# commentaries

text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:4'>Joh 1:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In it was life, and that life was the light of men</em>-</p><p> "Life",&nbsp;<em>zoe</em>, in John's Gospel means spiritual life, the life which is eternal in the sense that it is the kind of life we shall eternally live. Many times, John records the Lord offering eternal life to us now. We shall of course die, but we can live today the life we shall eternally live. The "it" or "he" here is clearly to be understood as the Lord Jesus; He was "the word made flesh" according to :14, but even before :14 the idea is presented to us. The prologue to John's letter states that the Lord is "the word of life" (<em><a href='B:690 1:1'>1Jn 1:1</a></em>). The life was "in", within, the Lord Jesus in the sense of <em><a href='B:500 5:26'>Joh 5:26</a></em>: "The son has life in Himself". "Eternal life... is in His Son" (<em><a href='B:690 5:11'>1Jn 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:20'>1Jn 5:20</a></em>). He was the life as He was the light; "I am the life... I am the light" (<em><a href='B:500 11:25'>Joh 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:6'>Joh 14:6</a></em>). His Spirit, His mind within, was the life which is to be the light of our whole existence. In this sense the believer in Him, through receiving His Spirit of life and living, has life within (<em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>).</p><p>The real life was lived in the human Jesus. His life was the life which we shall eternally live in God's Kingdom. It's why such a relatively large percentage of the New Testament is taken up with the four Gospel records of His life. It is that life which is the light of men, i:e. those who believe. For John goes on to lament that many in the Jewish world had refused that light and life. Indeed, they had sought to kill that life in crucifixion. The light of our lives is to be the life the Lord lived and still lives. Our focus is to be wholly upon Him. This is the essence of Christianity, Christ-ness; and not true theology in itself. The connection between the life and 'seeing' it is found several times later in John. Those who disbelieve in the Son of God do not "see life" (<em><a href='B:500 3:36'>Joh 3:36</a></em>). His life is not their light. Those who follow Him have "the light of life" (<em><a href='B:500 8:12'>Joh 8:12</a></em>). John's Gospel consistently speaks of "life" being given to the believer by the Lord; but the "life" in view is His own life. This is another way of expressing the gift of the Spirit.</p><p>"The light" is used by the Lord in John's Gospel to refer to His living amongst men. His brief life in first century Palestine was the time when "the light" was seen by the world; but He urged men to believe in Him whilst they had that light. His life was the light- the believer will "have the light of life" (<em><a href='B:500 8:12'>Joh 8:12</a></em>), the Lord's life. As long as He was in the Jewish world, He was the light to that world (<em><a href='B:500 9:5'>Joh 9:5</a></em>). They were to walk after Him whilst they had that light (<em><a href='B:500 12:35'>Joh 12:35</a></em>); "while you have light, believe in the light" (<em><a href='B:500 12:36'>Joh 12:36</a></em>). And yet there are clear statements that the light continues to shine now in the lives of the believers. The paradox is resolved by connecting it with the promise of the Holy Spirit comforter. The Lord comforted the disciples that although He was indeed physically leaving them, yet through the gift of His Spirit it would be as if He were still present amongst them. And so indeed the Lord was "the light" during His mortal life, lived amongst the darkness of men in Palestine. But that light continues to shine, in that He is present amongst the believers, and they live as if in the light of His presence. To join in the first century disciples in following the Lord Jesus, focused on living His life, having His Spirit, thinking His thoughts... is to "walk in the light". And that is the closest the NT ever comes to offering a 'basis of fellowship'; if we walk in the light, then we have fellowship with one another (<em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>), even if we may have differences of interpretation and theology. Or as Paul puts it, we are "of one mind" if we strive to have the one mind, that of the Lord Jesus. John's later work, Revelation, concludes by speaking of how the light of the Lord Jesus shines both now and eternally. Our living in the light of Him is what shall eternally continue, and defines the nature of our eternal experience. It is utterly critical, therefore, that in this life we come to a total focus upon Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:5'>Joh 1:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This light shines in the darkness, but the darkness cannot understand it</em>-</p><p> As noted on :4, "the light" was the life lived within the mind of the Lord Jesus during His mortal life. But He shines on, in that those who follow Him in turn have His life and light within them, and thus become "the light of the world" just as He was. It is true in Him as well as in us, that we are the light that shines in the darkness (<em><a href='B:690 2:8'>1Jn 2:8</a></em>). But "the darkness" refused to understand it. Judaism therefore was "the darkness"; John saw no common ground between true Christianity, and those who rejected the Lord Jesus as the total and defining light of their path. They were in darkness; for not following Him means walking in the darkness, stumbling around with no ultimate sense of direction (<em><a href='B:500 12:35'>Joh 12:35</a></em>). And that is the Lord's opinion of all non-Christian religion. Those who preferred the darkness did so because they didn't want the light of the Lord's perfect character to reveal their sins (<em><a href='B:500 3:20-21'>Joh 3:20-21</a></em>). The darkness refers to hating ones' brother (<em><a href='B:690 2:9'>1Jn 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>), and Judaism hated their brother Jesus, as well as being characterized by bitter hatred amongst themselves, as witnessed by the various opposing sects within Judaism. To walk focused upon the life and character of the Lord Jesus means we are walking in the light, and hatred of our brethren will not characterize that walk. This is a sober warning to those who name the name of Christ but hate their brethren in Christ. They are clearly not focused upon Him and His light, having refused to receive His Spirit.</p><p>The allusion is clearly to how the light shone out of the darkness at creation. The Lord Jesus is therefore "light" to us in the sense that He illuminates. The initiative is His; we are the subjects of His action. This is the grace / gift of the Spirit. Paul understood the illumination of the light as something happening within the hearts of believers: "God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness has shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>). I have to emphasize- this is His action, performed by grace upon the hearts of His people.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:6'>Joh 1:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It happened that a man of God was sent. His name was John</em>-</p><p> AV "Sent from God",&nbsp;<em>para&nbsp;</em>God. The similarity of language was in order to emphasize that the in the same way as the Lord was sent from God, so was John. There is no way therefore that such language refers to any superhuman descent of a pre-existent being, because it is used of John the Baptist. Indeed this is but one of many examples of where John’s Gospel uses exalted language to describe the person of Jesus- but actually, if one looks out for it, John uses the very same terms about all of humanity. Here are some examples:&nbsp;</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>About Jesus</td><td>About humanity generally or other human beings</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Came into the world (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em> of “every man”; <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em>. ‘Came into the world’ means ‘to be born’ in <em><a href='B:500 16:21'>Joh 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sent from God (<em><a href='B:500 1:6'>Joh 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 3:2'>Joh 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:29'>Joh 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A man of God (<em><a href='B:500 9:16'>Joh 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:33'>Joh 9:33</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 9:17'>Joh 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:31'>Joh 9:31</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>‘What I saw in my Father’s presence’ (<em><a href='B:500 8:38'>Joh 8:38</a></em>)</td><td>The work of ‘<em>a man</em>&nbsp;who told you the truth as I heard it from God’ (<em><a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>God was His Father</td><td><em><a href='B:500 8:41'>Joh 8:41</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He who has come from God (<em><a href='B:500 8:42'>Joh 8:42</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 8:47'>Joh 8:47</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Father was in Him, and He was in the Father (<em><a href='B:500 10:37'>Joh 10:37</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 15:5-10'>Joh 15:5-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21-23'>Joh 17:21-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Son of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>)</td><td>All believers are ‘the offspring of God Himself’ (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:29'>1Jn 2:29</a></em> -<em><a href='B:690 3:2'>1Jn 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:9'>1Jn 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:7'>1Jn 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:1-3'>1Jn 5:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:8'>1Jn 5:8</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Consecrated and sent into the world (<em><a href='B:500 17:17-19'>Joh 17:17-19</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jesus had to listen to the Father and be taught by Him (<em><a href='B:500 7:16'>Joh 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:26'>Joh 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:49'>Joh 12:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:10'>Joh 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>)</td><td>All God’s children are the same (<em><a href='B:500 6:45'>Joh 6:45</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Saw the Father (<em><a href='B:500 6:46'>Joh 6:46</a></em>)</td><td>The Jews should have been able to do this (<em><a href='B:500 5:37'>Joh 5:37</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Not born of the flesh or will of a man, but the offspring of God Himself</td><td>True of all believers (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p>- see on&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:14'>Luk 1:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>This one came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe in the light</em>-</p><p> Potentially, all Israel could have believed in the light and been saved. John's mission could have been totally successful; but human beings were allowed their freewill, and so that potential wasn't realized. The Gospel of John is a transcript of his preaching of the gospel, and it seems that he was involved with preaching to converts of John the Baptist. He writes to his converts perhaps alluding to this by saying that although they had believed / received the witness of men, i:e. John the Baptist, they needed to accept that the far greater witness to the Lord Jesus was that given by God in the gift of the Spirit, the life of Jesus within them (<em><a href='B:690 5:9-11'>1Jn 5:9-11</a></em>). This general scene is not unknown today- those who say they are convinced Jesus is the Messiah because He fulfilled prophetic witness about Himself; and yet they are apparently resistant to receiving the gift of His Spirit within them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:8'>Joh 1:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 12:49-50'>Luk 12:49-50</a></em>.</p><p><em>John was not the light, but was sent that he might testify concerning the light</em>-</p><p> As noted on :7, John was witnessing to the disciples of John the Baptist, and some of them apparently felt that he was an end in himself. They were not giving due weight to his message about the Lord Jesus; instead they were just approvingly focusing upon his calls for repentance and criticism of Jewish society.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The true light, who by coming into the world enlightens every man</em>-</p><p> The true light may refer to the Lord as the antitype of the&nbsp;<em>shekinah</em>&nbsp;glory which appeared in the darkness of the tabernacle. Judaism in moral darkness are thereby associated with the tabernacle system. The AV offers "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world". But whichever translation we choose, the parallel is still established between "the world" and "every man". The world is the world of believers. Those who enter that world of newly created persons are enlightened by the Lord Jesus as "the true light". This is something He does to them, and is not merely a function of their own academic study of Scripture. The same word is used of how the Spirit enlightens our eyes to perceive that which cannot be 'seen' by natural unaided faculty (<em><a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a></em>). We have been "enlightened”&nbsp;by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:650 6:4'>Heb 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:10'>2Ti 1:10</a></em>). And the same word is used of how we shall eternally be enlightened; but that process begins now (<em><a href='B:730 21:23'>Rev 21:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:5'>Rev 22:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:10'>Joh 1:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He was in the world, and though the world had originated on account of him, the world recognised him not</em>-</p><p> "The world" in :9 is the world of the believers. The world "originated on account of him" = AV "the world was made by him". The parallel is clear with "All things were made by him" (:3), and as noted on :3, the "all things" refer to the "all things" of the new creation. The phrase is used that way by Paul several times. "He was in the world" could likewise be understood as referring to the "world" of the new creation; for if the reference is to the literal world, then the statement seems too obvious to need making. The parallel in the prologue of 1 John 1 would be John's reference to how the early believers had seen, touched and handled the word, the Lord Jesus. He had been amongst them. But then "the world recognised him not" appears to shift the reference of "the world" away from the world of believers, the new creation, to the Jewish world- defined in :11 as "His own", i:e. the Jewish people generally, or perhaps those of Nazareth in particular, who did not accept Him. At first blush, this may seem unacceptable to have two different meanings for "the world" within one verse. But I suggest the contrast is purposeful; the point being that there are two worlds in view, that of the believers or the new creation; and the Jewish world, who rejected the Lord. They were literally worlds apart; there was no overlap between them. And that is a theme of John's message.</p><p>John appeals for men to be baptized with the twice repeated personal comment: “…and I knew him not”, in the very context of our reading that the Jewish world “knew him not” (<em><a href='B:500 1:10'>Joh 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:31'>Joh 1:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:33'>Joh 1:33</a></em>). He realises that he had withstood the knowledge of the Son of God, just as others had. See on <em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>.</p><p>Understanding "the world" as a world of persons rather than the physical world of material "things" is reflected in the way that John uses the term&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>. So many interpreters have assumed that&nbsp;<em>kosmos&nbsp;</em>refers to the physical, literal world; whereas deeper reflection surely indicates that it refers rather to the world of&nbsp;<em>persons</em>. Thus "the world was made on account of Him Christ, and the world did not know him" (<em><a href='B:500 1:10'>Joh 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:1-3'>1Jn 3:1-3</a></em>) doesn't mean that Jesus created the literal planet; but rather that the world of persons was made on account of Jesus, but that world didn't know or accept / recognize Him. It is this "world" into which 'every believing man comes' (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>); and it is the "sin of the world" (<em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>) which Christ bore- not the sin of the literal planet, but the sin of the world of persons who want their sins to be carried by Him. God sent His son into the world to save it, and loved this world through giving Christ for it (<em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>)- clearly referring to the world of persons rather than the physical planet. The Lord in <em><a href='B:490 11:49-51'>Luk 11:49-51</a></em> speaks of the creation of humanity as "the foundation of the world"- for He says that Abel was slain at "the foundation of the world"- i:e. of the world of persons. In the same way as these passages in John have been misread as referring to a literal, physical, concrete world, so we too tend to see this world more as a world of things than a world of persons. For seeing the world as a world of persons demands a huge amount from us, and the kind of sensitivity to humanity which leads ultimately to the death of the cross. The new creation was brought into being by the cross. The Jewish world’s rejection of the Lord was crystallised in the crucifixion.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:11'>Joh 1:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He came to his own people-&nbsp;</em>This may specifically refer to the Lord's rejection by "His own" at Nazareth. The context here speaks of both the word which was “in the beginning”, and of Jesus personally, whom John had witnessed to. <em><a href='B:510 10:36-38'>Act 10:36-38</a></em> RV puts this in simpler terms: “He sent the word unto the children of Israel, preaching the gospel of peace by in Jesus Christ… that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; even Jesus of Nazareth”. The sequence and similarity of thought between this and <em><a href='B:500 1:1-8'>Joh 1:1-8</a></em> is so great that one can only assume that John is deliberately alluding to Luke’s record in Acts, and stating the same truths in spiritual terms: ‘In the beginning was the word of the Gospel which was with God. And then John came witnessing to Jesus, and then the word as it was in Jesus came to the Jews…’. Paul pleaded with his fellow Jews: “Brethren, children of the stock of Abraham…to us is the word of this salvation sent forth” (<em><a href='B:510 13:26'>Act 13:26</a></em> RV). Yet he also wrote that in the fullness of time, God “sent forth His Son, made of a woman” (<em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em>). The Son of God was “the word of this salvation” / Jesus. “The word was God”.</p><p><em>And they of his own people rejected him</em>-</p><p> The Greek specifically avoids stating that all His own people rejected Him; for the faithful minority accepted Him. "His own people" is a clear statement of the Lord's humanity, wedged within a context which is a hymn to His greatness. Frequently in the New Testament we meet this kind of juxtapositioning of language emphasizing Christ's humanity alongside terms which emphasize His Divine side. This is typical Hebraic logic, whereby blocks of material are placed next to each other, in order to create a dialectic between them which leads to the intended conclusion. Back in Exodus, we find Pharaoh's heart hardened by God, and yet him hardening his own heart. Greek thinking panics here- for it works by step logic, logically reasoning from one statement to another. There appears to our European minds to be a crisis of contradiction, which many find worrying. But the Hebrew mind is far less phased. Rather the two seeming contradictions are weighed up and the conclusion reached- e.g. that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but God confirmed him in this. The language used about the Lord Jesus in the New Testament is similar. John Knox got somewhere close to understanding this when he wrote that "we do not experience the humanity and divinity of Christ in ways as separate as this language suggests; we are aware of them together". John's Gospel is maybe the most evident example. In the context of all the high, lofty language relating the Lord Jesus to the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, that was God from the beginning, we read of Him coming "to his own",&nbsp;<em>eis ta idia</em>, his own heritage of people and place; and being rejected by "his own people",&nbsp;<em>hoi idioi</em>, the Jews of his time and setting (<em><a href='B:500 1:10-12'>Joh 1:10-12</a></em>). It is the "son of&nbsp;<em>man"</em>&nbsp;who is spoken of as having descended from Heaven (<em><a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:62'>Joh 6:62</a></em>). Truly "the Christ of John is actually more human than in almost any of the other New Testament writings". So often does John's Gospel baldly speak of the Lord Jesus as "the man": <em><a href='B:500 4:29'>Joh 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:12'>Joh 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:11'>Joh 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:24'>Joh 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:33'>Joh 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:47'>Joh 11:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:50'>Joh 11:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:14'>Joh 18:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:29'>Joh 18:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:5'>Joh 19:5</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>But whoever accepts him, those who believe in his name, to them he gave the right to become children of God</em>-</p><p> "Accepts" or "receives" is the term used of receiving the gift of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:10'>1Pe 4:10</a></em>). The idea is not of our intellectually accepting truths, but of receiving what we are given. And we are given Him, His life, His Spirit; or as it is here expressed, the power or force to become God's children. This power is clearly that of the Spirit, given to those who show their belief in His Name by baptism into it. This gift of the Spirit is alluded to in the next verse, and the ideas here are developed further in <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> in talking of the birth of the Spirit rather than that of the flesh. <em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em> is clear that we become "the children of God" (same Greek words as here) through the work of the Spirit. John four times uses the term "children of God" when writing to his converts, those who had heard the gospel of John and been baptized (<em><a href='B:690 3:1-2'>1Jn 3:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:10'>1Jn 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:2'>1Jn 5:2</a></em>). He saw them as God's children because the Spirit had worked in them to make them his.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>&nbsp;These<em>&nbsp;were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God</em>-</p><p> The context has spoken of the work of the Spirit in forging the children of God (see on :12); and these words are taken further in <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> where we find that birth of the flesh is contrasted to the birth of the Spirit which comes through water baptism.</p><p>The contrast between human will and God's will recalls the two kinds of "world" spoken of (see on :10). The Lord’s death was as a result of Him being given over “to their man’s will" (<em><a href='B:490 23:25'>Luk 23:25</a></em> s:w:), but the birth of the new creation was by the will of God. This phrase is frequently associated with the Lord’s death (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 2:23'>Act 2:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:22'>Luk 22:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:9-10'>Heb 10:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:17-18'>1Pe 3:17-18</a></em>). We were born by the will of God, i:e. the death of the Lord fulfilling that will. The later references in John to the Lord coming to do God’s will refer to His coming in order to die the death of the cross. John’s account of how blood and water issued from the Lord’s pierced side is an evident allusion to childbirth; he saw the ecclesia as being born out of the pierced body of the Lord at the time of His death.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this, the word became flesh, and indwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth</em>-</p><p> The climax of this verse is "Full of grace gift and truth". The gift or grace of the Spirit was given as a result of the Lord's death and glorification. Here we have the explanation of "For this..."; the preceding verses have spoken of the gift of the Spirit, and this was made possible by the Lord's humanity, death and resurrection.</p><p>Because Jesus was the&nbsp;<em>only&nbsp;</em>Son of God, therefore He is&nbsp;<em>full</em>&nbsp;of the Father’s grace and truth. <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> makes this connection between fullness and only Sonship. Because of the wonder of this, we should therefore hear Him, respecting and thereby obeying His word simply because of our appreciation of who He is and was- the Son of God (<em><a href='B:490 9:35'>Luk 9:35</a></em>). And yet this description of Him as the begotten Son of God connects with how we have just read that we too are to be born of God and not of the flesh, if we accept the spirit of Jesus.</p><p>It seems that in the Lord Jesus alone we see the perfect fusion of "grace and truth" (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>); in Him alone mercy and truth met together, in His personality alone righteousness and peace kissed each other (in the words of the beautiful Messianic prophecy of <em><a href='B:230 85:10'>Psa 85:10</a></em>):&nbsp; Somehow it seems that we both individually and collectively cannot achieve this. We are either too soft and compromise and lose the Faith, or we are too hard and lose the spirit of Christ our Lord, without which we are "none of his" (<em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em>).</p><p>"We beheld his glory" makes John's Gospel his personal testimony. It would seem that the Gospels were so clearly etched in the minds of the first century believers because the message of the Gospel was preached in the form of reciting a 'Gospel', a record of the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. This is why 'gospel' as in the message and 'Gospel' as in the four Gospels are the same word, although this seems to be overlooked by many. The Gospel according to Matthew is the good news about Christ which Matthew preached and then wrote down. John of all the Gospel writers makes it openly apparent that his preaching of the Gospel is based around a recital of the things which he himself saw and heard in the Lord's life (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:24'>Joh 21:24</a></em>). His Gospel is full of what have been called "the artless notes of the authentic eye-witness" (e.g. his comment that "the house was filled with the odour of the ointment"):&nbsp;John begins his preaching of the Gospel by saying that he had beheld the glory of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>)- and I suggest he was referring to how he beheld the cross and the Lord’s manifestation of the Father’s glory there (<em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>). The cross, the glory of the Lord shown there, was what motivated John’s preaching, just as it should ours. The cross impels us to witness.</p><p>The continuity of personality between the human Jesus and the now-exalted Jesus is brought out by meditation upon His “glory”. The glory of God refers to His essential personality and characteristics. When He ‘glorifies Himself’, He articulates that personality- e.g. in the condemnation of the wicked or the salvation of His people. The Lord Jesus had that “glory” in what John calls “the beginning”, and he says that he and the other disciples witnessed that glory (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). “The beginning” in John’s Gospel often has reference to the beginning of the Lord’s ministry. There is essentially only one glory- the glory of the Son is a reflection or manifestation of the glory of the Father. They may be seen as different glories only in the sense that the same glory is reflected from the Lord Jesus in His unique way; as a son reflects or articulates his father’s personality, it’s not a mirror personality, but it’s the same essence. One star differs from another in glory, but they all reflect the same essential light of glory. The Lord Jesus sought only the glory of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 7:18'>Joh 7:18</a></em>). He spoke of the glory of God as being the Son’s glory (<em><a href='B:500 11:4'>Joh 11:4</a></em>). Thus Isaiah’s vision of God’s glory is interpreted by John as a prophecy of the Son’s glory (<em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>). The glory of God is His “own self”, His own personality and essence. This was with God of course from the ultimate beginning of all, and it was this glory which was manifested in both the death and glorification of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em>). The Old Testament title “God of glory” is applied to the Lord Jesus, “the Lord of glory” (<em><a href='B:530 2:8'>1Co 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>). It is&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;glory which radiates from the face of Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>). Jesus is the brightness of God’s glory, because He is the express image of God’s personality (<em><a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a></em>). He received glory from God’s glory (<em><a href='B:680 1:17'>2Pe 1:17</a></em>). God is the “Father of glory”, the prime source of the one true glory, that is reflected both in the Lord Jesus and in ourselves (<em><a href='B:560 1:17'>Eph 1:17</a></em>). What all this exposition means in practice is this. There is only “one glory” of God. That glory refers to the essential “self”, the personality, characteristics, being etc. The Lord Jesus manifested that glory in His mortal life (<em><a href='B:500 2:11'>Joh 2:11</a></em>). But He manifests it now that He has been “glorified”, and will manifest it in the future day of His glory. And the Lord was as in all things a pattern to us. We are bidden follow in His path to glory. We now in our personalities reflect and manifest the one glory of the Father, and our blessed Hope is glory in the future, to be glorified, to be persons (note that-&nbsp;<em>to be persons</em>) who reflect and ‘are’ that glory in a more intimate and complete sense than we are now, marred as we are by our human dysfunction, sin, and weakness of will against temptation. We now reflect that glory as in a dirty bronze mirror. The outline of God’s glory in the face of Jesus is only dimly reflected in us. But we are being changed, from glory to glory, the focus getting clearer all the time, until that great day when we meet Him and see Him face to face, with all that shall imply and result in. But my point in this context is that there is only one glory. The essence of who we are now in our spiritual man, how we reflect it, in our own unique way, is how we shall always be.</p><p>It’s evident to even the most casual reader that there are many connections between John’s Gospel and the Revelation. John’s later writing, just like Paul’s, was shot through with references to the Gospels. The same phrases and words are used. But the question is, What is the connection between them? One comment I have in answer to this is to observe that much of the language of the Gospel of John relating to the&nbsp;<em>present</em>&nbsp;status of the faithful is repeated in Revelation and applied to the faithful in their&nbsp;<em>future</em>&nbsp;glorification. This observation is best explained by examples:&nbsp;</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>John’s Gospel</td><td>The Revelation</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>God tabernacled amongst us in the person of Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> RVmg:)</td><td>“The tabernacle of God is with men” at the second coming of Jesus (<em><a href='B:730 21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rivers of water flow now in the experience of the believer (<em><a href='B:500 7:38-39'>Joh 7:38-39</a></em>)</td><td>The river of water of life bursts forth once Jesus is enthroned upon earth in the future (<em><a href='B:730 22:1'>Rev 22:1</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The manna / bread of life is given to the believer now (John 6)</td><td>Those who overcome will be given “the hidden manna” to eat at the Lord’s return (<em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At the crucifixion, the prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em> was fulfilled when the Jews looked upon the Christ whom they had pierced (<em><a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a></em>)</td><td>The same <em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em> passage is quoted in <em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em> and given a future application, to the response of the Jews at the Lord’s second coming.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>I would suggest a chronological progression in <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>:</p><p>“The word was made flesh"- His birth&nbsp;</p><p>“And dwelt among us"- His life</p><p>“And we beheld his glory, full of grace and truth"- His death on the cross. Christ’s glory is elsewhere used by John with reference to the glory He displayed on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 12:38-41'>Joh 12:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>). John thus begins his Gospel with the statement that he saw the Lord’s death. However, it is also so that John “saw his glory" at the transfiguration; and yet even there, “they saw his glory" (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>) as “they spake of his decease which he should accomplish". His glory and His death were ever linked. The fullness of grace and truth is one of John’s many allusions to Moses’ experience when the Name was declared to him- of Yahweh, a God&nbsp;<em>full&nbsp;</em>of grace and truth (<em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> RV). The Name was fully declared, as fully as could be, in the cross. The Law gave way, through the cross, to the grace and truth that was revealed by Christ after the Law ended (<em><a href='B:500 1:17'>Joh 1:17</a></em>). In His dead, outspent body grace and truth finally replaced law. John goes on to say that the Son has&nbsp;<em>declared&nbsp;</em>the invisible God (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>)- another reference to the cross. The implication may be that as Moses cowered before the glory of the Lord,&nbsp;<em>even he&nbsp;</em>exceedingly feared and quaked, we likewise should make an appropriate response to the glory that was&nbsp;<em>and is&nbsp;</em>(note John’s tenses) displayed to us in the cross. Mark how the naked man, covered in blood and spittle, was there declaring God’s glory. Aaron the High Priest bore the judgment for Israel’s sins, in another anticipation of the cross, whilst arrayed in garments of glory and beauty (<em><a href='B:20 28:30'>Exo 28:30</a></em>). And so was the naked Lord arrayed, for those with spiritual sight. Thus the word was manifested in glory through the cross; and thus <em><a href='B:530 2:1-2'>1Co 2:1-2</a></em> links the crucified Christ with “the testimony of God". See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</p><p>The essential&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of God in Christ was articulated not only in the birth of the Lord, not only at the start of His, but supremely in His death. John’s Gospel is packed with allusion to Moses. Here the reference is to Moses cowering in the rock, beholding the glory of Yahweh and hearing the declaration of the Yahweh Name. Speaking of His forthcoming death, the Lord was to say: “And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them" (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). This second declaration of the Name was to be in His death. The same allusion back to the declaration of Yahweh in Exodus 34 is to be found in <em><a href='B:500 12:27-28'>Joh 12:27-28</a></em>: “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again". This second glorifying of the Name was surely in the Son’s declaration of the Name in His death. And this connects will with the evidence elsewhere presented that the Yahweh Name was closely connected with the Lord’s death, in that ‘Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews’ in Hebrew would have used words, the first letters of which spelt ‘Yahweh’. John’s claim that he beheld the glory of God’s Son may therefore be a specific reference to the way he describes his own ‘seeing’ of the crucifixion in <em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>: “And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe". He seems to be saying: ‘I saw Him there. I really and truly did’. He uses the same kind of language in <em><a href='B:690 4:14'>1Jn 4:14</a></em>: “we have seen and do testify cp. “his record is true" that the Father sent the son to be the saviour of the world" in the cross.</p><p>“The only begotten of the Father" is a phrase nearly always used in the context of the Lord’s death (e.g. <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). The love of God was defined in the way the Lord laid down His life in death (<em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>); but it is equally defined in that “God sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might live" (<em><a href='B:690 4:9'>1Jn 4:9</a></em>). God sending His son into the world was therefore in His death specifically see notes under <em><a href='B:500 3:14-18'>Joh 3:14-18</a></em>. And it was through this that life was won for us. As He hung covered in blood and spittle, as He gasped out forgiveness for His enemies, God’s Son as it were came into the hard world of men. The light shone in the darkness, and the darkness did not and does not overcome it. There, the word, the essential love and grace and judgment and mercy of Yahweh, was made flesh, and tabernacled amongst us.</p><p>The common translation “dwelt" can give the sense that John is merely saying ‘Jesus lived in Israel’; but there is far more to it than that. In clear allusion to his Gospel, John opens his first letter by speaking of the Lord Jesus, whom “we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled a reference to the taking down of the body and embalming?, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness cp. <em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us" (<em><a href='B:690 1:1-3'>1Jn 1:1-3</a></em>). The manifestation of the Son was supremely in His death (<em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:9'>1Jn 4:9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em> Gk:; <em><a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em> cp. 26). And John exalts that they saw this, and now they too declare / manifest it to the world. One cannot behold the cross of Christ and not witness it to others. John says that he beheld “his glory". Christ’s glory is elsewhere used by John with reference to the glory He displayed on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 12:38-41'>Joh 12:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>). However, it is also so that John “saw his glory" at the transfiguration; and yet even there, “they saw his glory" (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>) as “they spake of his decease which he should accomplish". His glory and His death were ever linked. The fullness of grace and truth is one of John’s many allusions to Moses’ experience when the Name was declared to him- of Yahweh, a God&nbsp;<em>full&nbsp;</em>of grace and truth (<em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> RV). The Name was fully declared, as fully as could be, in the cross. The Law gave way, through the cross, to the grace and truth that was revealed by Christ after the Law ended (<em><a href='B:500 1:17'>Joh 1:17</a></em>). In His dead, outspent body grace and truth finally replaced law. John goes on to say that the Son&nbsp;<em>has declared&nbsp;</em>the invisible God (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>)- another reference to the cross. The implication may be that as Moses cowered before the glory of the Lord,&nbsp;<em>even he&nbsp;</em>exceedingly feared and quaked; we likewise should make an appropriate response to the glory that was&nbsp;<em>and is&nbsp;</em>(note John’s tenses) displayed to us in the cross. All of God’s word was made flesh in the crucified body of the Lord Jesus. The very essence of Yahweh and all His self-revelation was epitomised there. Therefore when the Son of man was lifted up, men knew the truth of all God’s words see notes on <em><a href='B:500 8:21-28'>Joh 8:21-28</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord was “full of grace and truth". Yet according to <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em> RV, on the cross the Lord emptied Himself. Yet there He was filled with the essence of Yahweh’s own character; for the RV of Exodus 34 stresses that Yahweh is a God whose name is&nbsp;<em>full</em>&nbsp;of grace and truth. On the cross He was emptied of self and yet totally filled. The fact that the word was made flesh in the crucifixion explains why the atonement is described time and again with metaphors, as if it is a struggle for language alone to convey what happened. In the person of the crucified Christ, the ideas, the language, the words… became real and concretely expressed in a person. There is far more revealed by meditation upon the cross than can ever be put in words. There, the word, all the words, were made flesh. It is possible to see the fulfilment of the idea of the word being made flesh in Pilate's mocking presentation of the bedraggled Saviour: "Behold the man”. Rudolph Bultmann commented: "The declaration "the Word became flesh" has become visible in its extremest consequence”. There in the spat upon Son of God we see humanity as it is meant to be; "the flesh", "the man" as God intended, unequalled and unmatched in any other human being.</p><p>John uses the same word for 'dwelling' in writing in Revelation of how the Father and Son shall dwell with men, and shall be their sole light, the only light that shines forth in their experience and existence. These ideas are all used here in <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> and the context regarding what He is doing now in the hearts of His people. This gift of His life is therefore a pre-experience, a foretaste, of the life we shall eternally experience. In this sense we "have eternal life" now. We live the life we shall eternally live- His life. Paul puts in another way when he says that the Spirit is given to us as the foretaste or deposit guaranteeing our final salvation (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>).</p><p>How exactly was the word made flesh in the person of Jesus? It was not simply a question of the nature of His birth. ‘The word’ was a title given to the Lord in recognition of His achievement in being and becoming the ‘word made flesh’. It wasn’t something which automatically happened to the Lord, as an irresistible process in which He played no part. The Lord’s Old Testament allusions, His familiarity with and use of His Father’s words doubtless had a lot to do with His becoming ‘the word made flesh’. If Paul alluded to the words of the Lord Jesus once every four verses on average, it is to be expected that the Son of God quoted and alluded to His Father’s word even moreso. And this is what we find, when we search the Lord’s words for their allusions to the Old Testament.</p><p>An example of the Lord’s perhaps unconscious usage of His Father’s words is to be found in His exasperated comment: “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?” (<em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em>). Of course the Lord would have spoken those words and expressed those ideas in Aramaic- but the similarity is striking with His Father’s Hebrew words of <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation…?”. As a son comes out with phrases and word usages which ‘Could be his father speaking’, so the Lord Jesus did the same thing. What I am saying is that the Lord was not merely quoting or alluding to the Father’s Old Testament words, in the way that, say, Paul or Peter did. As the Father’s Son, He was speaking in the same way as His Father, no doubt saturated with the written record of the Father’s words, but all the same, there were those similarities of wording and underlying thinking which are only seen between fathers and sons. And His words of <em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em> seem to me to be an example of this.</p><p>The level, depth and multiplicity of Old Testament allusions becomes the more amazing when we accept that these were spoken words, some of them clearly spoken unprepared and off-the-cuff. Literature can be crafted to pack multiple allusions. But when a speaker produces such a depth of allusion, one can only marvel at his intellectual depth. But with the Lord, it reflects His utter familiarity with the Father’s word, grasping the real spirit of it all. He breathed it, thought it, spoke it, lived it. And in all He said, this was reflected. He truly was “the word made flesh”. The following are just a few examples from the first words of Jesus; but the list can be continued. The simple fact is that on average, the Lord is alluding to the Old Testament at least 3 times in every verse This means that every phrase of every sentence He is recorded as speaking- is alluding to His Father’s word. It would’ve been like an orphaned son ‘finding’ his late father’s words. He would read the words with such delight, and somehow eagerly pick up their sense in the way nobody else could.</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>The Words Of Jesus</td><td>Old Testament Allusions</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 3:15'>Mat 3:15</a></em> Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.</td><td><em><a href='B:330 18:19'>Eze 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 18:21'>Eze 18:21</a></em> fulfil righteousness</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 4:4'>Mat 4:4</a></em> It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God</td><td><em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em> direct quote</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 4:7'>Mat 4:7</a></em> It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.</td><td><em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em> direct quote</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 4:10'>Mat 4:10</a></em> Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.</td><td><em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em> direct quote</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em> Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.</td><td><em><a href='B:230 40:17'>Psa 40:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:4'>Mat 5:4</a></em> Blessed are they that mourn:</td><td><em><a href='B:290 61:1-3'>Isa 61:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:2'>Isa 66:2</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>for they shall be comforted.</td><td><em><a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:5'>Mat 5:5</a></em> Blessed are the meek:</td><td><em><a href='B:230 37:11'>Psa 37:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 37:20'>Psa 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:21'>Isa 60:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 22:24-25'>Pro 22:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 25:8'>Pro 25:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 25:15'>Pro 25:15</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>for they shall inherit the earth.</td><td><em><a href='B:10 15:7-8'>Gen 15:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:13'>Exo 32:13</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em> Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.</td><td><em><a href='B:10 49:18'>Gen 49:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 17:15'>Psa 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:20'>Psa 119:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:6'>Jer 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:24'>Isa 45:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 55:1'>Isa 55:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:13'>Isa 65:13</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:7'>Mat 5:7</a></em> Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.</td><td><em><a href='B:100 22:26-27'>2Sa 22:26-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 18:25-26'>Psa 18:25-26</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:8'>Mat 5:8</a></em> Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.