he questioned Jesus, Jesus is now putting him straight, by saying that he shouldn't be surprised to learn that the Kingdom of God is only open to those who have been spiritually born. Don't forget to note that the "you" is plural, so Jesus is sending a message, not just talking about Nicodemus.

vs 8

In greek, this verse is a little bit of a play on words. Remember, the word for 'spirit' and 'wind' and 'breath' are the same (pnuema means a lot of things, with 5 definitions and 13 sub-definitions), so when Jesus is talking about the wind blowing all over the place, he is using the same word as 'spirit'.

So what is Jesus saying? Here's my opinion, which you can take or leave because I am open to suggestion here. Taking into account the context of verses 11-13, I think Jesus is condemning Nicodemus (and probably by extension the other Pharisees) for his lack of understanding about who Jesus is. His condemnation comes because Nicodemus, a supposed leader of the Jews, when he sees and hears the Son of God, cannot recognise where he has come from (heaven), and is probably saying that people like him will not understand anyone who is subsequently born of the Spirit.

vs 9

Although I wish this verse backed up my hypothesis about vs 8, with Nicodemus saying "Oh no, how can it be that I can't recognise such things!?" I don't think that's what he's saying. I think, from Jesus' response (vs 12), he's simply saying "Errr.... what now? I don't get it."

vs 10

Jesus again shows his disappointment in Nicodemus' lack of understanding. Considering this is the cream of the leadership (after all, at least he had the guts to come and talk with Jesus, even if only at night), he is still too thick to get what Jesus is saying and who he is.

vs 11

So according to my idea, Jesus here is saying "I've come from heaven, and I'm testifying to what I have seen from up there, telling you how it is, how things work from a heavenly perspective. But you don't accept what I say, because you don't realise who you're talking to. You think I've just blown in from anywhere - you don't see that I've blown in from heaven".

vs 12

Jesus has used a simple illustration about wind, but Nicodemus didn't grasp it. And so Jesus is saying that if he can't accept that Jesus is right that these people don't even know where the wind is coming from or where it's going, then how is he going to accept what Jesus says about spiritual truths?

John chapter 2

vs 13

Something that people regularly comment on is that in the other gospels, Jesus goes to Jerusalem only once or twice. But in John's gospel, he visits there regularly. Which makes sense, really - if his ministry lasted 3 1/2 years, you'd think he went there anywhere up to four times for passover if nothing else.

vs 14

Selling sacrificial things, and exchanging money for the proper kind of money to be donated. They would do this in the court of the Gentiles.

vs 15

One man being able to do this either tells us that there wasn't really that many people selling (and not all that much livestock being sold)or he was hardcore and people didn't want to tangle with him. I mean, if I saw someone coming at me with a whip and it was my business he was trying to ruin, I think I'd defend it. Regardless, Jesus seems successful at the time.

vs 16

So it seems Jesus took umbrage at the idea of the Temple being used as a market. Odd, considering Jesus came to replace the Temple. Perhaps that's why he was so upset - he is the new temple, and knows he will be treated likewise, in a metaphorical sense anyway.

Why didn't he whip the dove sellers? Perhaps Jesus was an ornithologist.

vs 17

Which shows that his disciples were not biblically illiterate. When your culture forces you to learn the Bible, you learn it. When you're not forced by anyone but yourself, it's a lot more difficult.

vs 18

I'm sure they said it just like that, without any swearing or demanding money for their damaged livestock and tables :P But they are perhaps willing to accept that yes, the temple is holy, and yes, perhaps selling stuff in it is wrong - but they want to know he's got authority to tell them what they already know.

vs 19

This is really very early on in Jesus' ministry, and he's already talking about his resurrection, albeit in mysterious terms.

vs 20

And no one was going to understand him of course - he was standing in the temple at the time, so referring to himself as a temple would have easily been lost on them at that point.

vs 21

We're not left to assume what he meant, though. John tells us straight up. What a great gospel, that John explains stuff like this straight to us!

vs 22

Note what the disciples believed after the resurrection - the words Jesus said, and Scripture. Because Scripture has told us these truths all along, it's just we suck at getting them. This is the guys that saw Jesus whipping people in the temple and related it to Psalm 69, and they still couldn't see what was going to happen. We'd have no chance.

vs 23

So Jesus is doing miracles, but John doesn't think that's very important, so he just mentions that Jesus did a bunch of them, and people believe in him, or better yet, believe in the authority by which he does them (his name).

vs 24

This is another reason I like John. He tells us things that we couldn't know simply from looking at Jesus' life. Jesus probably said something about how he wasn't going to entrust himself to these men, and John has recalled it and put it here so we can get an insight into the real Jesus. Not that we can't get to know Jesus from the other gospels - but here we are really seeing the man, and the God, that is Jesus.

