# commentaries

text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I manifested Your Name to the men whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were and You gave them to me, and they have kept Your word</em>-</p><p> The manifestation of the Name has echoes of the Angel manifesting the Name to Moses; here, the Lord is as the Angel, and the disciples are likened to Moses, which was a huge challenge to a mindset which considered Moses as the untouchable pinnacle of spirituality. But His manifestation of the Name was far greater than had happened then. We note that "Name" effectively means 'the whole person', all they stand for, characteristics, history and essence of being. The manifestation of the Name in the person of the Lord was throughout His life, but it would come to an intense climax in His manifestation of it on the cross (:26). It was not made to the Jewish world, but to those who had come out of that world, rather like Moses going out of the congregation of Israel in order to behold the manifestation of the Name to him.</p><p>As noted on :5, the Lord is here speaking to the Father, and as such has His perspective on time and existence. He speaks of the men whom the Father had given Him, as if they had always existed. They were given to Him, just as "the work" was given Him (:4). That "work" was therefore the salvation of those given Him, those foreknown and predestined to that call. The men having been given out of the Jewish world recalls&nbsp;the Levites being "given" to Aaron / the priesthood out of&nbsp;Israel (<em><a href='B:40 3:9'>Num 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 8:19'>Num 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:6'>Num 18:6</a></em>); at the time of the golden calf they "observed your word, and kept your covenant" (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>, cp. "they have kept your word"), as did the disciples. The relationship between Moses and the Levites was therefore that between the Lord and the disciples- a sense of thankfulness that at least a minority were faithful.</p><p>The idea of the manifestation of the Name recalls the prologue's statement in <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> that when the word of God was made flesh in the Son of God, we saw the glory of God. If “The word” which was made flesh is in fact a reference to the Name of God, then this becomes understandable. And so the&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>of God, the Name of God, being with Him in the beginning and being Him in a sense, was revealed fully in the human person (“flesh”) of the Lord Jesus. The Lord said this in so many words: “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me” (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>). John surely has this in mind when he comments that the word / Name became flesh, and we saw that glory, but others in “the world” didn’t perceive it (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>).</p><p>"They have kept your word" is the Lord speaking positively to the Father about His followers, just as He does concerning us today. The Lord's High Priestly prayer of intercession in John 17 so called because of the way He speaks of 'sanctifying Himself' reveals how positively He felt about the disciples- even though He knew and foretold that they were about to betray Him, deny Him and leave Him alone in His hour of greatest human need. His grace towards them here is quite profound. He describes them to His Father as those who "have kept your word"- referring to His own parable of the good ground, those who keep the word and bring forth fruit with patience (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). Again, He tells His Father about them: "They have believed that You did send me" (<em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>). But He had just upbraided them for their&nbsp;<em>un</em>belief in Him (<em><a href='B:500 16:31'>Joh 16:31</a></em>), and would do so again in a few days’ time (<em><a href='B:480 16:14'>Mar 16:14</a></em>). Yet He presents His weak followers to the Father as so much better than they really were; and this is the same Lord who mediates for us today. Likewise, the Lord assures the Father that they were not "of the Jewish world" (<em><a href='B:500 17:14'>Joh 17:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:16'>Joh 17:16</a></em>), even though as we have shown in these studies, they were deeply influenced by the Jewish world around them. Perhaps the Lord looked ahead to the day when they would be spiritually stronger, and yet He presents the immature disciples to the Father from the perspective of how He hoped they would one day be. Thus He says that He has already "sent them into the world" (<em><a href='B:500 17:18'>Joh 17:18</a></em>)- but this was only done by Him in its fullness&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;His resurrection. He speaks of how He was glorified in them before the Jewish world (<em><a href='B:500 17:10'>Joh 17:10</a></em>)- when He knew Peter was about to deny Him and shame His whole cause and mission. But surely the Lord looked ahead to the hope He had in Peter and all of them, that they would go out into the world and glorify Him. Indeed, the whole prayer of John 17 reveals how the Lord presented them to the Father as men who in many ways they simply were not. When they say “We believe… that you came forth from God”, He comments: “Do you now believe?” and predicts their scattering. Yet in prayer to the Father, He says that they did believe “Surely… that I came out from thee” (<em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>). Their faith was anything but “sure”. Likewise, we have shown above that they failed to really perceive His death, and thus failed to perceive the essence of&nbsp;<em>Him</em>. In the face of this tragedy, this frustration and pain, the Lord could calmly tell the Father: “I am glorified&nbsp;<em>in them</em>” (<em><a href='B:500 17:10'>Joh 17:10</a></em>)- in they who understood so little, indeed who refused to understand. Even worse, the Lord had just been telling them that they didn’t really love Him fully (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</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>). And yet He speaks to the Father of them as if they are&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;committed to Him:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord’s comment to the disciples that if they loved him, then they would ‘keep his word’ (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>) implies their love was at best imperfect. Their keeping of His word and loving Him was certainly under question in <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>. And yet He confidently represents them to the Father as those who had kept His word (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>). Perhaps by this He simply means that they loved Him and thereby the Father, rather than claiming any particular level of obedience for them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:7'>Joh 17:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now they know that all things, whatever You have given me, are from You</em>-</p><p> As noted on :6, there was much they did not know / understand / believe, which is the sense of 'knowing' in John. The Lord imputed more understanding and faith to them than they really had. The Last Supper discourse showed clearly enough that they didn't understand or "know" (<em><a href='B:500 14:7'>Joh 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:9'>Joh 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:5'>Joh 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:18'>Joh 16:18</a></em>). Yet here, He uses the perfect tense of the verb 'to know' when He says "Now they have come to know..." . It's almost as if He increasingly imputed things to them which were not yet so, as increasingly He faced up to the reality and implications of His death for them:&nbsp;The disciples didn’t “know” the things the Lord spoke to them about His origin and purpose- they only “knew” them after the resurrection (<em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:6'>Joh 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:7'>Joh 13:7</a></em>). <em><a href='B:500 14:7'>Joh 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:9'>Joh 14:9</a></em> is plain: “If you had known me… yet have you not known me”, He tells the disciples. And yet He uses just that same Greek word in telling the Father that His men did “know” Him and His word (<em><a href='B:500 17:7-8'>Joh 17:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>). He had faith and hope in their future maturity- they didn’t then “know”, but they did in the future (<em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:7'>Joh 13:7</a></em>). The Lord had hope that “In that day you shall know” (<em><a href='B:500 14:20'>Joh 14:20</a></em>). For there was no absolute guarantee that the eleven would come to “know” Him and His word, seeing they had freewill- Jesus had faith they would, and He expressed that faith and Hope to the Father so positively.</p><p>The things given the Son were the disciples (:6). Perhaps the sense is that they now realized and believed that they had been given to the Son by the Father, and were therefore 'with' the Father.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 16:27'>Joh 16:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>For the words which You gave me I have given to them, and they received them, and knew as a truth that I came forth from You; and they believed that You did send me</em>-</p><p> The connection with the prologue is in the way that the Jewish world did not receive the Lord as a person, but the disciples did. "He" as a person is hereby paralleled with His words:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord told the Father that He had given the disciples His words, “and they have received them” (<em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>). This is evident allusion to the editorial comment in <em><a href='B:50 33:3'>Deu 33:3</a></em> about how all Israel received God’s words through Moses. Likewise “I manifested thy name… they have kept thy word” (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>) = “I will proclaim the name of the Lord… they have observed thy word” (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). One marvels at the way the Lord’s mind linked together so much Scripture in the artless, seamless way in which He did.</p><p>Their 'receiving' of the Lord's words should not be read as meaning that they reviewed all His recorded speech, as it were the 'red letter' sections of the New Testament, and accepted them as true or reasonable. The prologue defines the disciples as those who received "Him" (<em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:20'>Joh 13:20</a></em>). There is a common parallel between Him personally and His words (<em><a href='B:500 5:43'>Joh 5:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>). His words are put for Him as a person, as noted elsewhere. They received not just His spoken words but all His "fullness", the "testimony" of His person, His spirit (<em><a href='B:500 1:16'>Joh 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:33'>Joh 3:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:17'>Joh 14:17</a></em>). They received 'Him' in the sense of allowing Him into their hearts and lives, allowing Him to fill them and abide in them. This is not quite the same as intellectual acceptance of words spoken as true and reasonable. Hence the same word is used about the receiving of the gift of the Spirit in the innermost being (<em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:22'>Joh 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:27'>1Jn 2:27</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:9'>Joh 17:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:610 2:2'>1Ti 2:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>I pray for them. I pray not for the world, but for those whom You have given me; for they are Yours</em>-</p><p> The disciples were given to the Lord out of the Jewish world, as the Levites were. As the Levites were God's (<em><a href='B:40 3:12-13'>Num 3:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:45'>Num 3:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 8:14'>Num 8:14</a></em>), so are the believers. The Levites represent us (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>); the relationship between Moses and the Levites represents that between the Lord and us. Moses' thankfulness that they remained faithful during the golden calf crisis, that sense of being able to rely on them, will be reflected in the Lord's feelings toward the faithful. His statement that He prayed not for the Jewish world recalls the command to Jeremiah not to pray for the Jewish world of his day, for they had spurned multiple chances and now had to face judgment.</p><p>The Lord Jesus worked through individuals. His strategy was not so much to win the multitudes for His cause as to firmly found the faith of a few women and 12 men who would then take His message to the world. The men He chose were like us- impulsive, temperamental, easily offended, burdened with all the prejudices of their environment. Their mannerisms were probably awkward and their abilities limited. But He prayed for them, as we should for those converts the Lord grants us, “not for the world” perhaps, not&nbsp;<em>so much for the world as for</em>&nbsp;those few whom the Father had given Him out of the world. Everything depended upon them, for “through their word” the world was to believe (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:9'>Joh 17:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>). With all the powers of the universe at His command, the Lord could have chosen a programme of mass recruitment. But He didn’t. They were to follow Him, so that later they would become fishers of men on a larger scale than He chose then to work on&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 1:17'>Mar 1:17</a></em>). They would later bear witness because they had been with Him from the beginning (<em><a href='B:500 15:27'>Joh 15:27</a></em>). In the few years they were with Him, those men learnt of Him</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:10'>Joh 17:10</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>All things that are mine are Yours, and Yours are mine, and I am glorified in them</em>-</p><p> His comment that “I am glorified in them” was evidently said in hope and faith that they would glorify Him- for before His death He “was not yet glorified” (<em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>). Indeed, <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em> suggests that the disciples only “glorified” Him after the resurrection, once they remembered and understood His words and actions properly. It was through “bearing much fruit” that the disciples would glorify Him (<em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>)- and they evidently hadn’t started doing that. Indeed, from when Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane, the Father was indeed glorified in Him- but not through the disciples, who ran away in denial of their Lord (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:31'>Joh 13:31</a></em>). And yet the Lord Jesus confidently asserts to His Father, to God Almighty, that He was glorified in the disciples (<em><a href='B:500 17:10'>Joh 17:10</a></em>). As noted on :6, we see here how positive He was in prayer to the Father about His followers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I am no more in the world; but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them whom You have given me in Your Name, that they may be one, even as we are one</em>-</p><p> As noted on <em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em>, the going to the Father meant going to the cross. His presence with the Father meant that the Father would "keep" them just as the Lord had "kept" them whilst physically present with them (:12). This 'keeping' was and is achieved through the gift of the Spirit, keeping hearts and minds faithful. Those begotten by the Spirit are thereby "kept" from the wicked one and sin generally (<em><a href='B:690 5:18'>1Jn 5:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:3'>2Th 3:3</a></em>), "preserved s:w. "kept" in Christ" and from falling (<em><a href='B:720 1:1'>Jud 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>), kept by the Holy Spirit which dwells within us (<em><a href='B:620 1:14'>2Ti 1:14</a></em>). This 'keeping' is part of a mutual relationship, for often we read of the need to 'keep' the Lord's words.</p><p>There are many points of contact between the Lord as the seed of the woman in the garden of Gethsemane and Eve in the garden of Eden- e.g. "Those whom you gave me" recalls Adam's "the woman which Thou gavest Me" (caused me to be sinful in Your sight- as we did to Jesus on the cross in the same garden). Not least there is the contrast between the struggles against temptation which took place in the same garden.</p><p><em><a href='B:690 3:23'>1Jn 3:23</a></em> associates believing on the Name with loving each other; and in <em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em> Christ prays that God will keep us all as one&nbsp;<em>through His own Name</em>. So often God's Name is associated with unity. God's Name is connected with His being "the Holy&nbsp;<em>One</em>" (<em><a href='B:290 29:23'>Isa 29:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 47:4'>Isa 47:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 57:15'>Isa 57:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:9'>Isa 60:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 39:7'>Eze 39:7</a></em>). God being the Holy&nbsp;<em>One</em>&nbsp;is a further statement of His unity. Of course, we are speaking of ideal things. False doctrine and practice, the uncertainty of knowing exactly who carries God's Name, these and many other limitations of our humanity make it hard to achieve the unity which this theory speaks of. But the unity we do achieve is a foretaste of the Kingdom; unless we&nbsp;<em>love</em>&nbsp;this idea of unity, we will find ourselves out of place in the Kingdom. "In&nbsp;<em>that day</em>&nbsp;there shall be one Lord, and His Name one" (<em><a href='B:450 14:9'>Zec 14:9</a></em>). It may well be that <em><a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a></em> is alluding back to this verse; this passage inspires us to keep the unity of the Spirit, because here and now "there is one body, and one Spirit…&nbsp;<em>one Lord</em>&nbsp;…one baptism, one God"; in other words, Paul is saying that the unity of the Kingdom, as spoken of in <em><a href='B:450 14:9'>Zec 14:9</a></em>, must be found in the ecclesia of today. See on <em><a href='B:500 5:23'>Joh 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:32'>Mar 13:32</a></em>. There are several connections between there being one Name of God- one set of principles with which He identifies Himself- and unity between believers. David bad his people exalt God's Name "together", in unity (<em><a href='B:230 34:3'>Psa 34:3</a></em>). The fact that there will be one Lord and His Name one in the future will inspire unity amongst the whole world. By being kept "in the name", we are made one (<em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>)- by sharing in and developing that unique set of characteristics that comprise God's Name / personality, unity between us is enabled by the love, forgiveness, justice etc. which we will show.