</td><td><em><a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 17:15'>Psa 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 38:3'>Isa 38:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 38:11'>Isa 38:11</a></em></td><td></td></tr></table><p>If you follow through some of those allusions- and there are surely many more that I’ve not picked up- it becomes apparent that the Lord had a mind capable of operating on several different levels of allusion at once. So it was not simply that He was hyper-familiar with His Father’s word. He had the intellectual ability, with all the intelligence of God’s very own Son, to think and speak on several levels at once. Hence His words were absolutely&nbsp;<em>full</em>&nbsp;of God’s thoughts and words. He was so fully and deeply “the word made flesh”. And in analysing&nbsp;<em>from where</em>&nbsp;in the Old Testament the Lord quoted, we find that He had His favourite places- just as we’d expect from a genuine man. He appears to have been especially fond of the references to the “Servant” in the latter half of Isaiah; and also of the Psalms. He quotes from them both literally and freely, with all the confidence and appropriacy of a person who is thoroughly familiar with the text. But the way and extent to which He applied it all to Himself makes Him in very reality “the word made flesh”.</p><p>It wasn't only in words but in actions too that the Lord was the word made flesh. The Lord Jesus lived life; He didn't just let events happen to Him. Much as I respected Harry Whittaker both as an individual and an expositor, I can never understand why throughout his monumental&nbsp;<em>Studies In The Gospels</em>, he repeatedly makes the point that the Lord Jesus didn't go around consciously trying to fulfil Bible prophecy. My reading of the Gospels tells me that the Lord did do exactly this. The writers stress that He did action X or spoke word Y in order to fulfil Bible prophecy A and B. He consciously made the word flesh in Himself. A case can be made that He carefully planned out His ministry; He didn't just let events happen to Him. I don't find it hard to believe that He consciously engineered the timing of His own death to be at Passover time, after a three and a half year public ministry. He purposefully seems to have pressed all the buttons in Jewish expectations to lead them to revolt against the dashed expectations they had of Him. His actions in the temple could be read as almost asking to be killed. He knew what makes people tick and act to an extent we can't begin to understand. He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem to die there (<em><a href='B:490 9:60'>Luk 9:60</a></em>). He laid down His life- it wasn't taken from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:15'>Joh 1:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>John testifies of him and cries out, saying: This was he of whom I said: He that comes after me is ranked above me For he was senior to me-&nbsp;</em>The record of John urgently crying out is perhaps mentioned because John was preaching to some who considered John the Baptist as the saviour, and were focused upon him rather than the Lord Jesus. John's message repeatedly featured his statements that he was nothing and the Lord everything.</p><p>John's comment that he came "after" Jesus, and that Jesus was the redeemer rather than he himself contain a strange allusion to the words of the redeemer-who-was-incapable-of-redeeming in <em><a href='B:80 4:4'>Rth 4:4</a></em> - Boaz told him that "I am after thee", but in the end the incapable-redeemer plucked off his shoe as a sign of unworthiness to redeem (<em><a href='B:80 4:7'>Rth 4:7</a></em>). And John surely also had this in mind when he commented that he was unworthy to unloose Messiah's shoe (<em><a href='B:500 1:27'>Joh 1:27</a></em>). The allusions are surely indicative of the way John felt like the unworthy / incapable redeemer, eclipsed before Boaz / Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:16'>Joh 1:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:560 3:19'>Eph 3:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Of his fullness we all received, with grace upon grace</em>-</p><p> As noted on :14, the allusion has been to Moses nervously beholding God's glory and the declaration of His Name, Yahweh the God full of grace and truth. Moses was seen as the unapproproachable acme of spirituality; but now all who have perceived the Lord's glory have seen as Moses did. And so much more. That fullness of the name declared in <em><a href='B:20 34:4-6'>Exo 34:4-6</a></em> "A God full of..." grace and truth has now been received by us. And it is piled on- grace upon grace. We are not like Moses merely beholding a theoretical statement of these things, but actually participating in them and receiving them, through the power of the Spirit. The Spirit is clearly in view as "grace" is used, 'gift', so often referring to the gift of the Spirit.</p><p>"His fullness" is literally 'His filling'. The word and idea is often used in the context of being filled with the Spirit. We have been filled with what the Lord Jesus was full of- the Spirit, the characteristics of the Name. Again, the idea of filling suggests something done to us, so long as we are open to it, rather than a self-filling by our own intellectual effort. If we are in the body of Christ, in that body we receive "the fullness of Him that fills all in all" (<em><a href='B:560 1:23'>Eph 1:23</a></em>). <em><a href='B:560 3:19'>Eph 3:19</a></em> is specific that it is through the indwelling of the Spirit, in the "inner man", "in our hearts by faith", that we are "filled with all the fullness of God". Through the Comforter, the gift of the Holy Spirit which "shall be within you", "your joy may be filled up" (<em><a href='B:500 16:24'>Joh 16:24</a></em> s:w:); hence the Lord's disappointment that at that time, "sorrow has filled up your heart" (<em><a href='B:500 16:6'>Joh 16:6</a></em>). He wished for that to be displaced by the filling of the Spirit, which would be of joy and not sadness. The Lord's spirit of joy would be filled up in the hearts of His followers, "within themselves" (<em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>). The reference is continually to internal filling, "within", rather than to the external miraculous gifts of the Spirit. <em><a href='B:520 15:13'>Rom 15:13</a></em> uses the same word: "The God of hope fill you up with all joy and peace... through the power of the Holy Spirit". The Lord ascended to Heaven and received the Spirit so that He might fill up all things of the new creation (<em><a href='B:560 4:10'>Eph 4:10</a></em>). And thus <em><a href='B:560 5:18'>Eph 5:18</a></em> simply exhorts: "Be filled with the Spirit". We are to be open to it, and we shall be filled with it:&nbsp; The same word and appeal is to be found in <em><a href='B:570 4:19'>Phi 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:9'>Col 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:10'>Col 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:12'>Col 4:12</a></em>. It is a major New Testament teaching that cannot be ignored. Hence John later appeals to his converts to allow themselves to be filled with joy (<em><a href='B:690 1:4'>1Jn 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:700 1:12'>2Jn 1:12</a></em>).</p><p>The Father’s whole spirit / attitude is of wanting to lavish grace. Our spirit likewise must not be mean- totting up the cost of all the things the visitors have eaten, etc. But God’s lavishing of grace is not only in material things, but supremely in His patient forgiveness and salvation towards us. Are we super abounding in forgiveness, or do we grudgingly offer it only upon evident repentance from others? Such legalism is associated with Moses, but grace and truth, "grace upon grace”, came by the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 1:16'>Joh 1:16</a></em>). Grace is 'ever increasing' ("grace upon grace") in that as we grow in Christ, we perceive that grace more and more. God not only forgives, but He&nbsp;<em>delights</em>&nbsp;in doing so (<em><a href='B:290 62:4'>Isa 62:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:18'>Mic 7:18</a></em>); the way He is spoken of as ‘delighting’ in spiritually weak Israel is part and parcel of Him lavishing grace as He does (<em><a href='B:40 14:8'>Num 14:8</a></em>). It must be so awful to have such a wonderful spirit of lavishing grace and love, consciously giving out life and patient forgiveness to so many; and yet not be appreciated for it, to have puny humans shaking their fist at God because they die a brief moment of time sooner than they think they should, to have tiny people arrogantly questioning His love:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:17'>Joh 1:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ</em>-</p><p> The Lord is here presented as the mediator of a different covenant, with far superior blessing mediated. The contrast is between the law being "given", and the gift / grace of the Spirit 'coming'. We have not been given a set of commandments and left to get on with it. Grace and truth have come to us, and we saw on :16 that these things have entered within our very hearts. There are many Christians today who have received nothing from their religion but a set of commandments 'given' to them; they need to open themselves to allow the coming of grace into their hearts, the gift of the Spirit. We have just read that it was the personality of the Lord Jesus which was full of grace and truth (:14). But His personality, His Spirit, enters 'comes' to us. For through the Comforter, the promised Holy Spirit which "shall be within you", He 'comes' to us, in the fullness of His personality and character (<em><a href='B:500 14:18'>Joh 14:18</a></em>). John's later greeting to his converts "Grace be with you... in truth" (<em><a href='B:700 1:3'>2Jn 1:3</a></em>) was therefore no mere standard introduction to a letter; he believed that grace and truth really could enter them in abundance, and he wished this for them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known-&nbsp;</em>"Made Him known" or AV "declared" is another allusion to the declaration of God's Name and the fullness of His character and glory in physical form to Moses (see on <em><a href='B:20 32:30-32'>Exo 32:30-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:23'>Luk 16:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:4-6'>1Co 8:4-6</a></em>). Again, all believers are positioned with Moses, who was denied his request to see God. But effectively, we have seen God in His Son; he who perceives / sees the Son has seen the Father. John parallels the word becoming flesh, with the Son declaring the Father who cannot be seen (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>). This is a reference to the declaration of Yahweh’s Name to Moses, at which time Moses was reminded that God cannot be physically seen. Thus the declaration of the Yahweh Name to Moses is paralleled with the word / Name being made flesh. The Father glorified His Name in the Son (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>), who was the word of God.</p><p>John here makes clear allusion to Moses. This alludes to Moses being unable to see God, whereas the Lord now is cuddled in the bosom of the Father- such closeness, such a soft image, even now in his heavenly glory The Lord declared God's character in His perfect life and above all on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>).</p><p>Again, the making known or declaration of God is something done to us. And it is done to us by the Lord Jesus through His Spirit. We are given "the spirit of... knowledge in the revelation declaring / making known of Him" (<em><a href='B:560 1:17'>Eph 1:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:19'>Joh 1:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him: Who are you?</em>-</p><p> We wonder if that delegation included the zealot Saul of Tarsus, for as noted elsewhere, he continually alludes to the words and character of John the Baptist. These priests and Levites had been sent from the Jerusalem Pharisees, with whom Paul was associated (:24).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed: I am not the Christ</em>-</p><p> This is a play on ideas. We would rather expect: 'He denied that he was the Christ'. But John did not deny- i:e. that Jesus was the Christ; he proclaimed that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>was not the Christ, but Jesus&nbsp;<em>was</em>. The same word for "confessed" is to be found in <em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>, where any who confessed Jesus as Christ was to be put out of the synagogue. It was this threat which kept many from believing openly in the Lord, and some were even led to deny the Lord Jesus as Messiah and instead claim to be followers of John the Baptist. But John points out that John the Baptist bravely refused to deny Jesus as Christ, he confessed Him as Christ:&nbsp;</p><p>John's Gospel features the Lord Jesus confidently stating "I am...". The context is set for this by the way John's Gospel begins by describing how John the Baptist said "I am not..." ("I am not the Messiah", <em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>; "I am not Elijah", <em><a href='B:500 1:21'>Joh 1:21</a></em>; "I am not worthy", <em><a href='B:500 1:27'>Joh 1:27</a></em>. By confessing his own weakness, who he was not, John the Baptist was paving the way for the recognition and acceptance of Jesus. And our self-abnegation will do likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:21'>Joh 1:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they asked him: What then? Are you Elijah? And he said: I am not. Are you the prophet? And he answered: No</em>-</p><p>John knew surely that he was the Elijah prophet- for he consciously was preparing the way of Messiah and calling Israel to repentance. He was preaching in the very wilderness area from where Elijah had been taken up at the conclusion of his ministry; and he surely consciously chose to dress with the hairy garment and leather belt which had been Elijah's badge of office (<em><a href='B:110 1:8'>1Ki 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 2:13-14'>1Ki 2:13-14</a></em>). It's also been pointed out that the Essenes and other Jewish groups at the time taught self-baptism, whereas John was consciously baptizing people himself, as if he saw himself as specifically preparing them for something. The Lord Himself of course understood John to have been the Elijah prophet. And yet- John denies he is Elijah, but focuses instead on how he is but a "voice". I therefore conclude that his humility was such that he was totally downplaying his office- as if to say 'I am so much a mere voice, that effectively I'm not the Elijah prophet- the message I preach is so far more important than the office I bear'. Those who bear 'offices' in the church of Jesus would do well to have his spirit. Perhaps this is why he seems to have made very few personal disciples- although thousands were baptized by him, having been so impressed by his message. The Epistles of Clement number his disciples at about 30; and <em><a href='B:500 4:1'>Joh 4:1</a></em> comments that the Lord Jesus made more disciples than John did. I take this as a fine reflection upon his selfless witness, focusing so much on his message rather than developing any personal following. He was 'the friend of the bridegroom', the one who arranged the marriage of the bridegroom and sought out the bride. And that, really, is what we are about too, with all the sense of dedication and earnestness which a such a person has when aiming to find a partner for one they know to be a truly good man.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:22'>Joh 1:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They replied to him: Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. How do you describe yourself?</em>-</p><p> This recalls the concern of the local Roman governors to have some reason for sending Paul to Rome for trial. The Jewish angst about men like John the Baptist was not because they had done anything wrong, but because of the hard to define touching of conscience achieved by their preaching of the Lord. The AV "What sayest thou of thyself?" alludes to the way that a teacher was supposed to confidently introduce themselves and their mission in words which were uniquely theirs. The Lord alludes to this when He insists that He does not "speak of Myself" (<em><a href='B:500 12:49'>Joh 12:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:10'>Joh 14:10</a></em>) but only speaks the Father's words. Perhaps He learnt that from John's example, who refused to speak of himself but just quoted the Father's words (:23).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:23'>Joh 1:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord</em>-</p><p> When asked who he was, John’s reply was simply: “a voice”. He was nothing; his message about Jesus was everything. In all this there is a far cry from the self-confident, self-projecting speaking off the podium which characterizes so much of our ‘preaching’ today. So John’s appeal to repentance was shot through with a recognition of his own humanity. It wasn’t mere moralizing. We likely don’t preach as John did because we fear that confronting people with their sins is inappropriate for us to do, because we too are sinners. But with recognition of our own humanity, we build a bridge between our audience and ourselves. See on <em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>.</p><p>"Make straight" translates a Greek word which without doubt means "immediate", or in old English "straightway". It is translated like this multiple times. The way for the Lord Messiah to come to Jerusalem in glory could have been made immediate if Israel had truly responded to John's message. There was therefore a passion and urgency in John's call for repentance. "The way of the Lord" is the term later used for the Christian path (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 18:25'>Act 18:25</a></em>). The implication is that the Lord is ready to come any moment, is on His way to Zion- and the quicker we make His way "straight", the quicker He will arrive.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:24'>Joh 1:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>These priests and Levites had been sent from the Pharisees</em>-</p><p> As noted on :19, Saul may well have been amongst them. The message of John the Baptist would have been another of the goads of conscience which he was kicking against by refusing to accept the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:25'>Joh 1:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Again they asked him: Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?</em>-</p><p> Like many today, they mistakenly assumed that to baptize people, you need authority. They also indicate their belief that before Messiah's revelation, there is to be mass baptisms of Jews. The command to all in Christ to go forth and preach-and-baptize (the command is all one) would have been shocking to a first century Jewish audience, who believed that only Messiah Himself or “the prophet” could baptize (<em><a href='B:500 1:25'>Joh 1:25</a></em>). The implication of the Lord’s command was that all in Him are in fact Him, in their preaching of Him.</p><p>John’s humility is brought out by the way John fields the question as to whether he is “the Christ or Elijah or the Prophet?”. He could have answered: ‘I am the Elijah prophet’- for the Lord Himself said of John that “this is Elijah”, with perhaps conscious reference back to this question (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>). But John didn’t answer that way. His reply was simply to speak of the greatness of Christ and his unworthiness to be His herald (<em><a href='B:500 1:26-27'>Joh 1:26-27</a></em>). John’s humility is brought out yet further by reflection on the fact that he clearly baptized huge numbers of people, and yet also had a group of people known as ‘the disciples of John’. Clearly he didn’t intend to found a sect, and was so taken up with trying to prepare people for the Lord’s coming that he simply wished to lead them to some level of repentance and baptize them, without necessarily making them part of ‘his disciples’. John's low self-estimation is seen in how he denied that he was "Elijah" or the "prophet" whom the Jews expected to come prior to Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 1:21'>Joh 1:21</a></em>). The Lord Himself clearly understood John as the Elijah prophet- "this is Elijah" (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>), He said of John. John wasn't being untruthful, nor did he misunderstand who he was. For he associates his "voice" with the voice of the Elijah prophet crying in the wilderness, and appropriates language from the Elijah prophecy of Malachi 4 to his own preaching. His denial that he was 'that prophet' therefore reflects rather a humility in him, a desire for his message to be heard for what it was, rather than any credibility to be given to it because of his office. There's a powerful challenge for today’s preacher of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:26'>Joh 1:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>John answered: I baptize in water; but in the midst of you stands one whom you do not know</em>-</p><p> The other Gospels all go on to say "I baptize in water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit". That latter teaching is pointedly omitted in John, and we wonder why, given the frequent references to the gift of the Spirit earlier in this chapter. Perhaps the idea is that those addressed in the synoptics were indeed baptized with both water and Spirit, but the group addressed here were baptized in water but rejected baptism of the Spirit, because they refused to know or recognize the Lord Jesus as Messiah. The gift of the Spirit involves the Lord Jesus being in our midst, and He was in their midst, but they did not know or recognize Him; rather like the Corinthians having the Spirit amongst them, but not being spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:27'>Joh 1:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that comes after me, his shoelace I am not worthy to untie</em>-</p><p> Untying the shoelaces, or carrying the sandals, are idioms for 'being a herald'. John doesn't mean that he did not do this because he was not worthy to do so; he means that he was doing the work of a herald, which he was not worthy to do. His witness to the Lord is continually laced with his own confession of weakness and unworthiness. Given that his moral standards were apparently radically higher than those around him, such humility has much to commend it. It ought to be the hallmark set upon all our witness to the Lord, and it will make our appeal the more compelling. Perhaps John was somehow aware that any who would not carry the Lord's cross with Him were "not worthy" of Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:28'>Joh 1:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This incident took place in Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing</em>-</p><p> Wherever this place was, it was "on the other side" of the Jordan river, on the East bank. We wonder why John chose to baptize there, rather than on the West bank. The other name given in the manuscripts for this place is Bethabara, 'house of the ford / crossing point'. Perhaps John wanted them to perceive their baptism as a crossing over Jordan with Joshua / Jesus into a promised land.</p><p>Perhaps John’s Gospel purposefully inserts the comment that John the Baptist baptized many people after stating that he was not worthy to be doing what he was doing as the Lord's herald. It is as if to draw a link between his humility, and the success in preaching which he had. Paul perhaps directs us back to John when he says that we are not “sufficient” to be the savour of God to this world; and yet we are made sufficient to preach by God (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:5-6'>2Co 3:5-6</a></em> RV). How terribly wrong it is for missionary service to be gloried in and somehow a reason for those who do it to become puffed up in self-importance.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The next day he saw Jesus coming towards him, and he said: Behold The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world</em>-</p><p> John the Baptist beheld the Lord Jesus walking, and commented that He&nbsp;<em>was then</em>, as He walked, the lamb of God (with all the sacrificial overtones of that phrase), that&nbsp;<em>takes away</em>, right then, three years before the cross, the sin of the world. The essence of what the Lord did on the cross was in fact ongoing throughout His life. John saw every man as in the desperate, urgent intensity of Passover night, needing to identify with the slain lamb. John&nbsp;sees&nbsp;Jesus and&nbsp;says&nbsp;“Look&nbsp;The lamb of God…". The three words for “see", “says" and “Look" are uniquely repeated in <em><a href='B:500 19:26'>Joh 19:26</a></em>, where again we have the lamb of God, now sacrificed, on the cross. "Takes away" is the word used by John to describe the cry of the Jews: "Away with Him" (<em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em>). Here we see how human volition, however bad, is used within God's plan of salvation. The "world" whose sins are taken away is the world of believing persons, as mentioned earlier in this chapter. The Lord was thereby the creator of that world. The "world" simply cannot be understood as the literal universe. For it is persons who sin and whose sin is taken away by the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:30'>Joh 1:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This is he of whom I said: After me comes a man who is ranked above me. For he was senior to me</em>-</p><p> Again we see John's repeated self-deprecation in presenting the Lord Jesus to others. John the Baptist was actually older than the Lord Jesus; he therefore meant that Jesus was “before” him in the sense of being more important than him. C:H. Dodd interprets this passage as meaning: “There is a man in my following who has taken precedence over me, because he is… essentially my superior- C:H. Dodd,&nbsp;<em>Historical Tradition In The Fourth Gospel&nbsp;</em>(Cambridge: CUP, 1976) p. 274. See on <em><a href='B:500 8:58'>Joh 8:58</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:31'>Joh 1:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I did not perceive him, but so he should be made manifest to Israel, for this reason I come baptizing in water</em>-</p><p> John has just lamented that his audience do not know or perceive the Messiahship of Jesus (:26). Now he uses the same word in saying that he too did not know or "perceive Him". He is seeking to build a bridge between himself and his audience, admitting that he who is now heralding Jesus as Messiah did not at one stage "perceive Him", presumably referring to how whilst they were growing up and in their 20s, John did not perceive that the Lord was in fact God's Son. This shows that John did not spend his entire time from childhood to 30 years old in the deserts. He had met his relative Jesus of Nazareth in that period, but had not perceived Him as Son of God and Messiah. This itself is an artless testament to the Lord's perfection and humility; He who never sinned, neither by omission nor commission, was never perceived as anything unduly special. Not even by someone as spiritually inclined as John, who would surely have heard the stories of the virgin birth from his mother Elizabeth.</p><p>One obvious encouragement to be hopeful in our witness is the Biblical implication that all men and women, potentially, have the possibility of responding to the Gospel. It was so in the first century- John the Baptist had the&nbsp;<em>potential</em>&nbsp;to convert all Israel, for He came "that all men through him might believe" (<em><a href='B:500 1:7'>Joh 1:7</a></em>), so that Christ "should be made manifest to (all) Israel" (<em><a href='B:500 1:31'>Joh 1:31</a></em>). The entire nation&nbsp;<em>could</em>&nbsp;have converted; but they didn't.</p><p>"That (Christ) should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water" (<em><a href='B:500 1:31'>Joh 1:31</a></em>) seems to make baptism a pre-requisite for accepting Christ. Indeed, Jewish theology expects baptism to be associated with the coming of Messiah and the Elijah prophet. Therefore the Jews asked John: "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias?" (<em><a href='B:500 1:25'>Joh 1:25</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 17:11'>Mat 17:11</a></em>. For Israel to call upon themselves the Name of the Lord when they repent, it is fitting that Elijah baptizes them into His Name. <em><a href='B:450 13:1'>Zec 13:1</a></em> may hint at latter day baptisms among repentant Jewry: "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David... for sin and for uncleanness". Israel will call upon themselves the Name of Yahweh our righteousness by being baptized into the Name of the Father and Son (<em><a href='B:300 33:16'>Jer 33:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:32'>Joh 1:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And John testified, saying: I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him</em>-</p><p> As noted on :31, John did not perceive that his relative Jesus was God's Son. It was not until he saw the Spirit descending on the Lord that he realized that his relative Jesus was the Son of God. It was by the activity of the Spirit that he came to this perception. His earlier not knowing or perceiving who Jesus was thereby enabled him to build a common platform with the Jews who still would not know or perceive Him (:24 s:w:).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:33'>Joh 1:33</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>I would not have perceived him except He that sent me to baptize in water, He had said to me: Upon whomsoever you shall see the Spirit descend and remain upon him, the same is he that baptizes in the Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> As noted on :31 and :32, John was preaching preparation for the coming of Messiah without knowing who Messiah was. It was not until the Lord's baptism that he realized. We wonder why, therefore, he met Jesus with the comment that 'I have need to be baptized of You, and not You by me'. Maybe he said that out of deep respect of his relative Jesus as a better man than him, which again reflects his humility. For it was only after the Lord's baptism that the Spirit came upon Him, and John realized that this was the Son of God.</p><p>The Spirit descending&nbsp;<em>and remaining</em>&nbsp;upon the Lord was the sign that He was God's Son. The same word, often translated "abide", is used of how the Spirit is to both come and abide with all believers after they receive it at baptism. The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, was intended to come and dwell / remain within the hearts of the recipients (<em><a href='B:500 14:17'>Joh 14:17</a></em> s:w:). The gift of the Spirit is the proof that God abides / remains within us if we allow the Spirit to abide / remain within our hearts; and this is the proof that we are "the sons of God" (<em><a href='B:690 3:24'>1Jn 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:13'>1Jn 4:13</a></em>). The Lord's baptism is therefore intended to be programmatic for us all. All who are baptized receive the gift of the Spirit, which accounts for that zeal and verve within them after baptism; but so many do not let it abide. The Corinthians had been given the Spirit, but by the time Paul wrote to them, they were "not spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:34'>Joh 1:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God</em>-</p><p> John's later references to our need to testify that Jesus is Son of God, to witness publicly to what we "have seen", is therefore all an appeal to follow the example of John in witnessing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:35'>Joh 1:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The next day John was standing with two of his disciples</em>-</p><p> Out of those who came out into the desert to be baptized, some remained with John and devoted themselves to his teaching. We must remember that not until he had baptized the Lord did John understand that He was the Son of God. We can better understand why his disciples needed to be properly baptized into Jesus in Acts 19; for if they were John's disciples before the Lord's baptism and had then returned from the desert, they would not have been taught that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:36'>Joh 1:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he watched Jesus as he walked and said: Behold The Lamb of God</em>-</p><p> We sense here John's deep love and admiration of the Lord, watching His from a distance and uttering words of adoration. Again we see his selfless spirit, asking his own followers to instead follow Him. John's usage of the term "Lamb of God" suggests he was one of the few who perceived that the Lord must die, and His blood was required to save Israel.</p><p>We can read of the cross, speak of it; and yet totally fail to realize the powerful imperatives which abound in its’ message. Andrew and John heard John the Baptist call Jesus the “lamb of God”, and followed Him, in apparent acceptance that He was the Messianic sacrifice. And yet in reality, they could not at that time accept the saying that Jesus was to die at Jerusalem in sacrifice, and that they were to shoulder His cross and follow Him there.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:37'>Joh 1:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the two disciples, hearing him speak, followed after Jesus</em>-</p><p> The followers of John went off and followed the Lord. This was just what John wanted. This is in sharp contrast to the gaining of personal following which so many Christian preachers have been guilty of. The two disciples were Andrew (:40) and presumably John, who always avoids mentioning his own name in his preaching of the Gospel which we have transcripted here in the Gospel of John. John's encouragement of others to "follow after Jesus" is therefore based upon his own personal example. And in this again we have a pattern for our witness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus turned around, and observing they were following him, said to them: What do you seek? And they replied: Rabbi (we would say Teacher). Where are you staying?</em>-</p><p> The disciples were asked: “What seek ye?”, and they reply: “Where dwellest thou?”. Remember that this is John, one of them, recording their response (see on :37). It’s as if he’s pointing out how inappropriate was their response to Jesus; rather like the record of Peter wanting to build a tent for Jesus, Moses and Elijah so they stay a bit longer:&nbsp;<em>They</em>&nbsp;had responded inappropriately- and yet they urged their hearers and readers to respond appropriately.</p><p>John is highlighting how they misunderstood. They asked where the Lord was abiding that night, thinking in terms of a physical house, and for a limited time- maybe just that night. But as John will demonstrate at length, the Lord abides not in houses, nor temporarily, but permanently in the hearts of believers through His Spirit. ‘Abiding’ is a major theme in John. Several times he records how the Lord Jesus ‘abode’ in houses or areas during His ministry (<em><a href='B:500 1:38-39'>Joh 1:38-39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:12'>Joh 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:40'>Joh 4:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:9'>Joh 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:40'>Joh 10:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:6'>Joh 11:6</a></em>), culminating in the Lord’s words that He would still abide with them through the Spirit gift, but would physically leave them soon (<em><a href='B:500 14:25'>Joh 14:25</a></em>). The repeated teaching of the Lord is that actually, He will permanently abide in the heart of whoever believes in Him. And all the stories of Him ‘abiding’ a night here or there prepare the way for this. Those hearts become like the humble homes of Palestine where He spent odd nights- the difference being that there is now a permanent quality to that ‘abiding’, “for ever”. This is how close and real the Lord can come to us, if His words truly abide in us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:39'>Joh 1:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to them: Come, and you shall see. They went therefore, and saw where he stayed; and they stayed with him that day. It was about the tenth hour</em>-</p><p> As noted on :38, the Lord abides in hearts through the Spirit. But that will only be perceived if we ourselves come after Him, consciously following Him in our thinking and life decisions.</p><p>Consider the way that Jesus says: "Come and see"- and somehow Philip finds himself soon afterwards using those very same words when talking with his friend Nathanael: "Come and see" (:46). And so reflection upon the actual words of Jesus, a love of them, allowing them to abide in us, is a major part of what it means to be a Christian, a Christ-like one. Consciously or unconsciously, we shall begin to speak, think and reason as He did; to have His spirit in us, both developing it consciously, and being open to receiving it. This is where those red letter Bibles, which print the words of Jesus in red, are really a helpful focus for us.</p><p>In John, the Lord often invites men to "come" (<em><a href='B:500 1:39'>Joh 1:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:16'>Joh 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:40'>Joh 5:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:37'>Joh 7:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:12'>Joh 21:12</a></em>); and members of “the bride" also, quite naturally and artlessly, invite others to "come" too (<em><a href='B:500 1:41'>Joh 1:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:45-46'>Joh 1:45-46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:29'>Joh 4:29</a></em>). My point is that the natural response of the one who hears is to say to others "come". It won't be something which has to be done as a great act of the will, we won't need to be fed with ideas by some preaching Committee; he that hears will say, "Come".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:40'>Joh 1:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>One of the two that had heard John and had followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother</em>-</p><p> We wonder why in :35 and :37 "the two" were not immediately introduced to us in the narrative as Andrew and the disciple whom Jesus loved (John). I suggest it is in order to help us play Bible television with the scene, of men totally transfixed in observing the Son of God; all personal issues, even their names, became subsumed beneath He was and is all and in all.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:41'>Joh 1:41</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The first thing he did was to find his brother Simon; and he said to him: We have found the Messiah (we would say Christ)</em>-</p><p> Andrew “found” Christ and then s:w. ‘finds’ his brother for Christ. What we hear and learn we naturally desire to spread to others. To immediately share ("the first thing he did") the good news about the Lord Jesus is something which comes absolutely naturally to those who find Him. It is this spirit which needs to be, and indeed can be, even in those who were as it were schooled into Christ through a Christian upbringing.</p><p>Peter’s proclamation of Jesus as Messiah half way through Mark’s record of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em>) is presented by him as a climax of understanding. And yet according to <em><a href='B:500 1:41'>Joh 1:41</a></em>, Andrew and Peter had known this right from the start. The implication is surely that they, as simple working men, probably illiterate, had merely repeated in awe words and phrases like “Messiah” and “Son of God” with no real sense of their import. Yet again, the Lord gently bore with their misunderstandings, and Peter of his own initiative, 18 months later, came to gleefully blurt out the same basic ideas but with now far deeper insight- although he still incorrectly perceived the Messiah as one who would not suffer but provide instant glorification. Thus the spiritual growth of the disciples is revealed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:42'>Joh 1:42</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He took him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said: You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas (we call him Peter)</em>-</p><p> There is reason to think that like Paul, Peter is held up as a pattern for all who would afterwards believe. The way Peter is brought to Jesus and named by him has evident connection with the bringing of Eve cp. the whole bride of Christ to Adam cp. Christ to be named (<em><a href='B:10 2:22-23'>Gen 2:22-23</a></em> = Jn. 1;41,42).</p><p>"Son of John" is "Barjona", and could as well be read as 'Son of Jonah'. The Lord’s comment ‘Simon bar Jona’ may have reflected His understanding that Simon Peter had the characteristics of Jonah even then. The incident of Peter being called to accept the Gentiles occurred in Joppa, where Jonah likewise had struggled with the problem of preaching to the Gentiles.</p><p>"Cephas" or "Peter" means literally 'rocky', and Peter of course is portrayed as anything but rock-like in his faith. He started drowning on the water, denied the Lord, was later influenced by the Judaizers to betray the principles of Gentile salvation by grace. But with righteousness imputed, he was counted indeed as a rock. He did endure to the end; and the Lord sees not as we do. He saw Peter's basic faith as solid and loved him for it; the temporary moments of weakness were insignificant in the final picture of the man. We too need to stop focusing upon the temporal failures of others and respect them for their continued faith; for so many fall away from their basic faith despite appearing the pictures of stable church members.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The next day Jesus decided to go into Galilee; and he found Philip. Jesus said to him: Follow me</em>-</p><p> Jesus ‘found’ Philip, and he in his witnessing ‘found’ Nathanael (<em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em>). Our finding of men for the Lord reflects His finding of us. The Lord realized His new converts were from Galilee; perhaps they even knew Him from His earlier life there. He may have fixed holes in their boats for all we know. But He realized that their faith would be deepened by having to witness to Him, and demonstrate their association with Him, in their home area. See on <em><a href='B:500 2:1'>Joh 2:1</a></em>. The command to witness is largely for our benefit; for we become more deeply conscious of our faith when we have to explain it to others, especially family members and acquaintances.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:44'>Joh 1:44</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter</em>-</p><p> "City" is misleading. These fishing villages were just hamlets, collections of houses where most people were either relatives or related by marriage. A fair case can be made that many of the disciples were related to each other. See on :43.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 2:49'>Luk 2:49</a></em>.</p><p><em>Philip found Nathanael and said to him: We have found him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph</em>-</p><p> See on :41 for the significance of finding others for the Lord as a result of our being found by Him. Truly, God is in search of man; and so is His Son. As we distribute invitations to this world to know Him, He is not indifferent. He wishes their success. All the apparent disinterest in our witness is not met by Him indifferently, nor should we ever consider it a reflection of His displeasure or distance from us. The way Philip speaks of "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" suggests that they had earlier known Him, but never had any clue that He could be the Messiah. John the Baptist likewise knew Him but didn't realize He was Messiah until the theophany after the Lord's baptism. In this we see an artless insight into the Lord's utter perfection; that despite never sinning, nobody had the slightest suspicion that He was God's Son or Messiah. He achieved His sublime perfection and the good deeds that went with it somehow incognito.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Nathanael said to him: Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him: Come and see</em>-</p><p> Like many primitive people, there was the sense that all people from a particular town or area are "not good". We have here an insight into the Lord's utter humanity; He was known as one "out of" Nazareth, He spoke and acted like a man from Nazareth. We can also reflect that His earlier history of having been born in Bethlehem was presumably unknown to people. Mary and Joseph had kept all that to themselves, and the Lord Himself had not spoken of it.</p><p>The teaching of both Old and New Testaments concerning the ultimate value and meaning of the individual person was radical stuff, so radical that it was rarely fully understood even amongst the people of God. For example, it was important to know where a person was from- because people from certain areas were understood as being a certain person. Hence the Jewish refusal to accept that Jesus could be Messiah, because He was from Galilee, and "out of Galilee arises no prophet" (<em><a href='B:500 7:52'>Joh 7:52</a></em>), indeed nothing good could come out of Nazareth (<em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>). This led to what we would call today stereotyping and racism. People didn't travel very far, and so this of itself reinforced some of the stereotypes. Horizons were extremely limited for the average person. Vergil could say that "to know one Greek is to know them all"; and Philo likewise made total generalizations about Egyptians in his writings. Paul refers to the common maxim that "Cretans are&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;liars... lazy drunkards" (<em><a href='B:630 1:12'>Tit 1:12</a></em>)- but goes on to appeal to the Cretan believers to&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be like that, to challenge and break the stereotype It's the same with the Corinthians- the very term "Corinthian" meant a drunkard, shameless man. And yet it was in this very city that so many were called to the Lord, and He attempted to turn them away from that very stereotype they had been born into. And the very fact that the Son of God was from "that despised Nazareth" was the ultimate deconstruction of this understanding- that leaders, kings etc. could only come from some areas and not others. We need to ask ourselves whether we don't follow the same kind of stereotypes when we assume things about people- he's from&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;family, she's from&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;country, they're from&nbsp;<em>that&nbsp;</em>church / ecclesia... These attitudes deny the wonderful meaning and value of the individual of which our Lord showed us in His teaching, life, death and current work amongst us.</p><p>He was “despised and rejected of men”, as Isaiah had foretold so long before. It’s perhaps hard to feel from our distance the extent to which Galilee was despised by the Jerusalem Jews. Although Jerusalem to Galilee is only around 100 km:, “only in exceptional circumstances will someone living in Jerusalem have travelled to the distant province of Galilee, as the&nbsp;<em>Life</em>&nbsp;of Josephus shows… a journey to Rome would be more likely for a better class Jerusalem dweller than one to provincial Galilee, which was the back of beyond… the people of Judaea despised the uneducated Galileans and were not particularly interested in this remote province”. Yet it was exactly from&nbsp;<em>here</em>&nbsp;that the Son of God came It was from the parochial, the ordinary, from the nothing special, that God’s holy child came forth to change this world. So if you too feel a nobody, a cut below the rest, held back by your background… this is the very wonder of God manifestation. It’s through you and me, the kids from the backstreets, the uneducated, the duffers, the dumbers… that God Almighty reveals Himself to this world.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:47'>Joh 1:47</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus saw Nathanael coming towards him, and said of him: Behold, a true Israelite in whom is no deceit</em>-</p><p> This is surely another case of imputed righteousness; for Nathanael had just discounted the Lord's Messiahship on the basis that He was unlikely to be a good man, seeing He hailed from Nazareth. The allusion is to <em><a href='B:230 32:2'>Psa 32:2</a></em> "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity and in whose spirit there is no guile / deceit". There is deceit in the spirit of every man; but imputed righteousness means that this is not the case for the believer before God.</p><p>The Lord’s basic understanding of us is that we are to become brethren&nbsp;<em>in Him</em>. He ever sought to teach the disciples to not only worship and respect Him, but to rise up to emulate His example, and to act and feel as part of Him. When He saw Nathanael under the fig tree, He commented that here was a man who had the good side of Jacob, an Israelite indeed, in whom was no guile. But the Lord then goes on to liken&nbsp;<em>Himself</em>&nbsp;to Jacob, saying that Angels would ascend and descend upon Him as they had upon Jacob (<em><a href='B:500 1:47'>Joh 1:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:51'>Joh 1:51</a></em>). What He was basically trying to say to His new disciple was that ‘You’re like Jacob But, I’m like Jacob too. And you will powerfully realize the significance of this a bit later on’. He was seeking always to build up an identity between Himself and His followers. This is so different to admiring a man as one admires a picture, and assenting to him as a leader. This is about a unique and intimate relationship, bonding and identity with Him. Nathanael no doubt puzzled over the Lord’s enigmatic words, as we likely have also done. His enigmatic style was to provoke just such reflection, to lead Nathanael to realize the force of the identification with Him which the Lord was inviting.