Jesus knows what people are like - he knows that these people who are believing him now are going to bugger off later. So he stays a little aloof from them.

vs 25

Jesus created people, and had seen them all through the ages not measure up. He wasn't surprised at the fact that people were pretty unfaithful, and so he made sure he was separate. Still had his little group of special disciples though - because he was mentoring them into leadership positions.

John Chapter 2

vs 1

Third day of what? I have no idea. But Jesus' mother was there at this wedding. It's easy for us to think "Oh, wedding, right" and think about what we think of as a wedding. But their weddings are pretty different. Thankfully, most of what goes on at the wedding isn't all that necessary to the story.

vs 2

Jesus and his disciples were there too. Now this shows us something interesting about weddings back then. If you were having a wedding, and you invited some sort of teacher, would you invite all his students too? Sure, this is early times yet, but the fact that they were still invited means either that they were all Galileans already, or that Jesus having disciples was accepted and approved by this invite.

vs 3

This statement to Jesus by his mum seems fairly innocuous to me. It's just a statement about the wine levels.

vs 4

But Jesus doesn't see it that way. Jesus sees it as a request to do something about it. Assuming he is right in reading the situation that way, why would his mum ask him to do this? I guess it's possible that the wedding was of people who were related to Mary, and so the idea of the party running out of wine was a shaming thing in the culture. Or that Mary simply thought it was time for Jesus to get his Messiah thing happening (although only the servants end up knowing what he did).

It's a bit of a mystery, but whyever she asks him, Jesus' initial reaction is to say that he doesn't think he should be involved. His reason is that it's not the right time, we assume to start doing miracles.

vs 5

His mum ignores him though, and tells the servants just to do what he says, and wait for the magic to happen.

vs 6

If you think about it, these are big pots. The NIV tells me it's something like 75-115 litres. That's a hell of a lot of wine. But I get ahead of myself.

vs 7

Jesus tells the servants to fill them with water. And the servants do it, fair enough. They are ceremonial washing pots after all - if a religious talker who's got a few students with him wants you to do something religiousy, then you do it. Perhaps he's going to wash the people who started the wedding, to make up for the sin of running out of wine? But remember, they didn't just go to the tap to fill these bad boys - they probably would have had to go and draw water from somewhere, and 100 litres of water is no mean feat. So they took on a bit of work to do something they didn't know would pay off.

This might tell us something about Mary's role at this wedding. That they would listen to her and do what she said (listen to Jesus), she may well have been a person of importance at the wedding. Then again, they are servants.

vs 8

The NASB ends this verse as a sentence. Usually the NIV doesn't do this as much, but they must have decided that the translation required a comma there. Oh well.

Anyway, now he tells them to draw some of the water out, and give it to the "Master of the banquet" (greek Architriklinos, which literally means 'master of tables'). And they do. Now the servants must be wondering what is going on here.

vs 9

When the guy drinks it, he finds out that it is wine. It's not a big deal to him, because he has no idea that it was water a few minutes ago. But he does feel the need to go the bridegroom and have a chat. In the NIV, it sounds like he pulls him to a side to speak - in the NASB, it sounds like he just calls out to him. That's the way I'd always imagined it, but either works. If the table master did just take him aside, it provides even a more muted response to Jesus' miracle.

The servants did know, though, and so for them it would have been something special.

vs 10

The guy tells the bridegroom that the wine is really good. He also tells us that breaking out the cheap stuff later in the festivities was the norm in that culture. At least some things never change. Don't be fooled into thinking this is non-alcoholic wine, either - the word in this verse, methuo, literally means "to be drunken" (not to be mistaken with the past tense of "to drink" - it is not "to be drunk", it is "to be drunken", and was metaphorically used to describe killing people) so they were certainly on the turps, and Jesus' wine was no exception.

vs 11

Here we are with John himself calling this the first miracle. I might point out, though, that I think you could build an argument for this being read as the first miraculous sign that was performed in Galilee. But that doesn't really matter. John thinks it's worthy of some extra description as something special. John also tells us why Jesus did this miracle - it wasn't for the sake of a good wedding bash, and it wasn't to attract servants from the wedding to be his disciples. Both of those things may have happened, but John says that this miracle had the result of Jesus revealing his glory (his identity as God) and that this caused the disciples to put their faith in him. That makes it a pretty important miracle. And yet John's the only one to record it.

vs 12

I would say that the fact that his mother and brothers are there with him afterwards, as well as his disciples, means that the wedding may have been some sort of family affair. In any case, Capernaum seems to be where his family was staying, perhaps not permanently, but for a few days at least.