</p><p>The account of the tabernacle labours the point that the whole house of God, this huge but delicate structure, was held together by "clasps of brass to couple the tent together, that it might be one" (<em><a href='B:20 36:18'>Exo 36:18</a></em> and often). "That it might be one" is alluded to by the Lord when He prayed for His people, "that they might be one" (<em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21-23'>Joh 17:21-23</a></em>). The record of the tabernacle stresses how the system was based around a mass of boards, tenons, curtain couplings etc. God's dwelling place, His house, hangs together by millions of inter-personal connections. "Out of church Christians", in the sense of those who think they can go it alone in splendid isolation, are totally missing the point. We are encouraged to see the allusion by realizing that “Holy Father… righteous Father” (<em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>) was a form of address which the Lord had in a sense lifted from Moses when he addresses God as “righteous and holy” (<em><a href='B:50 32:4'>Deu 32:4</a></em> LXX). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>While I was with them, I kept them in Your Name which You have given me, and I guarded them; and not one of them perished except the son of perdition, so that the scripture might be fulfilled</em>-</p><p> As noted on :11, the 'keeping' here refers to spiritual keeping in the Way and in all the things bound up in the Father's Name. The Lord had done this whilst physically with them, and now He was leaving them, He asks the Father to continue that keeping. His going to the Father meant the giving of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to the believers; and this was and is the means by which we are kept or guarded in the things of the Name. The only one the Lord had not 'kept' or spiritually preserved was Judas. This of itself shows that the keeping in view is spiritual preservation, a matter of the heart; and this is therefore the arena of operation of the Father's keeping, guarding work, performed by the Spirit given into the hearts of believers.</p><p>The Hebraism 'the son of…' referred to a person having the characteristics of what they were 'the son of'. Judas acted like a condemned person, and so he was one. The fulfilment of Scripture may not simply refer to specific predictions about Judas the betrayer, such as <em><a href='B:230 109:8'>Psa 109:8</a></em>. The upcoming fulfilment of the Old Testament scriptures was to be in the Lord's death, and the idea may therefore be that Judas chose to be as he did, but this was used in God's wider plan in order to fulfil the Scriptures in the Lord's death.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves</em>-</p><p> The Lord was aware that His private prayer was being spoken publicly, out loud, and the disciples were listening and a transcript of it would be read by all generations afterwards. He spoke the prayer so publicly because He wanted them to see what His relationship with the Father was like, and to have that same relationship with the Father. He wanted them to have 'His joy' in relationship with the Father experienced within them / us. The Lord's joy was in our salvation (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>), that spiritual being were born into the world of the new creation (<em><a href='B:500 16:21'>Joh 16:21</a></em>) and human repentance (<em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>). By receiving the spirit of the Lord Jesus, His mindset becomes ours. His joy becomes our joy (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>). This explains the Lord's exhortation to ask in His name so that their joy might be fulfilled (<em><a href='B:500 16:24'>Joh 16:24</a></em>). This doesn't simply refer to the joy of receiving a request which has earlier been requested in prayer. The fullness of joy received means having the Lord's joy within us; having His Spirit / mind / value set. This means that the thing asked for was the Comforter, the mind of Christ, His Spirit, which included His joy; the mindset which rejoices in the things He rejoices in. And they are the things of human salvation and the glorification of the Father's Name.</p><p>The Lord had foreseen most aspects of His death: the handing over, the picking up of the cross, the carrying it, the being lifted up. In <em><a href='B:490 15:5'>Luk 15:5</a></em> the Lord spoke about how He as the good shepherd would carry the lost sheep on His shoulders,&nbsp;<em>rejoicing</em>. It is tempting to connect this with the way Christ spoke of His&nbsp;<em>joy</em>&nbsp;just hours before He was arrested. I am not suggesting there was&nbsp;<em>any</em>&nbsp;joy at all for the Lord in His carrying of the cross- not in the way we understand joy. But perhaps to Him, in His vocabulary, "my joy" meant something else; as for Him, 'eating' meant not eating food but doing the Father's will (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>). Whatever "rejoicing”, "my joy" meant for the Lord, He had that sense as He carried the cross on His shoulder.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:14'>Joh 17:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I have given them Your word, and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world</em>-</p><p> The Lord's gift of "Your word" surely doesn't mean that He presented them with a copy of the Bible, as it were. "I... give" are words found on the Lord's lips in John concerning His gift of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 4:14'>Joh 4:14</a></em>), of Himself on the cross as the bread of life (<em><a href='B:500 6:51'>Joh 6:51</a></em>), His glory (:22) and of His "example" in Himself and the person He was (<em><a href='B:500 13:26'>Joh 13:26</a></em>). The gift He gave in the immediate context was of the Comforter (<em><a href='B:500 14:16'>Joh 14:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>). God's word was "made flesh" according to the prologue, in the person of Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). Again, as noted earlier in John, "word" refers not simply to the literal Bible, but the expression of all a person is. God's "word" to men was in His Son, and the Lord had given Himself to the believers.</p><p>The disciples don't record much of the opposition they personally received. But here the Lord tells the Father that the Jewish world "hated" the disciples; in fulfilment of His comment that the Jewish world would "hate" any who testified of its wickedness (<em><a href='B:500 7:7'>Joh 7:7</a></em>). John develops this idea in a pastoral context in saying that it is the world who hates the Lord's people, and any who hates his brother in Christ is therefore of the world (<em><a href='B:690 2:9'>1Jn 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:20'>1Jn 4:20</a></em>). This all implies that the community of believers to whom John wrote had hatred against their brethren, and this marked them out as being of the Jewish world and not in fact believers at all. And the same powerful logic must be applied to all hatred within the church.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:15'>Joh 17:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I do not pray that You should take them out from the world, but that You should keep them from the evil</em>-</p><p> The association of "evil" with "the world" is clear. And in John, "the world" usually refers to the Jewish world. Clearly it was Judaism which was the source of "evil" for the early Christians, explaining why it is referred to as the great "satan" / adversary in the later New Testament. It’s observable that the Lord Jesus Himself prayed most parts of His model prayer in His own life situations. “Your will be done... Deliver us from evil” (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>) were repeated by Him in Gethsemane, when He asked for God’s will to be done and not His, and yet He prayed that&nbsp;<em>the disciples</em>&nbsp;would be delivered from evil. It is as if He prays the "Lord's prayer" for them; "keep them from the evil", although they should have been praying this for themselves. And there are times when we likewise almost have to pray prayers for others which they ought to be praying themselves.</p><p>The Lord reasoned that by remaining in the world, as He had been in the world, they could be the light of the world. He therefore speaks of the day when they shall be cast out of the synagogues (<em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>), which was spoken of by some Rabbis as being cast out of the Jewish world. He wanted them to remain as long as they could, and here He prays that the Father will enable this to happen- that they should not be taken out of the Jewish world. We see here His complete lack of any 'guilt by association' mentality.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:16'>Joh 17:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They are not of the world even as I am not of the world</em>-</p><p> He Himself made the point that if His Kingdom- i:e. the people under His Kingship- were of this world, then they would fight for Him (<em><a href='B:500 18:36'>Joh 18:36</a></em>). And that is exactly what they tried to do in Gethsemane They acted then as if they were indeed “of this world” by trying to fight for Jesus physically. And yet the Lord saw through to their inner spirit, and presented this to the Father as their being actually not of this world. The Lord's Heavenly origins, being "not of the world", are here imputed to His followers. His language of being from above and not from beneath therefore says nothing about any supposed personal pre-existence, or descent from Heaven to earth in some primitively literal sense. For all such language He applies here to His followers too.</p><p>To be "of the world" is later defined in <em><a href='B:690 2:16'>1Jn 2:16</a></em>: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vain glory of life, is not of the Father but is of the world". The Jewish world in which John's Jewish converts lived, for all its apparent righteousness and sanctimony, was structured around the lusts of the flesh and pride.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:17'>Joh 17:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Sanctify them in the truth. Your word is truth</em>-</p><p> The reference is to how the Levites were sanctified (<em><a href='B:130 23:13'>1Ch 23:13</a></em> Heb:). The Levites were initially consecrated in God's eyes by their zeal to rid Israel of apostasy; this is what constituted them Yahweh's "holy (sanctified) one" (<em><a href='B:50 33:8-9'>Deu 33:8-9</a></em>). They sanctified themselves to God, and He sanctified them. Through His allusions to this, the Lord was telling the disciples not to be frightened to stand alone from the Israelite community they knew; for it was deeply apostate. So often, the Lord is speaking of the development of a new Israel, with new Rabbis and Levites taken from the ranks of very ordinary and dysfunctional people who had believed in Him.</p><p>The teaching here is complemented and explained by :19: "And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they may also be sanctified in truth". They were sanctified in Him; because the Lord was supremely sanctified, holy in character, He was fitted for Divine service&nbsp;<em>par excellence</em>. And all that was true of Him was to be true of those in Him, as Paul later develops. They were sanctified because they were in Him, the supremely sanctified One. So "Sanctify them in the truth" is parallel with being sanctified on account of being in Him. "The truth" is therefore a reference to Himself personally, as in <em><a href='B:500 14:6'>Joh 14:6</a></em>. And that is confirmed by the statement: "Your word is truth". The prologue is clear that the Divine word was the Lord Jesus personally, made flesh in Him. The "word" of God in His Son refers to all we have seen and known of Him in Christ. That is the ultimate "truth" by which we are to live. It is nothing but shoddy Biblical workmanship which superimposes the words "Your word is truth" over pictures of open Bibles. The Bible is indeed God's word and is true. But that is simply not in view here. God's word in John is clearly the Lord Jesus personally, who is "the truth". If the Lord intended us here to understand God's word as the Scriptures which comprise the Bible, He surely would have used some other term apart from&nbsp;<em>logos</em>. And how can we be sanctified by a book, even an inspired one? It is simply not so that Bible reading of itself makes us sanctified. Verse 19 is quite clear that we are sanctified through being "in Christ", on account of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;sanctification.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:18'>Joh 17:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As You sent me into the world, even so I send them into the world</em>-</p><p> The Son was “sanctified and sent into the world” (<em><a href='B:500 10:36'>Joh 10:36</a></em>). And yet we too are sanctified (<em><a href='B:500 17:17'>Joh 17:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:19'>Joh 17:19</a></em>), and likewise sent into the world (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>). The basis of our sanctification is our being in Christ (see on :17,19). The priestly service which is in view in the term 'sanctified' is therefore that of taking the Gospel to the world. As the Lord was sent into the world, so He sends us into the world <em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:18'>Joh 17:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em> - this is again John’s equivalent of the great commission. God sent forth Christ to save the world, and likewise we are sent forth in witness (<em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 9:38'>Mat 9:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:3'>Mat 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:4'>Act 13:4</a></em>). As He was sent into the world, so He sent us (<em><a href='B:500 17:18'>Joh 17:18</a></em>).</p><p>We note again that the language of sending into the world is applied to us as well as to the Lord. It simply does not mean that He pre-existed and was somehow sent from Heaven down to earth in some metaphysical sense. For that is not how&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are sent into the world.</p><p>"The world" in John often refers to the Jewish world. John is presenting the great commission in terms of going into the Jewish world as the Lord was sent into it. Whilst the great commission is universal in scope, we should not miss this initial intention- to go out and bring the Jewish world to faith in the One first sent to them with the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:19'>Joh 17:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they may also be sanctified in truth</em>-</p><p> The Lord's death was the final act of sanctification in His holy life. If we venture to enquire how exactly He achieved what He did, what His motivations were... we are entering holy ground. But here He states that He did it "for their sakes", so that we might be sanctified in Him, "the truth" (see on :17,18). His vision, however, was that we would not simply be 'saved' but 'sanctified', which as explained on :17 is a clear allusion to priestly service. He sanctified Himself so that in Him, we would be sanctified- to do priestly service. And the service particularly in view, as noted on :18, was to be sent into the world to save others. We are therefore expected to be proactive in our response to Him. Quite simply, if we behold and believe the things of the cross, we will respond.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Neither for these only do I pray, but for those also that believe in me through their word</em>-</p><p> The word preached was in order that others like us "believe in me". The content of the word preached is therefore the Lord Jesus and belief into Him. He personally, and not solely the results of the salvation He achieved "the Kingdom of God", is to be the focus of the word preached. As noted on :18 and :19, the Lord has in view that the sanctification of the believers will be so that they can do priestly service- which is to take the Gospel to the world.</p><p>In the same way as John matches the more literal accounts of the birth of Jesus with a more spiritual interpretation in John 1, so he likewise refers to the great commission, expressing it in more spiritual terms throughout his gospel. I bring together here some comments that have been made elsewhere in this commentary, to show the number of allusions:-</p><p> <em><a href='B:500 10:32'>Joh 10:32</a></em>: “If I be lifted up from RVmg. ‘out of’ the earth, will draw all men unto me”. Straight after the Lord’s death and resurrection the great commission was given, to bring all men unto Him and His cross.-</p><p> God sanctified / consecrated the Lord Jesus and sent Him into the world (<em><a href='B:500 10:36'>Joh 10:36</a></em>). But this sanctification was through His death on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:19'>Joh 17:19</a></em>). The Lord was sanctified on the cross and sent into the world in the sense that we His people would be impelled by His cross to take Him into all the world:&nbsp;<em>We&nbsp;</em>would be sent into all the world in His Name:&nbsp;</p><p><em>- As</em>&nbsp;the Lord was sent into the world, so He sends us into the world (<em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:18'>Joh 17:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em>)- the very language of the great commission. Jesus ‘came down’ to this world in the sense that He was the word of the Father made flesh, and ‘all men’ saw the light of grace that was radiated from His very being. And that same word must be flesh in us, as it was in the Lord.-</p><p> In <em><a href='B:500 12:23-26'>Joh 12:23-26</a></em>, the Lord foretold aspects of His coming sacrifice: “The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit spoken in the context of potential Gentile converts. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it... if any man serve me, let him follow me”. Here the Lord goes on to assume that His death, His falling into the ground, would be matched by His followers also hating their lives, that they might rise again. And He connects His death with glorification. Soon afterwards, the Lord spoke of how his followers would likewise “bear much fruit”, and thus&nbsp;<em>glorify</em>&nbsp;God. And in this context He continues with words which can be read as John’s record of the great preaching commission: “I have chosen you... that ye should&nbsp;<em>go&nbsp;</em>cp. “Go ye into all the world..." and bring forth fruit” (<em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). Clearly the Lord connected His bringing forth of “much fruit” through His death with the same “much fruit” being brought forth by the disciples’ witness. It follows from this that the fruit which He potentially achieved on the cross is brought to reality by our preaching. And perhaps it is also possible to see a parallel between our preaching and His laying down of His life on the cross, as if the work of witness is in effect a laying down of life by the preacher, in order to bring forth fruit:&nbsp;-</p><p> The whole world is to know the Gospel because of the unity of the believers (<em><a href='B:500 17:18'>Joh 17:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21'>Joh 17:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em>); and it follows that a situation will arise in which the extraordinary nature of true Christian solidarity over linguistic, ethnic, social and geographical lines will make a similar arresting, compelling witness as it did in the first century. The Lord had prophesied that His followers over time “shall become one flock” (<em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em> RV); they would be “perfected into one, that the world may know” (<em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em> RV). As the Gospel spreads world-wide in the last days, the unity of the believers will become all the more comprehensive, and this will of itself provoke yet more conversions. And once the fullness of unity is achieved, our communal way of life will have hastened the coming of the Lord (2 Peter 3):&nbsp;-</p><p> Matthew and Mark record how the apostles were&nbsp;<em>sent&nbsp;</em>to preach the Gospel and baptize, for the&nbsp;<em>forgiveness</em>&nbsp;of sins (cp. <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>). Luke records the Lord stating that the apostles knew that&nbsp;<em>forgiveness of sins</em>&nbsp;was to be preached from Jerusalem, and therefore they should be witnesses to this. I would suggest that John’s Gospel does in fact record the great commission, but in different and more spiritual words: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you…If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (<em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em> NIV). These words have always been problematic for me, especially that last phrase. Can God’s forgiveness really be limited by the forgiveness shown by fallible men? Yet if these words are taken as a record of the great commission to go and preach, and the ellipsis is filled in, things become clearer: ‘I am sending you to preach the Gospel and baptism of forgiveness; if you do this and men respond, then the Gospel you preach really does have the power to bring about forgiveness. But if you don’t fulfil the commission I give you to preach forgiveness, then the sins of your potential hearers will remain unforgiven’. Again, the forgiveness and salvation of others is made to depend upon our preaching of forgiveness. “Whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” becomes the equivalent of “he that believeth not shall be damned”. Note that the Greek for ‘retain’ strictly means ‘to hold / bind’, and that for ‘remit’ means ‘to loose’. This has evident connection with <em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>, where the keys of the Gospel of the Kingdom (which we all possess) have the power to bind and loose, i:e. to grant or not grant forgiveness. <em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em> also has some reference to the great commission: “…so shall ye be my disciples…that&nbsp;<em>ye should go</em>&nbsp;into all the world and bear fruit, and that your fruit converts? should abide”. The eternal life of the converts is a fruit brought forth by the preacher’s obedience to his Lord’s commission. Likewise through the preaching of John, he turned men’s hearts- the idea of repentance, being brought about by the preacher (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>).-</p><p> “These are written “in this book” of John’s Gospel that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ…and that believing ye may have life in his name” (<em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em> RV)- belief, life, “in his name”, these are all references to the great commission. It’s as if John is saying that he fulfilled it by the writing and preaching of his Gospel record. John's equivalent to an appeal for baptism may be his concluding appeal to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and as a result of that belief, to receive life "in his name" - into which we are baptized.</p><p>John's record of the great commission is not merely found at the end of his gospel. When John records how the disciples were to proclaim "the word" to the world (<em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>), he is surely intending connection to be made with how "the word" had likewise been made flesh in the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>); and how it was that same " word" which Jesus had given to His men, just as His Father had manifested that word through Himself. Our witness is to be in our making flesh of the word in real life, just as it was in the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:21'>Joh 17:21</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 13:35'>Joh 13:35</a></em>.</p><p><em>That they may all be one, even as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they may also be one in us; that the world may believe You did send me</em>-</p><p> As noted on <em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em> and throughout the Comforter discourse, the Lord intended that the relationship He had with the Father ("where I am") would be experienced by all those who received His Spirit. The unity in view here is expressed in a slightly ambiguous way because it is two-fold. Unity between the believer and the Son and Father; and thereby unity between each other, between preacher and convert, and convert and convert. This would be achieved through being together "in us", as the Son and Father mutually indwelt each other. The source of this indwelling was the Spirit; <em><a href='B:690 4:13'>1Jn 4:13</a></em> alludes here: "Hereby we know that we abide in him and He in us, because He has given us of his Spirit". Those who resist the idea of the indwelling Spirit are invariably not at one with their brethren, and thereby not at one with the Father and Son. For it is through the mutual indwelling of the Spirit that He is in us and we in Him; and thereby we are all one with each other.</p><p>The laying down of the Shepherd's life was so that the flock might be one, in one fold (<em><a href='B:500 10:15-16'>Joh 10:15-16</a></em>). The offering of the blood of Christ was&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;He might "make in himself... one new man" (<em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em>). Thus the theme of unity dominated the Lord's mind as He prepared for His death. "For their sakes I sanctify myself in the death of the cross... that they all may be one" (<em><a href='B:500 17:19'>Joh 17:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21'>Joh 17:21</a></em>). The glory of God would be the source of this unity in Christ (<em><a href='B:500 17:22'>Joh 17:22</a></em>); and that Name and glory were declared supremely on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). The grace, mercy, judgment of sin, the goodness and severity of God (<em><a href='B:20 34:5-7'>Exo 34:5-7</a></em>)... all these things, as demonstrated by the cross, bind men together. And thus in practice, both a too strict and also too loose attitude to doctrine and practice, an unbalanced understanding of the glory of God, will never bring unity.</p><p>This unique unity, the "unity of the Spirit", brought about by the indwelling of the Spirit (see on <em><a href='B:560 4:3'>Eph 4:3</a></em>), will be so compelling that the world, initially the Jewish world, would believe that the Father sent the Son. It would be apparent that this unity had been created by Jesus of Nazareth, who therefore was no ordinary man, but the One supremely sent by the Father. In this thought we see continued the many allusions in this section to the great commission. The sanctification of the Son, the indwelling of the Spirit, unity between us and with the Father... all this was to be harnessed in the work of winning others for His cause.</p><p>We naturally ask why, therefore, the world, both our world and the Jewish world of John's time, have not all believed. It could be that they do not believe simply because as with the witness of the Lord, they for the most part choose to disbelieve it and reject it, lest their lives be too disturbed. But it could be that the dysfunction of the church, which is characterized by its disunity rather than unity, has meant that the potential conversion of the world to Christ has not happened.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:22'>Joh 17:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the glory which You have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one</em>-</p><p> The glory given to Moses was nothing compared to that given to the Lord. By beholding that glory in the face of the Lord Jesus, it shines off from our faces too (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>). The glory is potentially given, but it is only by beholding it in the face of the Lord that it becomes real for us. The faces of the disciples at that time, as they watched the Lord praying, were anything but glorious. They fled from Him, and went fishing instead of being enthused by His resurrection. But so much was made potentially available to them. The glory that would soon shine from the Lord's face when He was arrested was theirs, already.</p><p>"The glory" has associations with the Name declared at Sinai, and now even moreso in the person of God's Son. Connect :6,8,22: "I have manifested Thy Name unto the men which Thou gavest Me... I have given unto them the words Thou gavest Me... the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them". Indeed, so much was "given" to the believers by the Lord. He gave them the essence of Himself, His Spirit; the prologue says they were given "power to becomes the Sons of God" (<em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>). The idea of the gift of glory is associated with the gift of the Spirit in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:560 3:14-18'>Eph 3:14-18</a></em> where the same words are used and again connected with unity between those who possess the Spirit: "I bow my knees to the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that He would&nbsp;<em>grant&nbsp;</em>"give" you, according to the riches of His&nbsp;<em>glory</em>, that you may be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, to the end that you would be rooted and grounded in love, that you might be able to comprehend with all the saints". The gift of glory therefore sums up everything- the very essence of the Father and Son, their word, their Spirit, the Name. The receipt of those things will issue in unity between us. In this sense the gift of "glory" is what enables our unity both with the Father and Son as well as with each other.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I in them and You in me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know You did send me and that You have loved them just as You loved me</em>-</p><p> The unity envisaged was a process; the indwelling of the Father in the Son, and they in us, is by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:690 4:13'>1Jn 4:13</a></em>). But as noted earlier, we are progressively filled with the Spirit, it is not a one-time gift. And there is therefore this process of perfecting into one. It could be that once the believing community are truly filled with the Spirit and one with each other, that they will finally convince the Jewish world of the Father's love. John alludes here in later writing that love between believers is the sign of this perfecting process developing: "If we love one another, God dwells in us "I in them and you in me", and His love is perfected in us" (<em><a href='B:690 4:12'>1Jn 4:12</a></em>). It is not God's love of itself must be perfected or matured; as we mature in love to each other, and thereby unity, His love is declared in an ongoing sense. The idea of our love being perfected and thereby the outcome of God's love being perfected is quite a theme (<em><a href='B:690 2:5'>1Jn 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:12'>1Jn 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:17-18'>1Jn 4:17-18</a></em>).</p><p>We have suggested elsewhere that the great commission is repeated in John’s Gospel but in more spiritual language. The whole world is to know the Gospel because of the unity of the believers (<em><a href='B:500 17:18'>Joh 17:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21'>Joh 17:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em>); and it follows that a situation will arise in which the extraordinary nature of true Christian solidarity over linguistic, ethnic, social and geographical lines will make a similar arresting, compelling witness as it did in the first century. The Lord had prophesied that His followers over time “shall become one flock” (<em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em> RV); they would be “perfected into one, that the world may know” (<em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em> RV). He surely hoped this would have become true in the first century. As the Gospel spreads world-wide in the last days, the unity of the believers will become all the more comprehensive, and this will of itself provoke yet more conversions. It could have been like this in the first century- for <em><a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a></em> speaks of how the unity of Jew and Gentile would “make all men see” the Gospel. This is the urgency of Paul’s appeal for unity in Ephesians- he knew that their unity was the intended witness to the world which the Lord had spoken of as the means of the fulfilment of the great commission in <em><a href='B:500 17:21-23'>Joh 17:21-23</a></em>. But sadly, Jew and Gentile went their separate ways in the early church, and the possibility of world-converting witness evaporated.</p><p>This almost uncanny sense of unity is referred to in <em><a href='B:560 4:3'>Eph 4:3</a></em> as "<em>the</em>&nbsp;unity"; although, as Paul shows, the&nbsp;<em>keeping</em>&nbsp;and experience of that unity is dependent upon our patience with each other and maintenance of “the one faith" (i:e. the unifying faith that gives rise to the one body). This unity is potentially powerful enough to convert the world. Through it, "the world may know", “the world may believe" (<em><a href='B:500 17:21'>Joh 17:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em>). And yet, in Johannine thought, "the world may know" was a result of the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:500 14:31'>Joh 14:31</a></em>), and yet also of the love that would be between His people (<em><a href='B:500 13:35'>Joh 13:35</a></em>). The Lord's death would potentially inspire such a love between His people that their resultant unity would let the world know the love of the Father and Son. Paul alludes to all this when he says that because of the new unity and fellowship between Jew and Gentile, "all men (would) see”, and even to the great princes and powers of this world would be made known by the united church "the manifold wisdom of God" (<em><a href='B:560 3:9-11'>Eph 3:9-11</a></em>). The miraculous Spirit gifts were given, Paul argues, to bring the Jewish and Gentile believers together, “for the perfecting (uniting) of the saints", into "a perfect man", a united body. And thus, once Jewish and Gentile differences were resolved within the ecclesia by the end of the first century, the gifts were withdrawn:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord had prophesied that His followers over time “shall become one flock” (<em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em> RV); they would be “perfected into one, that the world may know” (<em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em> RV). He surely hoped this would have become true in the first century. And it could have been like this in the first century- for <em><a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a></em> speaks of how the unity of Jew and Gentile would “make all men see” the Gospel. This is the urgency of Paul’s appeal for unity in Ephesians- he knew that their unity was the intended witness to the world which the Lord had spoken of as the means of the fulfilment of the great commission in <em><a href='B:500 17:21-23'>Joh 17:21-23</a></em>. But sadly, Jew and Gentile went their separate ways in the early church, unity in the church broke up, and the possibility of world-converting witness evaporated. Seeing the great commission is to be powerfully obeyed in our last days, we simply&nbsp;<em>must&nbsp;</em>learn the lesson:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 7:34'>Joh 7:34</a></em>.</p><p><em>Father, I desire that they also whom You have given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which You have given me. For You loved me from before the foundation of the world</em>-</p><p> The glory given before the foundation of the world (:5) is paralleled here with God's love for His Son at that same time. These terms such as "glory" and "love" are all parallel, and do not require too much specific definition. To behold or perceive the Lord's glory, which was the Father's glory, was to "be where I am", which was the whole intention of His death. For He died so that His Spirit would be given to us, that where "I am" in His relationship with the Father, there we might be also (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em>). To be where He was meant to behold or perceive the glory; to perceive in Him, a 33 year old Palestinian Jew, of a certain blood type and plasma, son of a hairdresser from a Nazareth back street, covered in blood and spittle on a Roman cross, on a day in April, on a hill just outside Jerusalem, tormented by flies... the sublimest glory of God.</p><p>It could be that His request is therefore specifically that His disciples should be with Him at the cross- "I will that where I am, there they may also be" (<em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em> RV- hence John's emphasis that he really did behold Him there). He so wishes for us to at least try to stand with Him there and enter into it all. See on <em><a href='B:490 22:15'>Luk 22:15</a></em>. But more than physical presence, He desired that they would perceive the crucifixion as the manifestation of glory, after the pattern of the theophany of Exodus 34.</p><p>Love before the foundation of the world is a reference to the description of Moses as having been prepared in God’s plan from the beginning: “He prepared me Moses before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator of His covenant” (<em>Assumption of Moses</em>&nbsp;1:14). Once we appreciate this and other such allusions to popular Jewish belief about Moses, then the passages which appear to speak of personal pre-existence are easier to understand. The Jews didn’t believe that Moses personally pre-existed, but rather that he was there in the plan / purpose of God, and with the major role in that purpose, from before creation. The Lord was applying those beliefs and that language to Himself, showing that He was greater than Moses. But by doing so, He wasn’t implying that He personally pre-existed.</p><p>"That they may behold my glory" connects with the statement in the prologue that they&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;behold His glory, as if to say that the Lord's request here was indeed granted. His glory was especially manifested in His death. “Where I am" and His future glorification are linked into one and the same event, even though the glorification was not then apparent. This use of language is to be connected with the way John’s Gospel speaks several times of the hour coming, and yet having already come (<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 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em>). I have suggested that all these references have application to the Lord’s death.