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:48'>Joh 1:48</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 7:29'>Mar 7:29</a></em>.</p><p><em>Nathanael said to him: How is it you know me?-&nbsp;</em>The Lord had not mentioned Nathanael's name; instead He had imputed righteousness to him (see on :47) and called him a man in whom is no guile, i:e. He had used a Messianic title (<em><a href='B:670 2:22'>1Pe 2:22</a></em>) about a man. So by asking "How is it you know me?", I suggest Nathanael is questioning how this man from Nazareth could talk of him in such exalted terms:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Jesus answered: Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you</em>-</p><p> An Israelite dwelling under his fig tree is the language of Israel at peace with God, especially in the future Messianic Kingdom of God on earth (<em><a href='B:400 4:4'>Mic 4:4</a></em>). The Lord is saying that even before Nathanael had been called to the Gospel, he had been foreknown and had been imagined as in the future Kingdom, written in the book of the redeemed from the foundation of the world. This predestination is an aspect of God's grace, as Paul explains in Romans 8. As noted above, the Lord had imputed righteousness to Nathanael, and asks him to respond to the fact that he had been chosen for the Kingdom from the beginning.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:49'>Joh 1:49</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nathanael answered him: Rabbi, you are the Son of God. You are King of Israel</em>-</p><p> When the disciples first encounter Jesus, they heap upon Him the Messianic titles of Judaism: Rabbi, Messiah, the one described in the Law and prophets, Son of God, King of Israel. And yet the other Gospels bring out how Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Son of God is in fact due to a special revelation from the Father, and was somehow a seminal point of faith and comprehension which Peter had reached (<em><a href='B:470 16:16-17'>Mat 16:16-17</a></em>). Surely the point of the apparent contradiction is to show that over time, the disciples started to put meaning into words; the Jewish terms and titles which they had once so effortlessly used, they came to use with real appreciation. We have shown elsewhere that a mature appreciation of the name and titles of the Father and Son is indeed a mark of spiritual maturity.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:50'>Joh 1:50</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus replied: Because I said to you: I saw you underneath the fig tree- do you believe? You shall see greater things than these</em>-</p><p> Grasping the wonder of foreknowledge and predestination (see on :48) is indeed a reason to believe. But the wonders of our personal salvation are far smaller than the greatness of God's total activity in and through His Son (:51).</p><p>Nathanael had been sitting under a fig tree when he was called to the Lord- and this was apparently the classic place where trainee rabbis sat and studied. If this is indeed the case, then the Lord’s calling of him to be a disciple / follower was saying: ‘Don’t seek to be a rabbi. Be a disciple / follower of me, as a way of life, always’. Nathanael's focus was to be upon the wonder of God's work in His Son, rather than aiming to be a spiritual teacher of others. Our aim must be to make men and women sit at the Lord’s feet and learn of Him themselves. Discipleship is to be what we are all our lives. Consider the contrast: ‘disciples’ in the schools of other rabbis expected to one day graduate and become teachers themselves, with disciples at&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;feet. But no, the Lord saw all of us, including those who have learnt of Him the longest and deepest, to always be disciples, awed by God's activity in His Son (:51).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:51'>Joh 1:51</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: Truly, truly, I say to you. You shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man</em>-</p><p> See on :47 for the connections with Jacob, and Nathanael being a Jacob-ite.</p><p>The allusion to Jacob's vision of <em><a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a></em> is clear. That vision was to show Jacob the extent of Angelic care of Him- and this was&nbsp;repeated for Jesus. However, the context of v. 50 is that Nathanael marvelled at Jesus' knowledge. Jesus seems to be saying that they would see even greater spiritual revelation ("Heaven open") because of the ministry&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;Angels&nbsp;to Him, ministering spiritual knowledge to Jesus to communicate to His disciples. This would imply that apart from directly ministering spiritual revelation to Jesus, the Angels also imparted specific 'physical' knowledge to Jesus- e. g. about Nathanael under the fig tree.</p><p>Nathaniel thought he really believed in the Lord Jesus. The Lord commented: "You shall see (usually used in John concerning faith and spiritual perception) greater things than these... you will see heaven opened, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man" (<em><a href='B:500 1:51'>Joh 1:51</a></em> RSV). It was Jacob who saw Heaven opened and the Angels ascending and descending. And Christ's comment that Nathaniel was "an Israelite (Jacob-ite) indeed, in whom is no guile" (i:e. Jacob without his guileful side) is a reference to Jacob's name change. It confirms that Nathaniel was to follow Jacob's path of spiritual growth; he thought he believed, he thought he saw Christ clearly; but like Jacob, he was to comprehend far greater things. &nbsp;</p><p>"Hereafter you will see heaven opened, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" was a prophecy of what was to happen “hereafter", and it seems relevant to the cross. Heaven, in the sense of the Most Holy place, was opened by the veil being torn down at the Lord’s death. By the blood-shedding of Jesus, the way into the Holiest was made manifest. There is evident allusion to Jacob’s vision of the ladder reaching to Heaven; and surely the Lord is saying that He is going to become the ladder to Heaven, linking Heaven and earth, when Heaven is opened by Him in the future. And that point was surely the crucifixion. Significantly, He says: “You will see...", another hint that the disciples, especially John, saw the crucifixion. They may well have “seen" in the Johannine sense of perceiving that there, unseen, Angels were ascending and descending in ministration. John also records how the Lord saw Himself as the gate / door (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>), just as Jacob described what he had seen as “the gate of heaven". The stone upon which he slept, lifted up and anointed with oil to become the corner-stone of the house of God, Beth-el, was all prophetic of the Lord’s death and rising up again (<em><a href='B:560 2:20-22'>Eph 2:20-22</a></em>).</p><p>The theme of the Spirit is never far away in John's writings. "Greater things" is the language of what would happen when the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, was given (<em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>). The Lord foreknew Nathanael, but after His death the Spirit would be released Angels ascending and descending and under His command upon the Son of Man would be involved even more powerfully in the lives of God's children like Nathanael.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:1'>Joh 2:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee</em>-</p><p> I suggested on <em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em> that the Lord went to preach in Galilee because He wanted to take His new disciples back to their home areas and help them make public identification with Him before their families and friends. Chapter 1 closed with the conversion of Nathanael, who was from Cana (<em><a href='B:500 21:2'>Joh 21:2</a></em>). So the Lord's visits to Cana would have been to help Nathanael make a public witness and identification with the Lord.</p><p><em>The mother of Jesus was there</em>-</p><p>The incident at Cana shows her lack of perception of the true nature of her son’s work at that time. The&nbsp;<em>mother of Jesus</em>&nbsp;is said to be&nbsp;<em>there,</em>&nbsp;and not to be&nbsp;<em>called,</em>&nbsp;as Jesus and his disciples were (<em><a href='B:500 2:1-2'>Joh 2:1-2</a></em>), which suggests that she was following Him around, fascinated and prayerfully concerned as He began His ministry. He hadn't done any miracles before, so was she asking Him to begin His ministry with a miracle? She knew He had the power to do them- she had perceived that much. When the Lord speaks about His hour not having yet come, He is clearly alluding to His death. For this is how “the hour” is always understood in John’s Gospel (<em><a href='B:500 4:21'>Joh 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:23'>Joh 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:25'>Joh 5:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:28-29'>Joh 5:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:20'>Joh 8:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>). So Jesus replies to Mary’s nudge ‘make them some wine’ by saying that the time for His death has not yet come. He assumes that by ‘wine’ she means His blood. He assumes she is on a higher level of spiritual symbolism than she actually was. He wouldn’t have done this unless He had previously communed with her on this level. But apparently she was no longer up to it. She was correct in expecting Him to do a miracle for Cana was His beginning of miracles; and she was right in thinking that the need for wine was somehow significant. But she didn’t see the link to His death. Her perception was now muddled. Yet even at this time, she is not totally without spiritual perception. When she tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says (<em><a href='B:500 2:5'>Joh 2:5</a></em>), she is quoting from the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 41:55'>Gen 41:55</a></em>, where Joseph’s word has to be obeyed in order to provide food for the needy Egyptians. The world had ground her earlier spirituality away, but not totally. For it would in due time revive, to the extent that she would risk her life in standing by the Lord’s cross, and then later join the early ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:2'>Joh 2:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the marriage</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1, they were invited, but Mary is said to be "there". The invitation confirms our suggestions in chapter 1, that the Lord was known to people in Galilee. He may well have known Nathanael, seeing that Nathanael was from Cana (<em><a href='B:500 21:2'>Joh 21:2</a></em>) and the Lord was invited to a wedding in Cana. He was known there- but all were surprised that the carpenter from Nazareth was in fact God's son and Messiah.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:3'>Joh 2:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him: They have no wine</em>-</p><p> Although the Lord had never done miracles before He began His ministry, Mary sensed His ministry had now begun and that He could likely save the situation through a miracle. "Ran out of" translates a term elsewhere used about man's moral deficit before God, our need for Him (<em><a href='B:470 19:20'>Mat 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> - even after apparently keeping all commandments; <em><a href='B:490 15:14'>Luk 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:1'>Heb 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:15'>Heb 12:15</a></em>). These people were in moral need of the wine of the new covenant; but they didn't realize their need, nor all that was being done to meet it. This was to teach Nathanael who was from Cana (<em><a href='B:500 21:2'>Joh 21:2</a></em> - perhaps the invitation was because it was a member of his family getting married). For he had been amazed that the Lord had foreknown him, sitting under the fig tree. And he is being taught that on a far wider level, the Lord foreknows human need for His blood and life, and would provide even whilst they were yet sinners and ignorant.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:4'>Joh 2:4</a></em><em>&nbsp;Jesus said to her: Woman, what have I to do with you?-&nbsp;</em>When He says “What have you to do with me?” (AV), He seems to be struggling to dissociate Himself from her; for the idiom means ‘How am I involved with you?’ (<em><a href='B:120 3:13'>2Ki 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 14:8'>Hos 14:8</a></em>). It can be that “My hour has not yet come” can bear the translation “Has not my hour come?” (<em><a href='B:500 2:4'>Joh 2:4</a></em>), as if to imply that, as they had previously discussed, once His ministry started, their bond would be broken in some ways. And yet Mary understandably found this hard to live up to, and it took the cross to lead her to that level of commitment to her son’s cause:&nbsp;</p><p><em>My hour is not yet come</em>-</p><p> This may refer to the ‘hour’ of the cross, whereby the true wine / blood would be outpoured, that which had been offered before being inadequate. The governor of the feast, cp. the Jewish elders, “knew not whence it was" (<em><a href='B:500 2:9'>Joh 2:9</a></em>), using the same words to describe how they knew not from whence was the Lord, and didn’t ‘know’ / comprehend to where He was going in His death (<em><a href='B:500 7:27'>Joh 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:14'>Joh 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:9'>Joh 19:9</a></em>). The Lord saw His giving of His life blood on the cross as prefigured by His provision of wine to ignorant people in Cana in their unknown need. But He transforms that which is most ordinary- water- into that which is the most refined, fine wine. His ultimate provision for human need was not prefigured by turning wine into water, as we would expect if He were some pre-existent God who became man. Instead, the most ordinary, water, is turned into wine. It was His humanity which enabled our salvation.</p></p><p><p>Perhaps when Jesus said to Mary “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come” (<em><a href='B:500 2:4'>Joh 2:4</a></em> RSV), He was trying to get her back to spiritual mindedness and is frustrated with her low level of spiritual perception. He tries to lead her back to a higher level by linking the giving of wine with His hour which was to come, i:e. the cross. In Luke 1 her song shows how spiritually perceptive she was- now she seems to have lost that. She is concerned with the immediate and the material rather than the spiritual. "Woman" was a polite form of public address, but apparently it was unusual for a man to use it to his mother. The Lord felt and stressed that separation between her and Him right now at the start of His ministry, coming to a climax at His death where He told her that He was no longer her son but John was. She must have been&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;cut by this, if indeed as I have suggested it was the first time He had said this to her.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:5'>Joh 2:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 2:1'>Joh 2:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>His mother said to the servants: Whatever he commands you, do it</em>-</p><p> This uses three Greek words which recur in <em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:26'>Mat 7:26</a></em>: "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them". Mary had heard these words but applies them in a more material way rather than the spiritual, moral way which Jesus intended:&nbsp; Is this another indication she had slipped from her teenage intensity and spirituality by the time His ministry began?</p><p>The theme of John’s writings is that “the word” which was in the beginning, the word of the Gospel, the word of command which brought forth all creation in the first place, is the same word that has been made flesh in Jesus, and which can likewise work a powerful new creation in the lives of all who allow that word to abide in them. Hence the emphasis of John upon the manner in which the&nbsp;<em>word</em>&nbsp;of the Lord Jesus was sufficient to bring about amazing miracles. Even Josephus noted this unique feature of the Lord’s ministry: “Everything that he Jesus performed through an invisible power he wrought by word and command”. It can be argued that all the historical incidents recorded by John are exemplifications in visual terms of the principles outlined in the prologue in chapter 1.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:6'>Joh 2:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nearby there were six stone waterpots, placed there for the Jewish custom of purifications, each holding 75 to 115 litres</em>-</p><p> The idea was that Mosaic purification ritual was not the answer to human need. The Lord's life and blood, encased as it were within the strictures of the Mosaic system, was what was required. Waterpots of that size were all made of stone; but the point is made to emphasize how the Lord was like the stone of Daniel's image, a stone cut out from the earth. It was His humanity which was so necessary in order to bring forth the wine of the new covenant. The wine was poured out from the waterpots into another vessel; there was no way the servants would pour directly into the cups from a 100 litre capacity stone waterpot, that no man could carry alone. So the source of the new wine was in a sense hidden; and John has been developing the point that although John and the disciples knew of Jesus, His humanity had shielded their eyes from knowing what was within Him.</p><p>We note the super abundance of wine. At least 600 litres was created, maybe as much as 700 litres. The Lord would have left them with the question: 'What ever is such a huge amount of wine doing in our waterpots? Who put it there? Didn't we see you all pouring water into the pots, as if preparing for cleansing from some major defilement?'. The answer would have been: 'This is Jesus of Nazareth…'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:7'>Joh 2:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them to the brim</em>-</p><p> "To the brim" again speaks of the vastness of the provision (see on :6). We need have no fear that our sins somehow cannot be dealt with by the Lord's sacrifice. His provision is of a massive scale. The filling demands reference back to how "of His fullness have all we received" (<em><a href='B:500 1:16'>Joh 1:16</a></em>). Again we see how historical incident in John's Gospel is an exemplification of the principles with which he begins in his prologue. We are filled with His fullness, His Spirit (see on <em><a href='B:500 1:16'>Joh 1:16</a></em>), so that we might bear out of ourselves to others in their unperceived spiritual need.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:8'>Joh 2:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast. So they took it</em>-</p><p> "Draw out" is only used elsewhere in speaking of how the Samaritan woman drew out water from the well, which symbolized the water of life which believers in Jesus could now draw out to meet the thirst of others, drawing from the Spirit deep within themselves (<em><a href='B:500 4:7'>Joh 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:15'>Joh 4:15</a></em>). So the servants who 'knew' the Lord's work were to draw out His wine to the Jewish leaders, those in the best places of the banquet, as they are elsewhere described. They took or better 'carried' the wine, as John envisages his converts taking or carrying the message of Jesus to others (<em><a href='B:700 1:10'>2Jn 1:10</a></em> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:9'>Joh 2:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When the master of the feast tasted the water which had now become wine, and not knowing where it came from (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), he called to the bridegroom</em>-</p><p> The contrast between knowing / perceiving and not doing so continues the message of chapter 1. The Lord's servants knew Him, but the Jewish world generally did not. The way the wine was to be taken to the master of the feast may speak of the Lord's desire to convert the Jewish leadership; and in chapter 3 He calls Nicodemus the master of Israel (<em><a href='B:500 3:10'>Joh 3:10</a></em>). The proximity to this account makes us wonder whether Nicodemus was the master of this feast in Cana; at the very least, the Lord's appeal to this "master" was repeated in His appeal to "the master of Israel" in the next but one historical incident which John records:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:10'>Joh 2:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And said to him: Everyone serves good wine first, and when all have drunk freely, serves something inferior. But you have kept the good wine until now</em>-</p><p> The wedding feast at Cana had been going on for some time, to the point that men had drunk so much wine that they could no longer discern its quality. For&nbsp;<em>methuo =&nbsp;</em>'to drink to intoxication', not simply "drunk freely". The Lord didn’t say, as I might have done, ‘Well that’s enough, guys’. He realised the shame of the whole situation, that even though there had been enough wine for everyone to have some, they had run out. And so He produced some more- actually, over 600 litres of it. He went along with the humanity of the situation in order to teach a lesson to those who observed what really happened.</p><p>The Lord clearly had no problem in making wine at Cana. Would He have shared a mug of wine with the boys when, say, someone had a birthday? And therefore would a 21st century Jesus have shared a beer with His fellow workers? Now in my image of Jesus I'm not sure He would have done. But perhaps in your image of Him, He would have. Apart from the memorial meeting, I don't drink, and haven't done for many years. I know how in many cultures this seems to erect a barrier between me and those I seek to make contact with. But when Jesus made the water into wine, He provided about 180 gallons 400 litres of it. At a time when surely some were already rather the worse for wear from alcohol- for the master of the feast pointed out that the best wine i:e. with higher alcohol content was brought out only when people couldn't tell the difference, because they had "well drunk" (<em><a href='B:500 2:10'>Joh 2:10</a></em> - Gk:&nbsp;<em>methuo</em>, 'to drink to intoxication'). I wouldn't have done that. At least, not to that extent- for you can be sure, they drank it all up. But He did, so comfortable was He with His humanity. And this perhaps was what made all kinds of people so comfortable with Him, prostitutes and old grannies, kids and mafia bosses, saints 'n' aints. We seem so often ashamed of being human, indeed, some have taken their understanding of 'sinful human nature' to the extent that it's almost a sin to be alive. Whatever we say about human nature, we say about our Lord. Let's remember this. But Jesus was happy with who He was. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:11'>Joh 2:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This, the first of his signs, Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, thereby revealing his glory; and his disciples believed in him</em>-</p><p>"Jesus... manifested forth his glory" through his miracles. His miracles therefore were a demonstration of the character ("glory") of God, not just to relieve human grief as he came across it. Therefore they are all capable of allegorical interpretation; there are seven miracles in John called "signs". Contrast how the glory of God was manifested to Moses, who peeped at it from the rock. Yet Jesus was the glory of God, higher than the Angel who actually manifested the glory.</p><p>The real Christ must be the concealed basic pattern behind a person. But one of the problems in seeking to build up an image of the man Jesus is that He Himself didn't proclaim so much about Himself in so many words. He never specifically announces that He is Messiah- that fact is stated by who He was in life. His miracles were a&nbsp;<em>phanerosis</em>, a rendering apparent, of His glory (<em><a href='B:500 2:11'>Joh 2:11</a></em>). The glory of God is essentially His character (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em>). The Lord started to reveal this, to let this show, after age 30- beginning, it seems, with His&nbsp;<em>arche-miracle</em>&nbsp;of making the wine at Cana (<em><a href='B:500 2:11'>Joh 2:11</a></em> Gk:). But even that was a revealing of His glory to only a few- because even the governor of the feast thought that it was the bridegroom, and not Jesus, who had somehow pulled out new supplies of wine. The guests were drunk (see on :10). The revealing of His glory, spoken of by John in such startling terms as His arch-miracle, was in fact only to the disciples and perhaps a few others who perceived what had happened. This, I submit, is how to understand the Biblical references to the glory which the Lord Jesus had "from the beginning"- i:e. of His life and His ministry, but which was only made apparent later. Certainly until that point at Cana, He somehow restrained that glory within His very ordinariness- to the extent that people were utterly shocked when He stood up in the synagogue and basically proclaimed Himself to be Messiah.</p><p>The language of "He manifested forth his glory<em>"&nbsp;</em>isused of how He would do so on the cross, which was to be a greater manifestation of his glory (see on <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). The historical incidents in John so often are a foretaste of the Lord's final death; for He lived the Spirit of that death and self-sacrifice throughout His life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:12'>Joh 2:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and brothers and disciples; and there they stayed for a few days</em>-</p><p> "Went down" reflects the topography of the area, and is the kind of thing a genuine eyewitness like John would recall. The mention of His "brothers" being with Him could suggest that they initially followed Him, but then disbelieved in Him as the pressure got tougher (<em><a href='B:500 7:5'>Joh 7:5</a></em>); with James and Jude then returning to faith in Him after the resurrection. This meant that James and Jude had for a time left the faith; and yet were greatly used by the Lord in His early work in the church:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:13'>Joh 2:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Passover of the Jews was at that time; and Jesus went to Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> John repeatedly describes the Jews feasts and temple as being "of the Jews", whereas the Old Testament refers to them as "of Yahweh". The Jews had hijacked God's religion and made it serve their own ends. This is a stern warning for us all. Rarely is the Lord called simply "Jesus"; usually some title is added. But John juxtaposes his frequent references to the Lord's very high status with such statements of His utter humanity; in order to deliver the right balance in impression concerning the person of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:14'>Joh 2:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting at their tables</em>-</p><p> These were the sons of Annas, the High Priest. This deepened the anti-climax- the Lord entered Jerusalem and the temple- and cast out the sons of the High Priest.</p><p>Instead of entering the temple in glory, fulfilling the hope of Ezekiel’s vision of the temple where Messiah enters the temple from the East, instead the Lord entered the temple- and in a huge anti-climax, castigates the Jewish religious leadership, throwing them out of the temple. This cleansing of the temple was repeated at the end of His ministry; see on <em><a href='B:470 21:12'>Mat 21:12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:15'>Joh 2:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He made a whip out of cords and drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables</em>-</p><p> The Lord had the power to make them disappear. He could do all things. But His making of a whip and getting so physical with them, driving them out along with their cattle, all rather sounds like He was treating them as if they were in spiritual Egypt. The language recalls how the Egyptians treated the Israelites and then drove them out of their land to the Red Sea. So this was not simply unrestrained anger on the Lord's part; in the same way as the judgment wrath of His Father was also intended to bring about spiritual realization and a movement further in the correct direction. It was surely miraculous that the Lord was not seized and charged for this kind of behaviour. This of itself demonstrated to the thoughtful that His final arrest and crucifixion was only because He and His Father allowed it; in that sense, He gave His life rather than having it taken from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:16'>Joh 2:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To them that sold the doves he said: Take these things away Do not make my Father's house a market</em>-</p><p> Doves were the offering of the poor. Mary would have bought doves for the Lord's presentation from the same or similar men, 30 years previously. The Lord doesn't tell them to charge reasonable prices for the doves. Even though they were a necessary part of Mosaic ritual, He demands that they been taken right away and not sold at all. This suggests that even then He saw Mosaic ritual as dispensible. And perhaps His idea was that sacrifices should not be bought for money, which turned spirituality into mere religion. The doves could be caught, or even brought with the worshipper on their journey to the temple. There was to be a more personal relationship between offerer and sacrifice than merely passing over coins to a merchant to meet the correct ritual requirement. This speaks to us today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:17'>Joh 2:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 14:29'>Joh 14:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:38'>Mar 10:38</a></em>.</p><p><em>His disciples remembered that it was written: Zeal for Your house shall consume me</em>-</p><p> This would have been an example of how the Comforter brought such things to their remembrance (<em><a href='B:500 14:26'>Joh 14:26</a></em>). He knew himself that "the zeal of thine house hath&nbsp;<em>eaten me up</em>" (<em><a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a></em>); the same Hebrew word is used as in <em><a href='B:30 6:10'>Lev 6:10</a></em>: "take up the ashes which the fire hath&nbsp;<em>consumed</em>". Even in His life, the Lord felt that He had reached this point of total consumption as a living sacrifice. A Psalm evidently relevant to the final crucifixion is applied to the Lord’s behaviour; as if the disciples later realized that this early visit to Jerusalem was a living out in the Lord of the final one. As so often, the spirit of the Lord's final death was seen in Him and His ways throughout His ministry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:18'>Joh 2:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Jews therefore answered and said to him: What sign will you show us, seeing you do these things?</em>-</p><p> Paul alludes to this when writing later that "the Jews require a sign" (<em><a href='B:530 1:22'>1Co 1:22</a></em>). Perhaps he was amongst those Jews who asked this question; for Paul would have been living in Jerusalem at this time. Time and again, Paul's preaching and pastoral work reflects his own weaknesses, just as ours should. Cynical Israel asked exactly the same of Moses, in effect; superficially,&nbsp;"the people believed" (<em><a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a></em>) after they saw the signs. The hollowness of Israel's 'belief' in Moses was matched by the experience of Christ. And yet they still both loved Israel to the end despite this desire for the visible and concrete rather than the internal and spiritual.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:19'>Joh 2:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up</em>-</p><p> In what sense did the Lord raise up His own body? I think the answer lies in <em><a href='B:500 5:19-21'>Joh 5:19-21</a></em>: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will. For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son; that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father". This makes it clear that all power and possibilities that Jesus had, were in fact given to Him by God. In fact, whatever God is spoken of as doing, it would be appropriate to speak of the Son doing it. This was and is the nature of their relationship. The one thing that it would seem God did for Jesus, in a way that Jesus could not do for Himself, was the resurrection of Jesus from the dead by God. It is emphasized so many times that God raised Jesus from the dead. And yet it's as if Jesus almost enjoys making the point that even in the matter of resurrection, so connected is He with the Father, that in a sense, He raised Himself up- because whatever, literally whatever, God does, in a sense Jesus therefore does it too. This is why He could say about His life in <em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>: "I have power authority to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father". He was given this authority by the Father (1). But even in the very thing where it seems God would be separate from His Son- i:e. in resurrecting the Son- Jesus wanted to emphasize that in a sense, He was still united with the Father. Because the Father so loved the Son, that whatever the Father did, He wished His Son to somehow be associated with. And so Jesus can speak of how in that sense, He Jesus was involved in His own resurrection- even though the repeated and obvious Biblical emphasis is upon the Father resurrecting His Son back to life. We see this theme touched on again in <em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>, where the Lord teaches that He has received a commandment to lay down His life and take it again, and yet He says that He has been given the authority / empowerment to do this, and therefore He will not die merely because of being unable to avoid the machinations of His murderers. So we could conclude that He obeyed a command to die and rise again- but was empowered by God to do this.</p><p>Another consideration in <em><a href='B:500 2:19-21'>Joh 2:19-21</a></em> is that Jesus speaks specifically about the 'raising up' of His body as a tabernacle. The 'body' of Christ frequently refers not so much to His literal body as to His spiritual body, i:e. the body of believers. In a sense, it is Jesus who has raised them up.</p><p>Notes</p><p>(1) It has been suggested to me by Chris Clementson that the Greek word&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;translated "power" or "authority" in <em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em> can mean 'privilege'- and this is a possible meaning given for the word by James Strong in his concordance. Other N:T. usage of the word definitely suggests 'power' or 'authority', but this idea of 'privilege' is worth bearing in mind.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:20'>Joh 2:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Jews replied: Forty-six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three days?</em>-</p><p> The connection between temple and building is intended to recall how God does not dwell in buildings made with hands. The Lord was saying that if&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;destroyed the temple cp. killing His body, then in three days He would raise it up. His idea was clearly that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;would destroy the temple; but at His trial, this is turned around against Him to imply that He had threatened to destroy the temple. But the Jews were in fact guilty of what they considered the most heinous crime-the destruction of the temple. Their killing of the Lord Jesus therefore meant that their temple would be destroyed in AD70; and they were responsible for that rather than the Romans.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:21'>Joh 2:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he spoke of the temple of his body</em>-</p><p> I noted on :18 that Paul may have been present at this time, and he alludes to some of the Lord's words here in 1Corinthians. We have another such allusion here; for the other time we read of the body as a temple is in <em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>, where the indwelling of the Spirit means that our bodies become the temple. The Lord's body becomes ours, ours becomes His, through the presence of His Spirit within. What was true of Him becomes true of us, if we are truly "in" Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:22'>Joh 2:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spoke this, and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken</em>-</p><p> This 'remembering' would have been the result of the function of the Comforter (<em><a href='B:500 14:26'>Joh 14:26</a></em>), which likewise works with us to illuminate Scripture so that we see its personal relevance. Unaided intellectual effort will not achieve this. Which is why there is no direct link between academic Bible study and personal spirituality.</p><p>Both Matthew and Mark record how the people later mocked the Lord Jesus over His comment that if the temple were destroyed, He would rebuild it in three days (<em><a href='B:470 27:40'>Mat 27:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:29'>Mar 15:29</a></em>). This had also been an issue at the Lord's trial (<em><a href='B:470 26:60'>Mat 26:60</a></em>). Yet John records that when the Lord actually said those words, the disciples didn't believe those words and actually forgot them until the time of the resurrection (<em><a href='B:500 2:22'>Joh 2:22</a></em>). The implications of that are tragic. The Lord's critics remembered His words more than His disciples did. And as He stood there in the awful loneliness of His trial, and hung there in the desolation of crucifixion, and heard those taunts based around His earlier words... He would've known that His own men had forgotten those words and likewise disbelieved them. No wonder after the resurrection He raised the matter with them. My point in this context is that John's comment in <em><a href='B:500 2:22'>Joh 2:22</a></em> about the fact the disciples forgot those words until after the resurrection... is actually a conscious recognition by the disciples of their own tragic weakness in understanding and support of their Lord. And it is within their own preaching of the Gospel that they make this point. Our witness likewise should be shot through with allusion to our own moral fallibility.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:23'>Joh 2:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did</em>-</p><p> Israel also saw signs and believed for a moment, but not for long. As noted on :24 and :25, such belief is merely surface level. But it is still noted for what it was; it was not insignificant. The Lord Himself learnt from this, so that when faced with the appeal to come down from the cross so that they would believe, He resisted. Faith comes by hearing God's word; not by seeing miracles. The miracles recorded by John were all object lessons, intended to visually enhance the message being taught, and were not performed simply to meet human need.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:24'>Joh 2:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he understood mankind</em>-</p><p> Reflect a while on what is really being taught in <em><a href='B:500 2:23-25'>Joh 2:23-25</a></em>: “Many&nbsp;<em>believed&nbsp;</em>on his name, beholding his signs which he did. But Jesus did not&nbsp;<em>trust&nbsp;</em>s:w. ‘believed’ himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that anyone should bear witness concerning man; for he knew what was in man”. When a person trusts / believes in the Lord properly, unlike those who believed only a surface level, then the Lord trusts Himself unto them. He believes in them as they have believed in Him. Paul often speaks of how the Lord has trusted / committed s:w. the preaching of the Gospel unto him (<em><a href='B:530 9:17'>1Co 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:7'>Gal 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:4'>1Th 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:11'>1Ti 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:3'>Tit 1:3</a></em>). We believe, and therefore we speak forth the Gospel (<em><a href='B:540 4:13'>2Co 4:13</a></em>).</p><p>Perceive the parallels within the <em><a href='B:500 2:23-25'>Joh 2:23-25</a></em> passage:</p><p>He knew all men = He knew what was in man&nbsp;</p><p>Jesus did not&nbsp;<em>trust&nbsp;</em>s:w. ‘believed’ himself unto them = because he needed not that anyone should bear witness concerning man.</p><p>If we truly believe in Jesus, He believes in us, and we therefore bear witness concerning Him. If we don’t truly believe in Him, He will not commit / trust / believe Himself unto us. But by grace we have truly believed. It is therefore axiomatic that we bear witness of Him. God has therefore trusted us with the job of preaching His Gospel. That He trusts us, believes in us, is a surpassing thought. If you trust someone completely with a task, to the point it is clear that now if they don’t do it, it won’t be done, they often respond with a maturity and zest which wouldn’t be seen if they merely were given partial responsibility children are a good example of this. And so God has done with us.</p><p>There seems a purposeful ambiguity in how the process of calling upon the name of the Lord is described in the Greek text; it can mean both us calling upon ourselves His Name, and also His Name being named upon us by Him. <em><a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a></em> says that all those whom&nbsp;<em>the Lord</em>&nbsp;calls will&nbsp;<em>call on His Name</em>, a prophecy fulfilled in baptism. In similar vein, the Lord Jesus lived, died and rose as the representative of all men; and those who know and believe this chose to respond by identifying themselves with Him in the symbolic death and resurrection of baptism, and subsequent life in Christ- they make Him their representative, as He has chosen to be theirs. They respond to His willing identification with them by living a life identified with Him. Likewise if a man truly believes in Christ, He will ‘commit himself’ unto that man- the very same word for ‘believe into’. We believe into the Lord, and He believes into us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:25'>Joh 2:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And because he did not need any testimony concerning himself from any human being. For he understood what was in man</em>-</p><p> See on :24. One repeated theme of the Gospel records is that “Jesus perceived / understood…” (<em><a href='B:470 22:18'>Mat 22:18</a></em>). We read this so often. Now it could mean that a bolt of Holy Spirit informed the Lord of the contents of men’s minds. But I prefer to think that He was so sensitive to people that somehow He was able to read minds, to read body language, to be perceptive to a very high degree (<em><a href='B:500 2:24-25'>Joh 2:24-25</a></em>). And so as the mind and compassion of Jesus become ours, so it seems to me that we too will develop better people skills, become more perceptive of what a contact is really driving at, what their real hang ups are… what they really and truly seek and need. “He knew what was in man” (<em><a href='B:500 2:25'>Joh 2:25</a></em>) may be a description of how far the Lord got in this kind of thing; rather than an indication of some magical gift He was given. And so when I am asked ‘How best to preach? What to say to people…?’, there is no simplistic answer. It’s a matter of who we are, of our own perception and reflection of Jesus and of others, not the specific form of words we may use. The Lord doesn't need testimony from us as men; but He asks us to make it. All the work of preaching and witness is therefore for our benefit; it is we who learn and have our faith deepened by articulating our faith to others. He Himself has no need of it in itself.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:1'>Joh 3:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews</em>-</p><p> There were no more than 5000 Pharisees. The chances are that Saul the Pharisee knew him, and the conversion of Nicodemus would have been another prod in Saul's conscience which he kicked against. I suggested on <em><a href='B:500 2:9'>Joh 2:9</a></em> that he may have been the "master of the feast" to whom the Lord's new wine was brought.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:2'>Joh 3:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The same came to him by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God. For no one can do the signs you do, except God be with him</em>-</p><p> Although miracles do not lead to permanent faith, the Lord's miracles all the same demonstrated that He was from God. Even His hardest enemies could not deny that His Spirit could produce notable miracles (<em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>). "<em>We</em>&nbsp;know..." may well be a tacit admission that even the Pharisees recognized the Lord's connection with God. The fact many Pharisees later "became obedient to the faith" would suggest that their madness against Him was a function of their bad conscience. "This is the son, come let us kill Him" likewise reflects their passive, maybe subconscious, recognition that He was from God.</p><p>Nicodemus says that he perceives that Jesus is “from God” because of His miracles. But the Lord replies that only if a man is born again can he see or perceive the Kingdom of God; and only if he is born again by baptism of water and spirit can he enter into the Kingdom. It’s easy to overlook the fact that the context of the Lord’s comment was about His being Messiah, and how men could perceive / recognize that. If we read “the Kingdom of God” as a title of Himself, all becomes clear. Through baptism, birth of water and spirit, we enter into Christ. He was then and is now, the very essence of the Kingdom; the ultimate picture of the Kingdom life. There was a perfect congruence between His message about the Kingdom, and His own character. And this is what will give our preaching of that very same Kingdom a like power and convicting appeal to men and women.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered and said to him: Truly, truly, I say to you: Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> "Anew" is literally 'from above'. Natural descent was not enough to see the Kingdom; which was a direct hit on the Jewish idea that by reason of birth they were the children of the Kingdom. Again we see a connection to the prologue; we are to be spiritually born not of the will of the flesh but "of God" (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>).</p><p>Seeing the Kingdom is developed in :5 to "enter the Kingdom". The contrast between seeing and entering is clearly alluding to Moses, who was allowed to see the Kingdom but not enter it. The Lord is inviting His followers to imitate Moses- a very high challenge to those under the influence of Judaism, who considered Moses to be the unreachable pinnacle of human spirituality. The Lord gently makes this challenge by firstly inviting Nicodemus to become as Moses who saw the Kingdom- and then saying that actually, he could come to a higher status than Moses, and actually enter the Kingdom. We find here the Lord equating the promised land, which Moses saw but could not enter, with His Kingdom. Given the many allusions to Moses in John’s Gospel, I submit that the Lord was surely saying something about Moses’ seeing of the land before he died (<em><a href='B:40 27:12'>Num 27:12</a></em>). It’s as if He felt that Moses’ seeing the land meant that he would ultimately enter it. To be enabled to see the land, with ‘born again’ special eyesight, was therefore a guarantee that Moses would enter the Kingdom. And <em><a href='B:290 33:17'>Isa 33:17</a></em> speaks of beholding the King in his beauty and seeing “the land that is very far off” an obvious allusion to Moses seeing the land as a picture of ultimate salvation. Note the parallel in <em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>: “Except a man be born again, he cannot&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;perceive the kingdom of God… he cannot&nbsp;<em>enter</em>&nbsp;into the kingdom of God”. If we truly see / perceive the things of the Kingdom in this life, then we will enter it in the future. Israel ‘saw’ the land physically through the spies (<em><a href='B:40 13:18'>Num 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:8'>Num 32:8</a></em>), but were told that they would “not see the land” (<em><a href='B:40 14:23'>Num 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:11'>Num 32:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:35'>Deu 1:35</a></em>). Again, as in the Lord’s teaching, ‘seeing the land’ is put for ‘entering’ into it. Knowing facts about the future Kingdom doesn’t mean we will enter it. But really ‘seeing’ the things of the Gospel of the Kingdom will by its very nature change us into people who will enter it. For we will be living the essence of the Kingdom life right now. Israel through the spies went to ‘see’ the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:18'>Num 13:18</a></em>), but could not&nbsp;<em>enter</em>&nbsp;it because of their unbelief (<em><a href='B:650 3:19'>Heb 3:19</a></em>). They didn’t ‘see’ it in the sense of perceiving what God’s Kingdom was all about. They only saw the physicality of the land; and this wasn’t enough to enter it. The synoptics’ formula that he who believes the Gospel and is baptized will be saved is matched by John in <em><a href='B:500 6:40'>Joh 6:40</a></em>: “every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day”. Believing the Gospel of the Kingdom is matched by seeing / perceiving the Son. This is the basis.