John Chapter 1

vs 41

Obviously some Jews were looking for their Messiah, because Andrew thought he'd found him, and thought it was worth telling his brother about him. Christ is just the greek of the Hebrew Messiah. What does it really mean? It gets revealed as we read the gospels.

vs 42

Simon is obviously special, right from the start. Jesus certainly knows who he is (of course, Andrew might have told him), but he's still special, because Jesus gives him a special name. None of the others had special names. He gives him an Aramaic name, Cephas, Peter in Greek, which means rock. Why? John doesn't feel the need to explain it.

vs 43

Jesus then seeks out another person, once he has decided he's going somewhere. This is Philip. It's worth just looking at how little time John spends on this early part of Jesus' life. And yet, he is prepared to tell us the names of the people he first met, and some odd little snippets of information about them...

vs 44

like that they are from Bethsaida. So these guys are all sort of kinfolk. They probably would have known each other. So, who is Philip? Is he the second one (with Andrew) who first started following Jesus? If so, then why did Jesus need to tell him to follow? But if not, then who was the second follower? It possibly could be the author. But that is of course speculation.

vs 45

The word of mouth spreads, and Philip goes to tell his brother/friend/cousin Nathanael about Jesus too. They have found something worth following, and they have found something that people were obviously seeking, the Messiah. It's a very specific person from a specific place.

vs 46

Nazareth is obviously fairly well known to these guys. Nathanael even makes a joke about it. But he still is curious enough to go and see.

vs 47

It's an interesting statement to make. I'm sure Jesus isn't meaning to slur his company, but Nathanael, about whom we know basically nothing, is being complimented. The special thing about this, of course, is that Jesus has never met him.

vs 48

Nathanael calls Jesus on this fact, and Jesus gives a little bit of extra information about Nathanael - the position he was sitting in before Philip came and told him that they'd found the Messiah. It doesn't seem like much, but it is a miracle. Many breakdowns of the book of John list the 6,7 or 8 miracles of Jesus described in John. This is never one of them - they always start with the water to wine. But I like this one, because it is actually convincing Nathanael of Jesus' lordship, and it just has a more familiar, friendly air to it.

vs 49

This one thing is enough for Nathanael to declare Jesus the Son of God. I don't know about you, but it seems to me he didn't take much convincing. Jesus has done the miraculous equivalent of a card trick, and Nathanael is stoked at it. This should give us a fairly good picture of how willing people were to look for (and find) the Messiah. But we will find out later that lots of people see even bigger miracles, but few hang around. It isn't Jesus' miracles which end up convincing people. But for now, Nathanael has made an early stab at Jesus' identity.

This also shows us that, unlike the other gospels, where Jesus' identity either comes late, or comes early but from the mouths of demons, John is happy for us to know that Jesus is the Son of God. That's a given. It was what the first bit of chapter 1 was all about.

vs 50

Jesus shows how simple a thing it was - the vision of a fig tree is nothing, compared to what these guys are going to see.

vs 51

But there is something else - heaven will open, and angels will come to the aid of the Son of Man. When we hear about angels coming down to help Jesus at various stages of various gospels, I often wonder if they are visible or invisible. Jesus seems to be indicating that they will see them. But I think Jesus is using this example to offset the simple miracle of the fig tree vision.

But Jesus does something else - he sets out who he says he is. He refers to himself, not as Rabbi, or Messiah or Christ, or as Son of God or King of Israel. He doesn't dispute those titles either, mind you. But his own title for himself is Son of Man. One comment I heard about this was that all those other titles are pregnant with meaning already, and alot of that meaning might be misrepresented. For example, Jesus is King of Israel, sure. But most of the Jews were expecting God to send a King who would raise an army and have a military victory over the Romans.

Son of Man, however, whilst being a biblical title, doesn't have the same amount of injected meaning into it. It's more nebulous, which means Jesus can give it his own meaning - the proper meaning.

John chapter 1

For some reason, the underlining shortcut stopped working, so now I have to code it by hand. Stupid new blogger.

vs 30

Obviously John TB had said something earlier about someone coming after him. And that person, it turned out, was Jesus. Again we see this theme of Jesus sharing that attribute of God of being before time.

vs 31

When John TB says he didn't know Jesus, I don't think he meant that he didn't know Jesus at all. They were related, so Luke tells us, and so surely they knew each other, even just a little bit. But John TB is probably saying that he didn't know that Jesus was this person until it was revealed to him by doing the whole baptism thing. Even then, that would mean he was someone kept in the dark by his parents, because his own mother, upon meeting Mary, knew there was something special about her baby. In any case, we can safely say that all this stuff about Jesus was confirmed by John TB's prophetic baptismal ministry, and not by him being related distantly to Jesus.