</p><p>He tells the Father in prayer: “I will NEV "desire" that they… be with me” and yet elsewhere in the same prayer He says “I&nbsp;<em>pray</em>&nbsp;that…” (<em><a href='B:500 17:9'>Joh 17:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:15'>Joh 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>). Our will is essentially our prayer, just as His will was His prayer. If our will is purely God's will, we will receive answers to every prayer. And yet our will is not yet coincidental with His; 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 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. The Lord Jesus is the great example in all this. The implications of our will becoming God’s will, of the sacrifice of our natural will, are enormous. Our will is the thing we cling to the most, and only give up at the very last. Our will alone is what we truly have, our dearest thing- and we are called to sacrifice it. I see in the OT significance of the blood poured out far more than merely our physical life force- rather does it further symbolize our essential will.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>O righteous Father, the world did not know You; but I knew You, and these knew that You sent me</em>-</p><p> The Jewish world rejected the light of the person of Jesus, as stated in the prologue. By rejecting Him they rejected knowledge of / relationship with the Father. The Lord balances the idea of 'knowing God' with 'knowing that You sent Me'. He is aware that the disciples still have not fully known Him nor the Father (<em><a href='B:500 14:8-10'>Joh 14:8-10</a></em>). But He sees in their recognition that He was sent from God the potential for further development, into knowing the Father. His words here are therefore an indirect request, rather than a mere statement of fact. He wishes that through the Spirit, they would progress from knowing that He was sent from God, to fully knowing the Father. We recall how Nicodemus is presented as initially recognizing that the Lord was "from God", but coming to fuller faith through the experience of the cross:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I declared to them Your Name, and will declare it, so that the love with which You loved me may be in them, and I in them</em>-</p><p> The second declaration of the Name was in the cross. On <em><a href='B:500 19:19-22'>Joh 19:19-22</a></em> I note that the Name was particularly declared upon the cross, and that the title over the cross in Hebrew was comprised of four words, the first letter of each spelling the YHWH Name. All the words of God, the essence of His Name, were summed up in that death. "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me... I have declared unto them thy name" (:8, 26). "I have proclaimed the name of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> LXX) was surely in the Lord's mind; Moses did that just before his death. Particularly on the cross we see the very essence of love, which is at the core of the Name. Having loved His own, He loved us there unto the end, to the end of the very concept of love and beyond (<em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>). He knew that in His death, He would shew "greater love" than any man had or could show. There He declared the Name and character of God, so that the love of God would be within us. "Hereby perceive we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (<em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em> Gk:). The death of the cross was therefore the very definition of love; love is a crucifixion-love, a conscious doing of that which is against the grain of our nature. We&nbsp;<em>must therefore</em>&nbsp;respond by showing that love to our brethren. It is not an option. To be unloving is to deny the very essence of the cross of Christ.</p><p>The idea of indwelling love again alludes to the indwelling of the Spirit, which was given to us through the Lord's surrender to us of His spirit on the cross. It is through the Lord's indwelling of us in this way that we love one another as He loved us. This is why John's letters have so much to say about love, and about how hatred of our brethren is a sign that we are not spiritual, are not indwelt by the spirit of the Son.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:1'>Joh 18:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When Jesus had spoken these words, he went with his disciples over the brook Kidron, where there was a garden into which he and his disciples entered</em>-</p><p> We have the impression that having offered Himself to the Father in speaking those words of prayer in chapter 17, the Lord now purposefully went forth "unto the Father". It was as if He had planned it all; He knew that Judas would guess that he would likely spend the night in that garden, and would be on the lookout for Him there to have Him arrested discreetly. And so He went to that very place. His life was not taken from Him, He gave it of Himself (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>); the whole situation and timing of His death was brought about by His supreme perception of human psychology, and He thereby arranged the whole scene, getting the stage perfectly ready for the actors to walk on and act exactly as He had set them up to.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:2'>Joh 18:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, also knew the place. For Jesus often met there with his disciples</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1, the Lord went there because He knew Judas would guess that He would go there to spend the night. And the Lord was right; Judas was hanging out there with a band of soldiers, guessing the Lord would go there. We note in passing that the Lord was unlike any other great teacher; He literally spent nights sleeping rough. Surely there were some who invited Him to stay at their place, and it would not have been impossible for them to have slept where they kept the last support or to have walked out to Bethany. But the Lord went to Gethsemane because He knew that Judas would guess He might go there.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:3'>Joh 18:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Judas along with a detachment of temple guards whom he had been given, and the servants of the chief priests, and the Pharisees, arrived there with lanterns and torches and weapons</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1,2, Judas went there because he guessed that the Lord would spent the night sleeping rough there, rather than walk out to Bethany or stay with other sympathizers in Jerusalem. The Lord knew he would think like that, and went along with the plan which He Himself had set up. He was not overtaken by events and murdered; rather did He give His life just when and how He wished, setting up the entire situation which would enable Him to die as the Passover lambs were being slain, on that particular Passover, by crucifixion, at Romans hands but at the behest of the Jews, with the masses turned against Him as well as their leaders. As noted on the triumphal entry, this was why He set the crowds up to be bitterly disillusioned in Him by His inversion of all their values and expectations. Judas had prepared the men, on the off chance he would be right and the Lord would indeed go and sleep rough in Gethsemane that night. He must have been so glad his bet paid off, and the men with him would not have wasted their efforts; for a&nbsp;<em>speira&nbsp;</em>"detachment", was about 200 men, and some of the chief priests themselves were present (<em><a href='B:490 22:52'>Luk 22:52</a></em>). But he was fulfilling the exact plan of the Lord. Hence RV "Judas&nbsp;<em>therefore...</em>". It was all set up by the Lord. They came with lanterns and torches, despite the full moon of Passover, because they assumed He might hide somewhere in the Kidron ravine once He saw them coming. But the Lord went out and gave Himself over to them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus knowing all the things that must come upon him, went forward and said to them: Whom do you seek?</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1-3, the Lord had set up the entire situation, and it was going exactly according to His plan. So it was knowing how His plan was going to work out that He went forward to surrender to them; we should not at all read this as any kind of fatalism and grim submission to inevitable events which were overtaking Him. Just as the ending of our lives, through illness or old age, is not to be met in this way, but rather as a conscious giving of life to the Father.</p><p>"Whom do you seek?" is again another question which jumps out of the record to challenge all hearers and readers; as if to say&nbsp; 'And whom do<em>&nbsp;you</em>&nbsp;seek?'. He knew they knew, and that they knew that He knew... So why ask the question? It was surely to elicit in them the words and understanding that 'We seek Jesus'. For these are the words the Gospel writers place on the lips of those who wished to believe in Him (<em><a href='B:470 28:5'>Mat 28:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). The Lord's desire to witness to all men, to attempt to save even His persecutors, stands as all time a challenge to us to emulate in evangelism and by all means seeking to share the Gospel with all. Paul in his trials caught the spirit of all this, in attempting to even convert his judges:&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:5'>Joh 18:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 26:75'>Mat 26:75</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :4, the Lord had elicited from them the statement 'We seek Jesus', which is associated with belief in Him. He was by all means seeking to convert them even at that dark hour.</p><p><em>Jesus said to them: I am he (Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing with them)-&nbsp;</em>The Lord was a well-known public figure in Jerusalem. The way Judas kissed the Lord to identify Him to them may however indicate that some of these Roman soldiers were not aware of Him. "I am he" was clearly a reference to the Yahweh Name. He had put the position in their mouths: 'We seek Jesus'. And in answer to that search, He presented Himself as the fullness of God manifest in flesh.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:6'>Joh 18:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When he said to them: I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground</em>-</p><p> His declaration of the Yahweh Name (see on :6) was accompanied by some kind of theophany, so that they fell to the ground, just as Saul did before the encounter with the glorified Jesus. To now arrest 'the man with the face of God' was going to be difficult for them; it would involve a wilful denial of the obvious.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:7'>Joh 18:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Again he asked them: Whom do you seek? And they said: Jesus of Nazareth-</em></p><p>&nbsp;As noted previously, the Lord was seeking to convert them, eliciting from them the statement that 'We seek Jesus', which is elsewhere found on the lips of believers in Him (<em><a href='B:470 28:5'>Mat 28:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). But now they had seen His face flash with the glory of God, and had fallen to the ground before Him, He urged them not to do the apparently psychologically inevitable, but to stop in their tracks and continue seeking Him in truth. This desire to convert them, to help them even at that late stage to pull out of their nose dive to condemnation, reveals so much about the whole spirit of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:8'>Joh 18:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered: I told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way</em>-</p><p> So often we read that the Lord told the Jews that He was God's Son, but they refused to believe. The same words are found in <em><a href='B:500 10:25'>Joh 10:25</a></em>: "I told you and you believed not". And so it was now; the Lord had told them, shown them through the theophany that "I am", but they refused to believe. He had set up a situation whereby they were going to do to Him what they knew was wrong, and they knew He realized that. And so He asks them for a small favour- to let the disciples go free. Again, His understanding of human psychology was magnificent. He so knew and knows us, and we can therefore in all ways be assured that His judgment will be just, and will take into total account every psychological nuance and factor when judging us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:9'>Joh 18:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That the word might be fulfilled which he spoke: Of those whom you have given me I lost not one</em>-</p><p> This suggests that the Lord's 'keeping' of the disciples in His lifetime was physical as well as spiritual (<em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>), and this explains why when speaking about their forthcoming tribulation at the hands of the world, He assures them that His physical departure will not mean that He will not continue to "keep" them; see on <em><a href='B:500 16:4'>Joh 16:4</a></em>. For He would do so through the ministry of the Comforter, the advocate, the legal counsel for the defence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:10'>Joh 18:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus</em>-</p><p> The Lord knew that Peter had a sword / knife hidden in his garment when in Gethsemane. But He did nothing; He didn’t use His knowledge of Peter’s weakness to criticise him. He knew that the best way was to just let it be, and then the miracle of healing Malchus must have more than convinced Peter that the Lord’s men should not use the sword. For their Master had healed, not murdered, one of the men sent to arrest Him. The Lord perhaps knew what Peter would do, for it was not hard to guess, knowing his temperament. The healing of Malchus' ear was therefore planned; for usually the Lord did not address human need but only did His "works" as a witness to His Heavenly origins; John's Gospel records this several times. The miracle was therefore yet another desperate appeal to those arresting Him to not go ahead with their plan. They did so having witnessed directly the Lord's Divine authentication. They were totally culpable, although they would have later given the excuse that they had followed a multitude to do evil; for to break ranks at that stage was indeed difficult.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:11'>Joh 18:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to Peter: Put the sword into its sheath. The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?</em>-</p><p> In prayer earlier, the Lord had totally accepted the cup, despite asking for it to be removed (<em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>). So Peter's resistance to the idea of the Lord drinking the cup was in fact shared by the Lord, but He consented. We see here yet another of John's cameos of the Lord's utter humanity and connection with men:&nbsp; Peter had intended to kill Malchus, and only by dodging the blow aimed at his head did he survive, although the sword blow removed his ear. For all time we see that violent resistance to evil is not the Christian way.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:12'>Joh 18:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So the detachment of temple guards and their chief captain and the magistrates' attendants of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him</em>-</p><p> The word for "detachment" could mean there were a few hundred armed men present; so Peter's attempt to murder Malchus was futile. But he may well have know Malchus, for John knew the high priest, whose personal servant Malchus was. It is not impossible that Peter aimed for him in particular to settle some old perceived score.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:13'>Joh 18:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And led him to Annas first. For he was father in law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year</em>-</p><p> All through the record, we see the Jews' disobedience to the law. A high priest was to be for life, and there were not to be joint high priests nor agreement they could have power just for a specific period. Likewise weapons were not to be carried at the time of the feasts, but these men were armed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:14'>Joh 18:14</a></em><em>&nbsp;It was Caiaphas that had counselled the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people</em>-</p><p> The record in John places particular blame upon Caiaphas, who is called "the prince of this Jewish world", who had particular responsibility for the Lord's death. This statement placed here implies again that it was Caiaphas who was behind it all.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:15'>Joh 18:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Simon Peter followed Jesus-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord had specifically told Peter that he could not follow Him (<em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>). If Peter had given due weight to the Lord's words and not overrated his own strength, he would not have followed, and led himself into temptation too great for him. This basic tendency to assume we shall not give in to temptation is very much part of us as humans, and in the Biblical record we have so much encouragement to face up to the fact and humble ourselves in recognizing it.</p><p><em>And so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest; and he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest</em>-</p><p> John, the disciple beloved by his Lord, brings out the apparent paradox- that he was ‘on friendly terms with the High Priest’, the great ‘satan’ of the early Christians, Caiaphas being presented as "the prince of this world" with especial responsibility for the Lord's death; and yet also ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’. When John knew full well that the Lord Jesus had taught that a man cannot be friends of both Him and of the persecuting world. Again we see the Gospel preachers / writers bringing out their own weakness as a platform upon which to appeal to other weak people to likewise believe as they had done. Quite how it was that John knew Caiaphas isn't clear; it could be that his family fishing business provided salt for the temple and therefore he knew Caiaphas from business dealings. If indeed Salome was John's mother and also the sister or relative of Mary the Lord's mother, then he may well have had priestly connections in the family.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:16'>Joh 18:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Peter was standing outside the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept watch at the door</em>-</p><p> If John was known to the high priest and his servants, he would have been known as a disciple of Jesus. His identification with Peter as his friend was therefore a quite obvious invitation for everyone to assume that Peter was also a disciple of the Lord. And just a few hours ago, he had attempted to murder Malchus, who would have been known to all in the yard. Any denial from Peter about his association with the Lord, let alone claiming he had never heard of Him, was doomed to failure. If only he had not followed, accepting the Lord's warning of <em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em> that he could not follow Him yet, he would have gotten into the wretched situation he did. And we can retro analyse our own failings in just the same way:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The maid keeping watch at the door said to Peter: Are you also one of this man's disciples? He said: I am not</em>-</p><p> Again the challenge comes out of the record to all hearers and readers: 'Are you one of this man's disciples?'