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:4'>Joh 3:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?</em>-</p><p> When Nicodemus asked “How can a man be born again…?”, he wasn’t being facetious. He was asking a genuine question, which we’ve all had in one form or another. Can a person really totally change? Aren’t the influences of our past life, our humanity, simply too great to break totally? Aren’t there human ties that bind, bind so closely that they can never be completely thrown off? “Truly truly I say unto you”, the Lord replied, ‘Yes’. There is a doctrine of a new creation in Christ (<em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em>), whereby we really can be made new people. This is a ladder to reach to the stars. We can overcome sin, bad habits and thought patterns. We may well think that we can’t; the way was set, the die cast, the destiny mapped out, the genes determined; our background, upbringing, life path was as it was, and so we are as we are. But we&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;be made new. Sin need no longer have dominion over us, as Paul says in Romans 6; or as early Genesis put it, “you shall rule over sin” (<em><a href='B:10 4:7'>Gen 4:7</a></em>).</p><p>The extent of grace is reflected in the Lord’s teaching about being born again. A person neither begets nor bears himself; but the Lord says that this must happen. The born again person has to receive a new origin- evidently something we can’t give ourselves. The new birth is therefore only possible through an acceptance of grace. Thus in <em><a href='B:500 1:12-13'>Joh 1:12-13</a></em> a parallel is drawn between “all who receive him” and those “who were born… of God”. Going even further, <em><a href='B:690 5:1'>1Jn 5:1</a></em> and <em><a href='B:690 4:8'>1Jn 4:8</a></em> noting the tenses and context suggest that faith and love are the evidence of this new birth rather than the cause of it.</p><p>Dodd in&nbsp;<em>The Interpretation Of The Fourth Gospel&nbsp;</em>shows how constantly John is referring to Philo- e.g. Philo denied any possibility of spiritual rebirth, whereas John (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>) stresses how needful and possible it is in Christ. The very abstract views of Philo are challenged when John comments that the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;has become flesh- real and actual, handled and seen, in the person of the Lord Jesus. Clearly those to whom John was preaching were influenced by Philo and he seeks to address their issues. Philo claimed that the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;was an Angel- whereas John effectively denies this by saying that the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;became a real and actual human being. Those Christians who claim Jesus was an Angel- and they range from Jehovah's Witnesses to those who claim Jesus appeared as an Old Testament Angel- should all stand corrected by John's argument against Philo. In chapter 11 of his book, Dodd makes the observation that there was a tension between Jewish monotheism, and the many gods of Greek mythology. He shows how these ideas were reconciled by bringing the gods into some kind of family relationship with each- thus Hermes and Apollo became sons of Zeus, and all were seen as emanations of the one God. This is highly significant for any study of how the Trinity came into existence- the stage was set for the idea of a small family of gods to develop, all supposedly emanations of one God. See on <em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered: Truly, truly, I say to you: Except one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em> clearly alludes here: "He saved us by the washing laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit". The gift of the Spirit associated with baptism is vitally necessary; water alone will not save. At baptism we are born of (or by) water-and-spirit (the Greek implies one act, combining water and spirit). See on <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>. As the prologue states, birth is not of ourselves; we were born not of the will of the flesh but of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>). It is Christ, not the actual baptizer, who brings a person to new birth and actually does the moral washing of a person from their sins when they are baptized. Consider these simple parallels within John’s Gospel:&nbsp;</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>&nbsp; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:500 13:8'>Joh 13:8</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unless</td><td>If</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>One is born of water and Spirit</td><td>I do not wash you</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He cannot enter into the Kingdom</td><td>You have no part in me</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Not only does this reflect the crucial importance of baptism; it indicates that it is the Lord Jesus who does the moral washing of a person when they are baptized. Once we accept that, then&nbsp;<em>who</em>&nbsp;performs baptisms becomes irrelevant. And all the way through, we see His grace; our spiritual life and existence has its source in His activity and not our own.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:6'>Joh 3:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit</em>-</p><p> I have consistently noted that the ideas of the prologue are developed throughout John's Gospel. Here, the allusion is again to <em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>. Those in the new creation are born not of the will of the flesh but "of God", or as is stated here, "of the Spirit", seeing that "God is Spirit" (<em><a href='B:500 4:22'>Joh 4:22</a></em>). We had no say in our coming into existence, neither physically nor spiritually. It is for us to use the grace of life, both natural and spiritual, to the best of our ability. But the initiation of that life was not from us, it was of the Spirit. We did not come to the new creation through our own Bible study or good living. It was all of the Spirit. The idea here in :6 is that like produces like; he that is born of the Spirit is spirit. And yet this is true only potentially; the Corinthians received the Spirit but were later "not spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:7'>Joh 3:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do not marvel at what I said to you: You must be born anew</em>-</p><p> Nicodemus considered himself spiritually mature, hence the appeal for him not to marvel that he must be born again. The idea that we must fundamentally change and be changed, become someone we were not previously, allow our innermost person to be radically reborn... is not really what established, middle aged, middle class people want to hear. And so the Lord had to urge Nicodemus: "Do not marvel...".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:8'>Joh 3:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The wind blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but do not know from where it comes and where it goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit</em>-</p><p> Nicodemus was from the mindset that we are masters of our own spiritual destiny; by dint of academic, syllable by syllable Bible study, poring over the ancient texts, we can forge our own path towards the Kingdom. But the Lord had told him that we must be born of the Spirit and not of the will of man; to be born of something implies process beyond our direct, conscious control and volition. What is born of the Spirit is spirit; for like begets like. If we are to be spiritual people and thus see the Kingdom, we are to allow to operate a process greater than ourselves, preceding the time of our conscious choices. Those born of the Spirit sense this; remember that in Hebrew, "wind" and "spirit" are the same word. Here, "wind" translates the same Greek word translated "spirit" in the same verse. As the wind comes from somewhere and goes somewhere, so the Spirit works to bring about our spiritual birth.</p><p>Those born of the Spirit cannot clearly define from where or how they came about, at least not in secular terms. If we ask ourselves how it is that at this moment, we believe... the answers are so nuanced that we cannot but avoid the impression that on a secular, material level, it is indeed all somewhat mysterious. In the first century, a person was understood in connection with who their parents and ancestors were. Hence some Biblical characters are referred to as the son of X who was the son of Y who was the son of Z. Plato summed it up when he said that good people were good "because they sprang from good fathers". This is where the genealogies of Jesus would've been so hard to handle for some- because Matthew stresses how the Lord had whores and Gentiles in His genealogy. And it's also where the New Testament doctrine of the new birth and the new family in Christ were radical- for it was your family and ethnic origin which were of paramount importance in defining a person within society. John's Gospel especially emphasises the great desire to know from whence Jesus came (<em><a href='B:500 3:8'>Joh 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:41-42'>Joh 6:41-42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:27-28'>Joh 7:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:14'>Joh 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:29'>Joh 9:29</a></em>)- and the lack of any solid, concrete answer. To say that God was quite literally His Father was just too much for most people to handle. And here we are being told that every one born of the Spirit is the same.</p><p>But birth of the Spirit depends upon 'hearing the sound' of the wind / spirit. This phrase 'hear the sound' is literally 'to understand the voice'. The same words are found in :29 of how John heard the Lord's voice; those who "hear the voice" of God's son shall live (<em><a href='B:500 5:25'>Joh 5:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:28'>Joh 5:28</a></em>); His sheep "hear His voice" (<em><a href='B:500 10:3'>Joh 10:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:27'>Joh 10:27</a></em>); those "of the truth hear My voice" (<em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em>); the Lord knocks, but He enters in to those who "hear My voice" (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). Birth of the Spirit is not therefore completely arbitrary; there must be a hearing of the Lord's voice in His word. But even then, there is the mystery of grace attached to quite where the call came from, and to where we are being led. Just as the wind of the Spirit can be felt by its effects, but not concretely seen and defined.</p><p>Perhaps the idea is that Nicodemus heard the sound, recognized that this man was from God; but could not tell / discern further. The position of the Jews was that "we cannot tell" (<em><a href='B:470 21:27'>Mat 21:27</a></em> s:w:) the authority of John the Baptist and his message about Jesus as Messiah. The same phrase "cannot tell" was used by John in rebuking the Jews for not being able to tell or know the Messiah in their midst (<em><a href='B:500 1:26'>Joh 1:26</a></em> "Whom you know not"); the Jews at the wedding could not tell from whence the new wine came (<em><a href='B:500 2:9'>Joh 2:9</a></em> s:w:); and the Lord has just used the term in :3 about 'not seeing' the Kingdom of God unless we are born again. This all encourages us to read "You hear the sound but cannot tell..." as meaning 'Yes, Nicodemus, you recognize My miracles, but you are not allowing yourself to perceive from whence I am and to where I go'- and He came from God and went to God. Nicodemus didn't want to recognize the intangible, the spiritual; to surrender the issues of the past and future to the movement of the Spirit, to grace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:9'>Joh 3:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nicodemus answered and said to him: How can these things be?</em>-</p><p> The academic Old Testament scholar, the theologian, struggled to accept that the Spirit could operate like this. It was the struggle of head against heart, of visible against invisible, of secular against spiritual, of law against grace:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:10'>Joh 3:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered and said to him: Are you the teacher of Israel and yet do not understand these things?</em>-</p><p> "<em>The</em>&nbsp;teacher" could imply he held some specific office of theological teaching. The Lord seems to have expected Nicodemus to have figured out the Old Testament’s teaching about the new birth (presumably from <em><a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:3'>Isa 44:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 11:19'>Eze 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 18:31'>Eze 18:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26'>Eze 36:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 37:14'>Eze 37:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 39:29'>Eze 39:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 11:5'>Ecc 11:5</a></em>). And the Lord castigates Nicodemus for not having figured it out. The very high standards which He demanded of His followers would only have had meaning if it was evident that He was Himself a real human who all the same was sinless. This was and is why the words of Jesus had a compelling, inspirational power towards obedience; for He Himself lived out those words in human flesh. The Lord of all grace was and is amazingly demanding in some ways. And He has every right to be.</p><p>Or it could be that the Lord is saying that if Nicodemus had studied Scripture as God intends, then he would have perceived that all is of grace and God's initiative, rather than of academic study.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:11'>Joh 3:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Truly, truly, I say to you: We speak that which we know and testify of that which we have seen; and you do not welcome our witness</em>-</p><p> Note how the Lord changes pronouns: “<em>I</em>&nbsp;say to you,&nbsp;<em>We</em>&nbsp;speak…”. He clearly identifies the preaching of His followers with His own witness. We are the branches, we make up the vine, we make up the Lord Jesus. Thus He spoke of "we..." to mean 'I…' here, such was the unity He felt between Himself and His men who witnessed for Him. He asked Saul "Why persecutest thou&nbsp;<em>me</em>?" (<em><a href='B:510 9:4'>Act 9:4</a></em>), again identifying Himself with His people:&nbsp;But this leads us to wonder whether John is not also speaking here; for the Gospel records are transcripts of the original teaching of the Gospel by, e.g., John and his team. The only other time we encounter the term "our witness" is again in John's writings, describing his own witness as "our witness" in <em><a href='B:710 1:12'>3Jn 1:12</a></em>. The "you" who are addressed as not receiving the witness would connect with those Jews referenced in the prologue, who saw the light but remained in the darkness through not accepting it. In this case, John is here addressing that category, the "you who do not welcome / receive our witness", in the hope of converting even them. But primarily of course, the reference is to Nicodemus. He accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was clearly "from God" because of the miracles, but he did not really accept the witness of the Gospel- for it asked too much of him. And here we have a direct attack upon all nominal, surface level Christianity that refuses to openly come out for the One who lived and died for them. Quiet, private admission that He was "of God" is not enough; and this is a theme in John's Gospel. In his context, the tendency was to inwardly accept the truths of Jesus as God's prophet, but remain within the synagogue system acting as if they were Jews and not Christians.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:12'>Joh 3:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?-&nbsp;</em>What were these earthly things that Nicodemus did not believe? In the same as Paul at times 'says things in human terms', so the Lord had likened the new birth to the earthly analogy of insemination, pregnancy and birth. Nicodemus failed to believe that; and so there was no point in telling him heavenly things. He needed to be born from above, from Heaven (:5); but there was no point telling him about the things of Heaven if he refused to believe and grasp the simple requirement for new birth, expressed as it had been in earthly language. The Lord is saying in more abstract terms what Paul had in view when he writes to his converts of how he cannot write to them of the meat because they can't even grasp the milk.</p><p>But I suggested on :11 that these words of the Lord may also be applicable to John personally in his preaching of the Gospel. He chooses to record the more heavenly, spiritual sayings of the Lord, whereas the synoptics record His more direct, earthly statements. These words would therefore be true of John too, as the Lord's representative. He had told his audience earthly things, explained the Gospel history just as e.g. Mark had done, in straightforward language. And they had not believed. So there was little chance they were going to now believe His presentation of the more Heavenly words of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>No one has ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>Moses' ascents of the mountain were seen as representing an ascension to Heaven; but he had not ascended up to the "heavenly things" of&nbsp;which Christ spoke. Consider the spiritual loneliness of rising to heights no other man has reached, as far as Heaven is above earth. John the Baptist recognised this (<em><a href='B:500 3:31'>Joh 3:31</a></em>).</p><p>This man Jesus standing before them was saying in figurative terms that He was in Heaven, had been in Heaven, had ascended there. Surely His abrupt shift of tenses and places is to suggest the Yahweh Name being manifested in Him. The language of ‘coming down’ is classically used in the OT in the context of Yahweh manifestation in theophany; yet it often occurs in Acts in the context of the preaching of the Gospel, as if our witness is a manifestation of the Name (<em><a href='B:510 8:5'>Act 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:21'>Act 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:19'>Act 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:25'>Act 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:22'>Act 18:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 25:6'>Act 25:6</a></em>).</p><p>John’s Gospel especially makes many references to the idea of Christ’s judgment being right now. Why is this? John was clearly written sometime after the other Gospels. The early community of believers were expecting the Lord’s return at any moment; but by the time John wrote, it was apparent that He hadn’t returned as soon as they had hoped for. Perhaps his point was that much of what we are expecting at the second coming is in essence going on right now. The very ‘coming’ of Jesus was judgment (<em><a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:62'>Joh 6:62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em>). Those who refuse to believe have already been condemned (<em><a href='B:500 3:17-21'>Joh 3:17-21</a></em>). Whilst the other Gospels stress that we will receive eternal life at the second coming (<em><a href='B:480 10:30'>Mar 10:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:8-9'>Mat 18:8-9</a></em>), John stresses that the essence of the life eternal is our present experience; we have passed from death to life (<em><a href='B:500 5:24'>Joh 5:24</a></em>). We will be made children of God at the last day (<em><a href='B:490 6:35'>Luk 6:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:36'>Luk 20:36</a></em>); but the essence of being God’s children has begun now, when we are born again (<em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>). Yet John brings out his continuity with the other Gospels by speaking of both future and present condemnation (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 3:18'>Joh 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>); of future eternal life and present eternal life (<em><a href='B:500 12:25'>Joh 12:25</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 3:36'>Joh 3:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:24'>Joh 5:24</a></em>); and future resurrection and present ‘resurrection’ to new life (<em><a href='B:500 6:39-40'>Joh 6:39-40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:54'>Joh 6:54</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 5:21'>Joh 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:24'>Joh 5:24</a></em>).</p><p>The context of John 3 is the Lord's discourse with Nicodemus. This passages highlights the difference between flesh and spirit, human understanding and spiritual perception, literal birth and the birth "from above" (<em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>). All this suggests that we are to understand 'Heaven' and (by implication) 'earth' in a figurative manner. The Lord Jesus speaks as if He has already ascended into Heaven- yet He spoke these words during His ministry. In any case, He speaks of how "the Son of man" will do these things, and not 'God the Son', as would be required by Trinitarian theology. To suggest that Jesus as Son of Man literally ascended to Heaven and descended to earth during His ministry is surely literalism's last gasp. There are many allusions to Moses throughout John's record, as if both the Lord Jesus and John were seeking to impress upon the audience that the Lord Jesus was indeed the Messianic "prophet like unto" Moses predicted in <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>. Jewish writings of the time e.g.&nbsp;<em>Wisdom of Solomon</em>&nbsp;spoke of Moses' ascent of Sinai as an ascension into Heaven, descending to Israel with the Law (more references to this effect in Ben Witherington,&nbsp;<em>John's</em>&nbsp;<em>Wisdom: A</em>&nbsp;<em>Commentary</em>&nbsp;<em>on the Fourth Gospel</em>&nbsp;(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995) p. 100). This language is being picked up and applied to the Lord Jesus.</p><p>The Lord Jesus has just spoken of how believers in Him are to be "born from above" and "born of the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>). However, the same Greek words for "born" and "Spirit" are found in <em><a href='B:470 1:20'>Mat 1:20</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 1:35'>Luk 1:35</a></em> - in description of the virgin birth of Jesus. He was the ultimate example of one "born of the Spirit". And yet John's Gospel applies the language of the virgin birth to believers. We have another example in <em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em> - the believers "were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"- i:e:, they were born "of the Spirit". My suggestion is that the Lord Jesus is saying in <em><a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a></em> that of course, He is the only one fully born of the Spirit, the only one in Heavenly places; but the preceding context makes clear that He is willing to count believers in Him as fully sharing His status. Further, we need no longer complain that His virgin birth makes Him have some unfair advantages in the battle against sin which we don't have. The spiritual rebirth experienced by all those truly born again by God's word, His "seed" (<em><a href='B:670 1:23'>1Pe 1:23</a></em>), is such that we in some way are given all the inclinations towards righteousness which the Lord Jesus had by virtue of His birth.</p><p>"Even the Son of Man who is in Heaven" may be John's comment rather than the Lord's actual words. Any serious student of John's Gospel will have come across this problem of deciding what are John's inserted comments, and what are the actual words of Jesus (e.g. <em><a href='B:500 3:13-17'>Joh 3:13-17</a></em>). The problem arises because the written style of John is so similar, indeed identical, to the style of language Christ used. The conclusion from this feature is that&nbsp;<em>the mind of John was so swamped with the words and style of the Lord that his own speaking and writing became after the pattern of his Master.</em>&nbsp;And he is our pattern in this. Not only are his comments within his Gospel exactly in harmony with the Lord's style, but also the style and phrasing of his own epistle reflects that of the Lord (e.g. compare <em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:24'>Joh 16:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em> with <em><a href='B:690 1:4'>1Jn 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:700 1:12'>2Jn 1:12</a></em>). Perhaps he&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;absorbed the mind of the Master that he was used to write the most spiritual account of the Lord's life. In a different way, Peter also absorbed the Lord's words to the point that they influenced his way of speaking and writing (his letters are full of conscious and unconscious allusions back to the Lord's words). He seems to have noted some of the Lord's catch phrases, and made them his own (as an Englishman may say "I guess..." after prolonged contact with an American). Thus "of a surety / truth" was one of the Lord's catch phrases (<em><a href='B:490 9:27'>Luk 9:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:44'>Luk 12:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:3'>Luk 21:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:47'>Joh 1:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:55'>Joh 6:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:31'>Joh 8:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>), repeated by Peter in <em><a href='B:510 12:11'>Act 12:11</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:500 3:13-14'>Joh 3:13-14</a></em> follow straight on from the discourse about being born again. John very much saw the new birth of the believer as a coming out of the Lord’s pierced side; this was what enabled the new birth see under <em><a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>. <em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em> likewise speaks of the new creation in the context of expounding the Lord’s death. “Lifted up" translates a Greek word usually translated “exalt", and is used about the Lord’s exaltation after His resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>). Although “no man hath&nbsp;<em>ascended up</em>&nbsp;to heaven" uses a different word, the idea is just the same. The word is usually used by John to describe the Lord’s ‘going up’ to Jerusalem to keep and finally fulfil the Passover (<em><a href='B:500 2:13'>Joh 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:1'>Joh 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:8'>Joh 7:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:10'>Joh 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:14'>Joh 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:55'>Joh 11:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:20'>Joh 12:20</a></em>). John’s comment that only the Lord Jesus has “ascended up to heaven" may therefore be a reference to both His crucifixion and ascension. His ‘coming down’ may have a hint of how John records His body being ‘taken down’ from the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up</em>-</p><p> Perhaps these were the "heavenly things" which the Lord had intimated He wanted to tell Nicodemus of in :12.</p><p>It was the serpent which gave salvation to sin-stricken Israel, not Moses; and the&nbsp;<em>serpent</em>&nbsp;represented Christ in this case. It was as it were a dead serpent; the Lord had put to death the power of sin within Himself. Moses "lifted up" the serpent in the same way as the Jews "lifted up" Christ in crucifying him (<em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>). Moses drew attention to the serpent and its power to save, in the same way as his Law drew attention to how sin would be condemned in Christ as the means of our salvation. The connection between Moses “lifting up" Christ&nbsp;and Israel doing likewise is another indicator of how Moses was representative of Israel (cp. Christ). The altar "Jehovah-Nissi" connected Yahweh personally with the pole / standard / ensign of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 17:15'>Exo 17:15</a></em>). Yet&nbsp;<em>nissi</em>&nbsp;is the Hebrew word used for the pole on which the brass serpent was lifted up, and for the standard pole which would lift up Christ. Somehow Yahweh Himself was essentially connected with the cross of Christ. “There is no God else beside; a just God and a Saviour (Jesus)... look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth" (<em><a href='B:290 45:21-22'>Isa 45:21-22</a></em>) is evident allusion to the snake on the pole to which all Israel were bidden look and be saved. And yet that saving symbol of the crucified Jesus is in fact God Himself held up to all men. The Hebrew word&nbsp;<em>nasa</em>&nbsp;translated "forgive" is also translated 'bear' as in 'bearing / carrying iniquity'. When God forgave, He bore / carried sin; and the idea of carrying sin is obviously brought into visual, graphic meaning in the literal carrying of the cross by the Lord Jesus. Indeed, the Hebrew word&nbsp;<em>nes</em>, translated "pole" in the record of the bronze snake being lifted up on a "pole", is the noun for which&nbsp;<em>nasa</em>&nbsp;is the verb. The essence of cross carrying had therefore been performed by God for millennia, every time He forgave human sin. It's understandable, therefore, that He had a special manifestation in the final sufferings and death of His Son. See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</p><p><em><a href='B:500 3:13-14'>Joh 3:13-14</a></em> link the Lord’s ascension to Heaven, and His ‘lifting up’ on the cross. They were all part of the same, saving process. Likewise the atonement is a function of His death and resurrection combined; it was only the empty tomb that gave the cross any power at all. "Lifted up" is literally to exalt; His lifting up by His enemies was in their eyes His final disgrace, to die the death of the cross; but to spiritual eyes, it was His greatest exaltation. There are many similar things in life today which from a secular viewpoint may be a man's nadir, but which from a heavenly perspective are his greatest exaltation. The process of death itself is often an example.</p><p>The same&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;which led Him to His passion (see on <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:49'>Luk 2:49</a></em>) is the very same compulsion which “behoves" us to preach that passion which we have witnessed and benefited from. In His ministry, He had taught that we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be born again, and in the same discourse spoke of how He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be lifted up in crucifixion (<em><a href='B:500 3:7'>Joh 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>). His cross, His will to die in the way He did, must be our inspiration. “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and&nbsp;<em>we ought</em>&nbsp;to lay down our lives for the brethren" (<em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>).</p><p><em><a href='B:500 3:14-21'>Joh 3:14-21</a></em> One of the most powerful links between the cross and the judgment is to be found in <em><a href='B:500 3:14-21'>Joh 3:14-21</a></em> (which seems to be John’s commentary rather than the words of Jesus Himself). Parallels are drawn between:-</p><p> The snake lifted up on the pole (=the crucifixion), teaching that whoever believes in the crucified Christ should live-</p><p> God so loving the world (language elsewhere specifically applied to the crucifixion: <em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:10-11'>1Jn 4:10-11</a></em>)-</p><p> God giving His Son (on the cross, <em><a href='B:520 5:15'>Rom 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em>), that whoever believes in Him should live-</p><p> God sending His Son to save the world (<em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>)-</p><p> Light coming into the world (at His death, the darkness was ended).</p><p>All these phrases can refer to the life and person of the Lord; but sometimes they are specifically applied to the cross. And further, they are prefaced here in John 3 by a reference to the Lord as the snake lifted up on the pole. The essence of the Lord, indeed the essence of God Himself, was openly displayed in its most crystallised form in the cross. There was the epitome of love, of every component of God’s glory, revealed to the eyes of men. There above all, the light of God’s love and glory came into the world. In this context John’s comment continues: “This is the condemnation / judgment, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest". If we understand “the light" as pre-eminently the cross, we see further evidence that there indeed was and is the judgment of this world. The Lord described His impending death as “the judgment of this world" (<em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>); and here He says that the judgment of this word is that He is the light of the world and men shy away from Him. The link between the light of the world and the snake being lifted up on the pole would have been more evident to Hebrew readers and thinkers than it is to us. The “pole" on which the snake was lifted up was a standard, a pole on which often a lamp would be lifted up: “a beacon upon the top of a mountain... an&nbsp;<em>ensign</em>&nbsp;(s:w:) on an hill" (<em><a href='B:290 30:17'>Isa 30:17</a></em>). The ‘light’ would have been understood as a burning light rather than, e.g., the sun. The light of which the Lord spoke would have been understood as a torch, lifted up on a standard. The same Greek word is used in describing how the jailor asked for a “light", i:e. a blazing torch, in order to inspect the darkened prison (<em><a href='B:510 16:29'>Act 16:29</a></em>). Speaking in the context of the snake lifted up on a pole, Jesus would have been inviting His audience to see Him crucified as the light of their lives. And this would explain why Isaiah seems to parallel the nations coming to the ensign / standard / pole of Christ, and them coming to the Him as light of the world (<em><a href='B:290 5:26'>Isa 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 11:12'>Isa 11:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:22'>Isa 49:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 42:6'>Isa 42:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:3'>Isa 60:3</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 1:78-79'>Luk 1:78-79</a></em> foretold how the Lord would be a lamp to those in darkness- and this had a strange fulfilment in His death. His example there on the cross was a light amidst the darkness that descended on the world. In the light of His cross, true self-examination is possible. Significantly perhaps, the Greek word for “light" occurs in <em><a href='B:490 22:56'>Luk 22:56</a></em>, where Peter sits by the “fire" and was exposed. It was as if Peter was acting out a parable of how the “light" of association with the suffering Christ makes our deeds manifest. The day of “light" is both the crucifixion, and the last day of judgment, when all our deeds will be made manifest before the light (<em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em>). By coming to the cross and allowing it to influence our self-examination, we come to judgment in advance.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:15'>Joh 3:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That whoever believes may in him have eternal life</em>-</p><p> Or, "Whoever believed in Him". ‘Belief in Him’ therefore specifically refers to looking upon the cross in understanding, and believing it, just as Israel had to look to the serpent to be saved from the death which was already in their blood stream. In John, 'seeing' is 'believing'. ‘He’ was and is His cross. There we see the epitome of Him. Jesus “by himself purged our sins" (<em><a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a></em>) and yet it was by His cross and His blood that sin was purged. But He Himself was epitomized in His blood / cross. And so to believe in Him is to believe in Him crucified (<em><a href='B:500 3:15-16'>Joh 3:15-16</a></em>). In the context, Nicodemus had claimed to kind of believe in Jesus in that he recognized the miracles must be of God. But the Lord is saying this is not enough; to believe in Him is to believe in Him as the crucified saviour from our personal sins and death sentence within our blood stream. God’s so loving the world was in the giving of His son to die. His sending His Son into the world was specifically through the cross see on <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> - this is another development of the prologue. One wonders whether we gaze enough upon the cross.</p><p>Clearly enough, the bronze serpent lifted up on the “standard” was a symbol of Christ crucified. But time and again throughout Isaiah, we read that a “standard” or ensign will be “lifted up” in order to gather people together to it (<em><a href='B:290 5:26'>Isa 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 13:2'>Isa 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 11:12'>Isa 11:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em>). This was the idea of an ensign lifted up. Thus our common response to the cross of Christ should be to gather together unto Him there. And we need to take note that several of those Isaiah passages are speaking about what shall happen in the last days, when divided Israel will unite on the basis of their acceptance of the crucified Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life</em>-</p><p> The having of eternal life in John usually refers to something right now. The context is how stricken Israel looked upon the serpent and were given life; but he who looks in faith upon the lifted up Lord Jesus shall receive&nbsp;<em>eternal&nbsp;</em>life. In its present sense, this means that through the Spirit we can begin to live now the life we shall eternally experience in God's Kingdom. But that life is based upon our comprehending in faith the crucified Lord Jesus. He there becomes the practical inspiration for the new life. For 'seeing' Him there means we can no longer be passive; every aspect of daily living and thinking is affected.</p><p>“God&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son" implies that the love of God for the world was channelled through the work of Christ. Note the import of the word "<em>so</em>" - not 'so much', but 'so, in this way…'. There are many connections between the love of God and the death of Christ, and it is easy to overlook them. For example, "God loved us, and sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins... hereby ('in this') we perceive the love of God, because he laid down his life for us" (<em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>). The love of God is "<em>in&nbsp;</em>Christ Jesus". Likewise, the love of Christ is so often linked with His death. Christ "Loved us, and washed us from our sins" (<em><a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a></em>). He gave His life so that the world might have life (<em><a href='B:500 6:51'>Joh 6:51</a></em>); and yet He gave His life for&nbsp;<em>us</em>. My conclusion is that the love of Christ was paraded for the whole world, especially the Jewish world, just as the serpent was available for all Israel. But only those who look to Him there in faith shall receive the life eternal. We thereby become "the world", we who&nbsp;<em>to God</em>, from His perspective, constitute "the world" with which He deals. "The world" in John's Gospel often means the Jewish world. The Lord died for&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;salvation fundamentally (<em><a href='B:550 4:5'>Gal 4:5</a></em>), and we only have access to this by becoming spiritual Israel through baptism:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:690 2:15'>1Jn 2:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:17'>Joh 3:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him</em>-</p><p> It was absolutely possible that all Israel could have been saved. It was through their rejection of this plan that they condemned themselves. God's intention in giving His Son was that the Jewish world might be saved, in the first instance. For that is the common referent of "the world" in John. But if we wish to apply "the world" to "the whole world", we must grapple with the question: Why, then, the masses of humanity who never heard the name of Jesus? My comment would then be that it was potentially possible for the whole world to hear, it was God's wish and intention; but it was the dysfunction of His church, and His refusal to intervene to force us another way, His commitment to honouring our freewill, which left those masses without the saving knowledge of Jesus. And the tragedy continues to this day.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:18'>Joh 3:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that believes in him is not condemned. He that does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God</em>-</p><p> Condemnation was not God's aim (:17); condemnation is therefore always self-condemnation. Whenever we encounter the message of salvation in Him, we face our judgment; and some even now are "condemned already" by their rejection of salvation in Him.</p><p>For we who believe, it is in this sense that in prospect we can be assured that we are saved by being in Christ. We can therefore live as "the sons of God, without rebuke... blameless" (<em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>) in God's sight (being so in the eyes of the world is almost impossible for a true believer), in the same way as at the judgment we will be presented "holy and unblameable and unreproveable". It must be significant that the language of forgiveness in the New Testament constantly alludes to judgment: justification, appeal, counsel for the defence, advocate, accusation etc. are common ideas, especially in the Greek. The point of this may be to teach that the experience of forgiveness now does stand related to the judgment which we will receive at Christ's return. Thus if we are convicted of sin now, but aided by Christ as our advocate and therefore justified, we will have the same experience at the judgment seat.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:19'>Joh 3:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And this is the ground of condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light- for their works were evil</em>-</p><p> Another reference to the prologue. But now "the light" is defined further as the lifted up Son of Man; perhaps the connection is in the way that a "light" was usually a torch, a fire lifted up, just as the serpent on the pole was lifted up. John is therefore speaking after the crucifixion; even after that, the Jews preferred darkness rather than to accept the crucified Jesus as light of their lives. Accepting Him there meant the new life, and an exposure of their works as evil. This is why people refuse the message of Jesus as light of their world- because morally it demands too much of them. Yet they excuse it as not getting the idea, misunderstanding, having genuine intellectual doubts. But here the Biblical reason is given, probing as it does to depths of the subconscious that are not knowable by the person themselves. The reason for not accepting the light is that men love darkness because their works are evil and they don't wish to have them exposed.</p><p>However, although these words are true of John's witness after the Lord's death, they are just as appropriate to the Lord Jesus, who was speaking them&nbsp;<em>before&nbsp;</em>His death to Nicodemus who had come to Him by night. Why by night? Because he feared openly demonstrating his faith. He would not come out in the light, because his works were evil.</p><p>The light coming into the world is parallel with God’s son coming into the world in the cross see on <em><a href='B:500 1:5'>Joh 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em>. Men “came to that sight" and turned away from it (<em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>). Our natures likewise resist us concentrating upon the cross. Something in us makes our minds wander at the breaking of bread. There our deeds are manifested. Thus the breaking of bread naturally brings forth self-examination as we focus upon and reconstruct His death. There are our deeds reproved, and also made manifest. In murdering the Son of God, Israel showed how they hated the light; the same word is used in describing how “they hated me without a cause" (<em><a href='B:500 15:25'>Joh 15:25</a></em>). John develops the idea in <em><a href='B:690 2:9'>1Jn 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>, in teaching that to hate our brother is to walk in darkness; whereas if we come to the light of God’s glory as shown in the cross, we will love our brother. The cross is the ultimate motivator to love our brethren; this was one of the reasons why the Lord died as He did (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). The light of the cross is the light of all men in God’s world (<em><a href='B:500 1:4'>Joh 1:4</a></em>). The Lord later associates His being the light of the world with following Him; and ‘following him’ is invariably associated with taking up the cross and following Him. To follow the light is to follow Christ crucified (<em><a href='B:500 8:12'>Joh 8:12</a></em>). He there is to be the practical focus of our lives. Recall how the prologue states that His light is to be our life, we are to live life in the light of Him; and more specifically, in the light of the fact He died for us.</p><p><em><a href='B:500 3:19-21'>Joh 3:19-21</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 12:32-46'>Joh 12:32-46</a></em> see commentary there suggest that one level of meaning of Jesus as “light of the world" was that in the darkness that came over the land at the crucifixion, He upon the cross was the light of a darkened world. The Lord was “the beginning of the new creation of God" (<em><a href='B:730 3:14'>Rev 3:14</a></em>); each believer who enters the spiritual world is enlightened by the light of Christ crucified. The Lord on the cross is the epitome of all that He was and is; His life, His word /&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, His Spirit.</p><p>John’s Gospel is full of reference to Essence concepts. It’s been widely argued that John’s language alludes to the threat of incipient Gnosticism, and this may be true. But it’s likely that John was written quite early, even before AD70. In this case, when John speaks of light and darkness, children of light and darkness, the Jewish ‘Satan’ / adversary to Christianity as “the ruler of this world”, he would also be alluding to these common Essene ideas. For John, following the light means following Jesus as Lord; the darkness refers to the flesh, the desires within us to conform to the surrounding world and its thinking. His point, therefore, is that instead of fantasizing about some cosmic battle going on, true Christians are to understand that the essential struggle is within the mind of each of us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:20'>Joh 3:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For every one that does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, in case his works should be reproved</em>-</p><p> If men love darkness, they are not therefore passive nor indifferent to the light. They hate it. John uses the same word four times in his first letter, warning that those who claim to believe but hate their brother are still in darkness. The division is not, therefore, simply between those who claim to believe and those who do not. If we hate our brother, we hate the Lord Jesus whom he represents; we hate the light, we are not led by the light of Him crucified. For if we are so led, hatred of our brother will simply not happen. And this is how to overcome feelings of hatred against others; not to steel will ourselves not to feel like that, but to positively focus upon the crucified Lord as light of our lives.</p><p>The Greek phrase "come to" has been used in the context for how Nicodemus had "come to Jesus" by night (:2; stressed again in <em><a href='B:500 7:50'>Joh 7:50</a></em>). But the Lord seems to be saying that he had not truly come to Him. And He locates the deep subconscious reason as a fear that his works should be reproved. And this for all time is the reason why people will not come to Him completely, regardless of all the excuses they make. On the surface, "all men came to" Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 3:26'>Joh 3:26</a></em>); but He later comments: "But you will not come to me, that you might have life" (<em><a href='B:500 5:40'>Joh 5:40</a></em>). The feeding of the multitude likewise features multitudes 'coming to Him', and the Lord using the same phrase in explaining that if they truly came to Him, they would never again hunger and would certainly be eternally saved (<em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:44-45'>Joh 6:44-45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:65'>Joh 6:65</a></em>). There is a major play on the idea of 'coming to' Jesus. The warning is against surface level coming to Him, as if trooping out to church; and coming in truth, in which case we shall be utterly assured of our salvation. And our coming to the Lord will be matched by His coming to us, right now in this life, through the gift of the Spirit in our hearts. The same phrase is again used of this wondrous experience, where the Lord meets with man in man's own heart (<em><a href='B:500 14:18'>Joh 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:28'>Joh 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:7'>Joh 16:7</a></em>).