vs 32

John TB saw the Spirit of God rest on Jesus and remain, like some sort of dove. The most literal understanding of this is a literal dove, I guess, but then that would involve Jesus walking around with a dove on his shoulder like some sort of peace-pirate.

vs 33

So God had told John TB how to recognise the one he was looking for. And again, even if he knew Jesus, he didn't know that he was going to be the one to be filled with the Spirit of God. Which makes us wonder just who did know before John's baptism. Did Jesus himself know?

vs 34

Seeing that was enough for John TB to know that Jesus was the Son of God. He didn't need to see miracles, he didn't need to quiz Jesus on theology. God had told him "The one who gets my Spirit, that's the one" and that was good enough for John TB.

vs 35

Jesus wasn't the only one with disciples. Some people had seen John and heard his words, and thought "Yeah, this guy's worth following".

vs 36

John couldn't help saying to his students "Look at that, there's the Lamb of God!" Considering he felt that his whole ministry had led up to this point, this would have been something of prime importance to point out to your disciples.

vs 37

Of course, it cost John a couple of disciples, but he was probably expecting that. Elsewhere, he says that he must decrease, while Christ increases". I mean, if you're following the person who is waiting for the Messiah, surely when the Messiah comes, you'll start following the better person instead.

vs 38

Note that they didn't start following him as disciples though. They didn't even come up and talk to him, they just started following behind. Just like those people in kung fu movies who follow around a master until he accepts them as students. Jesus has to turn around and say "Are you guys stalking me?"

They want to know where he's staying, probably so they can stay there too. Notice that John the author spells out what Rabbi means, which means that his audience can't have been entirely Jewish. Those sorts of little hints are worth looking out for.

vs 39

He invites them to follow him and see where he lives. They spent the day with him, and you have to assume they talked about a bunch of stuff.

vs 40

Now we learn the names of one of those two - his name was Andrew, and he is the brother of the soon-to-be-famous Simon Peter.

John chapter 1

vs 21

If he wasn't the Christ, then he must be someone special.They drilled him with their significant knowhow, but couldn't work out who he was. Now we might think "Shame on them, if they had been reading their OT they would have known he was the one from Isaiah 40:3". The thing is, they probably did know the OT prophecy that spoke of John TB, in the same way that when Herod asks them "Where will the Christ be born?" They answer correctly. They have the head knowledge - they just don't want to apply it. And fair enough in a way - you don't want to think a scripture has been fulfilled just because you see one thing.

Who is "The Prophet"? I don't know, to be honest. It obviously wasn't a description of John TB's role, or else you'd assume he would say yes.

It is possible that they are talking about Christ again. Remember, the Jews only had a scattered picture of what was going to happen when the Christ appeared. Some thought there were going to be multiple saviors coming - a military one, a royal one, a spiritual one, a suffering one etc. In fact, the only thing almost no-one saw coming was Jesus.

vs 22

Finally they ask him who he is, rather than trying to pin it on him.

vs 23

So when they ask who he is, he tells them that he is fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3. This also helps us to understand who he is.

vs 24-25

Stupid VITMOAI man. Anyway, the Pharisees seem to think you can only baptise people if you are Christ, Elijah or this mysterious The Prophet. Which is interesting, because of course Christ never baptised anyone!

vs 26-27

John TB knew what was coming. He knew that Christ was on the horizon, and that he would be the one to reveal him. It's a pretty important position. He seems to have dealt with it humbly enough. Now if only all the other religious leaders had been humble enough to step aside when they knew they'd been beat!

vs 28

John the author seems to leave it a little late to set the scene, but we'll forgive him because movies hadn't been invented yet.

vs 29

John TB says something very similar to a demon when he sees Jesus. Lucky Jesus wasn't the confused sort, or he might have accidently zapped John TB ;)

This is a foretaste of the classic language that John uses in his gospel. We really have to ask how much of these actual words were expressed in the way they were in John. Of course, we all know that the words as they are expressed are probably not exhaustive - they are just summary statements of what was said at any specific moment (the talks that Paul gives in Acts are a good example of this idea). Nevertheless, using terms like "Lamb of God" either makes John TB a peculiarly perceptive student of the Bible and of God's actions in the world (which there is no denying he probably was, what with how everyone thinks he's a prophet) or that this has been just a little hammed.

vs 30

This is a reference to Jesus' Godhood, in that he has existed before John TB. Since people had been asking who John was and his answer had been in reference to the appearance of another, this is a very important statement, and a very important chap who has appeared on the scene here.