. Although the Lord was not standing amongst them, all the talk was about "this man". Again we see His utter humanity. That the girl would speak like this is utterly credible and again reminds us that the Biblical record is true. These words were actually said, these things really happened.</p><p>The failure of Peter is effectively emphasized by the very structure of the Gospel accounts. John frames the interrogation of the Lord as happening alongside the interrogation of Peter. The Lord peerlessly and bravely witnesses to the Truth, and is condemned to death for it; whilst Peter flunks the issue time and again to save his own skin. Whilst the Lord unflinchingly declares His identity before the High Priest, Peter is presented as doing anything to deny his identity as a disciple. Peter's denials are presented by the records as if in slow motion, for the reader to gaze upon in detail. Peter's denial "I am not" is placed by John in purposeful juxtaposition to the Lord's brave self-identification in Gethsemane:&nbsp;<em>ego eimi</em>, "I am" (<em><a href='B:500 18:5'>Joh 18:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em>). And yet this 'setting up' of the leader of the early church as a failure was done&nbsp;<em>by</em>&nbsp;the early church writers, ultimately inspired as they were The Gospel writers were&nbsp;<em>glorying</em>&nbsp;in their weakness and their Lord's supremacy. They were standing up for their unity with Him by grace, but openly and pointedly proclaiming the vast mismatch between them and Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 26:75'>Mat 26:75</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals. For it was cold, and they were warming themselves; and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself</em>-</p><p> The extra information about the fire being of charcoal coals was in order to highlight the similarity with the Lord's later appearance to Peter, again by a charcoal fire, where the three denials are as it were undone by three asservations of loyalty. "The servants and the officers" refers to the very same group who had just arrested the Lord in the garden. In the full Passover moon, they would surely have discerned Peter, and known that it was he who had tried to murder Malchus their colleague. These background factors made Peter's attempts to deny the Lord all the more hopeless, just as hopeless as trying to defend the Lord against a few hundred armed men by trying to kill one of them. Peter is thereby presented as not simply hot-headed, but rather simple, not thinking through the obvious outcome of situations. And yet he, the one with simple loyalty and the sins of a simple man, was the one chosen to establish the Lord's church. The record thereby appeals to the simple, that the Lord's way and even responsibility in His church is for them too.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:19'>Joh 18:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The high priest asked Jesus about his disciples and his teaching</em>-</p><p> The Lord knew that Peter was out there in the yard and would deny Him three times. And yet when asked about His disciples, He speaks so positively about them (see on :21). The legal ground for condemnation was the Lord's claims in relation to God and the destruction of the temple. These were all issues directly connected with Him personally rather than His disciples, who were in any case not present to answer for themselves. So it could be that the questioning about them was a way of humiliation before coming to the actual allegations. He had converted a rag tag band of fishermen and simple folk like Peter, who had now fled from the garden. He had made no disciples, apparently. And the masses had turned against Him because of His purposeful disappointment of their Messianic expectations in His parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem.</p><p>The cross is realistically intended to be lived out in daily experience. The record of the crucifixion and trials of the Lord are framed in language which would have been relevant to the first hearers of the Gospel as they too faced persecution and suffering for their faith. John's account of the interrogation of the Lord by the Jewish leaders, accusing Him of being a false prophet, was surely written in the way it was to provide encouragement to John's converts the "Johannine community" as theologians refer to it to see how their court appearances before the Jews were in fact a living out of their Lord's cross. They too were to 'speak openly to the world' and 'bear witness to the truth before the world', living out the cross in the way in which they responded to the great commission.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:20'>Joh 18:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world. I often taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and have never spoken in secret</em>-</p><p> Again we see how "the world" in John refers specifically to the Jewish world, "all the Jews". From what the Lord says here, He did not teach one thing in public and another more secretly to the disciples. He did not give them special knowledge which the masses were forbidden. As taught so often in John, the Lord was the open manifestation of truth to all; He was the light, shining in darkness. There was nothing "secret" about what He stood for. He likewise asks us to be a city set on a hill, which cannot be kept secret (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>), being the light of the world as He was. Our witness to Him should likewise be open and direct; so much of the 'social Gospel' approach is indirect and amounts to doing the same good works done by unbelievers, without the direct and up front manifestation of the light which was characteristic of the Lord's witness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:21'>Joh 18:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Why do you ask me? Ask those that have heard me what I spoke to them. Behold, these know the things which I said</em>-</p><p> The Lord was rather critical of the disciples when speaking directly with them, especially concerning their lack of understanding and recall of His previous teachings. But in prayer to the Father in chapter 17 and now in talking about them to others, He is extremely positive about them; just as He is about us with all our weaknesses of understanding and behaviour. He states here that those who heard Him, His disciples (:19), could tell anyone what He had taught. He is setting up a parallel between His teaching and that of the disciples, knowing that soon they were to continue His teaching work in the world.</p><p>Peter would have reflected how his denial had been in spite of the fact that the Lord had prayed he wouldn’t do it- even though He foresaw that Peter would. Just a short time before the denials He had commented, probably in earshot of Peter and John, “ask those that have heard me, what I spake unto them”. Perhaps He nodded towards them both as He said it, to encourage them to speak up rather than slip further into the temptation of keeping quiet. He had used the same phrase earlier, just hours before: “These things have I spoken unto&nbsp;<em>you</em>” (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:22'>Joh 18:22</a></em><em>&nbsp;And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying: Do you answer the high priest so?</em>-</p><p> "Struck" is the word used in the LXX of the Messianic <em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em> "I gave my cheeks to blows". Perhaps, in the spirit of giving His life and not having it taken from Him, the Lord offered his cheek; although see on :23. This was totally unprovoked; perhaps the officer was over eager to ingratiate himself to the high priest. Or perhaps he was Malchus, or some other beneficiary of the Lord's healing work who wanted to demonstrate that he was not a secret Jesus sympathizer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:23'>Joh 18:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered him: If I have spoken evil, testify of the evil, but if well, why do you hit me?</em>-</p><p> The Lord did not literally 'turn the other cheek', as we might have expected if He intended us to take His words of <em><a href='B:470 5:39'>Mat 5:39</a></em> literally. His words were aimed at helping that officer come to believe in Him; to ask himself whether the Lord had ever at any time spoken evil. He wanted the man to realize that his behaviour in hitting Him was dictated by a desire to please others; the Lord was inviting the man thereby towards freedom in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:24'>Joh 18:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest</em>-</p><p> The 'hearing' was very early in the morning; the appearance before Annas was a kind of pre-trial hearing, which was not required by any law. Presumably it was done in an attempt to give the impression of having done everything in a hyper correct legal sense. We see a theme in the record of the Jews being so careful to give an appearance of legal obedience whilst they were breaking the most major principles of both Divine and Roman law:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:25'>Joh 18:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him: Are you also one of his disciples? He denied and said: I am not</em>-</p><p> As noted on :17, His "I am not" compares unfavourably with the Lord's statement "I am", and shamelessly open declaration of Himself as He always had. The "also" could imply that the conversation had turned around others who were the Lord's disciples. John was known to the high priest, and presumably to his entourage, in that he had got the girl to allow Peter in to the compound. The talk would naturally have turned to how John was one of his disciples- and then quite naturally, to his friend Peter. As noted on :18, Peter displays quite some simple-mindedness in not seeing that denial was pointless and deeply unconvincing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:26'>Joh 18:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>One of the servants of the high priest, being a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said: Did I not see you in the garden with him?</em>-</p><p> Caiaphas and his entourage were riddled with nepotism; there were not even 10,000 people living in Jerusalem, according to Joachim Jeremias, and many who worked in a certain sphere would have been surrounded with friends and relatives as co-workers. And again, Peter ought surely to have realized that he was now inside a locked compound with a crowd of people who were friends and relatives of the very crowd whom he had just confronted in the garden. His situation was hopeless, and as noted on :18, his basic intelligence cannot be highly rated in allowing himself into that situation. But from that simple man came the baptism of thousands and the establishment of the Lord's church.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:27'>Joh 18:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Peter denied again; and immediately the cock crew-&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>John’s account of Peter’s denial of the Lord is to me very beautifully crafted by him to reflect his own weakness, lest the focus be left purely upon the failure of Peter. He alone of the evangelists records how he knew a girl who kept the door to the High Priest’s palace, and how he was even known to the High Priest. He speaks to the girl, and she lets Peter in. Then, she recognizes Peter as one of the disciples, that he had been with Jesus, and he makes his shameful denial. But John’s point is clearly this: he, John, was known to the same girl, and to Caiaphas- but they never accused&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;of having been with Jesus. Because they sadly didn’t make the connection between John and Jesus. Yet when they saw Peter- they knew him as an upfront disciple of Jesus. And when Peter ran out in fear and shame, John remained in the High Priest’s palace- unrecognized and unknown as a disciple of Jesus. The door girl must have realized that John and Peter were connected- because John had asked her to let Peter in. But she never made the accusation that John also had been one of Jesus’ followers. In all this, John reveals his own shame at his lack of open association with the Lord. Significantly, <em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em> records how the Jews later looked at Peter and John “and they took knowledge of them i:e. recognized them, as the girl had recognized Peter, that they both had been with Jesus”. This is the very language of those who accused Peter of having ‘been with Jesus’. John learnt his lesson, and came out more publicly, at Peter’s side, inspired by his equally repentant friend. It’s an altogether lovely picture, of two men who both failed, one publicly and the other privately, together side by side in their witness, coming out for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They lead Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium; but it was early, and so they did not enter into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled and might eat the Passover</em>-</p><p> Again we see the extreme hypocrisy of men so caught up with legalistic obedience, whilst committing the worst crime of all time. "Early" is the term used technically of the fourth watch, 3-6 a:m. The appearance before Annas was clearly staged, a show trial if ever there was one. "In capital cases, sentence of condemnation could not be legally pronounced on the day of trial"; and many other such legal requirements were broken. The fear of defilement was through contact with the Gentile soldiers who were abusing the Lord. "That they... might eat the Passover" is surely proof enough that the last supper was a Passover-like meal, but not "the Passover" of the 14th Nissan. The Lord is portrayed as developing a new Israel, with a new priesthood and different central symbols; He was able to change and reinterpret the Passover with ease:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:29'>Joh 18:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pilate went out to them, and said: What accusation do you bring against this man?</em>-</p><p> He went out to them as they would not go in to him lest they defile themselves. The inspired record hangs together with great credibility down to the finest details. Pilate faced the same problem as Paul's judges faced. It was simply not clear what this man's crime was.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:30'>Joh 18:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They answered and said to him: If this man were not an evildoer, we should not have delivered him up to you</em>-</p><p> The Jews were careful not to be too specific, because they knew that they had no concrete case against the Lord. Peter lived the rest of his life under the deep impression of the events of this time, which occurred whilst he was denying his Lord. He uses the same word in <em><a href='B:670 2:12'>1Pe 2:12</a></em>: "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honourable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation". "Visitation" is literally 'the day of looking at', using the same word as used about how the Lord turned and looked at Peter after his third denial. Peter's idea is that just as the Lord was falsely accused of being "an evildoer", so would all those in Him. His sufferings are therefore not to be viewed from a distance, but taken into our lives; our experiences result in our being connected with Him in His time of crisis. The Greek word for "evildoer" used here only occurs four other times in the New Testament, and all of them are in 1 Peter. Consciously or unconsciously, the things of the Lord's passion were in Peter's heart, as they should be in ours.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:31'>Joh 18:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pilate replied to them: Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law. The Jews said to him: It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death</em>-</p><p> Pilate is repeatedly presented here as on the back foot, and nervous about dealing with the Lord. He is portrayed in history as utterly conscienceless. And so he probably was- but the person of the Lord Jesus is such that it provokes the conscience of every person, even those who appear to have no religious interest nor conscience. The fact is, every human being has a conscience, because it is intrinsic to our being human. And as noted on <em><a href='B:500 15:22'>Joh 15:22</a></em>, our preaching of the Lord Jesus penetrates directly to that conscience. Pilate is a great example of this. The Jews had already judged the Lord as worthy of death, but their ability to execute people had been taken away from them, meaning that they had to pass over such cases to the Romans to decide, and to execute if they considered legitimate.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:32'>Joh 18:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what manner of death he should die</em>-</p><p> The Lord designed to die by crucifixion and yet also at the hands of the Jews. He therefore arranged things so that the plan to kill Him, and the responsibility for it, was squarely with the Jews; and yet it was to be the Gentiles who put Him to death, and through crucifixion. He therefore set Himself up to be so hated by the Jews on account of their rejection of Him that they would desire to kill Him; and to effect that, they would have to hand Him over to the Romans, who would then kill Him by crucifixion. This was all the Lord's design, part of His wilful giving of His life and not having it taken from Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>), not being overtaken by events, nor in that sense murdered. He was master of the entire situation from start to finish, arranging it all so that the players all exercised their own freewill, and did what they did despite His personal efforts to lead them to repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:33'>Joh 18:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pilate therefore went into the Praetorium and called Jesus, and said to him: Are you the King of the Jews?</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; The Jews were seeking the death penalty on the basis that the Lord was setting Himself up as a king in opposition to Caesar. And yet according to their law, this was not a capital offence, in fact it was no crime at all. Their whole legal and logical case against the Lord had no consistency nor integrity at all.</p><p>The records are in fact written in such a way as to encourage us to re-live the crucifixion process as it were in slow motion. The record of the trials likewise is written in a way which encourages us to imagine it and live it out in our imaginations in slow motion. Donald Senior has pointed out how John's account of the trial scenes alternate between what is happening "inside" and "outside”:&nbsp;</p><p>(1) "Outside" - The Jewish leaders hand Jesus over to Pilate, <em><a href='B:500 18:28-32'>Joh 18:28-32</a></em></p><p>(2) "Inside" - Pilate interrogates Jesus, <em><a href='B:500 18:33-38'>Joh 18:33-38</a></em></p><p>(3) "Outside" - Pilate declares Jesus innocent, <em><a href='B:500 18:38-40'>Joh 18:38-40</a></em></p><p>(4) "Inside" - The Roman soldiers scourge and mock Jesus, <em><a href='B:500 19:1-3'>Joh 19:1-3</a></em></p><p>(5) "Outside" - Pilate again declares Jesus not guilty, <em><a href='B:500 19:4-8'>Joh 19:4-8</a></em></p><p>(6) "Inside" - Pilate interrogates Jesus, <em><a href='B:500 19:9-12'>Joh 19:9-12</a></em></p><p>(7) "Outside" - Pilate delivers Jesus to crucifixion, <em><a href='B:500 19:13-16'>Joh 19:13-16</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:34'>Joh 18:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered: Do you say this of yourself, or did others tell it to you concerning me?