</p><p>Whenever God’s Truth is presented to a man, the raw nerve of his conscience will somehow be touched. He is in God’s image, and knows somehow he should respond to this. He may react by flinching away, covering up his weakness; He will not come to the light, lest his deeds are reproved. Or he may realise that he has been touched, and respond in humility. So often the introduction of the Gospel is treated by people with indifference: ‘Oh, another leaflet’, a woman may jovially respond when she’s handed one of our tracts. But when she realises it’s about Jesus… then, things will change. ‘Oh, I see…’ she may say, and her body language will change. She has been touched on the raw nerve. She may get angry because of this, or quickly change the subject- or let her conscience be touched.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:21'>Joh 3:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he that does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; Remember however that John's Gospel is a transcript of his preaching the Gospel to people who had lived both before and after the Lord's death. Here he may be explaining why some in Israel accepted the light and others didn't. "The truth" is a phrase used about the covenant promises to the fathers- "the truth to Jacob and the mercy to Abraham which You promised to our fathers" (<em><a href='B:400 7:20'>Mic 7:20</a></em>). Those who grasped the real implications of that covenant 'did the truth' and were looking for the light. I suggest this is the idea here, rather than the impression that people who did good works would find in the Lord Jesus a justification of themselves. The Greek is however difficult here, and one manuscript reads "that the work which is between God and him may be known".</p><p>But these words are also true for our later generations. John later defines 'doing the truth' as walking in the light (<em><a href='B:690 1:6'>1Jn 1:6</a></em>). A healthy conscience provides some foretaste of the final judgment. He who does truth comes to the light, "that his deeds may be made&nbsp;<em>manifest</em>" (<em><a href='B:500 3:21'>Joh 3:21</a></em>), the reproof of a healthy conscience makes our failings&nbsp;<em>manifest</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:560 5:13'>Eph 5:13</a></em>) as they will be made&nbsp;<em>manifest</em>&nbsp;at the future judgment (<em><a href='B:490 8:17'>Luk 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 5:25'>1Ti 5:25</a></em>). This is why Solomon when reflecting on the human seats of judgment so wished that God would&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;make men manifest to themselves, make them realize the animal depravity of their natures, because there would be a<em>&nbsp;future</em>&nbsp;judgment of every purpose and work (<em><a href='B:250 3:16-18'>Ecc 3:16-18</a></em>). If we love darkness and refuse to come to the light that our deeds may be manifest (<em><a href='B:500 3:20'>Joh 3:20</a></em>), then we will be returned to the darkness in the last day. Therefore willing self-examination and self-correction now, a true response to God's word, a realistic coming to the light- this means we will not be thrown into the darkness in the end. But the question of course occurs: do we&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>let God's word influence our behaviour to the extent that we&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>change? Or are we just drifting through the Christian, church-going life…? The children of God and those of the devil are now made manifest (<em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:10'>1Jn 3:10</a></em>), even in the eyes of other believers (<em><a href='B:530 11:19'>1Co 11:19</a></em>). His judgments are now made manifest (<em><a href='B:520 1:19'>Rom 1:19</a></em>) in that we know His word, His judgments; in advance of how they&nbsp;<em>will&nbsp;</em>be made manifest in the future judgment (<em><a href='B:730 15:4'>Rev 15:4</a></em>). We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat, but we are made manifest unto God (s:w:) even now (<em><a href='B:540 5:10-11'>2Co 5:10-11</a></em>).</p><p>There’s a clear connection here with how Nicodemus came out into the light after the crucifixion. Nicodemus had come to the Lord by night, scared to make the total commitment of coming out into the open. But the purpose of the cross was so that we might be separated out from this present evil world (<em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>). To remain in the world, to stay in the crowd that faced the cross rather than walk through the no man's land between, this is a denial of the Lord's death for us. The Lord's discourse that night three years ago had emphasized the need for every believer to come out into the light, not hide under the cover of darkness as Nicodemus was doing: "Men loved darkness... for every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be discovered. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest" (<em><a href='B:500 3:19-21'>Joh 3:19-21</a></em>). This must be read in the context of the fact that this discourse was spoken to Nicodemus when he came to Jesus secretly, at night. It took three years and the personal experience of the cross to make Nicodemus realize the truth of all this.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:22'>Joh 3:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he stayed with them and baptized</em>-</p><p> He did not baptize, His disciples did (<em><a href='B:500 4:2'>Joh 4:2</a></em>). We see here the idea developed that the Lord's witnesses are Him, in essence. And the same connection between Him and ourselves is especially seen and felt in the work of witnessing for Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:23'>Joh 3:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there; and people came to be baptized</em>-</p><p> This is clear evidence that John was baptizing by immersion, seeing he chose a place with "much water". It appears this was a fairly remote place; as the Lord went to the top of a mountain to teach, so John seems to have required some effort to be shown by his listeners.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:24'>Joh 3:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For John had not then been thrown into prison</em>-</p><p> This information is added perhaps to give the impression that right up until his arrest, John was teaching and baptizing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:25'>Joh 3:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then there arose a dispute between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purification</em>-</p><p> Presumably because both the Lord and John were baptizing at the same time. 'Whose baptism is valid?' would have been the question. Full Christian baptism of the kind commanded in the great commission was into the Lord's death and resurrection, and the whole symbolism of burial and resurrection with Him required that it could only happen after He had died and risen. So the baptisms performed before that were not full Christian baptisms, but rather statements of repentance and a desire to receive cleansing&nbsp;/ purification. If Israel had indeed repented then the path would have been prepared and the Lord could have come in glory. But many of those baptized turned around and crucified their Saviour.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:26'>Joh 3:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they came to John, and said to him: Rabbi, he that was with you on the other side of the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, the same baptizes, and all men come to him</em>-</p><p> I suggested on :25 that the baptisms of the Lord and John were essentially the same. We get the impression that there were some loyalists to John the Baptist who were alarmed that the Lord was achieving more baptisms than he was. I noted earlier that John's Gospel was partly directed at those who clung to loyalty to John the Baptist even after his death. John's total disinterest in a personal following is therefore emphasized in John's Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:27'>Joh 3:27</a></em> - see on&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:14'>Luk 1:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>John answered and said: A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven</em>-</p><p> The particular thing 'received' here was the Lord's apparent success in preaching. Those who came to the Lord were given to Him by God. John the Baptist understood what is later made explicit in John's Gospel; that nobody can come to the Son unless they are called by the Father (<em><a href='B:500 14:6'>Joh 14:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>You yourselves can testify that I said: I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him-&nbsp;</em>It was only at the Lord's baptism that John the Baptist realized that Jesus of Nazareth, his relative, was in fact the Christ. But now, John is clearly stating that this Jesus is the Christ and they ought to follow Him instead. The Gospel of John is therefore making the point that those disciples of John who were still loyal to him rather than the Lord were out of step with John's own clear words.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, that stands by and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. In this my joy is made full</em>-</p><p> This is supreme Christ-centeredness in witness. His joy was made full to see the Lord, the groom, united with His bride- that group of uncertain, little understanding folks who were coming out to profess repentance of their sins. John's words remained with the Lord; for He later speaks of how His joy is fulfilled in the disciples, and their joy is fulfilled in Him (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>). The idea was not lost on John himself, who later writes to his converts that "my joy" is that they walk in truth, focused on the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:710 1:4'>3Jn 1:4</a></em>). All gathering of a personal following is here utterly precluded. Our work is to bring people to the Lord Jesus; and the mutual fulfilment of their joy in Him, and His in them, is to be the fulfilment of our joy. Hence Paul can reason that his eternal joy will be to see his converts eternally united with the Lord.</p><p>Although John preached the excellence of Christ, he didn’t even consider himself to be part of the mystic bride of Christ; for he likens himself to only the groom, watching the happiness of the couple, but not having a part in it himself (<em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:500 1:10'>Joh 1:10</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:30'>Joh 3:30</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>He must increase but I must decrease</em>-</p><p> John is surely alluding to the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 9:7'>Isa 9:7</a></em>: "Of the increase of his kingdom and peace there shall be no end, sitting upon the throne of David". John naturally hoped that Israel would indeed accept the Lord Jesus, and thus the glory could come to Zion over the road John the Baptist had prepared. This was not to be, although ultimately the eternal increase of His Kingdom shall indeed come upon this earth. And the prospect of that Kingdom should lead us to proclaim with thankfulness that "I must decrease". The things of His Kingdom and Name, which we profess faith in through accepting the Gospel, shall then be all and in all. Whilst we as persons shall eternally exist in our own unique form, the "I", the unpleasant ego, shall be no more. John was deeply mindful of his weaknesses and perhaps he had this ego in view.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:31'>Joh 3:31</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>He that comes from above is above all. He that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaks. He that comes from heaven is above all</em>-</p><p> As noted on :30, John felt his own diminution in the face of the eternal Kingdom, and before the Lord Jesus. The higher we perceive the Lord Jesus, the less problem we will have with ego, the more attainable will be the idea of truly selfless service. Nicodemus and the Jews didn't understand earthly things, and so they would not understand heavenly things (:12). This is a tacit admission that they did not at that point accept John's message, the earthly voice as opposed to the heavenly. See on :34.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:32'>Joh 3:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What he has seen and heard, of that he testifies; and no one receives his witness</em>-</p><p> "We" testify what "we" have seen and heard (:11); and John later writes that "we", he and his fellow disciples, testified to their converts what they had seen and heard (s:w. <em><a href='B:690 1:1'>1Jn 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:3'>1Jn 1:3</a></em>). "No one" may mean 'very few'; the majority preferred the darkness. Or it could be that :32 is the recorded speech of John the Baptist, lamenting that although many had been baptized, not one of his disciples was accepting the testimony of what he had seen and heard at the Lord's baptism- the statement that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah and Son of God. But John picks up these words later in 1 Jn. to show that in fact all was not lost, as John had felt in his depression. For John and the disciples had received his testimony, and passed it on to their converts. In this case, John the Baptist would be a true Elijah-type prophet, for he too felt that he alone was faithful, when there in fact another 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Indeed, the next verse :33 is John the Gospel writer's comment to the effect that actually, some did receive his witness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:33'>Joh 3:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that has received his witness has certified that God is true</em>-</p><p> See on :32. John in his depression though that nobody had received his passing on of the vision he beheld at the Lord's baptism, connecting Jesus of Nazareth with Messiah and Son of God. But John the Gospel writer now adds that some had received John the Baptist's witness; indeed, John was one of them (<em><a href='B:690 1:1'>1Jn 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:3'>1Jn 1:3</a></em>). "Truth" is a concept associated with the promises to the fathers (<em><a href='B:400 7:20'>Mic 7:20</a></em>). By accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the seed / Messiah promised to Abraham and David, the believer has certified God's truth, the truth of His promises of salvation. By accepting those words of God (:34) to be truly of God and fulfilled in Christ, we set or affix our seal to them- we undertake to have them as binding upon us in daily life. Accepting the proposition that the Bible is inspired is therefore not a merely academic thing, assenting to a true proposition. It has to affect our lives. And note the humility of God here- that human beings can affix the seal of validation to the truth of God’s word. This works out in the way in which lives of obedience to God’s word are actually an affixed seal and testament to the truth of those words. Thus it becomes our lives which are the greatest proof of Biblical inspiration and the truth of God's word of promise. We each have a personal seal, as it were, with our own personal characteristics on it; and we set to our seal the fact that God is Truth, that He is the God of our covenant ("Truth" is a word associated throughout the OT with God's covenant relationship with men):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:34'>Joh 3:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He does not give him the Spirit by measure</em>-</p><p> John was given the Spirit to speak as he did, but by specific measures. The Lord had the Spirit generally and constantly, not just measured out for some specific works. John sees a direct connection between the Lord's words and the Spirit. His words were directly inspired; and the Lord Himself states that His words are Spirit in <em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>. The "For he whom God has sent..." links back to the statement in :31 that John speaks of the earth, but the Lord from Heaven. The Lord's being "from Heaven" refers therefore to the fact that He had been given God's Spirit without measure in order to speak from Heaven, from God. There is no reference to any descent of some pre-existent Jesus from Heaven to earth. That is to miss the context and force a crude literalism on the clearly more abstract language being used here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:35'>Joh 3:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand</em>-</p><p> We have just read that God so loved the world that He gave His Son (:16). That love for the world was focused through His love of the Son. The "all things" are those spoken of in the prologue- the all things of the new creation, of persons who believe into Him. We as believers are in His hand. <em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em> contains this thought too, when the Lord explains that the Father's giving all things to Him means that men can only know the Father if the Son reveals Him to them. The "all things" again refers to believers. John 10 expresses similar ideas; we are as the Lord's sheep safe in His hand and cannot be snatched away. This leads on to the assurance that we have right now the eternal life (:36).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:36'>Joh 3:36</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:560 2:3'>Eph 2:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>He that believes on the Son has eternal life; but he that does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him</em>-</p><p> When we read of “eternal life” being granted to us now, we are reading about “the life belonging to the age”, i:e. the Kingdom of God in the future. The idea is that we can live the life which we will eternally live- right here and now. We can experience the quality of that life now. And if we don’t… we don’t have the guarantee of eternity in the Kingdom. For in spiritual terms, in terms of essential spiritual experience, there will be a seamless transition between the spiritual life we now enjoy, and that which we will experience in the future Kingdom. The location of that eternity will be on earth; and yes, there must be death, resurrection, judgment and immortalisation of our body. But those more ‘physical’ realities don’t figure so deeply in the message which John is putting across in his record of ‘the Gospel’. Notice how in <em><a href='B:500 3:36'>Joh 3:36</a></em>, 'having everlasting life' is paralleled with 'seeing life'; to perceive and live what God's Kingdom life is all about, is in a sense to 'have' it.</p><p>For those who refuse to obey the Gospel, having heard it, then God's wrath will come and remain upon them right now, until judgment day. The idea is not that God is angry with all men and that wrath abides on everyone who is outside the Lord Jesus. These words are alluded to several times later in the New Testament, about the wrath to come upon the Jews, the "children of disobedience", in that they heard the Gospel and rejected it by killing God's Son (<em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:22'>Rom 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:6'>Eph 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:6'>Col 3:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:1'>Joh 4:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John</em>-</p><p> When some want to see spiritual work in competitive terms, it's better to just not play that game at all, and move away or onwards. Making and baptizing disciples is the language of the great commission (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). We are to follow the Lord's example in our own outreach; not merely baptizing but making men disciples, independent learners of Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:2'>Joh 4:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Although Jesus himself did not baptize but his disciples</em>-</p><p> As noted on <em><a href='B:500 3:22'>Joh 3:22</a></em>, the Lord is described as doing the baptisms, and indeed the Pharisees perceived it that way too (:1). Especially in the doing of His work of witness, we are counted as Him. We recall that at this stage the disciples still believed in ghosts, demons and the associated wrong ideas of immortal souls and disembodied existence. But still they baptized people. The Lord hardly made the bar very high, right from the start of His ministry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:3'>Joh 4:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He left Judea and departed again into Galilee</em>-</p><p> It could be that as today, numbers of converts and baptisms led to jealousy which soon morphed into violent opposition, and the Lord therefore withdrew from the Jerusalem area.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:4'>Joh 4:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It was necessary for him to pass through Samaria</em>-</p><p> This is significant, as this was not from geographical necessity. The Lord was in the Jordan valley (<em><a href='B:500 3:22'>Joh 3:22</a></em>) and could easily have taken the valley road north through Bethshan into Galilee, avoiding Samaria entirely. See on <em><a href='B:490 2:49'>Luk 2:49</a></em>. Pious Jews avoided travelling through Samaria; the Lord was demonstrating that He was not interested in the lines of separation drawn by the pious. The necessity however may have been because of some plot against Him arising from jealousy over the baptisms (see on :3), and so He took the route which He knew the Pharisees would not take for fear of defilement by the Samaritans. It is yet another window onto His humanity that He faced things like geographical and logistical necessity.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:5'>Joh 4:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Sychar, near to the parcel of ground which Jacob gave his son Joseph</em>-</p><p> This place was rich in Jewish history; it was the parcel of ground purchased by Jacob, where Joseph's bones were buried (<em><a href='B:60 24:32'>Jos 24:32</a></em>), and where Jacob had built an altar (<em><a href='B:10 33:18-20'>Gen 33:18-20</a></em>), called 'The mighty one, the God of Israel'. Jacob had also conquered territory there with his own sword and bow, fighting the people of the land. Abraham had been there (<em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em>), and Shechem 'Sychar' was one of the oldest towns in Israelite history. But at the time of the Lord Jesus, it was inhabited by the despised Samaritans. It's rather like a town square with a war memorial and traditional British architecture in the United Kingdom- which is now inhabited by Moslem immigrants, with the Anglican church now turned into a Mosque. And one of the local women with a clearly immoral background- was one of the Lord's star converts. And she in turn converts the local menfolk to Christ. Just as traditional white churches in the West would view the conversion of asylum seekers and recent darker skinned immigrants with suspicion and disgust, so we can imagine people responding to the Lord's conversion of this woman.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:6'>Joh 4:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jacob's well was also there. Jesus, being tired from his journey, sat tired by the well. It was about the sixth hour</em>-</p><p>Incident after incident in the mortal life of Jesus had echoes of the crucifixion to come. Consider how He met the woman at the well “at the sixth hour" (Gk:), He was thirsty, a woman got Him something to drink and encouraged Him in His work (<em><a href='B:500 4:6'>Joh 4:6</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 19:14'>Joh 19:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em>). No wonder He spoke of His meeting with her as a finishing of the Father’s work, which is the very language of the cross. He lived out the essence of the cross in that incident, just as we do, day by day.</p><p>The Lord's humanity is clearly indicated here. The sixth hour by Jewish time was midday; if Roman time, it was around 6 PM, when women went to get water. But the woman being separated rather from society may have come at midday, on her own.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:7'>Joh 4:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>A woman of Samaria came to draw water, and Jesus said to her: Give me a drink</em>-</p><p> Jewish men, especially religious leaders, were not supposed to speak with women publicly- let alone with Samaritan women. Therefore we see here the Lord's open attitude and intentional breaking of such human taboos and barriers. The well was deep and the Lord had no rope or bucket; presumably the women brought their own equipment with them to the well. We see here His need; He had little strength, having walked all night, and He also lacked a rope and / or bucket to get water from the well. He in no way was "very God of very Gods".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:8'>Joh 4:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>His disciples had gone into the city to buy food</em>-</p><p> This doesn't necessarily mean that the Lord was left there alone. The disciples were likely more than "the twelve" there were at least also Matthias and Joseph Justus present at this time, <em><a href='B:510 1:24-26'>Act 1:24-26</a></em>; and there were likely the ministering women too. Would they all really have gone into town to buy food and left the Lord exhausted and alone by a well? Surely some would have remained with Him. But there is also the possibility that the Lord sought time and space alone in prayer (as in <em><a href='B:480 1:35'>Mar 1:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:12'>Luk 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>). It could be that He told them all to go into the town, whilst He prayed alone, by the well. The&nbsp;Samaritan woman's appearance was therefore a direct answer to His prayers, which perhaps had focused upon the salvation of the Gentile Samaritans.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:9'>Joh 4:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Samaritan woman replied to him: How is it that you, being a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink? (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans)</em>-</p><p> The Lord's clothing and accent gave Him away as a Jew rather than a Samaritan. All through this record we see every evidence of His total humanity.</p><p>The woman of John 4 grew in her appreciation of Jesus, quickly. She addressed the Lord as: a Jew (<em><a href='B:500 4:9'>Joh 4:9</a></em>); “sir” (<em><a href='B:500 4:11'>Joh 4:11</a></em>); greater than Jacob (<em><a href='B:500 4:12'>Joh 4:12</a></em>); a prophet (<em><a href='B:500 4:19'>Joh 4:19</a></em>); the Christ (<em><a href='B:500 4:42'>Joh 4:42</a></em>); saviour of the world (<em><a href='B:500 4:42'>Joh 4:42</a></em>). M:R. Vincent (<em>Word Studies In The NT</em>&nbsp;Vol. 1 p. 113) has observed that Christ is progressively addressed as “Lord” as the NT record progresses; as if the community’s perception of Him increased over time.</p><p><em>Being a Jew-&nbsp;</em>The whole nature of being human means that we must live in&nbsp;this world, although we are not of it. Consider how Daniel’s friends wore turbans (<em><a href='B:340 3:21'>Dan 3:21</a></em> NIV), how Moses appeared externally to be an Egyptian (<em><a href='B:20 2:19'>Exo 2:19</a></em>), and how the Lord Himself had strongly Jewish characteristics (<em><a href='B:500 4:9'>Joh 4:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered and said to her: If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that said to you: Give me a drink, you would have asked of him and he would have given you living water</em>-</p><p> The Lord's "living water", i:e. spring water, was offered in return for her well water. Surely this contrasts with Moses meeting his Gentile wife by a well; a relationship in which he gave her very little, and which was an indicator of a spiritual weak cycle in his life. The Samaritan woman immediately recognised Jesus as Jewish, just as Zipporah thought that Moses was an Egyptian (<em><a href='B:20 2:19'>Exo 2:19</a></em>)- which is another comforting type of Christ's humanity.</p><p>"The gift of God" is clearly to be understood in John's thinking as the gift of the Spirit. The same phrase is used about it in <em><a href='B:510 8:20'>Act 8:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:15'>Rom 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:7'>Eph 3:7</a></em>. The living water is explained later as the same gift of the Spirit: "If anyone thirsts, let him came to me and drink. He that believes on me, as the scripture has said: From within him shall flow rivers of living water. He spoke of the Spirit, which they that believed in him were to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been received, as Jesus had not yet been glorified" (<em><a href='B:500 7:37-39'>Joh 7:37-39</a></em>). But that gift of the Spirit would only be given after the Lord's glorification. He was not therefore offering the woman anything immediately; He had in view what could be given her once His work on earth was completed. He could give her the living water right then in the same sense as He could give eternal life immediately; the promise was as good as the receiving, so certain was His word of promise. I noted in commentary on Acts that the gift of the Spirit is presented as an evidence that Gentiles also have equal access to the Father seeing they received the same gift. Hence the significance of this promise to a Gentile that she could receive this gift which would meet the spiritual thirst which the Lord correctly perceived in her.</p><p>We live in&nbsp;<em>newness</em>&nbsp;of life. The life in Christ is not a stagnant pond, but rather living water, spring water, bubbling fresh from the spring. And this is what we give out to others- for “he that believeth in me, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of springing water” for others (<em><a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>). We can experience the life of Christ right now. His life is now made manifest in our mortal flesh (<em><a href='B:540 4:11'>2Co 4:11</a></em>), insofar as we seek to live our lives governed by the golden rule: ‘What would Jesus do…?’.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:11'>Joh 4:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The woman said to him: Sir, you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. From where then have you that living water?</em>-</p><p> The well presumably required users to bring their own bucket or even rope. She had power over this exhausted Jew. But "living water" was known as the language of the Messianic age, and as a Samaritan, this woman would not have been unaware of it. I suggest that she is responding to the Lord's figurative language on the same level. How could this exhausted, very human Jew give this Messianic water- the well was deep, and spiritually speaking, it was very hard for Him to get it for her, surely... for after all…&nbsp;<em>He</em>surely was not the Messiah. His lack of a bucket to get the literal water was reflected in His obvious to her lack of ability to give the Messianic gift.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:12'>Joh 4:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his cattle?</em>-</p><p> She is alluding to Jewish ideas of how Messiah would be greater than Jacob but not greater than Abraham or David. Not only was this man not Messiah, but Jacob was "our Samaritan father", she had a right to drink of this well, so she reasoned, because she unlike Jesus the Jew as a Samaritan was the legitimate descendant of Jacob. But the Lord didn't rise to her provocations; just as we need to ignore the petty aggression, subtexts and barbs of others in order to bring them to the greater truth. So much religious and doctrinal controversy is hampered by this desire to correct the mistaken other on peripheral issues, and the essential issues are thereby overlooked and not engaged with.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:13'>Joh 4:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered and said to her: Every one that drinks of this water shall thirst again</em>-</p><p> The Lord doesn't argue with her over her take on descent from Jacob, even though she was wrong about it. He lost that battle to win the war. Even if the water in that well was hers and not His, it could not ultimately quench the human thirst for salvation. It is that thirst which our witness should address; we are perhaps "the salt of the earth" in that salt provokes thirst.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:14'>Joh 4:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst. The water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water, springing up to eternal life</em>-</p><p> The human thirst for the Spirit would be met by the gift of the Spirit&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;our hearts. The water given would be the life eternal- the kind of life we shall eternally live. The reference is not to miraculous gifts, but to the ongoing gift of the Spirit within.</p><p>“With joy shall you draw water out of the wells of salvation” (<em><a href='B:290 12:3'>Isa 12:3</a></em>) is applied by the Lord to the present experience of the believer in Him (<em><a href='B:500 4:14'>Joh 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>). But Isaiah 12 continues to explain how the joy of that experience will lead to men saying: “The Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation as He was for Israel at the Red Sea, cp. our baptism experience... Praise the Lord, proclaim his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted”. The exaltation of the Yahweh Name, the wonder of it, the sheer height of who Yahweh is, these things and our personal part in them is an unending imperative to witness these things world-wide. Men did not confess Jesus to others, despite nominally believing in Him, because they did not love the concept of the glory of God (<em><a href='B:500 12:43'>Joh 12:43</a></em> RV). To perceive His glory, the wonder of it all, leads to inevitable witness to others.</p><p>It was from the smitten rock that springing water came out. There is an endless inspiration in the cross, an endless source of that spirit of new life. And the influence of the cross cannot be passive; we will also give out living water,&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;will become as the smitten rock, and through our share in His crucifixion we will give out to others that same new and eternal life. But in the context of the Samaritan woman, the rock at that time was not yet smitten, the living waters of the Spirit not yet given as the Lord was not yet glorified.</p><p>Repeatedly, the Lord Jesus carefully worded His teaching in order to use the same words about Himself as about His disciples. He was the lamb of God; and He sent them forth as lambs amongst wolves; He was “the light of the world”, and He stated that they too must be likewise. As He was the source of living water to us, so we are to be to others (<em><a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:14'>Joh 4:14</a></em>). The Samaritan woman could be the source of living water to others, as indeed she was. John grasped this, by using even some of the language of the virgin birth about the birth of all God’s children. It’s as if even the Lord’s Divine begettal shouldn’t be seen as too huge a barrier between us and Himself. The wonder of the virgin birth is something which elicits the “Wow” mentality; but the miracle continues into&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;lives.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:15'>Joh 4:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The woman said to him: Sir, give me this water, that I do not thirst ever again, nor come all the way here to get water</em>-</p><p> I have earlier suggested that the woman perceived the Lord was using figurative language. And she now comes to believe that the exhausted Jew by 'her' well can actually give her this water. It was quite a treck from the town to the well; spiritually, she wanted an end to the apparently endless journey to quench spiritual thirst. In our terms, an end to the reading of endless self-help books, hanging out on various 'spiritual' forums online; but actually have the Spirit within us.</p><p><em>Whoever</em>&nbsp;drinks of the water of life will have&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;them a spring that also gives eternal life (<em><a href='B:500 4:15'>Joh 4:15</a></em>). The purpose of a spring is to give water to men. The way the woman immediately led others to Him is proof enough of this. Experiencing the Lord's words and salvation&nbsp;<em>inevitably</em>&nbsp;leads to us doing likewise to others, springing from somewhere deep within. This was in fact one of the first things God promised Abraham when He first instituted the new covenant: "I will bless you (i:e. with forgiveness and salvation in the Kingdom)... and&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;shalt be a blessing”, in that we his seed in Christ would bring this same blessing to men of all nations by our witness (<em><a href='B:10 12:2-3'>Gen 12:2-3</a></em>). When the Lord offered salvation to the woman at the well, He spoke of how it would be a spring of life going out from her. She wanted it, but apparently just for herself. Therefore when she asked to be given such a spring, the Lord replied by asking her to bring her husband to hear His words (<em><a href='B:500 4:15-16'>Joh 4:15-16</a></em>). Surely He was saying: 'If you want this great salvation for yourself, you've got to be willing to share it with others, no matter how embarrassing this may be for you'. In a similar figure, the Bible begins with the tree of the lives Heb:, and concludes with men eating of the tree and there appearing a forest of trees-of-life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:16'>Joh 4:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: Go, call your husband and come back here</em>-</p><p> See on :15. Receipt of the spring of the Spirit is related to our desire to want to reach out and share spiritually with others. It also requires repentance; and she needed to repent. The Lord wanted her right away to be a source of Spirit to others, hence He asked her to return to Him with her "husband". Although the Spirit was not yet given, He realized that in prospect it could still be granted in some form because He was certain that He would indeed fulfil His mission and be "glorified" so that the living water of the Spirit could be poured out.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:17'>Joh 4:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The woman answered and said to him: I have no husband. Jesus said to her: You said well that you have no husband</em>-</p><p> We note the Lord's positivity. Bear in mind that in their languages, "man" and "husband" are the same word. He could have said 'Wrong. You are living with a man. Don't lie to Me. Fess up and admit it, and then we can go further'. But He turned it around positively. He commends her for saying she has no man in the sense of a husband. The Lord picks up her deceptive comment positively, agreeing that her latest relationship isn’t really a man / husband as God intends. I find His positive attitude here surpassing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:18'>Joh 4:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband. This you have said truthfully</em>-</p><p> See on :17. What was apparently an untrue, or less than fully truthful comment is turned around positively by the Lord, to demonstrate His style of imputing righteousness. The woman was evidently a sinner; and the Lord made it clear that He knew all about her five men. But He didn’t max out on that fact; His response to knowing it was basically: ‘You’re thirsty. I’ve got the water you need’. He saw her spiritual need, more than her moral problem; and He knew the answer. When she replied that she had no husband, He could have responded: ‘You liar A half truth is a lie’. But He didn’t. He said, so positively, gently and delicately, ‘What you have said is quite true. You had five men you have lived with. The one you now have isn’t your husband. So, yes, you said the truth’ (<em><a href='B:500 4:16-18'>Joh 4:16-18</a></em>). He could have crushed her. But He didn’t. And we who ‘have the truth’ must take a lesson from this.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:19'>Joh 4:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The woman said to him: Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet</em>-</p><p> Now she is sure that this exhausted, dehydrated Jew is more than a random guy sitting by a well, cadging a drink off a Gentile. Yet having been convicted by Him of a sinful life, even though He did it in the kindest possible way, she prefers to wiggle out of those personal issues by getting into theology. We know from Acts 8 that people from Samaria formed a significant part of the earliest Christian community. Yet all converts are prone to return to their former beliefs in some ways at some times. The Samaritan view of Messiah was likewise that he would be the re-incarnation of a prophet, specifically Moses (<em><a href='B:500 4:19'>Joh 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:25'>Joh 4:25</a></em>). It therefore seems likely that the idea of a pre-existent Christ / Messiah developed as a result of the early Jewish and Samaritan converts returning to their previous conceptions of Messiah. For these were less taxing to their faith than the radical idea that an illiterate Jewish teenager called Marryam in some dumb Galileean village actually conceived a baby direct from God Almighty. Uninspired documents such as the&nbsp;<em>Preaching Of Pete</em>r and the&nbsp;<em>Gospel Of The Hebrews</em>&nbsp;also make the false connection between Jesus and a re-incarnated Moses, Elijah etc. Clearly enough, the idea of a pre-existent, incarnated Jesus had its roots in paganism and apostate Judaism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:20'>Joh 4:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship</em>-</p><p> Sin is serious. This is one of the most recurrent themes in the Bible. Yet with the characteristic blindness of human nature, it is one which fails to register with us as it should. 'Just' one sin in Eden led to death- and so much more than death. Time and again people missed the Lord's attempt to convict people of their sin. When He tells the Samaritan woman of the five men she'd had in her life, she responds by ribbing Him about whether God should be worshipped on Gerazim or in Jerusalem. She tried to move off the delicate issue of her morality into theological argument and strife about conflicting traditions (<em><a href='B:500 4:18-20'>Joh 4:18-20</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:21'>Joh 4:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: Woman, believe me, the hour is coming, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father</em>-</p><p> The Lord had promised the gift of the Spirit&nbsp;<em>within</em>. This made all arguments about sacred space utterly irrelevant and at best obsolete. We sense His eager hopefulness for response when He said to the woman: “Believe me, woman..." (<em><a href='B:500 4:21'>Joh 4:21</a></em> GNB). Even though she was confrontational, bitter against Jewish people, and perhaps as it has been argued by some pushing a feminist agenda in an inappropriate way... the Lord sought for&nbsp;<em>faith</em>&nbsp;in her above correcting her attitude about theological things.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:22'>Joh 4:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You worship that which you do not know. We worship what we know. For salvation is from the Jews</em>-</p><p> The Lord went along with her as far as He could, but as in our witness to folks, there comes a time when we have to put our foot down. Salvation was "from the Jews" in that the Messianic saviour would be from them. And the identity of the Messiah was the issue here. The Lord doesn't take away from the Samaritans the fact they worshipped; but they worshipped in ignorance without accepting Messiah as being a Jew rather than one of their re-incarnated prophets (see on :19). There is a very similar situation in <em><a href='B:510 17:23'>Act 17:23</a></em>, where Paul declares to people the God whom they had worshipped in ignorance through sacrificing to "the unknown God". The "we" cannot refer to Jews generally; for they did not know the Father nor His Son (<em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:27'>Joh 8:27</a></em>). He meant "we" as in Himself and the disciples who were now regrouping around Him. "We worship&nbsp;<em>what</em>" we know could as well be translated "<em>who</em>&nbsp;we know". Acceptable worship of the Father was predicated upon acceptance of Himself as Messiah, the salvation of and from the Jews.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:23'>Joh 4:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But the hour comes and now is, when true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such worshipers are who the Father seeks</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s ‘hour’ which was to come was His death (<em><a href='B:500 2:4'>Joh 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:20'>Joh 8:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em> Gk:; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:27'>Joh 19:27</a></em>). Yet in a sense the essence of His death was ongoing throughout His life; the ‘hour’ was to come, and yet was. Then, through the cross, true worship of the Father in spirit and in truth was enabled, when the veil of the temple was torn down, and the system of Mosaic worship ended. I have noted above that the Spirit was only to be given when the Son was glorified; but that hour was then and was also to come; therefore in a sense the Spirit could be given even then.</p><p>The ‘true’ worship of the Father doesn’t imply necessarily a ‘false’ worship prior to it; it is the ‘true’ in contrast to the shadow that had existed before it (cp. the true vine, the true manna). But the true worship was to be in the Spirit, in the heart, the place where the fountain of living water could be placed.</p><p>There are many examples of where God and man are portrayed as being in some kind of mutual relationship. Consider <em><a href='B:500 4:23'>Joh 4:23</a></em>: “The Father seeks such to worship Him”. The Hebrew / Greek idea of ‘seeking’ God implied to worship Him. Understanding that, albeit through the mask of translation, we see that the Father is seeking seekers. We seek Him, He seeks us; and thus we meet. Men were found by Jesus, just as they were seeking to find Him (<em><a href='B:500 1:39'>Joh 1:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>); there is an electric moment when the Lord and man meet. He seeks for us, and we seek for Him; and we find each other.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:24'>Joh 4:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth</em>-</p><p>"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers" (<em><a href='B:500 4:23'>Joh 4:23</a></em>) was spoken by the Lord early in His ministry. Even at that stage "and now is...", there were some worshipping in spirit and in truth. If the Lord is referring to the disciples, and if the "truth" in <em><a href='B:500 4:24'>Joh 4:24</a></em> is to be understood in theological / doctrinal terms, then "the truth" which they at that time possessed was very far less than what we might think today. The disciples at that time had many misbeliefs and misunderstandings; they believed in demons, were unclear about important aspects of the Lord's work, death and resurrection, and believed in ghosts. But they worshipped in spirit and in truth. However, I suspect that "spirit and in truth" doesn't refer to 'A spiritual attitude&nbsp;<em>plus</em>&nbsp;theological purity' (which none of us have anyway). That was how I once read the phrase. But "truth" would seem to me to refer more to truthfulness, and to reality as opposed to shadow- e.g. Jesus as the true light, the true bread refers not to His intellectual purity but to the way in which He was the fulfilment of the things of "the true tabernacle" as Hebrews puts it, and thus His truth / reality stood over against the shadows. In the context, the Lord is making a point to the Samaritan woman about where geographically God's house and place of worship should be- Zion or Gerizim. And as He often does, the Lord takes the question onto another level. 'The place of worship doesn't matter, the worship must be in spirit and in truth', i:e. the presence of God in the temple was to be ended, the Mosaic worship system with its need for geographical place and focus was about to end, and worship was to be internal, in the heart. And some, the Lord noticed, had already perceived that. So the context of <em><a href='B:500 4:24'>Joh 4:24</a></em> wasn't about the need for doctrinal / theological / intellectual truth. In <em><a href='B:500 4:18'>Joh 4:18</a></em> the Lord commends the woman because she "spoke truthfully / truly" about her marital state. As the Father was seeking "spirit and truth" worshippers, it was apparent to the disciples that the Lord Jesus was "seeking" this woman for God (<em><a href='B:500 4:27'>Joh 4:27</a></em>). Her honesty meant she was beginning to worship in truth. And so He goes on to encourage her to worship God in spirit and truthfullness; her humble recognition of failure was the "truth" required for worship. But she needed to also accept the Spirit. She had the mind of David, who worshipped with 'truth in the inward parts' after recognizing his sin with Bathsheba. Notice how David says that God 'desires truth in the inward parts' (<em><a href='B:230 51:6'>Psa 51:6</a></em>), and the Lord seems to be alluding to that when He says that God desires worship in spirit inward parts and truth. The context of sexual failure is the same for both the Samaritan woman, and David. If my reading of the allusions to David and Psalms 51 is correct, then the Lord wasn't talking at all about "truth" in the sense of pure theology. Rather was He referring to the "truth" of confession of sin and worship with a humble heart. It is the desperately repentant person who will fall down and worship God (<em><a href='B:470 18:26'>Mat 18:26</a></em> s:w:); this is the "spirit and truth" worshipper. And such a spirit is ultimately "the truth" which we are to finally arrive at.