John chapter 1

vs 11

Jesus considers us his own, and when you think about that, it is a huge blessing to be considered so valuable by God. But, ignorant and evil people that we are, we did not receive him. Like a king travelling through his kingdom and not being offered any hospitality or gifts, or recognition as king.

vs 12

But not everyone ignored him, or else we wouldn't know about him I guess. Some people did receive him the way a king should be received. "Believing in {someone's} name" sounds weird to us today, and it's hard to get an exact comparison of an idiom which we use that fits. Obviously the name (noun) in itself is not super special. There are heaps of people called Jesus, especially in Spanish and Latin countries where they don't have the odd social reserve about naming their kids after him.

I guess the closest thing we have is when someone does something "in the name of {someone} or more usually {something}". When you do something in the name of peace, you're not just doing it because peace sounds good, and you can't think of a name for the thing you're doing yourself. You're doing it for the sake of peace, to further peace. When you do something "in the name of Her Majesty Queen of the Commonwealth" you're doing it on her behalf, and so to some extent you have the authority and power that her name brings. When we read about the name of the Lord, or the name of God, or the name of Jesus, it's not talking just about the noun by which we address them. Tied up in that idea are the concepts of the authority that name holds, the position which it gives, the title and domain it rules and so on.

So "believing in the name of Jesus" is not a simple act of assenting to his existance, or acknowledging his coming to earth. It is a trust in the claims of authority that he made. You believe that Jesus has the power to do the things he claims he can do, and that he will do them and do them for you. In this case, he has the right to make us children of God. Wow.

vs 13

In once sense I guess we are all born of God. When you look at those three examples John gives, they all are woefully inadequate to explain where we are originally born from. Natural descent? That's fine, I know I have parents. But where did their parents come from? I can ask that question until I get back to God. Human decision? Ok, people can decide to commit the sexual act in the hope of having a child, but they have no control over whether it works or not. A husband's will? Laughable, really, isn't it? As if a husband can close his eyes and wish really hard, and that makes a baby? All of these things are involved, but even they point to our creation in God, albeit less directly.

This time, though, we are given the right to become children of God, born directly from him. A complicated concept, again one which John will flesh out later on.

vs 14

We now know that the Word of God, this part of God, God himself, became flesh and lived among his people. John here claims that he was one of the people who saw the glory of this Word of God. And he can testify that he did indeed come from God, and as God's Word, was full of grace and truth.

vs 15

John TB was obviously fairly well known, because he is named here without any qualifiers, merely as the one who would testify concerning Christ's coming. We are all aware of his words to the effect of what John records here. Remember, of course, that this book wasn't written primarily as an evangelical outreach piece - it is written mostly for Christians, and probably a specific group of Christians under John's care. So he is allowed to assume a bit of knowledge of his audience (thankfully we've got the other gospels to tell us some more).

vs 16

That claim is obviously about God and God's Word, not John the Baptist.

vs 17

This is the first time John names Jesus. And it is such a great comparison. Moses, great servant of God and pillar of Judaism, all he did was bring the Law down a mountain. Jesus, the Christ, brought grace and truth. Now this is not implying that the Law wasn't true - it was in the sense of its accuracy and correctness. But it was not complete. When you looked at the Law, you did not see God. When you look at Jesus, you do see God. You see the truth. And you receive grace, apart the law especially.

vs 18

It is through Christ that God has been really made known. Even God's expressions of himself through pillars of fire and cloud and through miracles and disasters and speaking straight to people, those are nothing compared to his direct revelation of himself through Christ. There really is nothing like this event in the rest of history. It really is a special thing. This verse also shows the relationship between God the father and Jesus. Jesus is at God's right hand, but his title is also God the One and Only. John knows there is a complex idea here, but doesn't really explain it for us - he is happy for it to sit the way it is.

vs 19

The Jews were keen to know about John TB. As far as we know, he didn't do any miracles or anything - it was merely the words he preached, and the authority which was in them, that made it clear that something special was going on. He was preaching about God, so who do you send? You send people who are meant to know about God - priests and such.

vs 20

He was very open about his not being the Christ. This tells us two things - one that John TB was really something special. He wasn't just any old preacher. He had some authority to him.

But secondly, it becomes obvious to us here that the Jews were actively looking for their Christ, their Messiah to come and save them. They were keen. They were searching. And yet, when he comes, damn them, they don't get it. So don't feel sorry for the Jews not accepting Jesus, as if they weren't expecting him and he was sprung on them. They were sending priests out looking for him.

John Chapter 1

vs 1

Some people like stories about babies and stars and shepherds and wise men, mangers and cows and goats and no room at the inn. Give me John Chapter 1 any time.

John 1 consciously echoes the words of Genesis 1. But this time, in the beginning was Logos. It was with God. It was God.