</em>-</p><p> The Lord was interested in the conversion of even Pilate, just as Paul was for his judges. The Lord of course knew the answer to His question- Pilate was saying this because others had told him. And yet He wishes Pilate to genuinely ask himself the question in his own heart: 'Who really is this Jesus? Is He a King?'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:35'>Joh 18:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered you to me. What have you done?</em>-</p><p> Pilate avoids the question just as the Lord avoids Pilate's question. This is not a typical interaction between a judge and the accused. The Lord is taking the initiative and seeking by all means to persuade Pilate, who instead of pushing for an answer to his question about "Are you the King of the Jews?" moves on to another question. Perhaps he did not push for an answer because he knew in his own conscience that before him stood a true, Divine King. And he did not wish to dwell on the question 'Who are You?' because in his conscience he knew. Pilate distances himself from personal guilt in the matter by saying that it was the Jews who had delivered the Lord to him, and he was not a Jew and so had had no part in it. This protestation of innocence by an otherwise conscienceless man, even when he sat in the position of power, all indicates how the Lord was touching even his conscience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:36'>Joh 18:36</a></em><em>&nbsp;Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but my kingdom is not from here</em>-</p><p> I suggested on :35 that Pilate was persuaded in his conscience that the Lord was indeed a Heavenly King, and he did not push for answer to his question about the Lord's kingship because in his heart, he knew the answer and wanted to move on. As a judge he had every right and necessity to not let the accused avoid a question. But he allows the Lord to not answer on that point. Perceiving this, the Lord now returns to this theme of His kingship, using His next opportunity to speak to return to it, even though what He says about it is not an answer to the question just addressed to Him "What have you done?". The fact He claimed to have a Kingdom was a sign that He considered Himself a King. But it was not a Kingdom in the secular sense, and was not characterized by fighting for Him. But His servants just&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;tried to fight, to this very end Thus He imputed righteousness to His men and was very positive about them to others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 15:27'>Joh 15:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>Pilate replied to him: Are you a king then? Jesus answered: You say that I am a king. To this end have I been born, and to this end I came into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice</em>-</p><p> Pilate as a Roman procurator cannot let this claim to kingship go without comment. For Caesar was to be accepted as the only king in any form. Again we see the Lord as psychological master of the whole situation. Pilate had not stated that the Lord was a King; but He perceived that this was in fact what Pilate had come to believe. See on :31,33,36.</p><p>The Lord told Pilate in the context of His upcoming death that He had come into this world to bear witness to the truth- and this was the basis upon which His Kingdom stood. And the cross was the supreme witness and exhibition of the truth. The Lord personally was the truth, the light; His person was a testimony to truth. His Kingdom, the community who accepted Him as their King, were those heard His voice, who accepted the word which was Him as a person. In <em><a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a></em>, the cross is again “this cause" for which He came. His death was therefore a witness, a testimony, to the finest and ultimate Truth of God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:38'>Joh 18:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pilate said to him: What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them: I find no crime in him</em>-</p><p> The famous question "What is truth?" is another example of how phrases are used in the gospel records which as it were jump off the page and confront all hearers or readers. We all must ask this question, and visually, we can perceive that the Lord standing in front of such a questioner was Himself the answer. For He is presented in John as "the truth". The implication could be that Pilate perceived this, for his rhetorical question is immediately followed by his conviction that there was "no crime in him". The conscienceless Pilate would have had no problem in agreeing to execute a troublemaker; for he is recorded as ordering the murder or random people for no good reason at all. But here he sees no crime in the Lord and is careful not to behave like this. Clearly, his conscience had been touched.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:39'>Joh 18:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But you have a custom, that I should release to you one prisoner at the Passover. Will you have me release to you the King of the Jews?</em>-</p><p> Matthew and Mark make it clear that Pilate was surprised they did not want the Lord released, and he remonstrated with them as to how they could wish the Lord crucified when He had done nothing wrong (<em><a href='B:480 15:14'>Mar 15:14</a></em>). It seems that Pilate misjudged the mood of the masses; he assumed they were all pro-Jesus. He was not aware that the Lord's parody of the triumphal entry had dashed their Messianic hopes, and they were now very angry with Him. Pilate had assumed that this whole thing was just a matter of envy on the part of the priests (<em><a href='B:480 15:10'>Mar 15:10</a></em>). Pilate's offer to release the Lord was an attempt to drive a wedge between the masses and the Jewish leadership; but he failed to realize that the leadership had persuaded the masses and they were themselves disillusioned with the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 18:40'>Joh 18:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore they cried out: Not this man but Barabbas (Now Barabbas was a bandit)</em>-</p><p> Both Barabbas and the thieves are described with the same Greek word, translated "robber" (<em><a href='B:500 18:40'>Joh 18:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:27'>Mar 15:27</a></em>). The Lord uses the same word when He points out that His persecutors were treating him as a "robber" (<em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:48'>Mar 14:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:52'>Luk 22:52</a></em>); He seems to be aware that what the experience He is going through is setting up Barabbas as a kind of inverse type of Himself, the true 'Son of the Father' (= 'Barabbas'). Those low, desperate men, the dregs of society, were types of us.</p><p>The crucified Christ is portrayed as King of criminals, King of the basest sort, enthroned between them, taking the place of their leader Barabbas, who ought to have been where the Lord was. Barabbas especially becomes a symbol of us all. According to Jewish tradition at the time (<em>Pesach</em>&nbsp;8:6) “They may slaughter the Passover lamb… for one whom they the authorities have promised to release from prison". The Passover amnesty freed a man justly condemned to death- on account of the death of the lamb. We can imagine the relief and joy and almost unbelief of Barabbas, as he watched or reflected upon the crucifixion of Jesus- that he who rightfully should have been there on the cross, was delivered from such a death because of the cross of Christ. The image of condemned prisoners being released due to the death of Messiah is an undoubted Old Testament figure for our redemption from slavery; those locked in the dark dungeon see great light, etc.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:1'>Joh 19:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So Pilate had Jesus scourged</em>-</p><p> Having been flogged until the skin was left hanging in bloody shreds (Josephus), His clothes would have stuck to the skin. Taking the clothes off would have ripped some shreds away. The process of dressing and undressing would have done the same. And then the cross was laid on that bare back. It seems from the synoptics that Pilate did this in the hope this would placate the Jews and he would not need to crucify Him. Again we see the power of encounter with the Lord to touch the hardest conscience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:2'>Joh 19:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple garment</em>-</p><p> The thorns would have penetrated the scalp into the network of blood vessels there, producing a flow of blood onto the mock-kingly garment.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:3'>Joh 19:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they came to him, and said: Hail, King of the Jews And they struck him with their hands</em>-</p><p> Note the continuous tenses. The Lord's experiences of suffering are depicted as going on and on, as if in endless waves. When we get that sense in our far smaller sufferings, we are fellowshipping Him there and then. The striking was "upon the cheek", according to some texts. The otherwise strange paradox of <em><a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a></em> was fulfilling: "They shall strike the judge of Israel upon the cheek". He stood there as their judge; throughout all His sufferings and final death, He was in fact supremely in control, as their judge. For of this period He had stated: "Now is the judgment of this world", and He was the judge. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:4'>Joh 19:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pilate went out again to the Jews, and said: Look, I bring him out to you, so you may know that I find no crime in him</em>-</p><p> Again we see the hard conscience of Pilate touched by the encounter with the Lord, putting this otherwise callous man on the back foot. Again we note that Pilate "went out... to the Jews", lest they be defiled by as it were coming in to a Gentile house; recall Peter's reticence at entering the home of Gentile Cornelius.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:5'>Joh 19:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate said to them: Behold the man</em>-</p><p> This was indeed sarcasm; the Lord stood there as a pathetic and bedraggled figure. But Pilate said it not so much out of spite toward Him, but as a desperate attempt to again persuade the Jews that he had humiliated this man sufficiently, and there was no point in crucifying Him. Yet again we see the desperation provoked in that hard man's conscience. &nbsp;</p><p>The mocking “behold the man..." would have been seen by the Lord as a reference to <em><a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a></em>, where He is foreseen as a Priest crowned with silver and gold, introduced to Israel with the same phrase: “Behold the man...". The Lord would have taken encouragement that in the Father’s eyes, He was crowned there and then in glory, as He magnified His priestly office. But it would have seemed so, so different in the eyes of those mocking men. As Son of God, He was an intellectual genius without compare, and He applied His genius to the Father's word. He would have been conscious of all these links, and so much more. This way of His didn't seem to leave Him in His time of dying. And His awareness would doubtless have been a tremendous encouragement to Him. God likewise can control our trials so that we take strength from them in accordance with our appreciation of His word.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:6'>Joh 19:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When the chief priests and the servants saw him, they cried out: Crucify him Crucify him Pilate said to them: Take him yourselves and crucify him. For I find no crime in him</em>-</p><p> Pilate's repeated statement that he found no crime in the Lord was unwise from a secular point of view; for he was publicly going on record as saying he was authorizing the crucifixion of an innocent man. The only reason for saying this was because he was making a genuine protest of conscience. The Jews likewise had a conscience. The more Pilate drew their attention to His innocence, the louder and more insistently they cried for His crucifixion. This of itself indicates the unease of their own consciences. All concerned are presented as culpable, rather than just doing a job. We see here how submission to the crowd mentality, following a multitude to do evil, is still absolutely culpable before God. And in our similar situations we must be ever aware of this. For we like sheep go astray, led into sin by reason of our part in the herd... but we still go astray, and for those sins committed like sheep, the Lord had to die as He did.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:7'>Joh 19:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Jews answered him: We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God</em>-</p><p> The Mosaic death penalty for false prophets / teachers did not exactly correspond with the charge laid against the Lord, of being God's Son. We note that their issue was not that He claimed to be God. If they felt they had any real evidence for that claim, they would have surely used it now. But even they realized, as Trinitarians ought&nbsp;to, that the Lord was not claiming that. He had clarified their claim to that effect in chapter 10, stating that no, He was only claiming to be the Son of God. And such terms could be used about men without being in the least blasphemous.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:8'>Joh 19:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When Pilate heard this he was even more afraid</em>-</p><p> If this were any other case, Pilate would likely have shrugged or even laughed. Just another nutty person with delusions of grandeur. But the great fear that came upon him is indication that he subconsciously joined the dots and realized that this claim was indeed true. Yet again, we are encouraged that encounter with the Lord touches the consciences of the hearers. And we can therefore preach Him knowing that for all the apparent show of disinterest, we are touching people. And that is why people's body language changes distinctly when they are handed a tract about Him; if it were advertising something to buy, or a show at the local park, their body language is quite different.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:9'>Joh 19:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he went back into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus: Where are you from? But Jesus gave him no answer</em>-</p><p> Pilate took the Lord back inside, away from earshot of the Jews, to ask Him more about this "Son of God" claim; for it had touched his conscience. This question is strange. It leads nowhere really, if asked from a purely secular perspective. I suggest that the conscience of a man as hardened as Pilate was being touched, and he sensed that the Lord was indeed from God, or had Divine origins. Hence his question. The Lord's silence was because His whole personality was an answer to the question, for He had shown in His life and showed in His whole personality that He was God's Son.</p><p>Because the Lord was so excluded from society (see on <em><a href='B:500 8:42'>Joh 8:42</a></em>), He would have been so focused upon His Heavenly Father. And that would have been felt and perceived. Reflect how the Centurion muttered: “Truly this was the Son of God”. The Lord’s creation of a new family was radical then; and it’s just as radical today. In passing, the Lord must have been so tempted to say that Joseph was his father. It would’ve made things&nbsp;<em>so&nbsp;</em>much easier for Him. Just as we are tempted to effectively deny our Heavenly Father, and act like we’re just the same as this world. According to the rabbinic writing&nbsp;<em>Qiddusin</em>&nbsp; <em><a href='B:500 4:2'>Joh 4:2</a></em>, a fatherless person must remain silent when asked “Where are you from”. And this is exactly what Jesus did when asked this very question here in <em><a href='B:500 19:9'>Joh 19:9</a></em>. This refusal to call Joseph His father cost Him His life. He refused to call Himself the son of Joseph. Indeed, E:P. Sanders makes the point that the fatherlessness of Jesus not only meant that He would not have been counted as a child of God or son of Abraham; because of these exclusions, He would have been put in the category of “a sinner”. If Joseph did indeed abandon Mary, she would have been classified as “a whore”, and Jesus would have been the “son of adultery”, putting Him in the same “sinner category”. In this we see a wonderful outworking of how God having a son resulted in that Son being counted as a sinner, even though He was not one. He was treated as “a sinner”, and thereby He came to know how we feel, who truly are sinners. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:10'>Joh 19:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pilate said to him: Why do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have the power to release you and have the power to crucify you?</em>-</p><p> Even on a secular level, the situation was such that actually Pilate did not have that power. He either capitulated totally to the Lord's cause, or allowed his supposed "power" to be overridden by the circumstance and manipulation from the Jews. And the Lord had precisely set up the whole situation, so that Pilate would have to crucify Him- although built into the whole game plan there was the genuine appeal to Pilate and the possibility that he would repent and become a Christian. We marvel at how it all worked out, remembering that this Lord is our Lord, and works in a similar way in our lives- directing and manipulating circumstance, whilst leaving the players concerned completely free to repent and come to Him. Those parts of our life path which we don't understand are simply the bits where His arrangement of things is so complex that it is beyond our comprehension. But the end result in view is our salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered him: You would have no power against me unless it was given to you from above. So the man that delivered me to you has the greater sin-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :9, the Lord made no comment about who He was, for it was obvious. But He does respond to this issue of power:The one who delivered the Lord to Pilate was Caiaphas, and he here is credited with the greatest culpability for the crucifixion. This would explain why he is earlier spoken of as "the prince of this Jewish world", singled out for particular judgment. Although Judas betrayed / delivered / handed over the Lord to the Jews, it was Caiaphas who handed Him over to Pilate. The similarity of the language is to demonstrate that Caiaphas also handed over / betrayed the Lord, and was even more culpable than Judas. In this sense, the devil / satan, the great adversary to the Lord, Caiaphas and the system he represented, had used Judas as a tool. By making the point that Caiaphas had greater sin than Pilate, the Lord was as it were comforting Pilate; demonstrating that it was He and not Pilate who was in complete control of events.