</p><p>The Jews and Samaritans had the idea that all they needed to do was to occasionally visit a place of worship in order to have a relationship with Him. The Lord, as His manner was, cut right across this by saying that as God is Spirit, so the true worshippers would worship Him in Spirit. If we believe that God is Spirit, if all He does and says constantly expresses His Spirit, then our lives likewise must be of non-stop worship, not through going occasionally into a temple or ecclesial meeting, but in living a spirit of life that worships Him in every situation (<em><a href='B:500 4:20-24'>Joh 4:20-24</a></em>).</p><p>"God is a Spirit"</p><p>God’s spirit is His power or breath by which His essential self, His being and character, is revealed to man through the actions which that spirit achieves. Thus “God is spirit”, as <em><a href='B:500 4:24'>Joh 4:24</a></em> should be properly translated (see R:S:V:, N:I:V:), because His spirit reflects His personality.</p><p>God is described as being many things, e.g.-</p><p> “Our God is a consuming fire” (<em><a href='B:650 12:29'>Heb 12:29</a></em>)-</p><p> “God is light” (<em><a href='B:690 1:5'>1Jn 1:5</a></em>)-</p><p> “God is love” (<em><a href='B:690 4:8'>1Jn 4:8</a></em>)-</p><p> “The word (Greek&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;- plan, purpose, idea) was God” (<em><a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a></em>).</p><p>Thus “God is” His characteristics. It is clearly wrong to argue that the abstract quality of love is ‘God’, just because we read that “God is love”. We may call someone ‘kindness itself’, but this does not mean that they are without physical existence - it is their manner of literal existence which reveals kindness to us.</p><p>The spirit being God’s power, we frequently read of God sending or directing His spirit to achieve things in harmony with His will and character. Examples of this are numerous, showing the distinction between God and His spirit.-</p><p> “He (God) that put His Holy Spirit within him” (<em><a href='B:290 63:11'>Isa 63:11</a></em>)-</p><p> “I (God) will put My spirit upon him (Jesus)” (<em><a href='B:470 12:18'>Mat 12:18</a></em>)-</p><p> “The Father give(s) the Holy Spirit” (<em><a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a></em>)-</p><p> “The Spirit descending from heaven” (<em><a href='B:500 1:32'>Joh 1:32</a></em>)-</p><p> “I (God) will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh” (<em><a href='B:510 2:17'>Act 2:17</a></em>).</p><p>Indeed, the frequent references to “the spirit of God” should be proof enough that the spirit is not God personally. These differences between God and His spirit are another difficulty for those who believe that God is a ‘trinity’ in which God the Father is equated with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.</p><p>Very importantly, a non-personal God makes a nonsense of prayer - to the point where prayer is a dialogue between our consciousness and a concept of God which just exists in our own mind. We are continually reminded that we pray to God who is in heaven (<em><a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:9'>Mat 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:16'>Mat 5:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:30'>1Ki 8:30</a></em>), and that Jesus is now at God’s right hand there, to offer up our prayers (<em><a href='B:670 3:22'>1Pe 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em>). If God is not personal, such passages are made meaningless. But once God is understood as a real, loving Father, prayer to Him becomes a very real, tangible thing - actually talking to another being who we believe is very willing and able to respond.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:25'>Joh 4:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The woman said to him: I know that the Messiah is coming (he that is called Christ). When he comes, he will declare to us all things-&nbsp;</em>The Lord had just declared to her all about her previous immoral life. So her statement here may not be scepticism, but rather daring to join the dots and make the connection that this tired, dehydrated Jew sitting before her was in fact Messiah.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:26'>Joh 4:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: I that speak to you am he</em>-</p><p> This is one of the clearest statements the Lord ever makes as to His self-identity. And even here, I suggest He is confirming as correct the woman's hunches about Him as being Messiah (see on :25).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:27'>Joh 4:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And upon this scene came his disciples, and they marvelled that he was speaking with a woman. Yet no one said: What are you seeking? Or, Why do you speak with her?</em>-</p><p><em>Seek</em>&nbsp;for response in people. As the disciples came upon the Lord talking to the woman by the well, it looked as if He were&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;something (<em><a href='B:500 4:27'>Joh 4:27</a></em>). But they didn’t ask what- for it was obvious. His body language reflected how He was&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;her salvation. He seeks the lost until He finds them, even now (<em><a href='B:470 18:12'>Mat 18:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>); as He looked up into the branches of the sycamore tree seeking Zacchaeus, He was epitomising how He came (and comes) to seek and save&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the lost (<em><a href='B:490 19:5'>Luk 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em>). Our preaching to others isn’t a cold-hearted witness, or a theological debate; it is a&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;of glory to the Father; we exhort one another,&nbsp;<em>considering</em>&nbsp;how we may provoke to love (<em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em>).</p><p>The Rabbis taught that a man should not salute a woman in a public place. For Jesus to talk to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) was therefore an indication of his studied disregard of local tradition concerning women when it clashed with spiritual principles. The incident was “a strange innovation on Rabbinic custom and dignity”. The Talmud taught: “Six things are a disgrace to a disciple of the wise: He should not…converse with a woman in the street” (Babylonian Talmud: Berakoth “Benedictions” 43b). A woman could only be alone with two men, never with one, and this was within a town; outside a town, she had to be in the presence of three men (Babylonian Talmud: Kiddushin “Betrothals” 81a). But the Lord spoke to her alone. A woman could even be divorced for speaking to a man. “What conduct transgresses Jewish custom? If she…speaks with any man” (Mishnah: Ketuboth “Marriage Deeds” <em><a href='B:500 7:6'>Joh 7:6</a></em>). There can be no doubt that the Lord didn’t accept the prevailing view of women. The Lord's conversations with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman are recorded in an intentional parallel in John 3, 4. The man doesn't get it, he fails to perceive the double entendre in the Lord's words, and struggles with their deeper meaning. The Samaritan woman gets it straight away, and even responds to the Lord with the same kind of language.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:28'>Joh 4:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So the woman left her waterpot and went away into the city, and said to the people</em>-</p><p> She had once been rather proud that she had something to draw with, and the Lord didn't. Leaving her waterpot was a statement that now she had found the living water which quenched thirst, and she no longer needed the natural water. She specifically "said to the men" (as AV). Were these "the men" of her former life? Why go to men in particular? The same word is used in :29 about the "man" she had found who she thinks is the Christ. She went to those with whom she had sinned.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:29'>Joh 4:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Come, see a man who told me all things that I have ever done. Can this be the Christ?</em>-</p><p> She tells the men with whom she had sinned (:28) that she has found a man who told her all about their sins. There were no secrets anymore; one man at least knew the entire story. And she believes she may well have found the Messiah. He let Himself be encouraged by her response to Him, even though her comment “Could this be the Messiah?” (<em><a href='B:500 4:29'>Joh 4:29</a></em>) implies she was still uncertain. Raymond Brown has commented: “The Greek question with&nbsp;<em>meti</em>&nbsp;implies an unlikelihood” (<em>The Gospel According To John</em>, Vol. 1, p. 173). But we see throughout this incident how faith in Him as Messiah passes through stages- and of course John is appealing in his Gospel for others to likewise come to this faith to follow the path of this woman. She now understands Messiah as most importantly one who realizes our sins and can deal with them- rather than as some conquering hero. And this again was a necessary issue to emphasize in preaching in John's context.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:30'>Joh 4:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They went out of the city and came to him</em>-</p><p> There was something in the frank witness of this sinful woman which was compelling. Just as biography is always interesting to us fellow humans, so confession of sin and faith it has been dealt with in Christ is the most compelling witness. 'Coming to Christ' is very much the language of conversion.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:31'>Joh 4:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In the meantime the disciples pleaded with him, saying: Rabbi, eat</em>-</p><p> The disciples are presented here as focused on the material rather than the spiritual and symbolic. And it is John himself writing or speaking the Gospel message in this way, like the woman, admitting his own weakness in order to bring others to the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:32'>Joh 4:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he said to them: I have food to eat that you do not know</em>-</p><p> Dehydrated at the well, very hungry, the response of the Samaritan woman revived His spirits to the point that the disciples assumed He must have been given a meal (<em><a href='B:500 4:32-33'>Joh 4:32-33</a></em>). He goes on to say that working with a woman like that is His "meat" or food, the 'doing of the will of him that sent Me and to accomplish His work' (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em> RV). Yet the will of God and accomplishing of His work was evidently the cross (<em><a href='B:490 22:42'>Luk 22:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:9-10'>Heb 10:9-10</a></em>). In preaching to that woman and converting her, the Lord was living out the essence of the crucifixion that awaited Him. Preaching work isn’t glamorous. It is a living out of the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:33'>Joh 4:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The disciples queried each other: Has anyone brought him something to eat?</em>-</p><p> As noted on :31, the male Jewish disciples are presented as lacking the spiritual perception of this female Gentile. The disciples in their own preaching of the Gospel, of which John's Gospel is a transcript, were admitting their own petty literalism. And urging others to not be as they had been.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to them: My food is to do the will of Him that sent me and to accomplish His work</em>-</p><p> See on :32. After the Lord converted the Samaritan woman at the well, He commented to His disciples that such work was His food- "to do the will of Him that sent me and to finish His work" (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>). But soon afterwards He claimed that "the works which the Father has given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me" (<em><a href='B:500 5:36'>Joh 5:36</a></em>). It's tempting to think that the "works" He spoke of were His miracles- but the linkage with <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em> suggests that they were also references to the change He achieved within people. These transformed people were His witness- and the Samaritan woman is a classic example. For when He had done the Father's work in her, she rushed off to witness to the world. In <em><a href='B:500 6:28-29'>Joh 6:28-29</a></em> the Lord seems to consciously steer us away from understanding His "works" as merely the miracles of e.g. feeding and physical healing. In response to the question "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" He responds: "This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent".</p><p>The Lord saw His preaching work as a carrying of the cross. He spoke of how His witness to the Samaritan woman was a ‘finishing of the Father’s work’ (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>). The ‘finishing’ was clearly only accomplished upon the cross, when He cried “It is finished”, and He “fulfilled” or s:w. “finished” the Scriptures (<em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em>). Thus in His life, He lived out the essence of His future cross by witnessing to others. Like Paul, we need to grasp what this means for us in practice. Crucifixion was a public, painful, sacrificial act; and true effort in witness will be the same. And this is exactly why Paul can speak of “the preaching of the cross”, the preaching which&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the cross (Gk:). In His preaching to the woman at the well, the Lord saw Himself as ‘finishing God’s work’ (<em><a href='B:500 4:32'>Joh 4:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>). And yet John evidently intends us to connect this incident with the Lord’s final cry from the cross which he records: “It is finished". Only on the cross was the work finished; but by pushing aside His own hunger, tiredness and desire for solitude in order to convert that woman, the Lord even then was ‘finishing the Father’s work’, in that in essence He was living out the spirit of crucifixion. And so with us; the life of ongoing crucifixion demands that we consciously push ourselves in the service of others. The finishing of the Father’s work was accomplished in the cross- hence the final cry of triumph, “It is finished" (<em><a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a></em>). But this meat was not appreciated by them in His lifetime. The work of sharing in Christ’s cross should be our meat and drink, to the eclipsing of the pressing nature of material things. For this was the context in which the Lord spoke; His men were pressing Him to attend to His humanity, whereas His mind was filled, even in tiredness and dehydration, with the living out of the cross unto the end. As He was exhausted and dehydrated by the well, so He was on the cross. He saw that “meat" in the conversion of the Samaritan woman. He saw the connection between His cross and the conversion of that woman; thus “the meat... the will... God’s work" was the cross, and yet it was also the conversion of the woman. The cross is essentially the converter of men and women, and thereby our crucifixion-lives are likewise the power of conversion.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:35'>Joh 4:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you not say: There are yet four months and then comes the harvest? Behold, I say to you, Lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white, ready to harvest</em>-</p><p> If they lifted up their eyes, they would see a file of Gentile men headed by a fallen woman coming towards them. And this was the whiteness of the harvest. Grain turns from green to yellow to white. Those people who were apparently expressing an initial interest were seen by the Lord as ready for harvest. Be believed the process of conversion could happen that quickly. And His disciples, from that day to this, struggle to believe it. They want to first see some course of instruction and a socializing of converts into their community. However it must be also noted that harvest in Palestine typically began after Passover; so the Lord may be hinting that it was after His death that the harvesting would begin. But then on the other hand, He has said that His "hour" of death was right then, it was both coming and yet "now is" (see on :23). The way of the Spirit involves working outside of time as we know it; as the essence of the hour of the cross was then, so the moment of sowing was also that of harvesting, the Spirit was not yet given because the Lord was not glorified, yet it could still be given; and so eternal life could be given now to people who remain still mortal.</p><p>The Gospel writers were preaching the words of the Gospels in response to their Lord’s command to go preach. Yet <em><a href='B:500 4:35'>Joh 4:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em> records them recognizing that they didn’t appreciate how great the harvest was, and indeed the harvest was spoilt because of the weakness of the disciples. For the whiteness of harvest rather than it being yellow might hint that it was overdue for harvest. The Lord Himself was of the persuasion that people are more interested than His brethren may think. "You say 'Four months from sowing to harvest: the time is not yet'... But I say that the fields are already white for reaping. Already the reaper is taking his pay" (<em><a href='B:500 4:35'>Joh 4:35</a></em>). Four months was the time reckoned proverbially for the sown seed to come to harvest in Judea. It seems that the disciples thought there had to be a gap between sowing and reaping, whereas the Lord is saying that people were more ready for harvest than His preachers thought. The Kingdom prophecies speak of a time when the sower shall overtake the reaper, i:e. there is immediate fruition of the crop planted. And so it was in the Lord's spiritual Kingdom; the seed had fruit immediately. And it can be the same with us- our insistence that there has to be a respectable gap between sowing the Gospel and reaping the harvest isn't a concept upheld by the Lord. There's more of a harvest out there than we think. And perhaps the relatively poor response to the preaching of Jesus in AD30-33 was because His disciples didn't do their part?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit to everlasting life; that he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together</em>-</p><p> The reapers were the disciples (:38). If they reaped, they would receive wages, and the fruit of the converts they gathered would be that those converts received eternal life. Not just at the last day, but in the sense John's Gospel speaks of- receiving the gift of life after the pattern of the Lord's life, right now. The "wages" surely suggests that work with the likes of the Samaritan woman has its blessings in this life, as well as having eternal consequence.</p><p>The experience of preaching is in itself a foretaste of the future world-wide Kingdom. The harvest is both at the end of the age, according to the parables of Matthew 13, but also is ongoing right now (<em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>) as we gather in the harvest of converts. The Lord in <em><a href='B:500 4:35-36'>Joh 4:35-36</a></em> took this figure far further, by saying that the harvest is such that the interval between sowing and harvesting is in some sense collapsed for those who engage in preaching. The reaper was already collecting his wages; the harvest was already there, even though it was four months away (<em><a href='B:500 4:35'>Joh 4:35</a></em>). This clearly alludes to the promises that in the Messianic Kingdom there would also be no interval between sowing and harvest, so abundant would be the harvest (<em><a href='B:30 26:5'>Lev 26:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:13'>Amo 9:13</a></em>). And hence, we are impelled to spread the foretaste of the Kingdom world-wide by our witness right now.</p><p>The final judgment will be of our works, not because works justify us, but because our use of the freedom we have had and exercised in our lives is the basis of the future reward we will be given. Salvation itself is not on the basis of our works (<em><a href='B:520 11:6'>Rom 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>); indeed, the&nbsp;<em>free gift&nbsp;</em>of salvation by pure grace is contrasted with the&nbsp;<em>wages</em>&nbsp;paid by sin (<em><a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). And yet at the judgment, the preacher receives&nbsp;<em>wages</em>&nbsp;for what he did (<em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>), the labourers receive&nbsp;<em>hire</em>&nbsp;(s:w. wages) for their work in the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>). There is a&nbsp;<em>reward</em>&nbsp;(s:w. wages) for those who rise to the level of loving the totally unresponsive (<em><a href='B:470 5:46'>Mat 5:46</a></em>), or preaching in situations quite against their natural inclination (<em><a href='B:530 9:18'>1Co 9:18</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Salvation</em>&nbsp;itself isn’t given on this basis of works; but the nature of our eternal existence in the Kingdom will be a reflection of our use of the gift of freedom in this life. In that sense the judgment will be of our works. There are many passages which teach that our salvation will be related to the extent to which we have held forth the word&nbsp;both to the world and to the household (<em><a href='B:240 11:3'>Pro 11:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 24:11-12'>Pro 24:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:6'>1Pe 4:6</a></em>&nbsp;Gk:). Those who reap the harvest of the Gospel will be rewarded with salvation (<em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>). Such work&nbsp;<em>isn't</em>&nbsp;just an option for those who want to be enthusiastic about it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:37'>Joh 4:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For herein is the saying true: One sows and another reaps</em>-</p><p> This is perhaps John's equivalent to the parable of the sower in the synoptics. The Lord is the sower. The Lord likened His preachers to men reaping the harvest. The implication is that He had done His work with the woman, and they were to now work with the crowd of Gentile men she was bringing to Him. He speaks of how they fulfilled the proverb that one sows and another reaps (<em><a href='B:500 4:37-38'>Joh 4:37-38</a></em>). Yet this ‘proverb’ has no direct Biblical source. What we&nbsp;<em>do&nbsp;</em>find in the Old Testament is the repeated idea that if someone sows but another reaps, this is a sign that they are suffering God’s judgment for their sins (<em><a href='B:50 20:6'>Deu 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:30'>Deu 28:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 31:8'>Job 31:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 6:15'>Mic 6:15</a></em>). But the Lord turns around the ‘proverb’ concerning Israel’s condemnation; He makes it apply to the way that the preacher / reaper who doesn’t sow is the one who harvests others in converting them to Him. Surely His implication was that His preacher-reapers were those who had known condemnation for their sins, but on that basis were His humbled harvesters in the mission field.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I sent you to harvest that upon which you have not laboured; others have laboured, and you are taking over their labour</em>-</p><p> Harvesting what one has not worked for is the language of Israel receiving the promised land (<em><a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a></em>). The Kingdom blessings were to be understood spiritually- harvesting people for the Lord for whom they had done none of the hard, preparatory ground work. "Laboured" is used only elsewhere in John in :6 about how the Lord sat at the well "wearied" or 'laboured'; He had laboured, although He graciously includes others in His work, and He invited the disciples to now go reap the harvest for which they had not laboured. Perhaps the others who had laboured is some reference to an outreach toward Samaritans made by John the Baptist and his disciples. The language of taking over their labour would be appropriate to how the Lord's disciples were to build upon the earlier spade work done by John's ministry. Or perhaps the other labourers referred to the Samaritan woman and her initial group of converts; the idea would then be that the disciples ought to return to the area and secure a great harvest as a result of their witness. But such was their slowness to perceive the Lord's openness to Samaritan Gentiles that the disciples did not do this in time. To see themselves as taking over the labour of despised Samaritans was too much for them; their prejudices had been too great. And perhaps John records this in order to demonstrate the weakness of himself and his team, a lament over the potential they had let go:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:39'>Joh 4:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And from that city many of the Samaritans believed in him because of the word of the woman, who testified: He told me all things that I have ever done</em>-</p><p> The Samaritan woman at the well had a sense of shame and deep self-knowledge over her, as she realised that Christ knew her every sin. It was with a humble sheepishness that she confessed: “I have no husband", because she was living in sin. She was converted by that well. Immediately she "left her waterpot, and went her way into the city (the record inviting us to watch her from a distance), and saith to the&nbsp;<em>men</em>&nbsp;(significantly), Come, see a man... is not this the Christ?" (<em><a href='B:500 4:17'>Joh 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:28-29'>Joh 4:28-29</a></em>). There was a wondrous mixture of enthusiasm and shyness in those words: "Come, see a man...". It is a feature of many new converts that their early&nbsp;preaching has a similar blend. It is stressed that men believed because of the way the woman told them “He told me all that ever I did” (<em><a href='B:500 4:39'>Joh 4:39</a></em>). He had recounted her past sins to her (<em><a href='B:500 4:18-19'>Joh 4:18-19</a></em>). And she now, in matchless humility, goes and tells her former life to her associates, using the very words of description which the Lord had used. He convicted her of her sins, and this conviction resulted in her unashamed witness.</p><p>We see how belief is predicated at times upon the word of a third party other than the Lord. We can bring people to faith, and also stumble them in their walk.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:40'>Joh 4:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So when the Samaritans came to him, they pleaded with him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days</em>-</p><p> Coming to Jesus in John's Gospel means to believe in Him. They wanted Him to "stay" or "abide" with them, a common theme in John of the Lord abiding in the hearts of believers. They are set up as model converts, in whom the Lord 'abode' after conversion. As John's Gospel later explains, this is achieved by Him through His Spirit, which means that He is present as really as if He were physically present with us. His abiding by the Spirit is a sign of acceptance, and His abiding with them at a time when a Jew like Peter could not go inside the home of a Gentile was surely a public indication of His acceptance of Gentiles. Peter and others who so objected to such fellowship after His resurrection were clearly forgetting, wilfully, the implication of such incidents.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:41'>Joh 4:41</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And many more believed because of his word</em>-</p><p> Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by God's word; it's as if these Gentile converts are being set up as role models for all who should thereafter believe. Their belief was as valid as those who believed for the sake of the woman's testimony, that she had met a man who knew all of her sins, and was thereby, by implication, able to deal with them. This large scale conversion is significant because there is no hint that any miracle was done in order to provoke faith. It was conversion on the basis of the Lord's power to know human personal history and to forgive. It becomes even more programmatic for all who would afterwards believe.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:42'>Joh 4:42</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>And they said to the woman: Now we believe, not because of your speaking; for we have heard for ourselves and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world</em>-</p><p> They realized that the true Messiah was not Saviour solely of Israel, but of the&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>, which John has defined in the prologue as the new world of persons who believe in Him. <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em> defines His 'salvation' in terms of Him giving both repentance and forgiveness to people; and this is exactly what the Lord had done to the woman and other Samaritans. He had given provoked in her repentance, and empowered her forgiveness. This is all the work of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:43'>Joh 4:43</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And after two days he left for Galilee</em>-</p><p> Perhaps He wanted to give the disciples a break from attention, and so He went somewhere where He thought they would not have much acceptance nor attention (:44). But in the same way as during His working life the Lord could have made technical mistakes in His manual work, so here, things didn't turn out as He had perhaps intended. In John's Gospel more than the others we see the Lord's deep humanity, mixed with the highest terms of praise for Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:44'>Joh 4:44</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honour in his own country</em>-</p><p> As noted on :43, the Lord assumed He would not be welcomed there and He could have some quality time teaching the disciples in their native environment. The common proverb was repeated or testified to with approval by the Lord. But things turned out not as He had expected (:45)- another window onto His humanity, as is the description of Galilee as "His own country". See on :48.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:45'>Joh 4:45</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So when he came into Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all the things that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast. For they also had gone up to the feast</em>-</p><p> As noted on :43 and :44, this welcome was perhaps not what the Lord had expected. Their belief however was because they had seen miracles at the feast (<em><a href='B:500 2:23'>Joh 2:23</a></em>); unlike the Samaritans, of whom we have just read, who believed without having seen miracles.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:46'>Joh 4:46</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He came again to Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum</em>-</p><p> The Lord's return to Cana was perhaps as a follow up to His witness there previously. Perhaps He sought to try again with Nicodemus, whom I suggested on <em><a href='B:500 2:1'>Joh 2:1</a></em> was there. His attempt to follow up with individuals, despite the large scale of His ministry, is a reflection of the huge value the Lord attached to the individual.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:47'>Joh 4:47</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to him and pleaded that he would come to Capernaum and heal his son. For his son was at the point of death</em>-</p><p> To make that 20-mile journey over mountainous terrain displayed quite some faith. Perhaps this nobleman was one of those who had encountered the Lord at the feast in Jerusalem (:45). The fact he came personally rather than send messengers or servants again indicates a genuine personal faith. The Greek is literally "come down to Capernaum", which reflects the topography (as <em><a href='B:500 2:12'>Joh 2:12</a></em>); all encouraging confirmations that we are reading a genuine account rather than one fabricated for personal reasons.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:48'>Joh 4:48</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus replied to him: Except you see signs and wonders, you will in no way believe</em>-</p><p> The Lord criticized the people for their refusal to believe apart from by seeing signs and wonders. In line with this, the Lord attacks Nicodemus’ belief on the basis of the miracles, saying that instead, a man must be born again if he wishes to see the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:500 3:2-3'>Joh 3:2-3</a></em>). But later He says that the disciples were being given miraculous signs greater than even healing to help them believe (<em><a href='B:500 11:15'>Joh 11:15</a></em>); He bids people believe because they saw signs, even if they were unimpressed by Him personally (<em><a href='B:500 5:20'>Joh 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:37'>Joh 10:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:11'>Joh 14:11</a></em>). Clearly enough, the Lord was desperate for people to believe, to come to some sort of faith- even if the basis of that faith wasn’t what He ideally wished. And it’s possible that His initial high demand for people to believe not because they saw miracles was relaxed as His ministry proceeded; for the statements that faith was not to be based upon His miracles is found in John 3, 4, whereas the invitations to believe because of His miracles is to be found later in John. This challenges the attitude that sets a bar of faith and understanding over which people must first leap before we work with them.</p><p>I noted on :43 and :44 that the Lord had expected little response in Galilee, and yet there was response. In this we have a window onto His utter humanity. Likewise, perhaps in this comment that faith would only come from&nbsp;<em>seeing</em>&nbsp;miracles; for the nobleman did not see the miracle, but believed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:49'>Joh 4:49</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The nobleman said to him: Sir, come before my child dies</em>-</p><p> The man thought that the Lord's physical presence was required for the miracle. His faith was therefore incomplete, but all the same, the Lord worked with Him. And just as He does today with us, sought to stretch the faith of the man.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:50'>Joh 4:50</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: Go your way. Your son lives. The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way</em>-</p><p> The man of course could have disbelieved; yet the Lord had done the miracle anyway. So the Lord was as it were desperately hopeful that his challenge to the development of the man's faith would work- and it did. And yet his faith was still immature; for although it is stated that the nobleman believed the Lord’s words, it was only once his son was healed that he&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>believed (<em><a href='B:500 4:50'>Joh 4:50</a></em> cp. 54).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:51'>Joh 4:51</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And as he was going home, his servants met him, saying that his son lived</em>-</p><p> They would have known that he had gone to Cana to seek the Lord Jesus and healing from Him. They were so thrilled that they began the 20 mile journey to meet Him. They met their master as he "was going down" (AV)- i:e. as he was coming down the final slope toward Capernaum. We wonder why they had delayed coming to him; perhaps they wanted to be sure the child had really recovered. All this has the circumstantial ring of truth to it which permeates the inspired records.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:52'>Joh 4:52</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So he inquired of them the hour when he began to get better. They replied to him: Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him</em>-</p><p> If "the seventh hour" means 1 p:m. assuming counting time from sunrise- although there are various possibilities; Roman time would have been 7 p:m:, then the man would have walked or travelled home through the night, arriving the next day, so that the servants spoke of "Yesterday". Travelling overnight was a risky undertaking as Galilee was full of road thieves. But he was so eager to see the result of faith. "Began to get better" is also an indication of incomplete faith; he imagined that the Lord's healing word would have only gradual effect, whereas the child had perhaps died and been resurrected at that time "your son lives". In any case, the fever abruptly "left him" at a specific time and not as part of any gradual process of feeling better, as the nobleman with his limited faith had imagined.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:53'>Joh 4:53</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The father knew that that was the hour when Jesus had said to him: Your son lives. And so he and his household believed</em>-</p><p> As noted on :50, the man's initial belief had not been strong; but now it became stronger. Or it could be that he had set himself the condition to the effect that if his son was really healed, then he would believe; and that condition was met. Christ saw that man's low level of faith, and took him where he was, with the result that he soon rose up to a higher level. The Lord must have reflected on the wide differences between the various levels of faith and commitment He encountered. Jairus besought Him to lay His hands on his daughter (<em><a href='B:480 5:23'>Mar 5:23</a></em>); whilst the Centurion's attitude was "say the word only" (<em><a href='B:490 7:6'>Luk 7:6</a></em>). His faith was undoubtedly on a higher level (<em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>), but still the Lord accepted the lower level of Jairus and worked with it. He was manifesting His Father in this. Reflect how Daniel refused to eat the food sent to him from the King of Babylon; but God arranged for this very thing to be sent to Jehoiachin as a sign of His recognition of his repentance (<em><a href='B:300 52:34'>Jer 52:34</a></em>) God saw that Jehoiachin wasn't on Daniel's level, and yet He worked with him.</p><p>The idea of whole households "believing" is common in the New Testament; the early church was largely a network of household churches.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 4:54'>Joh 4:54</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This was the second sign that Jesus did, when he had gone from Judea to Galilee</em>-</p><p> There is a question as to whether this is the same miracle of the centurion's servant being healed in Capernaum which we have in <em><a href='B:470 8:5'>Mat 8:5</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 7:2'>Luk 7:2</a></em>. I would argue that they are similar, but different:</p><p>(1) Here a ‘king’s man’ pleads for his son; there a centurion for his servant.</p><p>(2) Here he pleads in person; there the Jewish elders plead for him.</p><p>(3) Here the father is probably a Jew; there the centurion is certainly a Gentile.</p><p>(4) Here the healing words are spoken at Cana; there at Capernaum.</p><p>(5) Here the malady is fever; there paralysis.</p><p>(6) Here the father wishes Jesus to come; there the centurion begs him not to come.</p><p>(7) Here Christ does not go; there apparently he does.</p><p>The similarity I suggest is that the faith of the Gentile centurion is presented as far stronger than that of the spiritually immature Jewish nobleman. The similarities suggest that perhaps that Gentile had heard of the healing of the nobleman's child, and was motivated by it to complete faith, just as we are motivated by accounts of faith rewarded in others' lives to ourselves have even stronger faith than in the cases we heard about.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:1'>Joh 5:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>After these things there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> So often John describes what the Old Testament repeatedly calls "the feasts of the Lord" as "feasts of the Jews". They had hijacked Yahweh's religion and turned it into their own, just as so many do today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:2'>Joh 5:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now there is in Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> It's worth noting the evidence that the entire New Testament was written before AD70:-</p><p> If any of the Gospels were written after AD70, their total silence as to that cataclysmic event is strange. The synoptics all record a prophecy of the events of AD70, and yet there is no reference by any of them to its fulfilment; whereas the Gospel writers aren't slow to comment on the way the Lord's words came true. <em><a href='B:470 24:20'>Mat 24:20</a></em> speaks of those events as being in the future- "Pray that it may not be winter when you have to make your escape". Surely there'd have been some reference to the fulfilment of the Olivet prophecy, if the records were written after AD70? <em><a href='B:500 5:2'>Joh 5:2</a></em> speaks as if Jerusalem and the temple area were still standing when John was written: "Now there&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool". The record of the Jews' proud comment in <em><a href='B:500 2:20'>Joh 2:20</a></em> that Herod's temple had taken 46 years to build includes no hint nor even presentiment that it had now been destroyed.-</p><p> Paul on any chronology died before AD70, so his letters were all before that. We need to marvel at the evident growth in spirituality and understanding which is reflected within Paul's letters, and realize that he grew&nbsp;<em>very</em>&nbsp;quickly:&nbsp;-</p><p> Hebrews speaks of the temple and sacrifice system in the present tense, as if it were still operating (note <em><a href='B:650 10:2'>Heb 10:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:11'>Heb 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:18'>Heb 10:18</a></em>). The 40 years of Israel's disobedience in the wilderness are held up as a warning to an Israel approaching 40 years of disobedience after the death of Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 3:7'>Heb 3:7</a></em> to <em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>). "You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood" (<em><a href='B:650 12:4'>Heb 12:4</a></em>) sounds like Nero's persecution hadn't started:&nbsp;-</p><p> The letters of Peter warn that a huge calamity is to come upon the Jewish churches, couched in terms of the Olivet prophecy. Thus they were written before AD70. 2 Peter also speaks as if Paul is still alive at the time:&nbsp;-</p><p> Acts stops at the point where Paul is living in his own house in Rome quite comfortably, and spreading the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 28:30'>Act 28:30</a></em>). And yet we know from 2 Timothy 4 that ultimately he died in Rome, presumably after being released and doing more work for the Lord. The obvious conclusion is that Acts was written before Paul died. Acts also implies that Jews were living at peace with Rome (<em><a href='B:510 24:2'>Act 24:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 25:1-5'>Act 25:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:13'>Act 15:13</a></em> to <em><a href='B:510 26:32'>Act 26:32</a></em>)- a situation which didn't apply after AD70.</p><p><em>By the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches</em>-</p><p> The five porches could refer to the five books of Moses, the Torah, which failed to provide healing. "Bethesda" is obviously significant in meaning, because attention is called to the Hebrew name. The Hebrew is literally&nbsp;<em>beth</em>&nbsp;house&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>, the Hebrew word usually translated "mercy" and about the nearest the Old Testament comes to speaking of "grace". But beneath the five porches of the Mosaic law, the Torah, there was no grace or mercy being found by those who sat beneath them. They hoped for it, but Israel did not find that which he looked for. "Bethesda" may well have been a kind of institution providing very basic care for the incurables and handicapped whose families would not care for them. Hence&nbsp;<em>beth</em>, "house", can mean both a house as well as a family. It really was a picture of stricken humanity, whom legalism couldn't help. Yet before them was the pool or "bath", as Adam Clarke suggests the Greek should be rendered. Immediately we make the association with baptism. There are Old Testament prophecies of how in the Messianic Kingdom, healing water would come forth from Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:360 3:18'>Joe 3:18</a></em> etc:). The Lord was going to demonstrate that in His gift of the water of life, the essence of the future Kingdom was to be experienced right now. The sheep gate was on the east of the temple (<em><a href='B:160 3:1'>Neh 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 3:32'>Neh 3:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 12:39'>Neh 12:39</a></em>), from where Messiah was to enter in the day of His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:450 14:4'>Zec 14:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:3'>Joh 5:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In these lay a crowd of those who were sick, blind, lame, paralysed, waiting for the moving of the water</em>-</p><p> The "sick" or "impotent" are those without power. The same word is used of how whilst we were all "without strength, Christ died for the ungodly" (<em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>). They were waiting, just as Israel ought to have been waiting for Messiah. But the law was itself "impotent" (s:w. "sick"), unable to cure or change the human moral condition (<em><a href='B:650 7:18'>Heb 7:18</a></em> s:w:). The same word for "moving" is used of how the Jewish religion could not "move" the heavy burdens of legalism and human guilt before God (<em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:4'>Joh 5:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and disturbed the water. Whoever was first to step into the pool, after the waters were disturbed, was healed of whatever disease he had</em>-</p><p> The Bible records things at times from how they appear to men at the time; hence the language of demon possession and exorcism, even though the real existence of demons is denied in the Bible. Here we have another example. The Lord’s miracle of healing the lame man at the pool was to show the folly of the Jewish myth that at Passover time an angel touched the water of the Bethesda pool, imparting healing properties to it. This myth is recorded without direct denial of its truth; the record of Christ’s miracle is the exposure of its falsehood. Another example would be the Jewish myth that the High Priest’s Passover address was a direct speaking forth of God’s words; this wrong idea isn’t specifically corrected, but it is worked through by God – in that Caiaphas’ Passover words just before the crucifixion came strangely true, thus condemning Caiaphas and justifying the Lord Jesus as Israel’s Saviour (<em><a href='B:500 11:51'>Joh 11:51</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:5'>Joh 5:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>One man there had been ill for thirty-eight years</em>-</p><p> The paralysed man had waited by the pool 38 years, waiting for someone to cure him. There was no cure in those 38 years- only in the word of Christ (<em><a href='B:500 5:5'>Joh 5:5</a></em>). Israel were actually in the wilderness for 38 years; the similarity implies Moses' leadership could not bring salvation, only the word of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:6'>Joh 5:6</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>.</p><p><em>When Jesus saw him lying there, knowing he had been there a long time, he said to him: Would you be made whole?</em>-</p><p> The Lord asks these basic questions in order to elicit in a person what is their greatest, dominant desire. Thus He asked a blind man what he wanted; He made as if He would have gone further on the walk to Emmaus, and appeared as if He would walk past the drowning disciples on the lake. He knows of course the answers ahead of time but He wishes to elicit in us an articulation of what is our dominant desire. The Lord is the same yesterday as today; He likewise brings us to realize what are our dominant desires. All sick people would say they wish to be cured, but actually for some it is not their dominant desire- especially after 38 years. He asked the question exactly because He knew the man had "been there a long time". Human nature develops coping mechanisms to the extent that our natural conservatism can mean that we do not actually have change as a dominant desire. And the Lord sought to elicit such desire in the man; perhaps He cured that man rather than the other long term residents of Bethesda because He knew that he alone really wanted to change.