How much can you pack into a few short words?The ideas here are incredible. Of course, we know from Genesis 1 that God created everything by his Word. So already we have made that link. But John is giving so much more body to this Word. It was with God, which makes it its own separate entity. But it was God - it is the same entity! While we don't have the trinity here first off, we're pretty darn close - the two beings being one and yet being distinct.

vs 2

"He" tells us more about the Word. The Word of God is a title now, referring to a person, or at least a personified being. I'm not sure if there is a bit of poetry to this beginning, with the repetition of "in the beginning" at the beginning and end. But even if there isn't, we know that repetition is used to drum in a point.

The NASB actually reads "He was in the beginning with God", which I like, because it sort of gives the Word the status of "in the beginning" - the status of immortal infinity of God.

vs 3

This personified being was intimately involved in all of creation. Of course it was - if it is the Word of God, it is the instrument through which God created all things, we are told that in Genesis. John makes it painfully clear though - nothing was made without the Word.

vs 4

All this stuff has been written in the past tense, but that doesn't mean that it isn't also true now. All it means is that historically it happened previous to the writing of the book. Think of the word "was" as indicating a time in time, rather than something which no longer "is".

"Life" here of course could mean the life that was first imparted to all things, including mankind. But it's more than just a simple giving of life, isn't it, because the life given is also a light. Light used metaphorically in the Bible and regarding God is most usually referring to purity or moral and spiritual truth. Because it is the light of men, and not of God, then I would be edging towards the second one - the Word is the light by which men see the true nature of eternity, and hence it is also their life.

vs 5

This light of moral and spiritual truth shines (presently) in the darkness, which we must assume is moral and spiritual ignorance which continues to exist today of course. Now, translators are at odds here (although I'm sure they don't get into fisticuffs in the local over it) about whether the darkness has failed to understand the Light, or failed to overcome or overpower the Light.

The overcoming and overpowering which the darkness is failing to do could be a reference to the death of Christ, or just to the general stifling spread of spiritual ignorance across the world which, although mighty, has not extinguished the truth from being revealed.

The failure to understand it would refer more to the general inability of so many people to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a fairly important theme of John's gospel overall.

vs 6

Not this John, another John. We usually call him John the Baptist, but John the evangelist never calls him that. I guess he knows which John he's referring to - the John that isn't him. John (the author) freely admits that John (the baptist) came as sent from God. His authority as a prophet we should accept.

vs 7

The "him" of course is referring to the light (which in my NIV is not capitalised, but in the NASB is capitalised). John TB of course was just a witness to this whole amazing thing, and his prophetic gift and authority means that we should listen to his statements about the Word (Light). So the Light is someone upon whom you can believe. That's a complex idea, which we can rest assured will be more complicated before we finish John.

vs 8

John TB was often confused as being some sort of Messiah, and had to deny it regularly. He prophesied that one greater than him was coming. The Word was coming. Of course, he didn't have John chapter 1 to tell him just how awesome it was going to be that the Word of God was coming to earth. But he knew something great was happening.

vs 9

Translators are still sorting this one out too. Notice how little these things actually matter to the sense of the passages they are in though.

Assuming the normal translation, the Light which John TB was saying was coming is such a great light that it imparts its light to every man. That's a fairly major event.

Assuming the other translation, the true light which is coming gives light to every man as they come into the world.

Whoever is coming at the time, the important thing is that man is getting the light from this great godly Light.

vs 10

What a painful verse this is. Talk to anyone who knows the pain of having a loved one not recognise them, like the spouse of a dementia patient or someone with amnesia. You carefully craft a relationship for decades, and then your spouse, maybe overnight, maybe over years, eventually forgets who you even are.

Now imagine you created a whole world crawling with living things, and they don't recognise who you are.

1 Corinthians chapter 16

vs 13

Sounds like the sort of thing you would say to a bunch of young men about to go to war. The Christian life isn't as easy as we sometimes make it out to be, is it? Courage, strength, and sticktoitiveness, they are important to the Christian life.

vs 14

But so is love. That is something you wouldn't hear being barked on the battlefield. And it's that false dichotomy that we struggle with - that we must stand firm in strength and courage, and love. They seem so opposed, the language seems all wrong, but that's what we are to do.

vs 15-16

VITMOI man strikes again with the verse numbering.

This is a strong command from Paul here. He is talking about the first converts to Christianity in the region, and tells the Corinthians how this household devoted their lives to serving God through serving the church (it's worth pointing out how much the Corinthian church lacks this). But Paul's command is not to emulate them, or help them out - it is to subjugate themselves to such people! I don't think we'd take too kindly to someone telling us to subject ourselves to someone else because they are doing better work in the Lord than us, but that's what Paul says - to anyone who joins the work and labours in it, you should be a subject.

vs 17

Reading this verse, though, it is hard to say if this is a once-for-all command, or specific to the Corinthians. After all, the men from Achaia are specifically filling a gap that the Corinthian church has. Not that I think we should submit to people who fill lacks in the church, but such a major one, like the serving of the church, is what church leadership is all about, and so such people should be respected.

vs 18

They have been a refreshment to Paul and to the church at Corinth, and hence they should have recognition. And the suggested recognition by Paul seems to be that of a leadership position.

vs 19

Priscilla and Aquilla sure do get around. The rest of the greetings are pretty vague here - the churches in Asia.

vs 20

Obviously, the church knew where Paul was writing from, because he doesn't have to say - only that the brothers where they are send greetings.