</p><p>The Lord was intensely intellectually conscious throughout His sufferings. His mind was evidently full of the word, He would have seen the symbolism of everything far more than we can, from the thorns in His mock crown, to the hyssop being associated with Him at the very end (the hyssop was the fulfilment of types in <em><a href='B:20 12:8'>Exo 12:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:4'>Lev 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:6'>Lev 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:49-52'>Lev 14:49-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:6'>Num 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:18'>Num 19:18</a></em>). Often it is possible to see in His words allusions to even seven or eight OT passages, all in context, all relevant. Reflect how His response to Pilate “you would have no power against me" was a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 8, about Rome becoming mighty “but not by his own power". Or how His crucifixion “near to the city" (<em><a href='B:500 19:20'>Joh 19:20</a></em>) connected with Jerusalem thereby being guilty of His blood (<em><a href='B:50 21:3'>Deu 21:3</a></em>).</p><p>It is inevitable that to someone of His intellectual ability as the Son of God, to a man with His sense of justice and with His knowledge of the Jews and their Law, everything within Him would have cried out at the protracted injustices of His trials. He had the strong sense within Him at this time that He was hated without cause, that the Jews were "my enemies&nbsp;<em>wrongfully</em>" (<em><a href='B:230 69:4'>Psa 69:4</a></em>). "Are you come out as against a thief…? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and you laid no hold on me" (<em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>). "Why do you ask me? Ask them which heard me... If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why do you smite me?" (<em><a href='B:500 18:21-23'>Joh 18:21-23</a></em>). All these indicate a keen sense of injustice. It must have welled up within Him when He saw the servant come with the bowl of water for Pilate to solemnly wash his hands in. Yet His response was one of almost concern for Pilate, lest he think that the guilt was&nbsp;<em>solely</em>&nbsp;on him (<em><a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a></em>; cp. His concern for Judas’ repentance, <em><a href='B:500 13:27'>Joh 13:27</a></em>). The Lord did not just passively resign Himself to it with the sense that all would have to be as all would have to be. He struggled with the injustice of it all. Some form of anger even arose, it would seem. This fact must have pushed Him towards that dread precipice of sin. His possession of human nature and the possibility of failure meant that there were times when He was much nearer sin than others. But He didn't just keep away from the precipice, as He didn't spare Himself from being tired and tested by the crowds and thereby drawn closer to the possibility of spiritual failure. He came into this world to show forth the Father's glory, and to do His will was His meat and drink. This hangs like a tapestry to the whole crucifixion event.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:12'>Joh 19:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Upon this, Pilate sought to release him-&nbsp;</em>The Lord had told him that he did indeed have "sin" over this matter, although Caiaphas had greater sin. And there was something in Pilate that didn't want to sin or be held guilty by the power "from above" (:11) which was clearly involved in all this.</p><p><em>But the Jews cried out, saying: If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. Everyone that makes himself a king speaks against Caesar</em>-</p><p> On one hand, there was Pilate's desire not to sin or be held guilty before God. On the other, there was the manipulation of the crowd, the desire to retain office, and not offend our secular superiors. And that voice, as with so many, was more powerful than the voice of the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of encounter with Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha</em>-</p><p> The judgment seat of Christ is not a means by which the Father and Son gather information about us, consider it and then give a verdict. It will be for&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;benefit. Our behaviour is constantly analysed by them and 'judged'. The idea of sitting upon a judgment seat or giving judgment doesn't necessarily involve the idea of weighing up evidence. To 'judge' can mean simply to pronounce the final verdict, which the judge has long since known; not to weigh up evidence (consider <em><a href='B:470 7:2'>Mat 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:18'>Joh 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:22'>Joh 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:24'>Joh 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:51'>Joh 7:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:15-16'>Joh 8:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:26'>Joh 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:11'>Joh 16:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:31'>Joh 18:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:7'>Act 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:3'>Act 23:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:6'>Act 24:6</a></em> Gk:; <em><a href='B:520 2:12'>Rom 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:7'>Rom 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:12'>2Th 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:30'>Heb 10:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:6'>1Pe 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:10'>Jas 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:20'>Jas 5:20</a></em>). Herod sat on the judgment seat in order to make "an oration" to the people, supposedly on God's behalf (<em><a href='B:510 12:21'>Act 12:21</a></em> RVmg:). It wasn't to weigh up any evidence- it was to make a statement. And thus it will be in the final judgment. Also, "judge" is often used in the sense of 'to condemn'- not to just consider evidence (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 7:2'>Mat 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:7'>Rom 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:17'>2Th 2:17</a></em>).</p><p>It is grammatically possible to read <em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em> as meaning that Pilate sat Him (Jesus) down on the judgment seat, on the pavement, replete with allusion to the sapphire pavement of Exodus 24. The Gospel of Peter <em><a href='B:500 3:7'>Joh 3:7</a></em> actually says this happened: “And they clothed him with purple and sat him on a chair of judgment, saying, Judge justly, King of Israel". See on <em><a href='B:670 2:23'>1Pe 2:23</a></em>. This would fit in with how it was as "the judge of Israel" at this time that the Lord was smitten on the cheek; see on :3. Now was "the judgment of this world", and the Lord was judge.</p><p>The whole account of the crucifixion in John shows how the Lord gave His life up of Himself; the Jews and Romans had no power to take it from Him, and throughout John’s accounts of the trials and crucifixion, it is apparent that it is the Lord and not His opponents who is in total control of the situation. Even though ‘the Jewish Devil’ is seen as a factor in Judas’ betrayal of Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 13:27'>Joh 13:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:30'>Joh 13:30</a></em>), it is clear that Jesus was delivered up s:w. ‘betrayed’ by the “determinate counsel will and foreknowledge of God” (<em><a href='B:510 2:23'>Act 2:23</a></em>). It wasn’t as if God fought a losing battle with a personal Satan in order to protect His Son from death. The way that the Lord Jesus is ‘sat down upon’ the Judgment Bench, as if He is the authentic judge (<em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>), is an example of how the Lord Jesus is presented in John as being totally in control; His ‘lifting up’ on the cross is portrayed as a ‘lifting up’ in glory, enthroned as a King and Lord upon the cross. Likewise 'Gabbatha' means an elevated or lifted up place; the Lord there was lifted up too, that He might draw all believing eyes toward Him. Other examples of John bringing out this theme of the Lord being in control are to be found in the way He confronts His captors (<em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>), questions His questioners (<em><a href='B:500 18:20-21'>Joh 18:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:23'>Joh 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a></em>), gets freedom for His followers (<em><a href='B:500 18:8'>Joh 18:8</a></em>), and makes those come out to arrest Him fall to the ground.</p><p>The mention that Jesus stood before Pilate “in a place that is called the Pavement" (<em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>) reminds us of <em><a href='B:20 24:10'>Exo 24:10</a></em>, where Yahweh was enthroned in glory on another ‘pavement’ when the old covenant was made with Israel. The New Covenant was inaugurated with something similar. “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (<em><a href='B:580 2:9'>Col 2:9</a></em>) would have been easily perceived as an allusion to the way that Yahweh Himself as it were dwelt between the cherubim on the mercy seat (<em><a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a></em>). And yet the Lord Jesus in His death was the “place of propitiation" (<em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>), the blood-sprinkled mercy seat. “There I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat... of all things which I will give thee in commandment" (<em><a href='B:20 25:20-22'>Exo 25:20-22</a></em>). In the cross, God met with man and communed with us, commanding us the life we ought to lead through all the unspoken, unarticulated imperatives which there are within the blood of His Son. There in the person of Jesus nailed to the tree do we find the focus of God’s glory and self-revelation, and to this place we may come to seek redemption. See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:14'>Joh 19:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now it was the preparation of the Passover-&nbsp;</em>And indeed the Passover lamb was being prepared by these awful sufferings. The Lord's last supper was therefore a Passover-style meal, but not the Passover of 14 Nissan.</p><p><em>It was about the sixth hour, and he said to the Jews: Behold, your King</em>-</p><p> Pilate really ought to have figured by now that if he wanted to keep his job and placate the Jews, he had to crucify the Lord. But still his desperate conscience tried to get the Lord released. He was indeed being sarcastic by presenting the bedraggled figure of Jesus as King of the Jews. He was desperately reasoning that they could hardly accept such a figure as their king. Their response of :15 is evidence that they considered Pilate's words as an attempt to get them to rethink their obsession with crucifying the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They cried out: Away with him Away with him-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Greek means literally 'to lift up'; again the Lord would have taken encouragement from the fact that effectively His crucifixion was a lifting up in glory, from God's perspective. And He had used the same word in saying that His life was not to be taken "away" from Him, but He would give it of Himself (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>). He was total master of the situation. And there are times when others may apparently have power over us, where we appear to be victims of a total collapse situation all around us, or circumstances are going to take us away, maybe from life itself. But if we are consciously giving our lives to the Lord, then we are not being swamped or taken away by circumstance, but like the Lord, remain masters of our life's path.</p><p><em>Crucify him Pilate said to them: Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Caesar</em>-</p><p> This recalls how Israel rejected God's Kingship for that of a human king. This public statement of loyalty to Caesar was exactly what the orthodox Jews objected to making. But they made it now because of their utter obsession with destroying Him. Such obsessions, born out of a bad conscience, result in all principles being thrown to the wind.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:16'>Joh 19:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore he delivered him to them to be crucified</em>-</p><p> Pilate's guilt here is plainly stated, especially as he himself realized he had the power to release the Lord. He delivered Him "to their will" (<em><a href='B:490 23:25'>Luk 23:25</a></em>), tacitly accepting that their will was stronger than his; although all this happened according to the will of the Father and Son. The Gospels carefully omit any record of Pilate pronouncing a judgment of condemnation upon the Lord, as was required and usual. He did not do so because of the deep weight of conscience within him.</p><p>This handing over of the Lord to crucifixion was ultimately done by God, the "power" behind and through Pilate. There is an unmistakable Biblical link between the term "Son of God", the idea of God giving, and the death of the Lord Jesus. Whatever else this means, it clearly shows the pain to God in the death of His Son. Paul only uses "Son of God" 17 times- and every one is in connection with the death of the Lord. And often the usages occur together with the idea of God's&nbsp;<em>giving</em>&nbsp;of His Son to die- "He who did not spare His own son but gave him up for us all" (<em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>). This sheds light on the otherwise strange use of another idea by Paul- that Jesus was 'handed over' to death (<em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:25'>Eph 5:25</a></em>). It was the Father who ultimately 'handed over' His Son to death. The idea of God's Son being&nbsp;<em>sent</em>&nbsp;to redeem us from sin is perhaps John's equivalent (<em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). Jesus was the Son whom the Father sent "last of all" to receive fruit (<em><a href='B:480 12:6'>Mar 12:6</a></em>)- and it is reflection upon God's giving of His Son on the cross which surely should produce fruit in us. For we can no longer live passively before such outgiving love and self-sacrificial pain. And we are invited to perhaps review our understanding of two passages in this light: "When the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son... to redeem" (<em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em>) and "God sending His son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for a sin offering condemned sin, in the flesh" (<em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>). These verses would therefore speak specifically of what happened in the death of Christ on the cross, rather than of His birth. For it was in the cross rather than the virgin birth that we were redeemed and a sin offering made. It was on the cross that Jesus was above all in the exact likeness of sinful flesh, dying the death of a sinful criminal. The "likeness" of sinful flesh is explained by <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>, which uses the same word to describe how on the cross Jesus was made "in the likeness of men". We can now better understand why the Centurion was convicted by the sight of Christ's death to proclaim: "Truly this was the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:480 15:39'>Mar 15:39</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:17'>Joh 19:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha</em>-</p><p> They "took" or Gk. 'received' Him; but the prologue states that they received Him not (<em><a href='B:500 1:11'>Joh 1:11</a></em>).</p><p>Tradition has it that the victim had to hold their hands out to receive the stake, which they then had to carry. The Lord's prophecy of Peter's crucifixion thus describes it as Peter stretching out his hands and being led to his death (<em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>). Yet the Lord emphasized in His teaching that we must&nbsp;<em>take up</em>&nbsp;the cross, as He did (<em><a href='B:480 8:34'>Mar 8:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>). This might just suggest that in line with the Lord's willing death, giving up of His life rather than it being taken from Him, He bent down and picked up the stake before the soldiers had the chance to offer it to Him. I imagine doing this in a deft manner. The deftness of the way He broke that bread apart and held the cup comes out in <em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>. He knew what that breaking of bread was going to mean. His willingness would have been such a contrast to the unwilling hesitation of the thieves and other victims. The soldiers must have been blind indeed to still mock Him, despite all these indications that He was more than mere man. That piece of wood that was laid upon Him by the Father, however the Lord physically took it up, represented our sins, which were laid upon Him (<em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>); your laziness to do your readings early this morning, my snap at the woman in the bus, his hatred of his mother in law... that piece of wood was the symbol of our sins, every one of them. This is what we brought upon Him. It was our laziness, our enmity, our foolishness,&nbsp;<em>our weak will</em>... that necessitated the death of Jesus in this terrible way. He went through with it all&nbsp;to make an end of sins" (<em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em>). Will we do our little bit in responding? The marks of His sufferings will be in Him eternally, and thereby we will be eternally reminded of the things we now only dimly appreciate (<em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 13:6'>Zec 13:6</a></em>). The walk from the courthouse to Golgotha was probably about 800m (half a mile). One of the soldiers would have carried the sign displaying the Lord's Name and crime. The thieves were probably counting the paces (maybe the crowd was chanting them?). You know how it is when doing a heavy task, 'Just three more boxes to lug upstairs... just two more... last one'. But the Lord was above this. Of that I'm sure. Doing any physically strenuous task that takes you to the end of your strength, there is that concentration on nothing else but the job in hand. Hauling a heavy box or load, especially in situations of compulsion or urgency, it becomes irrelevant if you bump into someone or crush a child's toy beneath your heavy feet. But the Lord rose above.</p><p>John's statement that "He went out, bearing the cross for Himself" as He walked to Golgotha is a real emphasis, seeing that it was&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;He came out that it was necessary for them to make Simon carry the cross. John takes a snapshot of that moment, and directs our concentration to the Lord at that moment, determined to carry it to the end, even though in fact He didn't. It is this picture of following the Lord carrying&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;cross which the Lord had earlier asked us to make the model of our lives. We are left to assume that the two criminals followed Him in the procession. They were types of us, the humble and the proud, the selfless and the selfish, the two categories among those who have been asked to carry the cross and follow the Lord in His 'last walk'.