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:7'>Joh 5:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The sick man answered him: Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is disturbed. As I approach someone else steps in front of me</em>-</p><p> The man was totally focused on the myth. He felt his salvation could only be achieved by his own works and strength, of which he didn't have enough; and he didn't have the right friends, who could put him into the pool. He was looking for a helper, who would be with him all the time and would be ready to get him into the pool whenever the Angel supposedly came. He was looking for a saviour; not just for the coming of an Angel. Perhaps it was this dominant desire which the Lord was attracted to and felt he could work with.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:8'>Joh 5:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: Arise, take up your bed and walk</em>-</p><p> The nature of the healing in this case was a test of the man's respect of the Lord's spoken word. He could have argued back that no, he needed help to get into the pool when the Angel came. But he was looking for a personal Saviour and was willing to accept His word, and make the first movement to try to "arise". The command to take up his bed was also a psychologically intentional statement; the man would have walked off holding his mat in his hand, a powerful visual image that would have remained in the memories of many. And he would have had to dispose of it somewhere, another psychological underlining to him of the reality that he was really cured. We see here the same sensitivity in the Lord which He still shows in His dealings with people today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:9'>Joh 5:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And straightway the man was made whole and took up his bed and walked. Now it was the Sabbath on that day</em>-</p><p> The immediacy of the Lord's cures has been noted on <em><a href='B:500 4:52'>Joh 4:52</a></em>. Claims of healing typically required a period of time; but the Lord's miracles were total and instant rather than requiring periods of time to take effect:&nbsp; The man's obedience to the command to take up his mat and walk is noted; for as noted on :8, it was his obedience to the Lord's spoken word which was so significant.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:10'>Joh 5:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So the Jews said to him who had been cured: It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed</em>-</p><p> The actual law of Moses did not condemn people for carrying their mat after being healed, but the Jews had come to assume that their fences around the Law were in fact the Law itself. And that is the problem with fences around laws; they come to be perceived as the law itself. Faced with the evident power of the Spirit, the legalist must either capitulate or madly insist upon the consequences which arise from infringement of the letter of their own laws. And we see such anger today elicited from legalistic minds when the Spirit is clearly operative. Baptize 50 people, and the legalistic mind will bet angry rather than rejoicing that Christ is preached, insisting upon the consequences of breaking their own by-laws which they have in their own minds turned into God's laws. Fences around laws invite men to play God, and indeed they do so. As noted on :1, such people have hijacked God's law and way and turned it into their own.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:11'>Joh 5:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he answered them: He that made me whole, the same said to me: Take up your bed and walk</em>-</p><p> The man correctly reasoned that One who operated by the power of the Spirit was clearly above all human by-laws and religious regulations of mere men. The Lord had designed the nature of the cure to depend upon obedience to His word, which of itself required the man to break the Jewish regulations about not carrying a mat on the Sabbath. The Lord had intentionally provoked this conflict, because He saw that it was necessary in the ultimate spiritual path of this man. And He does the same with us, carefully tailoring experiences and conflicts in order that our faith might grow.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:12'>Joh 5:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They asked him: Who is the man that said to you: Take up your bed and walk?</em>-</p><p> Their focus was not on the miracle, which they also considered "work", but on the specific command to carry a mat on the Sabbath. They surely knew who it was- only Jesus of Nazareth did this kind of thing. They were looking for legal evidence from this man.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:13'>Joh 5:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away while there was a crowd in that place</em>-</p><p> The Lord could have course orchestrated this miracle in any way He chose. But He did it in this way, leaving Himself anonymous, so that the man would be earnestly asking himself every moment: "Who is this man?". And that of course is the question which John's Gospel puts to his audience. For the man to truthfully answer the Jews' questions with "I don't know, He slipped away in the crowd..." would have likewise made the Jews ask themselves the same question, and reflect that Jesus of Nazareth was no standard miracle worker, but of an altogether higher order.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:14'>Joh 5:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Afterwards, Jesus found him in the temple and said to him: Look, you are made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing befall you</em>-</p><p> The man had sought to express his gratitude by going to the temple, perhaps wondering whether he ought to offer a sacrifice for his cleansing. But the Lord was sensitive to the fact that ritual obedience to law can lead us away from the imperative which must be keenly felt- to sin no more. We can infer that his condition was a result of sin and his tendency was now to return to the sinful life.</p><p>The Lord told him: "Sin no more, lest a worse thing (than those years of sitting by the pool) come upon you" (<em><a href='B:500 5:14'>Joh 5:14</a></em>). That "worse thing" was rejection at the judgment- which, it could be inferred, would be like earnestly desiring salvation but not finding it. For that will be the fate of the rejected at the last day. None will be shrugging their shoulders, indifferent to the eternity they have missed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:15'>Joh 5:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole</em>-</p><p> As noted on :12 and :13, the Lord structured the miracle so that the whole style of it made it clear that it had been Him. So he was telling the Jews what they knew already in their consciences.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the Sabbath</em>-</p><p> Some manuscripts add "and sought to kill him" (AV). They were seizing upon the Mosaic commands to kill the Sabbath breaker (<em><a href='B:20 31:15'>Exo 31:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:2'>Exo 35:2</a></em>). This is the blind anger of those who think their religious organization is the only one God recognizes, and cannot cope with someone operating successfully outside of it. The same mindset is still seen today within Christian groups. "He did these things" translates an imperfect tense in the Greek which suggests the Lord habitually did miracles on the Sabbath. He was certainly seeking to provoke the Sabbath issue with the Jews, because here most clearly, they had hijacked God's laws and made their own fences around them equivalent to Divine law, thus playing God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:17'>Joh 5:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>But Jesus answered them: My Father works even until now and therefore I also work</em>-</p><p> The cosmos hasn't been created, wound up by God as it were on clockwork, and left ticking by an absent creator. There are many Bible verses which teach that God is actively, consciously outgiving of His Spirit in the myriad things going on in the natural creation, every nanosecond He is sensitive to the needed input from Him- and He gives it. Therefore we are never far from Him. The Lord Jesus defended working for His Father on the Sabbath because God was also at work on the Sabbath.</p><p>That God's Son could be a normal working class person actually says a lot about the humility of God Himself. <em><a href='B:500 5:17'>Joh 5:17</a></em> has been translated: "My Father is a working man to this day, and I am a working man myself". No less an authority than C:H. Dodd commented: "That the Greek words could bear that meaning is undeniable". I find especially awesome the way Mary mistakes the risen Lord for a lowly gardener- He evidently dressed Himself in the clothes of a working man straight after His resurrection, a far cry from the haloed Christ of high church art.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this cause the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath law, but he called God his own Father, making himself seem like God</em>-</p><p> The Jews only had authority to ask the Romans to carry out a death sentence if it involved desecration of the temple; but their rage was such that they countenanced extra-judicial murder, as witnessed by Saul murdering Christians. It was a long stretch to say that claiming Divine Sonship was claiming to be God personally, and the Lord brings out their error in chapter 10. This is especially so as the Old Testament calls men "gods" and the term "God" was applied by the Jews to Moses. It is tragic indeed that standard Christianity through the false doctrine of the Trinity has made the same logical error. We must note that the Greek translated "seem like" means just that; it does not mean 'directly equal to' (it is translated "agreed together", <em><a href='B:480 14:56'>Mar 14:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:59'>Mar 14:59</a></em>). The same phrase is found in <em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em> where perhaps in allusion to this incident, Paul states that the Lord did not consider such 'equality with God' a thing to be even grasped at.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:19'>Joh 5:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Truly, truly, I say to you: The Son can do nothing of himself but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever works He does, these the Son does in like manner</em>-</p><p> The statement that He can do nothing of Himself is an answer to their mistaken idea that He was making Himself in some way equal to God (:18). “The works… The Son can do nothing&nbsp;<em>of himself</em>” recalls Moses' words: “All these works… I have not done them of my own mind” (<em><a href='B:40 16:28'>Num 16:28</a></em>). The Lord was claiming to be as Moses, and a prophet greater than Moses; but not God.</p><p>This passage gives a window into the Lord's self-perception here. He says that whatever He sees the Father / abba / daddy do, He does "in like manner". It is the language of a young child mimicking their father. And He speaks of Himself as an adult behaving just like this. There was a child-likeness about Him in this sense. And the disciples seem to have noticed this- for no less than four times in Acts (<em><a href='B:510 3:13'>Act 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:27'>Act 4:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>) they refer to Jesus as the "holy child" of God. Their image of Jesus had something in it which reflected that child-likeness about Him which still stuck in their memories. And may we too "ceaseless... Abba, father, cry". The haunting melody of that hymn well expresses the utter wonder of it all, as we too struggle to find our true Father. The spirit / attitude of the Son of God should be ours, in that we like Him cry "Abba, father" (<em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>). His spirit / attitude to the Father should be ours; He stressed that His Father is our Father (<em><a href='B:500 20:17'>Joh 20:17</a></em>). Jesus acted and 'was' for all the world as if He had had His natural Father with Him from the start of His life. This was how close the Father became to Jesus; the extent to which He successfully 'found' Him; to the point that the 'mere' invisibility of that Father was not a major issue or barrier in their relationship. And so it should be for us, in the life of believing in that which is unseen, and in them who are invisible to us:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:20'>Joh 5:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that Himself does; and greater works than these will He show him, that you may marvel</em>-</p><p> As noted in commentary on chapter 4, the Lord did not consider that seeing miracles was a solid basis for faith. "Marvel" has connotations of disbelief; the more miracles which would be done, the "greater works" which the Lord would do through the apostles (<em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>), would not so much create faith as lead them to marvel in incomprehension. The connection with the "greater works" to be done by the apostles is clear (<em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>); they were empowered to do what the Lord had been shown needed to be done by the Father.</p><p>In <em><a href='B:500 5:19-20'>Joh 5:19-20</a></em> we read that the Son does (<em>poieo</em>) what He sees the Father doing, and the Father shows Him (<em>deiknumi</em>) all (<em>panta</em>) that He does. This is referring to <em><a href='B:20 25:9'>Exo 25:9</a></em> LXX, where Moses makes (<em>poieo</em>) the Tabernacle according all (<em>panta</em>) that God shows him (<em>deiknuo</em>). The reference of <em><a href='B:500 5:19-20'>Joh 5:19-20</a></em> is therefore to the Lord working with His Father in the building up of us the tabernacle… and&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;things God planned for us were revealed to the Son even in His mortality. What great wealth of understanding was there within His mind, within those brain cells… and how tragic that the head and body that bore them was betrayed and ignored and spat upon and tortured by men…</p><p>There is here what C:H. Dodd has called ‘the parable of the apprentice’: “A son…does only what he sees his father doing: what father does, son does; for a father loves his son and shows him all his trade”. Now just imagine what that meant for the Lord Jesus, growing up with Joseph, who appeared to be His father, learning Joseph’s trade. Yet He knew that His true Father was God, and He was eagerly learning&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;trade.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:21'>Joh 5:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he will</em>-</p><p> The present tenses mean that the Son now gives life, and this is a development of the ideas of the prologue. The life given is the life of the Spirit, the power to live the kind of life the Lord Jesus lived. The same word is found in <em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>: "It is the Spirit that quickens"; so the Son "gives life" s:w. "quickens" through giving of His Spirit, the ability to live and think as He did and does. This promise is at the core of Christianity, of being like Christ. It is for all time. The Lord gave His life for us on the cross, but He gives His life to us in an ongoing sense. It is the Spirit of Christ in us now which shall quicken or make alive our mortal bodies in the process of resurrection to life at the last day (s:w. <em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em>, see note there). He is a "quickening spirit" now as He shall be in granting the resurrection to life at the last day (<em><a href='B:530 15:45'>1Co 15:45</a></em>).</p><p>Abiding in the word of Christ, His words abiding in us, abiding in love, abiding in the Father and Son (<em><a href='B:690 4:16'>1Jn 4:16</a></em>) are all parallel ideas. Jesus Himself ‘quickens’ or breathes life into us (<em><a href='B:500 5:21'>Joh 5:21</a></em>)- but His Spirit does this, in that His words ‘are spirit’ (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>). Again we see how His personal presence, His life and Spirit, are breathed into us through His words being in us. In the mundane monotony of daily life, doing essentially the same job, travelling to work the same route, the alarm clock going off the same time each morning… there can be breathed into us a unique new life through having His words ever abiding within us. And this ‘quickening’ in daily life now is the foretaste of the ‘quickening’ which we will literally experience at the resurrection (<em><a href='B:530 15:22'>1Co 15:22</a></em> - ‘made alive’ is the same Greek word translated ‘quicken’ in <em><a href='B:500 5:21'>Joh 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>). If the Spirit of Jesus now dwells in us, then that same Spirit shall immortalize our mortal bodies into immortality at the Lord's return (see on <em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em>). In this sense, receiving and living the Lord's Spirit now is receiving life, the kind of life we shall eternally live- "eternal life". The Son giving life now is therefore related seamlessly to how the Father shall give life at the resurrection to life at the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:22'>Joh 5:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For neither does the Father judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son</em>-</p><p> Even the most basic reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Greek&nbsp;<em>krino</em>&nbsp;(usually translated “judge") is used in more than one way. The same is true of the idea of 'judgment' in many languages. Thus in English, "judgment" refers both to the process of deciding / judging a case, and also to the final judgment of condemnation. We read that the Father judges no one (<em><a href='B:500 5:22'>Joh 5:22</a></em>); but (evidently in another sense), He does judge (<em><a href='B:500 8:50'>Joh 8:50</a></em>). Christ did not come to judge (<em><a href='B:500 8:15'>Joh 8:15</a></em>), but in another way He did (<em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:16'>Joh 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:26'>Joh 8:26</a></em>). Paul tells the Corinthians to judge nothing, and then scolds them for not judging each other (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 6:1-3'>Joh 6:1-3</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Krino</em>&nbsp;(to "judge") can simply mean to make a decision, or think something through (<em><a href='B:510 20:16'>Act 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:8'>Act 26:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 27:11'>Act 27:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:2'>1Co 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:37'>1Co 7:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:1'>2Co 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:12'>Tit 3:12</a></em>). And because of this, we are encouraged to "judge" situations according to God's word and principles; thus 'judging' can mean forming an opinion based on correct interpretation of the word (<em><a href='B:500 7:24'>Joh 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:15'>1Co 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:13'>1Co 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:14'>2Co 5:14</a></em>). Therefore, judging or opinion forming on any other basis is 'judging after the flesh', and this is wrong (<em><a href='B:490 12:57'>Luk 12:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:15'>Joh 8:15</a></em>); judging rightly is part of our basis of acceptability with the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 7:43'>Luk 7:43</a></em>). It is a shameful thing if we can't judge our brethren (<em><a href='B:530 5:12'>1Co 5:12</a></em>). "Judge not" must be understood in this context.</p><p>In the context here, the Lord is warning the Jews who were seeking to kill Him that all judgment is actually His, and not theirs. He is their judge, and shall be their judge at the last day. His very presence amongst men was His judgment of them; the same word is used in <em><a href='B:500 3:19'>Joh 3:19</a></em> in stating that the judgment of the Jewish world was simply because the light of Christ had come into it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:23'>Joh 5:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that does not honour the Son does not honour the Father that sent him</em>-</p><p> The honour of the Son is on the basis of the fact that He is our judge (:22). The true glory to God was to be through the lonely rejection of the cross. He who quietly honours / glorifies the Father (<em><a href='B:500 5:23'>Joh 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:49'>Joh 8:49</a></em>) in the life of self-crucifixion will be honoured / glorified by the Father quietly in this life, and openly in the age to come (<em><a href='B:500 12:26'>Joh 12:26</a></em>); such is the mutuality between a man and his God. See on <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>.</p><p>To love God and Christ is to love our neighbour as ourselves. This is because of the intense unity of God's Name. Because our brethren and sisters share God's Name, as we do, we must love them as ourselves, who also bear that same Name. And if we love the Father, we must love the Son, who bears His Name, with a similar love. The letters of John state this explicitly. If we love God, we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;love our brother; and if we love the Father, we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;love the Son. This is why we must honour the Son as we honour the Father (<em><a href='B:500 5:23'>Joh 5:23</a></em>); such is the unifying power of God's Name. So the Father, Son and church are inextricably connected. Baptism into the name of Christ is therefore baptism into the Name of the Father, and associates us with the "one Spirit" (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:4'>Eph 4:4</a></em>). In the same way as we cannot choose to live in isolation from the Father and Son, so we cannot separate ourselves from others who bear the same Name. The Scribe well understood all this: "There is one God... and to love him... and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:480 12:32-33'>Mar 12:32-33</a></em>). Those whole offerings represented the whole body of Israel (<em><a href='B:30 4:7-15'>Lev 4:7-15</a></em>). The Scribe understood that those offerings taught that all Israel were unified together on account of their bearing the same Name of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:24'>Joh 5:24</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:14'>1Jn 3:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>Truly, truly, I say to you: He that hears my word and believes Him that sent me has eternal life, and comes not into condemnation, but has passed out of death into life</em>-</p><p> In the immediate context, the hearing of the word alludes to the way the healed impotent man had heard the Lord's word and believed; see on :8. The same word for passing over from death to life is used when John writes to those who had been converted as a result of hearing his Gospel. He says that they know they have passed over from death to life because they live in love (<em><a href='B:690 3:14'>1Jn 3:14</a></em>). Hearing the Lord's word, living in the Spirit, which means living in love, as He loved, living with the spirit of life which He had and has... are all the same thing. "My word" is effectively "my life", His Spirit of life, as established in the prologue. Remember too that John is writing in Hebrew thought to Jewish people. Hebrews are those who have 'passed over', as Abraham their father did geographically so long ago. But the definition of the new Israel, the new Hebrews, are those who have passed over from the darkness of Judaism to live in the light of Christ. If we are walking in the light, with His Spirit, then we shall not be condemned. That judgment s:w. "condemnation" is for those who see but reject the light and prefer to remain in darkness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:25'>Joh 5:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Truly, truly, I say to you: The hour comes and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live</em>-</p><p> As explained above, if we have the spirit of Christ, we are living the eternal life. In that sense the resurrection has happened to us; but the physical transformation of our body from mortal to immortal is yet to happen, at the resurrection to life at the last day. And so He says that that hour comes and yet now is. Just as they shall come forth to life at the sound of the Lord's literal voice at His coming, so we come to spiritual life now as a result of hearing His word / voice. "Hearing" here implies more than literal hearing, but hearing with belief, just as 'seeing' in John means seeing and believing.</p><p>But the Lord's "hour" in John also has reference to His death. The judgment quality of the crucifixion is reflected by the way in which the Lord speaks of both the cross and the day of future judgment as "the hour" (<em><a href='B:500 5:25-29'>Joh 5:25-29</a></em>). When the Lord taught that "the hour" is both to come and "now is", He surely meant us to understand that in His crucifixion, properly perceived, there is the judgment of this world, the end of this age for us who believe in Him, the cutting off of sin. The way that the Lord Jesus is 'sat down upon' the Judgment Bench by Pilate, as if He is the authentic judge, is further confirmation that in His Passion, the Lord was truly Judge of this world.</p><p>The hour that was coming and yet was refers to the Lord’s death. There, the voice of the Son of God was made clear. We have shown elsewhere how the Lord’s blood is personified as a voice crying out. Those who truly hear that voice will be raised to life. The way the graves opened at His death was surely a foretaste of this. See on <em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:26'>Joh 5:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given the Son life in himself</em>-</p><p> This seems to mean that because spiritual life is so inherent in the Son, He therefore has the ability to give that life or spirit to others. We cannot really give our lives to others in any literal sense because we do not have life inherent within ourselves, it is a gift. But the Father and Son have the life which is themselves, and can gift that to others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 2:10'>Mar 2:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>And He has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is a Son of Man</em>-</p><p> His humanity is His ability to judge us. We will then realize the extent to which He succeeded in every point where we realize we failed, despite being strapped with our same nature. And thus we will respect Him yet the more for His perfection of character, and for the wonder of the salvation that is thereby in Him. We cannot judge because although we too are 'sons of men', we have sinned. Any such judgment would be hypocritical. But the Lord can judge, because He had human nature, being the archetypical "son of man", and yet never sinned.</p><p>Even in His life, the Father committed all judgment unto the Son (:22). The Lord can therefore talk in some arresting present tenses: "Verily, verily, I say unto you as judge, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation". According to our response to His word, so we have now our judgment. He goes on to speak of how the believer will again hear His voice, at His return: "The hour is coming, and also now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live". Our response to His word now is a mirror of our response to His word then. Hence the hour is yet future, and yet now is. 'The Son right now has the authority to execute judgment on the basis of response to His word. He will do this at the last day; and yet even as He spoke, He judged as He heard' paraphrase of <em><a href='B:500 5:27-30'>Joh 5:27-30</a></em>. Because He&nbsp;<em>is&nbsp;</em>the Son of man, He even then had the power of judgment given to Him (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>). These present tenses would be meaningless unless the Lord was even then exercising His role as judge. When He says that He doesn't judge / condemn men (<em><a href='B:500 3:17-21'>Joh 3:17-21</a></em>), surely He is saying that&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;won't so much judge men as they will judge themselves by their attitude to Him. His concentration was and is on saving men. The condemnation is that men loved darkness, and prefer the darkness of rejection to the light of Christ. Likewise <em><a href='B:500 12:47-48'>Joh 12:47-48</a></em>: "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to so much as to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me... hath one that judgeth him: the word his response to the word, supplying the ellipsis that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:28'>Joh 5:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Marvel not at this For the hour comes, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice</em>-</p><p> The Lord repeatedly tells the cynical and unbelieving Jews of His day&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>to marvel / wonder, but to&nbsp;<em>believe</em>. Perhaps we're intended to read in an ellipsis to these passages: 'Don't only marvel / wonder but&nbsp;<em>believe</em>’. John later used the same phrase himself in <em><a href='B:690 3:13'>1Jn 3:13</a></em> - he was so influenced by reflecting upon the words of the Lord Jesus that His words became John’s words. Our language and thought processes should be likewise changed as we come to have Christ in us, and His spirit becomes ours.</p><p>"The tombs" translates a Greek term rooted in the idea of remembrance; 'memorial tombs' or 'cenotaph' would be no bad translation. The "all" in view are therefore those within the 'memory' of God, the believers. This is established by the context, which has spoken of how all who now receive the life of the Spirit shall also rise to life in the last day. We who have heard His voice now shall again hear it at the resurrection. It is that word of command which is therefore presented here as the basis for resurrection to life, just as Lazarus is later depicted as coming out of the tomb at the sound of the Lord's voice, as a worked example of what the Lord means here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:29'>Joh 5:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation</em>-</p><p> The 'coming forth' is another connection with the resurrection of Lazarus, who was bidden "Come forth" by the voice of the Lord Jesus. He was a worked example ahead of time of the Lord's teaching here. Although "life" and "condemnation" are ministered in this life according to a person's response to encounter with the Lord Jesus, their final outworking and moment will be at the resurrection of the last day. That is when immortality begins in a bodily, material sense.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is righteous, because I seek not my own will, but the will of Him that sent me</em>-</p><p> This is another reflection of the Lord's humanity. Our will is not yet coincidental with God’s; even the will of the Son was not perfectly attuned to that of the Father (<em><a href='B:490 22:42'>Luk 22:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>), hence the finally unanswered prayer for immediate deliverance from the cross. Yet as we grow spiritually, the will of God will be more evident to us, and we will only ask for those things which are according to His will. And thus our experience of answered prayer will be better and better, which in turn will provide us with even more motivation for faith in prayer.</p><p>The Lord was and is 'seeking' the Father's will not in the sense that He is unsure of it, but in the Hebrew sense of 'seeking', i:e. respect and worship. The Lord's thinking or spirit is that of the Father. Therefore God's will is His will, and this is reflected in the way the Lord judges. Yet we bear in mind that God's will is for human salvation, that none be lost but all the called should be saved (<em><a href='B:500 6:39'>Joh 6:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:4'>1Ti 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>). And that same will is in the Son, who will judge according to this "will":&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:370 7:8'>Amo 7:8</a></em> describes Israel's condemnation as a plumb line, a measurement and assessor, being applied to them. Here the figure of weighing up evidence is made to mean condemnation; so immediate is God's judgment. He needs no time to draw a conclusion; being outside of time, He can see a situation and make the judgment immediately, and implicit within the information gathering process. The Lord Jesus likewise judged as soon as He heard (<em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>). His very existence among men was their judgment- for judgment He came into this world, the light of His moral excellence blinded the immoral (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:31'>Joh 5:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If I testify of myself, my witness is not true</em>-</p><p> Having presented Himself as the ultimate judge, the Lord now changes the metaphor to say that He is a witness in His own trial. He requires witnesses to testify about Him. So He is now recognizing that He stands under the judgmental eyes of the Jews, and is presenting His witnesses in His defence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:32'>Joh 5:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It is another that testifies of me; and I know that the witness which He testifies of me is true</em>-</p><p> Codex Beza reads "You know...". The Jews had set themselves up as the Lord's judges. He calls God as a witness in His case (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:26'>Joh 8:26</a></em>). The whole picture of the Father as a witness, the Son in the dock, and the Jews as judges... is all rather bizarre. Who were they to judge God and choose to reject His testimony to His own Son, when in fact they knew "You know...", Codex Beza in their consciences that God's witness was true. But this was what the Jews were doing. But in fact anyone who rejects the Lord Jesus as their judge when they encounter Him... is in fact judging Him, and thereby treating God as a witness whose testimony they can reject. The encounter with Jesus, the light of the world, can only really result in total surrender to Him and His cause. Any rejection of Him is to play God, to set oneself up as judge of God, and to remain in the darkness with only condemnation awaiting:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:33'>Joh 5:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You asked John the Baptist, and he has testified to the truth</em>-</p><p> The 'asking' is presented by the Lord in the context of legal metaphor. They had as it were summoned John the Baptist to give testimony; not perhaps literally, but in that these Jews now judging the Lord were those who had gone out into the wilderness to hear John, and had asked who he was- and been directed by him to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:34'>Joh 5:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Not that the testimony that I receive is from man; but I say these things so that you may be saved</em>-</p><p> This is perhaps saying the same as Paul's references to 'speaking after the manner of men', putting things in human terms in order to persuade those who still thought as men (<em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:15'>Gal 3:15</a></em>). The testimony of John the Baptist wasn't relevant testimony when God Himself is called as a witness. But because the Lord wished even the salvation of these wicked, bitter, jealous men who even judged God Almighty... He put things in human terms. He reminded them therefore of the testimony of John the Baptist. The Lord wanted men to accept His Father’s witness; but He was prepared to let them accept John’s human witness, and actually this lower level of perception by them, preferring to believe the words of a mere man, would still be allowed by the Lord to lead them to salvation.</p><p>And we might well note that a great number of priests and Pharisees did in fact later get baptized; so the Lord's desire for their salvation did in fact pay off. We should learn from that never, ever to write off anyone as a hopeless case for the Gospel.</p><p>The Lord said that He didn’t receive witness from men; but, because He so wanted men to be saved, He directed them to the witness of John the Baptist. This in essence is the same as the way in which some people believed the testimony of the Samaritan woman, but others said they only believed once they heard Jesus Himself, as they discounted the testimony of men / women (<em><a href='B:500 4:42'>Joh 4:42</a></em>). And so in our day, the ideal witness is that of the Father and Son themselves directly through their word. And yet there are others who are persuaded not by that so much as by the testimony of others who have believed. This may be a lower level compared to the Lord’s ideal position of not allowing the testimony of mere men; and yet He makes this concession, for the sake of His burning desire for human salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>He was the lamp that burns and shines, and you were willing to rejoice for a period in his light</em>-</p><p> John's message was hard hitting, critical of his audience, and demanding radical repentance. And masses of people rejoiced in it. They liked the hard line, and were joyfully proud that they had apparently responded to it. But they had not come to total commitment to the Lord Jesus, so their apparent repentance was merely a psychological experience of no lasting value. There is true repentance, and surface level repentance. We must perceive the allusion here to the prologue. John “was not the light” in the sense that he was not Jesus personally (<em><a href='B:500 1:8'>Joh 1:8</a></em> RV); but he was in another sense “a burning and shining light” (<em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>) in that he like us was “the light of the world” on account of his connection with Jesus. We too are to be the light of the world insofar as we are in Christ, who is the light of the world. Yet it could be said that the Jews rejoiced in the light of John the Baptist, but would not come to the true light, of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;</p><p>"You were willing to rejoice for a period" sounds like John's version of the parable of the sower, where the seed is sown but some enthusiastically respond "with joy" only for a while and then fall away (<em><a href='B:470 13:20'>Mat 13:20</a></em>). The sower parable therefore had an immediate reference to the lack of lasting response to John's ministry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:36'>Joh 5:36</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>.</p><p><em>But the witness which I have is greater than that of John. For the works which the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, testify that the Father has sent me</em>-</p><p> As noted above, the Jews sat in judgment on the Lord, and He calls as witness for the defence the Father's empowerment of His miracles. To ignore that testimony or judge it as not significant to the case of Christ was to judge God. Those works came to the final 'accomplishment' of the cross, when "it is finished". And His death there was the final testament to God's love, the light shining in darkness.</p><p>“The work that the Father gave me to finish... testifies” (<em><a href='B:500 5:36'>Joh 5:36</a></em> NIV); and thus when “it was finished” in the death of the cross, the full testimony / witness of God was spoken and made. When He was lifted up in crucifixion, the beholding Jews knew that His words were truly those of the Father; they saw in the cross God’s word spoken through Christ, they saw there the epitome of all the words the Lord spoke throughout His ministry (<em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>). The Lord’s blood was thus a spoken testimony to all men (<em><a href='B:610 2:6'>1Ti 2:6</a></em> AVmg:).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:37'>Joh 5:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the Father that sent me, He has testified of me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape</em>-</p><p> They, sitting as judges of the Lord Jesus, had refused to hear His testimony about His Son. God's testimony to his Son was in the works or miracles (:36). But although like Nicodemus the Jews had no choice but to accept they had been done, they refused to accept the testimony made by them. Hearing God's voice and seeing His shape allude to Moses; and the Jews would of course agree that Moses was supreme in Judaism, and indeed they had not heard God's voice or seen the outline of His personal shape another argument for the existence of God in a corporeal form. But the Lord's idea was that those who had heard His voice and 'seen' / perceived Him, had witnessed a theophany far greater than what Moses saw- the allusions are to the prologue again, where the similarities with Moses are outlined.</p><p>It could be of course that the Lord is speaking here by way of glaring contrast: Moses earnestly desired to see God's shape, to view Him, to completely understand Him. This was denied him- but not Jesus. The similarity and yet difference between Moses and Jesus is really brought out here. And again, Moses is shown to be representative of sinful Israel; as he lifted up the serpent, so they would lift up Christ; as he failed to see the Father's "shape", so they did too.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:38'>Joh 5:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And you do not have His word dwelling in you, for you do not believe the one whom He has sent</em>-</p><p> They searched the Scriptures (:39) but the word did not abide in them. The idea of 'abiding' is frequently associated with the abiding of the life, spirit and word of Jesus in the hearts of those who believe in Him. So I would read this as saying that because they did not believe in the sent One, therefore God's word, His seed, His Spirit, His life, did not abide in them; rather than reading it as meaning that if the Old Testament word of Moses abode in them, then they would believe in the sent One. I read it as suggested because the promise of the 'abiding' is clearly presented in John as a consequence which follows and not precedes believing in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me</em>-</p><p> This is so tragically true of so many Protestant groups today. Bible study is not necessarily the way to coming to the Lord Jesus. In fact, it was their academic approach to the Bible which actually stopped them coming to Him (:40). Surely the Lord is using irony here: as if to say, ‘Go on searching through the scrolls, thinking as you do that finding true exposition will bring you eternal life. But you must come to&nbsp;<em>Me</em>, the word-made-flesh, the living and eternal life, if you wish to find it’.</p><p>We must see in that Man who had fingernails, hair, who needed to shave, who sneezed and blinked, the very Son of God; the Man who should dominate our thinking and being. And we must grasp the wonder of the fact that from the larynx of a Palestinian Jew came the words of Almighty God. All that was true of natural Israel becomes a warning for us, Israel after the spirit. The tension between the following of Jesus and merely studying the pages of the Bible for academic truth is brought out in the Lord’s encounter with the Jews in <em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em>: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: but ye will not come to&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;that ye might have life”. Surely the Lord is using irony here: as if to say, ‘Go on searching through the scrolls, thinking as you do that finding true exposition will bring you eternal life. But you must come to&nbsp;<em>me</em>, the word-made-flesh, the living and eternal life, if you wish to find it’.</p><p>C:H. Dodd throughout chapter 3 of his classic&nbsp;<em>The Interpretation Of The Fourth Gospel</em>&nbsp;gives ample reason to believe his thesis that John's Gospel was written partly in order to deconstruct the popular teachings of Philo in the first century- and there are therefore many allusions to his writings. Thus John records how in vain the Jews searched the Scriptures, because in them they thought they had eternal life (<em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em>)- when this is the very thing that Philo claimed to do. This approach helps us understand why, for example, the prologue to John is written in the way it is, full of allusion to Jewish ideas about the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>. How John writes is only confusing to us because we're not reading his inspired words against the immediate background in which they were written- which included the very popular false teachings of Philo about the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>. Thus Philo claimed that God had two sons, sent the younger into the world, and the elder, the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, remained "by Him"- whereas John's prologue shows that the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;was an abstract idea, which&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;sent into the world in the form of God's one and only Son, the Lord Jesus. See on <em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord was unlike any other Rabbi- He wasn’t a verse-by-verse expositor of the Old Testament, neither did He like to argue case law. He told parables to exemplify and clarify His message- not in order to explain an Old Testament verse, as the Rabbis tended to. He drew lessons from nature in a way the Rabbis simply couldn’t do. Rabbi Jakob, a first century Rabbi, stated: “He who walks along the road repeating the Law and interrupts his repetition and says: How lovely this tree is How lovely this field is To him it will be reckoned as if he had misused his life” (The Mishnah,&nbsp;<em>Pirqe Abot</em>&nbsp;3:7b). By contrast, the Lord stopped and looked at the flowers of the field and drew His teaching from them. The Rabbinic way was to write and study endless&nbsp;<em>midrashim</em>&nbsp;on Bible verses, a kind of verse-by-verse exposition. The Lord’s approach was more holistic and natural. The word&nbsp;<em>Midrash&nbsp;</em>comes from&nbsp;<em>darash</em>, to search, and perhaps the Lord had this style of ‘Bible study’ in mind when He said: “Ye search i:e. midrash the scriptures because ye think that in them ye have eternal life… but ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life” (<em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em>). Neither the Lord nor myself are against careful Bible study. But the Lord was warning against the attitude that eternal life comes from midrashing the Scriptures, writing dry analytical commentary, labouring under the misapprehension that this somehow will give life. Eternal life comes from knowing the life of Jesus, for His nature and quality of life is the life that we will eternally live, by His grace.</p><p>They didn't&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;the wonder of inspiration in their attitude to Bible study- even though they would have devoutly upheld the position that the Bible texts were inspired. And here we have a lesson for ourselves. The Lord brought this out in <em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em>, in saying that "Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life… and ye will not come to&nbsp;<em>me</em>, that ye may have life" (RV). Their Bible study did not lead them to Him. And is just as possible that we too can be Bible-centred and not Christ-centred. For to academically study a document and perceive its connections and intellectual purity does not require the living, transforming, demanding relationship which knowing Jesus does. See on <em><a href='B:510 13:27'>Act 13:27</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord told the Jews to “search the scriptures” so that they would have the word of God and the love of God abiding in them (<em><a href='B:500 5:38-42'>Joh 5:38-42</a></em>). They academically knew “the scriptures”, but the voice of God, the presence of God, and the love of God this reveals, was simply hidden from them. They weren’t&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;studying. But the Saviour also upbraided His very own men for their lack of true Biblical perception: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” (<em><a href='B:490 24:25'>Luk 24:25</a></em>). Note that He did not upbraid them for not understanding His own clear prophecies concerning His passion; instead He rebukes them for not grasping the OT teaching about His death and resurrection. Yet if we try to prove from the OT alone that Messiah would die and resurrect, we are largely forced to reason from types. Even Isaiah 53 is only a prophecy of Christ insofar as Hezekiah (to whom it primarily refers) was a type of Christ. Stephen in Acts 7 resorts to typology to prove his points about the Messiahship of Jesus. The point is, the Lord expected those simple fishermen to have worked these things out, to have heard the voice of God in those OT types. And He upbraided them because they failed to do so. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:40'>Joh 5:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But you will not come to me, so that you may have life-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Jews searched the scriptures, thinking that by their Bible study alone they would receive eternal life. But they never came to Christ that they might know the eternal life that is in Him (<em><a href='B:500 5:39-40'>Joh 5:39-40</a></em>). They thought “eternal life” was in a book, a reward for correct intellectual discernment and exposition, rather than in the man Christ Jesus. And for all our Biblicism, we need to examine themselves in this regard. For like Peter, we must be Christ-centred more than purely Bible-centred; we must see Him “in all the Scriptures”, knowing that the whole word of God’s revelation was made flesh in Him.