It seems odd to put the command to greet one another with a holy kiss at the end of the book like this, but Paul does it more than once.

vs 21

Of course you do. Typical Paul. And typical of a person using an amenuensis.

vs 22

This little curse here has sparked a lot of interesting ideas about why it is written where it is and how it is. Most likely I think is the explanation which says that because there is a bit of tension between the church and Paul during this time, Paul is making it clear to those in the church that if they don't believe and love God, they're in trouble, and that those who do shouldn't follow their lead.

Come O Lord is written Maranatha in some Bibles, which means in Aramaic "Come O Lord". What is interesting is that Paul writes this to a greek church. Obviously it had some currency in Christian circles.

vs 23-24

A lovely way to end a letter - with a blessing of Christ, and a greeting of love.

1 Corinthians 16

vs 1

Does this verse suggest that the Corinthian churches knew what Paul had told the Galatian churches? Or is he just saying that, so that they know that they're not the only ones doing it?

In any case, there is a gift being collected from all the greek churches for Jerusalem. It's a bit of a different culture though - whereas we are asked if we will give, they are told that they will give, and told how to collect it. You might be surprised - all I can say is visit a Singaporean Christian church some time!

vs 2

Of course, bank deposits and credit card payments weren't acceptable back then. Paul is simply telling them to do the work in advance, to be prepared. Very practical.

vs 3

Ahhhh, letters of introduction. If you've ever wanted to know how to be a kooky wierdo idiotic Christian cult, take one verse from the Bible which no one really remembers, like this one. Then blow it all out of proportion, and apply it to any situation you possibly can. Then be so legalistic about it that if it is not followed to your stringent standards, you can safely call the person unchristian.

I mean, we're talking about a church existing under pain of death here! You couldn't just walk through the front doors! They didn't have big buildings around with huge crosses on top! Repeat after me, tighties - "Pre-Constantine, pre-Constantine!"

Look, I don't know if the Constantinian idea of imperial religion was a good thing for Christianity. I'm even less sure about the statewide imposition of Christendom on Europe for over 1000 years. But God either made them happen or allowed them to happen, and they are a fact. And Brethren more than anyone should remember their roots and understand the meaninglessness or letters of introduction.

Anyway... even if the Corinthian church gave their own men letters of introduction, they would be worthless! Paul needs to give them. Why? Because the Jerusalem church knows the name of Paul - the names of the leaders of backwards hickville church in Corinth would scarcely be recogniesd.

vs 4

Paul might go to, but of course he's got a full schedule on his missionary trips.

vs 5

You really wonder how much Paul knew about his own directions. Sometimes you look at his trips, and they seem a little higglty-pigglty. But he did want to visit the Corinthians. You can see, though, from his words, that they aren't as warm as his letters to other churches. This is more of a "beware ye therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh" sort of letter.

vs 6

Although he sounds like he is weighing up, he certainly isn't giving them any choice in the matter. And well he wouldn't - Christians must show each other hospitality. Imagine calling someone on it sometime! Doesn't fit into our culture, does it?

vs 7

Paul wants to sort some of this stuff out face to face with them, so he wants to visit them for their sake, not just for picking up money and food and moving on.

vs 8-9

You might say "Already Pentecost is being followed by Christians - look how soon they have holidays of their own!" except that Pentecost is of course a Jewish celebration already ;)

You could read verse 9 in two ways - one is that there is a great opportunity for work in Ephesus, and many also oppose him there, so he will need to stay until Pentecost to get the work done. The other is that there is a great opportunity for him in Ephesus, and many oppose him in Corinth, so he will stay in Ephesus until things cool down. Both would be historically accurate.

vs 10

Interesting that Paul even needs to tell the Corinthians to look after Timothy. He doesn't tell them what he would tell other churches, to look after him and give him all he needs. This time, he tells the Corinthians "don't give him anything to fear". Doesn't sound promising.

vs 11

People might even refuse to accept him. You might think "Oh, it's because he's young, like Paul says in the letter to Timothy. Probably more likely because he will be seen as being in the "Paul camp" and so people won't like him. Doesn't sound like a great place to go for your itinerant ministry at present.

vs 12

Not even Apollos wanted to go there! But it seems Paul talked him into going when he has the time and opportunity.

1 Corinthians chapter 15

I am not well

vs 49

It's written in such an obscure way because of the illustration Paul is using, but it's an incredible truth that, just as we are sinful dregs of humanity now, as depressing and inescapable as that is, we are going to be so newly created that we will become the sons of God and co-heirs with Christ in eternal glory and imperishable bodies.

vs 50

There is, then, a necessity for our resurrection, because our perishable bodies cannot inherit the fruits of God's eternal kingdom.

vs 51

Yes, this is a great mystery. So great that even now we still don't really understand it! Scholarship regarding eschatology and particularly rapture-type stuff is very exciting but also very changeable. It is very hard from what the Bible tells us to know exactly what to expect.

What we can tell, from this verse, is that we will all be changed, and that there will be some to whom it happens without first dying.

vs 52

We must assume Paul is talking as if it is going to happen right then, but for the sake of understanding what will happen when it does happen. At the last trumpet, (something to do with the end of days) not only will there be a resurrection of the dead, but those alive and in Christ will be transformed.

vs 53

If we haven't died at the time, then we can't be resurrected, so God has a plan, which is to clothe us in our immortality, as quick as a flash according to Paul. Of course, everyone who is being resurrected will be clothed in the same way too.

vs 54

The final resurrection is necessary for the victory over death. Remember, death is an enemy of God. So its defeat is great news in the Kingdom.

vs 55

Thanks to God and his work in Christ, death is only a temporary state for us, a sleeping. It has no final power over us. There are some arguments about what kind of death Paul is talking about here, and some say that death is a part of God's creation, but that the second death of separation from him is not. I'll let someone who understands that belief describe it better.

vs 56

It seems an odd place for the Law to come in, but here it is. That which kills us, the sting of death, is sin. Sin is deadly. It needs a warning label. And sin is so powerful because of the Law. God's law inevitably means transgressions against that law, and so we get punished, or stung.

vs 57

But because of Christ, that's not the end of it. We have a victory over the enemy of death. We may very well succumb to it during this life, but we are still on the winning team.

vs 58

It's the one labour that isn't in vain, eventually. Our victory in God and in Christ should mean that we can stand firm against temptation, against evil that is done against us, and against doubt. Sometimes I wonder if we understand our victory enough.

1 Corinthians Chapter 15

vs 37

So you don't plant what you're going to get - if you want mustard, you don't plant a jar of mustard, or even bury a mustard tree in the ground. You plant a seed, which looks nothing like the tree (or like mustard, unless it is seeded mustard).

vs 38

God is in control of what comes out of a seed - there's nothing much we can do about that. Genetic engineering changes this a little, but my understanding is that it's still pretty quick and dirty, so you still have a gamble at what you will get.

vs 39

Although people supposedly taste like bacon, we are different in "flesh", that is, in body. But flesh can mean more than just crude matter, it takes in the whole nature, and we have a very different nature to birds and other animals.

vs 40

And so now Paul draws the distinction between people and angels, or perhaps between our earthly and heavenly bodies. The difference is so stark that we won't be able to tell one from just looking at the other.

vs 41

Paul even seems to be a bit of an astronomer. Good for him. So all created things are different and have a different splendor. Anyone can look at the sun and tell it's different from the moon.

vs 42

We all know how perishable our current bodies are. They get sick, they get old, they die. They fall to bits, they take lots of care, and even then don't always work well. But our new resurrection bodies will be imperishable. I can't wait to find out what they're like. In some ways they will be similar - we know Christ had an imperishable body when he was raised, and he still looked like a person. But in other ways it will be different, like a mustard seed from its tree.

vs 43

Glory and power will be with us when we are raised. Power isn't one we think about so much, but we will be powerful when we are raised. Interesting thought.

vs 44

Don't think of this as a dichotomy of physical as against spiritual. I think it's far more like imperfect as opposed to perfect. Paul is talking about a bodily resurrection - not just some sort of spiritual floatiness.

vs 45

Spirit still has life. I guess natural is part of natural process involving life and death (even in Eden, there was death in potentia). Spiritual does not involve life and death, only life.

vs 46

The order they come in is like the order of the seed and the crop - seeds come first. You can argue the whole chicken and egg thing if you like, but Paul isn't talking about a creative order specifically, more simply a farming order - you plant before you reap. It's not a scientific description, it's a colloquial description - just like when we talk about the sun rising and setting (of course it does neither).

vs 47

Not only is spiritual different from natural, it is better. Heaven is better than earth, so better to come from heaven than from earth.

vs 48

The amazing thing is that we, who are from earth in that we have our genesis in the earthly creation can become "from heaven" because of Christ. It's almost like we are a new creation or something ;)