</p><p>The gift of life, the life and living of Jesus, His Spirit, was not predicated upon academic Bible study. We could not ask for a clearer argument against the argument that God's Spirit is only active today through the so-called "Spirit-word". The "life" or Spirit given to those who "come to me" is a gift; and the Jews were in fact hindered from receiving it by their excessive Biblicism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:41'>Joh 5:41</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I receive not glory from men</em>-</p><p> We are commanded to honour or give glory to the Son (:23). So the Lord is not against being honoured. So He may be lamenting here that He is not receiving honour from those men, they were not believing in Him but rather judging Him. Of course, He may have meant as GNB "I am not looking for human praise", i:e:, as much as looking for their belief in the Father's offer of salvation. Or maybe the Lord's point was that He received glory from the Father (<em><a href='B:680 1:17'>2Pe 1:17</a></em>), from God Himself, and so any human testimony to Him was of little value (<em><a href='B:500 5:34'>Joh 5:34</a></em>). In this case the Lord is alluding again to their standing in judgment upon Him and requiring witnesses to testify.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:42'>Joh 5:42</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts</em>-</p><p> Understanding "the love of God" as the love we have for God opens up several passages. The Jews didn't have the love of God inside them, i:e. love for God, because they didn't have His spirit. Love is the ultimate fruit of the Spirit; there was no love in their hearts because they had no Spirit. All they had was an academic, slavish devotion to academic Bible study. But they had no heart, no Spirit and so no love for God. No wonder their Bible study didn't lead them to grasp the most fundamental theme of the Old Testament- that the Messiah was to be God's Son. But their lack of "love of God" doesn't mean God didn't love them. They&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;beloved for the father's sakes; as a Father always loves His wayward son. But they didn't have love of God in their souls. Paul's prayer that God would direct hearts "into the love of God" (<em><a href='B:600 3:5'>2Th 3:5</a></em>) surely means that He would influence their consciousness to be more filled with an upsurging love of God, rather than meaning that God would bring them into a position where He loved their hearts.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:43'>Joh 5:43</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I come in my Father's Name, and you do not accept me. If another shall come in his own name, you will accept him</em>-</p><p> This again connects to the prologue. The Jews did not accept / receive Him; but those who did receive Him, received the Spirit. This is the mutuality between the believer and the Lord; if we receive Him, we receive the gift of His Spirit. The Jews were more likely to receive another Messiah, because he would not ask them to receive the kind of all demanding spirit which the Lord breathed in to those who accepted Him. The Father had testified to His Son's claims by the miracles done; the Lord came in His Father's Name / authority (GNB) in the sense that the miracles showed that He was clearly of God, as Nicodemus accepted. A claimant with lesser credentials, who came only in his own name, was more likely to be accepted because there was less personally at stake.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:44'>Joh 5:44</a></em>&nbsp;<em>How can you believe, you who accept praise from each other, but do not seek the praise that comes from the only God?</em>-</p><p> The 'belief' in view is surely belief in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. Being in a self-regarding, self-congratulatory religious environment, even if it is nominally Christian, is not the way toward faith in the Lord Jesus. The Greek seems to carry the idea: 'Glory can only be given to God, whereas you want glory from each other, effectively making yourselves equal to God as you falsely accused me of. You cannot believe in God whilst you are playing God, wanting glory to yourselves rather than to Him'. It is such arrogance, petty pride and positioning in the eyes of others which stops millions if not billions from believing.</p><p>Because there is only one God, there is only one glory, one Name of God, one standard of spirituality, one judge, one justifier. Whilst men seek glory and approbation and acceptance and justification from other men, they are denying the principle of one God. If there is only one God, we should seek His honour and justification, to the&nbsp;<em>total</em>&nbsp;exclusion of that of men. Hosea had revealed this truth earlier: “I am the Lord thy God... and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me... neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee i:e. thee alone the fatherless findeth mercy" (<em><a href='B:350 13:4'>Hos 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 14:3'>Hos 14:3</a></em>). Because God alone can give salvation and mercy, therefore there is no space for worshipping or seeking for the approbation of anything or anyone else; for the receipt of mercy and salvation are the only ultimate things worth seeking. There is only one God who can give them, and therefore we should seek for His acceptance alone.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:45'>Joh 5:45</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuses you, Moses, on whom you have set your hope</em>-</p><p> They who were judging the Lord Jesus were now put into the dock. An Moses was called as witness against them. They were condemned by Moses' law. And God was the judge to whom they were accused. Their judgment of the Lord, requiring Him to call God and John the Baptist as witnesses, was effectively their playing God. For any such judgment is playing God. And such will have to face God Himself as judge.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:46'>Joh 5:46</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if you believed Moses, you would believe me. For he wrote of me</em>-</p><p> The allusion is to the way Israel were intended to believe Moses because of the "great work" of the Red Sea and Passover lamb deliverance (<em><a href='B:20 14:31'>Exo 14:31</a></em>). God came to Israel personally in the thick cloud; the great theophany was so that Israel would believe Moses (<em><a href='B:20 19:9'>Exo 19:9</a></em>). But they did not believe Moses; and Israel too were blind to the great theophany of God in Christ see allusions to it in the prologue, and did not believe either Moses or Christ.</p><p>Disbelief of Moses and rejection of His writings as inspired (:47) was the cardinal sin according to Judaism. But the Lord accuses these men of it- men who spent their lives poring over the scrolls. Their rejection of the message of Moses meant they rejected Moses. They had wrongly assumed that devotion to the Bible assured them of acceptability with God. But to miss the message of Christ is to be left without God and effectively despising those writings. The essence of this conundrum is seen in many Christians to this day.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 5:47'>Joh 5:47</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe my words?</em>-</p><p> This is John's equivalent to <em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, even if one rises from the dead". The Lord's resurrection is here paralleled with "my words". The risen Lord was and is His word to men. And in the Jewish context, it would only be accepted if they had firstly believed Moses. Of course, they would have been indignant at the idea that they did not believe the writings of Moses; they held a doctrine of hyper-inspiration of the text of the Torah, whereby every letter was inspired and seen as full of meaning. But such a reverent view of the Bible text can lead to Bibliolatry, rather than to faith in the Christ who is witnessed to throughout that text.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:1'>Joh 6:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias</em>-</p><p> We get the sense of the Lord increasingly trying to retreat from attention. He had withdrawn from Judea to Galilee on the hunch that He would not be accepted in His home area; and was found wrong on that. Now, He goes to the other side of the sea, but the crowd follows Him. And then He goes up into a mountain (:3)- and sees a great crowd still coming to Him (:5). His patience and loving care for the masses is wonderful; when He really wanted a break from the attention.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:2'>Joh 6:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And a great crowd followed him, because they saw the signs which he performed on those that were sick</em>-</p><p> As argued throughout chapter 5, the Lord's miracles were undeniably Divine and were as it were a legal testimony to His authenticity as God's Son in the court of public opinion. Even Nicodemus had recognized this. But from the way the Lord speaks later in the chapter, their motivation was for healing of sickness, for personal benefit rather than the bread of life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:3'>Joh 6:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus went up into the mountain, and there he sat with his disciples</em>-</p><p> This clearly echoes the description of the sermons on the mount and plain in Matthew and Luke. The message that He taught them all the hours it took for them to get hungry isn't recorded. But we can perhaps infer from the connections with Matthew and Luke that it was the same basic content- the manifesto of the Kingdom of God which was preached elsewhere.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:4'>Joh 6:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand</em>-</p><p> As noted on <em><a href='B:500 5:1'>Joh 5:1</a></em>, "the feast of the Lord" had been hijacked by the Jews, so that it had become instead&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;feast. This is the problem- when mere religion swamps and takes over real spirituality.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus therefore lifting up his eyes, and seeing that a great crowd came to him, said to Philip: Where are we to buy bread that these may eat?</em>-</p><p> The "therefore" apparently connects with the coming of Passover (:4). He saw a parallel between the provision of food for that crowd, and the provision of the Paschal lamb, Himself, for Israel's salvation. We wonder why Philip particularly is given this test (:7). The Lord saw perhaps that there were specific issues with Philip that could be addressed and perfected by the whole experience. Or it could be that because Philip was from the immediate locality where they were, Bethsaida (<em><a href='B:500 1:44'>Joh 1:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:21'>Joh 12:21</a></em>). And so the Lord asked him where the local shops were.</p><p>It makes a good exercise to re-read the Gospels looking out for cases of where the Lord urged the disciples to not look at Him as somehow separate from themselves, an automatic Saviour from sin and problems. Thus when it was apparent that the huge, hungry crowd needed feeding, the Lord asked the disciples where “<em>we</em>” could get food from to feed them (<em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>). In all the accounts of the miraculous feedings, we see the disciples assuming that Jesus would solve the situation- and they appear even irritated and offended when He implies that this is&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;joint problem, and&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;must tackle this seemingly impossible task with&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;faith. The mentality of the disciples at that time is that of so many Trinitarians- who assume that ‘Jesus is the answer’ in such a form that they are exempt from seeing His humanity as a challenge for them to live likewise. See on <em><a href='B:480 11:20'>Mar 11:20</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:6'>Joh 6:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And this he said to test him. For he knew what he would do</em>-</p><p> So often the Lord's style with us is just the same. We are given testing situations and questions, purely for the development of our own faith and understanding. The phrase "knew what He would do" is similar to the idea that the Lord knew that He would die on the cross. And so again, the whole incident can be understood on at least two levels. The Lord knew He would make bread to meet their hunger; and He knew that He would on the cross be the bread of life to meet human hunger for salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 14:8'>Joh 14:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>Philip answered him: Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one may take a little</em>-</p><p> We see here the dead literalism of Philip, and how faith sees in completely different terms to the detailed literalism of unbelief, which focuses on the dimensions of the problem rather than the possibility of solution. Energy so often goes into carefully calculating the difficulties, the height and nature of the mountain, rather than into faith that the whole situation can simply be moved.</p><p>Andrew’s comment that they had five loaves and two fishes surely carried the undertone that ‘…and that’s not even enough for us, let alone them- we’re starving too, you know’. The disciples wanted the crowd sent away, to those who sold food, so that they might buy for themselves (<em><a href='B:470 14:15'>Mat 14:15</a></em>). As the Lord’s extended commentary upon their reactions throughout John 6 indicates, these responses were human and selfish. And yet- and here is a fine insight into His grace and positive thinking about His men- He puts their very words and attitudes into the mouth of the wise virgins at the very moment of their acceptance at the day of judgment: “The wise answered the foolish virgins saying, Not so, lest there be not enough s:w. “not sufficient”, <em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em> for us and you; but got ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves” (<em><a href='B:470 25:9'>Mat 25:9</a></em>). Clearly the Lord framed that parable in the very words, terms and attitudes of His selfish disciples. He counted even their weakness as positive, and thus showed His desire to accept them in the last day in spite of it. Another reading of the connection would be that the Lord foresaw how even in the final moment of acceptance into His Kingdom, right on the very eve of judgment day, His people would still be as hopelessly limited in outlook and spiritually self-centred as the disciples were that day with the multitude. Whatever way we want to read this undoubted connection of ideas, we have a window into a grace so amazing it almost literally takes our breath away.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:8'>Joh 6:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him</em>-</p><p> Andrew was also from Bethsaida (<em><a href='B:500 1:44'>Joh 1:44</a></em>), so he may have known the boy personally. The villages were very small and everyone would have known each other. The focus of this incident is upon relatively unknown disciples, Philip and Andrew, instead of the usual Peter, James and John.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:9'>Joh 6:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There is a lad here, who has five barley loaves and two fishes; but what are these among so many?</em>-</p><p> Barley loaves were the food of the very poor (<em><a href='B:330 4:12'>Eze 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 13:19'>Eze 13:19</a></em>), costing a third the cost of wheat (<em><a href='B:730 6:6'>Rev 6:6</a></em>); and the Greek means 'little fishes'. It was all the very lowest of human provision which was turned into so much. The food provided is later interpreted by the Lord as His own flesh and blood, sacrificed to meet human hunger. The poorest, roughest of food was used to represent the Lord's nature and origins. It was God's blessing upon this which led to the abundant spiritual filling of all those who hungered for Him and His word.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:10'>Joh 6:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said: Make the people sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand</em>-</p><p> The command to recline at banquet "sit down" was to set up the similarity with the Messianic banquet, to which the Lord provided an open invitation to whoever wished to hear His word. Who could "sit down" at a feast was a major issue with the Jews; only those from whom there would be no guilt by association were invited to recline together. But the Lord operated no screening process, and goes on to compare this feast with the breaking of bread and the final Messianic banquet. From our side of things, we are not to screen, the invitation to the Lord's feast in this life and that to come is to be offered by us without screening. "Whoseoever will" is to be welcome. The only other time John uses the verb "sit down / recline" is in describing the scene at the last supper (<em><a href='B:500 13:12'>Joh 13:12</a></em>).</p><p>The mention of grass is to highlight the fact that Passover was about to begin, for grass is mowed in Palestine in April. Or it could be that the grass refers to hay from the recent mowing. The point is that this feast was the Lord's equivalent of the Passover feast, and later in this chapter He predicates salvation upon participating in it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:11'>Joh 6:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus therefore took the loaves and having given thanks, he distributed them to those that were sitting down. Likewise also the fishes, as much as they could eat</em>-</p><p> Other manuscripts as AV add: "Distributed them to the disciples and the disciples to those that were sitting...". Time and again, it becomes apparent that the Lord especially designed incidents in His men’s experience which they would learn from, and later be able to put to use when similar experiences occurred after He had ascended. This was essential to the training of the twelve disciples. Thus He made&nbsp;<em>them&nbsp;</em>distribute the food to the multitude (<em><a href='B:500 6:11'>Joh 6:11</a></em>); yet after His ascension, we meet the same Greek word in <em><a href='B:510 4:35'>Act 4:35</a></em>, describing how they were to distribute welfare to the multitude of the Lord’s followers. The visual image suggested of the Lord holding the bread in His hands, blessing and giving to the disciples is so clearly recollective of the scene at the last supper. "As much as they could eat" is unique to John, and emphasizes the super abundance of the Lord's spiritual provision.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:12'>Joh 6:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the broken pieces which remain over, so nothing goes to waste</em>-</p><p> The language of 'filling' must be in understood in John's Gospel as referring to filling with the Spirit. The Lord's body, His being, His Spirit, His life, His word, was to fill His people, mediated through the work of the disciples.</p><p>The gathering up is twice mentioned (:13). The same word is used of the gathering together of the Gentiles in one with the Jews (<em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>). "Waste" is a word commonly used of the lost, of how the Lord wants none to perish. It is His will that none should perish, and that was the reason for His death (<em><a href='B:500 3:15-16'>Joh 3:15-16</a></em> s:w:). The intention of His cross is therefore lived out in all our efforts to bring others to salvation, to keep them in the path, and not to "perish". All such efforts will have His special blessing and Spirit behind them. The Lord uses the same word in describing the food He had created as 'perishing' (:27; s:w. "goes to waste"). He is making the point that if the food was gathered then it would&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>perish. The allusion is clearly to the gathering of the manna, but the idea is that the food created represented something that would not perish, eternal life. The gathering in of the Gentiles is in view, but so is the simple fact that the broken ones, the fragments, are also to be saved. And the Lord has delegated that work of gathering them to us His disciples.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:13'>Joh 6:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten</em>-</p><p> The twelve baskets clearly suggest the formation of a new Israel from the broken ones "fragments", through the work of the disciples. We recall how the Gentile woman wished to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the table of the Jewish Kingdom (<em><a href='B:480 7:28'>Mar 7:28</a></em>). This again encourages us to see this ingathering of broken ones, that left over by the Jewish crowd, as symbolic of the ingathering of the Gentiles by the disciples taking the Gospel to the Gentile world- a commission they were terribly slow to perceive.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>.</p><p><em>When the people saw the sign which he did, they said: This is of a truth the prophet that comes into the world</em>-</p><p> The miracle of the loaves and fishes made men see the similarity between the Lord and Moses, whom they perceived to have provided the manna&nbsp;(:32). Therefore they thought that Jesus must be the prophet like Moses, of whom Moses wrote. But the Lord goes on to explain that He was greater than Moses, because Moses' bread only gave them temporal life, whereas if a man ate of Him, he would live for ever; His words would give spiritual life which was part of that "eternal life" of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 6:49-50'>Joh 6:49-50</a></em>). The Jews thought that the prophet like Moses of <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em> was a prophet equal or inferior to Moses. John's Gospel records how Christ was showing that the prophet would be greater than Moses. Martha understood that when she said that "the Christ... which should come into the world" (i:e. the prophet of <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>) was "the Son of God", and therefore Jesus of Nazareth (<em><a href='B:500 11:27'>Joh 11:27</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take him by force to make him king, withdrew again to the mountain by himself</em>-</p><p> "Take him by force" could even imply kidnapping, taking Him away to be their puppet in a revolution against Rome. The Lord clearly felt the need for intense personal prayer at this time; the temptation to attempt to become an immediate Messianic King was great for Him, and this was a recurrence of the wilderness temptation to that same effect. John doesn't record the wilderness temptations, but he records how the same temptations returned to Him throughout His ministry, in fulfilment of the Synoptic observation that the devil of temptation departed from Him only for a while, implying it returned later.</p><p>Prayer in one sense has to be a lonely experience. This is all surely why the Lord Himself is frequently pictured by the Gospel writers as making an effort to be alone in prayer to the Father (<em><a href='B:480 1:35'>Mar 1:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:13'>Mar 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:2'>Mar 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:23'>Mat 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:12'>Luk 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:39'>Luk 22:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:41'>Luk 22:41</a></em>). This is all some emphasis. Be it rising in the early hours to go out and find a lonely place to pray, or withdrawing a stone’s throw from the disciples in Gethsemane to pray… He sought to be alone. <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em> emphasizes this repeated feature of the Lord’s life: “He departed again into a mountain himself alone”. The fact He often “again” retreated alone like this is emphasized by three words which are effectively saying the same thing- departed, himself, alone. Much as we should participate in communal prayers or in the prayers of our partner or our children, there simply has to be the time for serious personal prayer in our lives. And I have to drive the point home:&nbsp;<em>Are you doing this?</em>&nbsp;Putting it in other terms- are you alone&nbsp;<em>enough?</em></p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:16'>Joh 6:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when evening came, his disciples went down to the sea</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:500 6:15-17'>Joh 6:15-17</a></em> implies they got tired of waiting for the Lord Jesus to return from prayer, and so they pushed off home to Capernaum, leaving Him alone. Yet by grace He came after them on the lake, to their salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:17'>Joh 6:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they entered into a boat and were going over by sea to Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them</em>-</p><p> "Not yet" suggests, as hinted at in the synoptics, that He had promised to rejoin them. He wanted them to exercise their minds and assume that He would indeed keep His promise and come to them- but by walking on the water. His promise of returning to us likewise demands faith and a stretching of our paradigms. For the promise of the Comforter was that the Lord would indeed 'come to them', but through the indwelling of the Spirit. He was training them- trying to get them to consider the words 'I will come to you' as being capable of fulfilment in ways they could not previously imagine. He likewise works in educating us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:18'>Joh 6:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the sea was rising because of a great wind that blew</em>-</p><p> The similarities with Jonah are apparent. The storm was to bring them to repentance, to make them appreciate their mission to the Gentiles which had been implicit in their gathering up the fragments dropped by Israel, and forming 12 baskets of a new Israel. But as with Jonah, they needed a near death experience in a storm to get them to perceive this.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:19'>Joh 6:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When therefore they had rowed about five or six kilometres, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat; and they were afraid</em>-</p><p> They rowed rather than sailed because the wind was against them; and recall that in Hebrew thought, wind and the spirit are the same words. Their desire to run back home to Capernaum, away from this challenge to harvest the Gentiles, was resisted by the Spirit. Their fear of the approaching Lord Jesus was perhaps because they did subconsciously recognize Him, but feared a meeting with Him again, as they were fleeing from His work of grace towards the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:20'>Joh 6:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he said to them: It is I Be not afraid</em>-</p><p> It was not that they thought He was someone else, like a ghost. "They saw Jesus" (:19). So His assurance to them was that "It is I", the "I am" (Gk:), the One with the character and Name of God, who above all wanted their salvation. And there was no need to fear Him; He was their saviour. For salvation by grace is at the heart of the memorial Name "I am". "It is I" recalls many Old Testament passages where God declares Himself as Israel's saviour, the "I am", who also walks upon the waves of the sea and brings peace to the storm. The Lord was asking them to see in Him the human face of that saviour God, the manifestation of that Name in a human person; and to accept that for them it meant salvation, and they need not fear, even their own sins and rejection of the commission to the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:21'>Joh 6:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going</em>-</p><p> John speaks in his Gospel of those who received Christ (<em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:16'>Joh 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:32'>Joh 3:32</a></em> etc:)- and it is in allusion to this that he speaks of how the disciples ‘received Christ’ into their ship whilst about to drown on Galilee. Their desperation as they faced death was understood by John as a symbol of the desperation of all those who truly receive Christ. But without perceiving our desperation, can we properly ‘receive’ Him? The Lord did not stop them from their plan to return home; He made the boat arrive immediately at the land where they intended going, "to which they were going away" (Gk:). This is typical of His ways with men; we are not stopped from our path, but His intervention on the way is such that with Him now with us, we see the end point so differently.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:22'>Joh 6:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea noticed that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone</em>-</p><p> Incident after incident shows the Lord doing something alone, and then the disciples somehow being presented as doing the same. Take the way He departed “himself alone” when the crowd wanted to make Him king; and then soon afterwards we read that the crowd perceived that the disciples had likewise departed ‘themselves alone’ same Greek phrase and construction, <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:22'>Joh 6:22</a></em>. The point is that the world is presented as perceiving the disciples in the same terms and way as they did Jesus, even when, in this case, Jesus was not physically with them. And we too are to be “in Him” in our work of witness for Him.</p><p>The incident was intended to teach that the Lord's presence could be achieved without His literal presence at all times. This was to prepare the audience for the amazing promise of the Comforter, that through the Spirit, the Lord could be present as really as He had been during His ministry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:23'>Joh 6:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>(Some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks)</em>-</p><p> John was himself a fisherman and knew Tiberias boats from those of Capernaum. This is typical of the inspiration process; personal knowledge is worked with through the process of inspiration. They came searching for Him, noting He had not got into the single boat the disciples used. They then went to Capernaum and found Him there- the miracle of His walking on the water was left for them to figure out, for there is more subtly in the Divine than to trumpet His achievements in a primitive way. The wonderful things He does for us today likewise need to be meditated upon to be perceived.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:24'>Joh 6:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus</em>-</p><p> They assumed He was still somewhere in the area, since He had not gone in the boat with the disciples. They thought that His physical presence was required for miracles and blessing; hence the Lord left them to meditate upon His crossing of the stormy sea and presence in Capernaum, where in physical terms He could not have become immediately present without the Spirit.</p><p>Their "seeking" of the Lord was on a purely surface level. Like Israel we can seek God daily, taking delight in approaching unto Him; and yet need the exhortation to urgently seek Him (<em><a href='B:290 55:6'>Isa 55:6</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 58:2'>Isa 58:2</a></em>). We can appear to seek unto Him in prayer and attendance at our meetings, and yet not seek Him in the real sense at all. Likewise men came to Jesus physically, at quite some effort to themselves, and yet He tells them that they have not truly come to Him at all (<em><a href='B:500 6:24'>Joh 6:24</a></em> cp. 35-37). We can draw near with our mouth, honour Him with our lips, “but have removed our heart far from me” (<em><a href='B:290 29:13'>Isa 29:13</a></em>). Only those who call upon Him “in truth”, with “unfeigned lips” will he heard (<em><a href='B:230 145:18'>Psa 145:18</a></em>). Men repeatedly ‘sought for’ the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 1:37'>Mar 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:26'>Joh 6:26</a></em>), but He told them to&nbsp;<em>truly</em>&nbsp;seek Him (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:31'>Luk 12:31</a></em>). “Strive to enter in now at the strait gate: for many at judgment day will seek to enter in, and shall not be able” (<em><a href='B:490 13:24'>Luk 13:24</a></em>). Our attitude to seeking the Lord now will be the attitude we have then. The emotion and reality of the judgment experience will not essentially change our attitude to the Lord. If we have “boldness” in prayer now (<em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>), then we will have “boldness in the day of judgment”. How we feel to Him now is how we will then.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:25'>Joh 6:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi, when did you come here?</em>-</p><p> Often we ask questions which disguise our essential question, which we are afraid to ask or verbalize. The real question was&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;He had come to Capernaum. But they covered this by enquiring&nbsp;<em>when</em>. In their hearts they must surely have sensed that He had also performed a miracle in terms of His presence. And He wished to stretch the thinking of His true followers on this point, leading them up to His paradigm breaking promise of the Comforter, His presence realized by the Spirit and without His physical presence. Their seeking and 'finding' Him was on a purely human level; see on :24.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:26'>Joh 6:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered them and said: Truly, truly, I say to you: You seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled</em>-</p><p> They did not see the signs in the sense that they did not perceive the intended teaching of the miracle. They were focused purely on the immediate benefit of food. John records the Lord's discourse to the end we might see or perceive the sign of the miracle. The allusion is to <em><a href='B:230 74:9'>Psa 74:9</a></em> LXX, where Israel did not 'see their signs' because there was no prophet amongst them. They didn't see the sign because they failed to really perceive Him as the ultimate prophet. They claimed to see Him as the prophet (:14), but not in reality. The whole record brings out the tension between surface level spirituality and true faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do not labour for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set His seal of approval</em>-</p><p> The people laboured in that they walked around the lake in the boiling midday sun in order to be with Christ and perhaps benefit from the physical food He might provide:&nbsp; He tells them not to labour for the food which would perish, but for that which would endure for ever. The labouring of those people, trekking around that lake in the heat of the day, or crossing it by boat, should be the effort we put in to eating the manna of God's word- according to how the Lord. There was a theme of urgency in Israel's gathering of the manna; it had to be gathered before the sun was up, or it would be lost. Would that we could have that same sense of urgency as we read, realizing that the rising of the sun at the second coming of will put an end to our opportunity to feed and grow. If Israel didn't gather the manna, or if they left it to another day, it bred worms and stank. The active anger of God was to be expressed against those who didn't take the wonder of the manna seriously. So our gathering of the manna / word must be taken seriously; it's not a question of skim reading familiar words, or doing mental gymnastics with it in an intellectual world of our own.</p><p>The food which the Lord provided was His body and life, given above all upon the cross. He urges His hearers to labour to possess this, because this is the food that will abide in / into Gk:&nbsp;<em>eis</em>&nbsp;the life eternal (<em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em> -AV ‘endures unto’ is a poor translation). The essence of having and ‘eating’ of the Lord’s sacrifice now, is what eternal life is to be all about. Through the gift of the Spirit, the Lord was giving them His life, the eternal life. Absorbing Him, His sacrifice, the food which is Him, begins now… and in so doing, we are eating of the food / bread that will abide into the life eternal. He surely had in mind too the manna stored in the ark, which was eaten in the wilderness and yet abode / endured into Israel’s life in the promised land. And that bread, of course, was symbolic of Him; it is the “hidden manna” which His followers will eat in the future Kingdom (<em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>). <em><a href='B:560 1:17-18'>Eph 1:17-18</a></em> puts it another way, by paralleling "the knowledge of Christ" with "knowing what is the hope of his calling... the riches of the glory of his inheritance". The blessed hope of our calling is not simply a life of bliss in ideal conditions, but more specifically it is the hope of 'knowing Christ' as person eternally, in all the glorious fullness of that experience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They replied to him: What must we do, that we may work the works of God?</em>-</p><p> They ignored His challenge regarding accepting His life, by enquiring how they too could do miracles. This is the same wrong perspective which is characteristic of Pentecostalism: How can I do miracles?</p><p>The people had walked all around the lake to see Jesus and get some food from Him. They ask what they can&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;that they might work / labour same Greek word the works of God; and they are told that the real work / labour which God requires is to believe (<em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>). To truly believe, to the extent of being sure that we will surely have the eternal life promised, is the equivalent of walking around the lake. We like those crowds want to concretely&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something. The young man likewise had asked what good thing he must&nbsp;<em>do&nbsp;</em>in order to get eternal life (<em><a href='B:470 19:16'>Mat 19:16</a></em>). But the real work is to&nbsp;<em>believe</em>. To really make that enormous mental effort to accept that what God has promised in Christ will surely come true for us. The proof that this is so is because Jesus really said these words, and “him hath God the Father sealed”, i:e. shown His confirmation and acceptance of. So again we come down to the implications of real basics. Do we believe Jesus existed and said those words? Yes. Do we believe the Biblical record is true and inspired? Yes. Well, this Jesus who made these promises and statements about eternal life was “sealed” / validated by God. Do we believe this? Yes. So, what He said is utterly true. He will come and live within us, if we eat of Him, if we are open to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God- that you believe in him whom He has sent</em>-</p><p> God's work is understood in the context here as miracles. The people wanted to know how they might perform God's works, miracles like making free bread. And as was ever His style, the Lord turns the words of the question another way. God's work is that we believe. Human belief is therefore His work- which we must allow to happen to us, rather than seeking to do works. It's rather like David asking to build God a house, and being told that instead, God would build him a house- if he and his children allowed the way of the Spirit to operate. But this response was totally missed by the crowd- they wanted another miracle (:30), clearly in the hope that again they might materially benefit from it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:30'>Joh 6:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They replied to him: What then will you do for a sign, so that we may see and believe you? What work will you do?</em>-</p><p> The Lord could have spoken words similar to <em><a href='B:650 11:1'>Heb 11:1</a></em> to them- He could have corrected them by saying that actually, faith is not related to what you can see. You cannot “see and believe” in the true sense of belief. But the Lord doesn’t do that. He says that He in front of them is the bread of God, miraculously given. And their critical tone changes: “Lord, evermore give us this bread” (:34). This surely is our pattern- not to necessarily correct every error when we see it, but to pick up something the other person has said and develop it, to bring them towards truth.</p><p>The sign or miracle they wanted was of yet more free bread, in order to compare with Moses who had given Israel manna. They had been given that sign- but they wanted it again, that they might benefit from it. They were missing the point that the Lord was greater than Moses.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:31'>Joh 6:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: He gave them bread out of heaven to eat</em>-</p><p> The Lord's reply shows that the "he" they had in view was Moses. They wanted Him to again demonstrate that He was the prophet like Moses (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). But He was greater than Moses, and the manna He would give was of salvation, and not temporary food for the day.</p><p>The living word of God which speaks to us each personally. In this sense, we are constantly being invited to place ourselves in the position of those who played a part in the historical incidents which that word records. The Jews quoted to the Lord Jesus: “He gave&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;bread from heaven to eat”, to which the Lord replied after the teaching style of the rabbis to which they were accustomed by changing and challenging a word in the quotation they made: “It is not Moses who gave&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;the bread”. He wanted them to see that the account of bread being given to Israel in the wilderness was not just dry history:&nbsp;<em>They</em>, right there and then, were as it were receiving that same bread from Heaven. See on <em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus replied to them: Truly, truly, I say to you: It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven, but my Father; who now gives you the true bread out of heaven</em>-</p><p> They were so focused upon Moses that they failed to appreciate the operation of God through Him by the Spirit. This is the typical failure of religious people- to focus upon the structure, the means to the end, rather than perceive the ultimate source and end, that which is before and behind and beyond the religious structure or individual they are so focused upon. And we can take that message to ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 6:33'>Joh 6:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world</em>-</p><p>These words, and others like them, are misused to support the wrong idea that Jesus existed in Heaven before his birth. Trinitarians take these words as literal in order to prove their point. However, if we are to take them literally, then this means that somehow Jesus literally came down as a person. Not only is the Bible totally silent about this, but the language of Jesus being conceived as a baby in Mary’s womb is made meaningless. <em><a href='B:500 6:60'>Joh 6:60</a></em> describes the teaching about the manna as a saying “hard to take in” (Moffatt’s Translation); i:e. we need to understand that it is figurative language being used. The Lord Jesus is explaining how the manna was a type of himself. The manna was sent from God in the sense that it was God who was responsible for creating it on the earth; it did not physically float down from the throne of God in Heaven. Thus the Lord’s coming from Heaven is to be understood likewise; he was created on earth, by the Holy Spirit acting upon the womb of Mary (<em><a href='B:490 1:35'>Luk 1:35</a></em>).</p><p>The Lord Jesus says that “the bread that I will give is my flesh” (:51). Trinitarians claim that it was the ‘God’ part of Jesus which came down from Heaven. But the Lord says that it was his “flesh” which was the bread which came down from Heaven. Likewise He associates the bread from Heaven with himself as the “Son of man” (<em><a href='B:500 6:62'>Joh 6:62</a></em>), not ‘God the Son’. In this same passage in John 6 there is abundant evidence that He was not equal to God. “The living Father has sent me” (<em><a href='B:500 6:57'>Joh 6:57</a></em>) shows that He and God do not share co-equality; and the fact that “I live by the Father” (<em><a href='B:500 6:57'>Joh 6:57</a></em>) is hardly the ‘co-eternity’ of which Trinitarians speak.</p><p>It must be asked, When and how did Jesus ‘come down’ from Heaven? The Lord Jesus speaks of himself as “he which cometh down from heaven” (:33,50), as if it is an ongoing process. Speaking of God’s gift of His Son, the Lord said “My Father is giving you the bread” from Heaven (v:32 Weymouth). At the time the Lord was speaking these words, he had already ‘come down’ in a certain sense, in that He had been sent by God. Because of this, He could also speak in the past tense: “I am the living bread which came down from Heaven” (:51). But he also speaks about ‘coming down’ as the bread from Heaven in the form of His death on the cross: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (v:51). So we have the Lord Jesus speaking here of having already come down from Heaven, being in the process of ‘coming down’, and still having to ‘come down’ in His death on the cross. This fact alone should prove that ‘coming down’ refers to God manifesting Himself, rather than only referring to the Lord’s birth. This is conclusively proved by all the Old Testament references to God ‘coming down’ having just this same meaning. Thus God saw the affliction of His people in Egypt, and ‘came down’ to save them through Moses. He has seen our bondage to sin, and has ‘come down’ or manifested Himself, by sending Jesus as the equivalent to Moses to lead us out of bondage.</p><p>A Devotional Appeal</p><p>The Lord's language of coming down from Heaven can be understood from a very powerful devotional aspect. He reasons that because He had&nbsp;<em>come</em>&nbsp;down from Heaven, therefore, whoever&nbsp;<em>comes&nbsp;</em>to Him, He would never reject (<em><a href='B:500 6:37-38'>Joh 6:37-38</a></em>). The connection is in the word "come". We 'come' to Jesus not by physically travelling towards Him, but in our mental attitudes. He likewise 'comes' to us, not by moving trillions of kilometres from Heaven to earth, but in His 'coming' down into our lives and experiences. If He has come so very far to meet us, and we come to Him... then surely we will meet and He will not turn away from us, exactly because He has 'come' so far to meet us. This theme continues throughout John's Gospel. "What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (<em><a href='B:500 6:62'>Joh 6:62</a></em>) is therefore not a reference to Him physically travelling off anywhere- He is saying that if people would not 'come' to Him in meeting, then He would withdraw the opportunity from them. He wouldn't stand waiting for them indefinitely. This explains the urgency behind His appeals to 'come' to Him. He had 'come down', and was waiting for people to 'come' to Him. He's come a huge distance, from the heavenly heights of His own spirituality, to meet with whores and gamblers, hobby level religionists, self-absorbed little people... and if we truly come to Him, if we want to meet with Him, then of course He will never turn us away. For it was to meet with us that He 'came down'. This approach shows the fallacy of interpreting His 'coming down' to us and our 'coming' to Him in a literal sense.</p><p>And yet this Lord of all grace also sought to confirm men and women in the path they chose. He admitted that His comment about Himself being the manna which descended from Heaven was a "hard saying". And yet He goes straight on to say perhaps with a slight smile playing at the corner of His lips something even more enigmatic: "What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (<em><a href='B:500 6:62'>Joh 6:62</a></em>). Surely He is here choosing to give them yet another, even harder "saying"; and goes on to stress that His sayings, His words, are the way to life eternal (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>). For those who didn't want His words, He was confirming them in their darkness. And He did this by the mechanism of using an evidently "hard saying". Therefore to simplistically interpret the saying as meaning that the Lord had literally descended from Heaven through the sky just as literally as He would ascend there through the clouds... is in fact to quite miss the point- that this is a "hard saying". It's not intended to have a simplistic, literalistic interpretation.</p><p>Life was given to the world not only in the sense of eternal life. A way of life was shown to us, the only way of life- the life of the cross. It is a frequently found paradox in Scripture that life comes through death. The Lord’s cross and resurrection are the prime example. However, it is not simply that His death opened the way to eternal life for us at His coming. It gives us spiritual life now, in that all that we do in our being and living should be motivated by the spirit of the cross. Each of the myriad daily decisions we take should be impacted by our knowledge of the cross. In this way, the cross gives life right now.</p>