</p><p>The word John uses for 'bearing' is translated (and used in the sense of) 'take up' in <em><a href='B:500 10:31'>Joh 10:31</a></em>. It was as if John saw as significant the Lord's willingness to take up the cross Himself, without waiting for it to be forced upon Him as it probably was on the other two. And there is a clear lesson for us, who fain would carry something of that cross. And yet the similarity of meaning within this word for 'taking up' and 'bearing / carrying' is further instructive. The Lord picked it up and was willing to carry it, but didn't make it to the end of the 'last walk', through understandable human weakness. Amidst the evident challenge of the cross, there is interwoven comfort indeed (as there is in the Lord's eager and positive acceptance of the thief, Joseph and Nicodemus, and the wondrous slowness of the Father's punishment of those ever-so-evil men who did the Lord to death).</p><p>'Golgotha' meaning 'The place of the skull' or even ‘The skull of Goliath’ may well be the place near Jerusalem where David buried Goliath's skull (<em><a href='B:90 17:54'>1Sa 17:54</a></em>). "Ephes-Dammim", where David killed Goliath, meaning 'border of blood' suggests 'Aceldama', the "field of blood". Goliath coming out to make his challenges at morning and evening&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:90 17:16'>1Sa 17:16</a></em>) coincided with the daily sacrifices which should have been offered at those times, with their reminder of sin and the need for dedication to God. The thoughtful Israelite must surely have seen in Goliath a personification of sin which the daily sacrifices could do nothing to overcome.</p><p>“The crossbar was carried... weighing 34 to 57 kg:, was placed across the nape of the victim's neck and balanced along both shoulders. Usually the outstretched arms then were tied to the crossbar”. This means that the Lord would have had His shoulders bowed forward as He walked to Golgotha, with both His hands lifted up against His chest. He evidently foresaw this in some detail when He described His mission to man as a shepherd carrying His lost sheep on both shoulders. Let's forever forget the picture of a happy, quiet lamb snugly bobbling along on the shepherd's shoulders. We are surely meant to fill in the details in the parables. The sheep, his underside covered in faeces and mud, would have been terrified; in confusion he would have struggled with the saviour shepherd. To be carried on His shoulders would have been a strange experience; he would have struggled and been awkward, as the shepherd stumbled along, gripping both paws against His chest with His uplifted hands. This was exactly the Lord's physical image as He stumbled to the place of crucifixion. He evidently saw the cross as a symbol of us, His struggling and awkward lost sheep. And every step of the way along the Via Dolorosa, Yahweh's enemies reproached every stumbling footstep of His anointed (<em><a href='B:230 89:51'>Psa 89:51</a></em>). It was all this that made Him a true King and our unquestioned leader- for on His shoulders is to rest the authority of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:290 9:5'>Isa 9:5</a></em>), because He bore His cross upon the same shoulders.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one and Jesus between them</em>-</p><p> He is presented as King of criminals of the basest kind; see on <em><a href='B:500 18:40'>Joh 18:40</a></em>.</p><p>John’s Gospel has many references to Moses, as catalogued elsewhere. When John records the death of the Lord with two men either side of Him, he seems to do so with his mind on the record of Moses praying with Aaron and Hur on each side of him (<em><a href='B:20 17:12'>Exo 17:12</a></em>). John’s account in English reads: “They crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one” (<em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>). Karl Delitzsch translated the Greek New Testament into Hebrew, and the Hebrew phrase he chose to use here is identical with that in <em><a href='B:20 17:12'>Exo 17:12</a></em>. Perhaps this explains why John alone of the Gospel writers doesn’t mention that the two men on either side of the Lord were in fact criminals- he calls them “two others” (<em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>) and “… the legs of the first and of the other” (<em><a href='B:500 19:32'>Joh 19:32</a></em>). Thus John may’ve chosen to highlight simply how there were two men on either side of the Lord, in order to bring out the connection with the Moses scene.</p><p>It makes a good exercise to read through one of the records, especially John 19, and make a list of the adjectives used. There are virtually none. Read a page of any human novelist or historian: the pages are cluttered with them. Hebrew is deficient in adjectives, and because of this it often uses 'Son of…' plus an abstract noun, instead of an adjective. Thus we read of a "son of peace" (<em><a href='B:490 10:5-6'>Luk 10:5-6</a></em>), or "a man of tongue" (<em><a href='B:230 140:11'>Psa 140:11</a></em> RVmg; AV "an evil speaker"). The Hebrew language so often reflects the character of God. And His artless self-expression is no clearer seen in the way He inspired the records of the death of His Son. The record of the death of God's Son is something altogether beyond the use of devices as primitive as adjectives. The way in which the actual act of impaling is recorded as just a subordinate clause is perhaps the clearest illustration of this. The way Mary thinks the risen Lord is a gardener is another such. Or the weeping of the women, and Joseph, and Nicodemus (presumably this happened) when the body was taken from the cross, as the nails were taken out: this isn't recorded. Likewise, only Matthew records the suicide of Judas; the Father chose not to emphasize in the records that the man who did the worst a man has ever done or could ever do- to betray the peerless Son of God- actually went and took his own life (and even made a mess of doing that). If it were my son, I would have wanted to emphasize this. But the Almighty doesn't. In similar vein, it is almost incredible that there was no immediate judgment on the men who did the Son of God to death. The judgments of AD70 only came on the next generation. Those middle aged men who stood and derided the Saviour in His time of finest trial: they died, as far as we know, in their beds. And the Roman / Italian empire went on for a long time afterwards, even if God did in fact impute guilt to them for what their soldiers did. Another hallmark of God's Hand in the record is that what to us are the most obvious OT prophecies are not quoted; e.g. <em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em>: "He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth". A human author would have made great capital from such detailed fulfilments. But not so the Almighty. Hebrew, along with all the Semitic languages, has no superlatives. God doesn’t need them. And the record of the cross is a classic example. The record of the resurrection reflects a similar culture. The actual resurrection isn’t ever described in marked contrast to how it is in the uninspired ‘gospels’. Instead we read of the impact of His resurrection upon His disciples.</p><p>The crucifixion of Christ was at 9 a:m. The text suggests there may have been a gap of minutes between them arriving at the place and the actual nailing. He would have willingly laid Himself down on the stake, whereas most victims had to be thrown down on the ground by the soldiers. He gave His life, it wasn't taken from Him. Likewise He&nbsp;<em>gave</em>&nbsp;His back to the smiters when they flogged Him; He gave His face to them when they spoke about pulling out His beard (<em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em>). Men usually clenched their fists to stop the nails being driven in, and apparently fingers were often broken by the soldiers to ease their task. Not a bone of the Lord was broken. We can imagine Him willingly opening His palms to the nails; as we, so far away from it all, should have something of a willing acceptance of what being in Him demands of us. It may be that He undressed Himself when they finally reached the place of crucifixion. In similar vein, early paintings of the flogging show the Lord standing there&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;tied to the flogging post, as victims usually were. As He lay there horizontal, His eyes would have been heavenwards, for the last time in His mortality. Perhaps He went through the business of thinking ‘this is the last time I'll do this... or that…’. How often He had lifted up His eyes to Heaven and prayed (<em><a href='B:500 11:41'>Joh 11:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>). And now, this was the last time, except for the final raising of the head at His death. “While four soldiers held the prisoner, a Centurion placed the sharp five inch spike in the dead centre of the palm… four to five strokes would hammer the spike deep into the rough plank and a fifth turned it up so that the hand would not slip free" (C:M. Ward,&nbsp;<em>Treasury Of Praise</em>). If it is indeed so that a Centurion usually did the nailing, it is a wondrous testimony that it was the Centurion who could say later that “truly this was the Son of God". The very man who actually nailed the Son of God was not struck dead on the spot, as a human ‘deity’ would have done. God’s patient grace was extended, with the result that this man too came to faith:&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The sheer and utter reality of the crucifixion needs to be meditated upon just as much as the actual reality of the fact that Jesus actually existed. A Psalm foretold that Jesus at His death would be the song of the drunkards. Many Nazi exterminators took to drink. And it would seem almost inevitable that the soldiers who crucified Jesus went out drinking afterwards. Ernest Hemingway wrote a chilling fictional story of how those men went into a tavern late on that Friday evening. After drunkenly debating whether “Today is Friday", they decide that it really is Friday, and then tell how they nailed Him and lifted Him up. ''When the weight starts to pull on 'em, that's when it gets em... Ain't I seen em ? I seen plenty of 'em . I tell you, he was pretty good today". And that last phrase runs like a refrain through their drunken evening. Whether or not this is an accurate reconstruction isn't my point- we have a serious duty to seek to imagine what it might have been like. Both Nazi and Soviet executioners admit how vital it was to never look the man you were murdering in the face. It was why they put on a roughness which covered their real personalities. And the Lord’s executioners would have done the same. To look into His face, especially His eyes, dark with love and grief for His people, would have driven those men to either suicide or conversion. I imagine them stealing a look at His face, the face of this man who didn’t struggle with them but willingly laid Himself down on the wood. The cross struck an educated Greek as barbaric folly, a Roman citizen as sheer disgrace, and a Jew as God's curse. Yet Jesus turned the sign of disgrace into a sign of victory. Through it, He announced a radical revaluation of all values. He made it a symbol for a brave life, without fear even in the face of fatal risks; through struggle, suffering, death, in firm trust and hope in the goal of true freedom, life, humanity, eternal life. The offence, the sheer scandal, was turned into an amazing experience of salvation, the way of the cross into a possible way of life. The risen Christ was and is just as much a living reality. Suetonius records that Claudius expelled Jewish Christians from Rome because they were agitated by one Chrestus; i:e. Jesus the Christ. Yet the historian speaks as if He was actually alive and actively present in person. In essence, He was. All the volumes of confused theology, the senseless theories about the Trinity. would all have been avoided if only men had had the faith to believe that the man Jesus who really died and rose, both never sinned and was also indeed the Son of God. And that His achievement of perfection in human flesh was real. Yes it takes faith- and all the wrong theology was only an excuse for a lack of such faith.</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p></td><td></td></tr></table><p>Several crucifixion victims have been unearthed. One was nailed with nails 18c:m. long (7 inches). A piece of acacia word seems to have been inserted between the nail head and the flesh:&nbsp;<em>Did the Lord cry out in initial pain and shock?</em>&nbsp;Probably, as far as I can reconstruct it; for He would have had all the physical reflex reactions of any man. But yet I also sense that He didn't flinch as other men did. He came to offer His life, willingly; not grudgingly, resistantly give it up. He went through the panic of approaching the pain threshold. The nailing of the hands and feet just where the nerves were would have sent bolts of pain through the Lord's arms every time He moved or spoke. The pain would have been such that even with the eyelids closed, a penetrating red glare would have throbbed in the Lord’s vision. Hence the value and intensity of those words He did speak. The pulling up on the nails in the hands as the cross was lifted up would have been excruciating. The hands were nailed through the 'Destot gap', between the first and second row of wrist bones, touching an extra sensitive nerve which controls the movement of the thumb and signals receipt of pain. They would not have been nailed through the palms or the body would not have been supportable. It has been reconstructed that in order to breathe, the crucified would have had to pull up on his hands, lift the head for a breath, and then let the head subside. The sheer physical agony of it all cannot be minimized. Zenon Ziolkowski (<em>Spor O Calun</em>) discusses contemporary descriptions of the faces of the crucified, including Jehohanan the Zealot, whose crucifixion Josephus mentions. Their faces were renowned for being terribly distorted by pain. The Lord's face was marred more than that of any other, so much so that those who saw Him looked away (<em><a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a></em>). That prophecy may suggest that for the Lord, the crucifixion process hurt even more. We suggest later that He purposefully refused to take relief from pushing down on the 'seat', and thus died more painfully and quicker. Several of the unearthed victims were crucified on olive trees. So it was perhaps an olive tree which the Lord had to carry. He would have thought of this as He prayed among the olive trees of Gethsemane (perhaps they took it from that garden?). I would not have gone through with this. I would have chosen a lesser death and the achieving of a lesser salvation. I would have had more pity on myself. But the Lord of all did it&nbsp;<em>for me</em>, He became obedient&nbsp;<em>even</em>&nbsp;to death on a cross (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>), as if He could have been obedient to a lesser death, but He chose this ultimately high level. I can only marvel at the Father's gentleness with us, that despite the ineffable trauma of death, the way He takes us is so much more gentle than how He allowed His only begotten to go.</p><p>Despite much prior meditation, there perhaps dawned on the Lord some 'physical' realizations as to the nature of His crucified position: the utter impossibility of making the slightest change of position, especially when tormented by flies, the fact that the hands and feet had been pierced in the most sensitive areas; the fact that the arms were arranged in such a way so that the weight of the body hung only on the muscles, not on the bones and tendons. The smell of blood would have brought forth yelping dogs, circling birds of prey, flying insects…an incessant barrage of annoyances, things to distract the Lord’s mind. As we too also face. He would have realized that the whole process was designed to produce tension in every part of the body. All His body, every part of it, in every aspect, had to suffer (and He would have realized the significance of this, and seen&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;of us as suffering with Him). The muscles were all hopelessly overworked, cramps due to the malcirculation of blood would have created an overwhelming desire to move. All victims would have writhed and wriggled within the few millimetres leeway which they had, to avoid a splinter pushing into the back lacerated from flogging... But my sense is that the Lord somehow didn't do this. He didn't push down on the footrests for relief, He didn't take the pain killer, He didn't ask for a drink until the end, when presumably the others accepted. Every muscle in the body would have become locked after two hours or so. Every part of His body suffered, symbolic of how through His sufferings He was able to identify with every member of His spiritual body- for "we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones" (<em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em>). He had perhaps foreseen something of all this when He likened the killing of His body to the taking down of a tent / tabernacle- every bone and sinew, like every pole and canvass, had to be uprooted, 'taken down' (<em><a href='B:500 2:19'>Joh 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:21'>Joh 2:21</a></em>).</p><p>The moment of lifting the stake up vertical, probably amidst a renewed surge of abuse or cheering from the crowd, had been long foreseen and imagined by the Lord. "If, if I be&nbsp;<em>lifted up</em>..." (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>). He foresaw the physical (and spiritual) details of the crucifixion process in such detail. Recall how He foresaw that moment of handing over to death. And yet still He asked for the cup to pass, still He panicked and felt forsaken. If the theory of the cross was so hard to actually live out in practice for the Lord, then how hard it must be for us. The Lord's descriptions of Himself as being 'lifted up' use a phrase which carried in Hebrew the idea of exaltation and glory. As He was lifted up physically, the ground swaying before His eyes, His mind fixed upon the Father and the forgiveness which He was making possible through His sacrifice, covered in blood and spittle, struggling for breath... He was 'lifted up' in glory and exaltation, to those who have open eyes to see and hearts to imagine and brains to comprehend.</p><p>Imagine yourself being crucified. Go through the stages in the process. The Lord invited us to do this when He asked us to figuratively crucify ourselves daily. Consider all the language of the sacrifices which pointed forward to the final, supreme act of the Lord: poured out, pierced, parted in pieces, beaten out; the rock smitten... and this is the process which we are going through, although the Father deals with us infinitely more gently than with His only Son.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And there was written: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews</em>-</p><p> Did Pilate write it in his own handwriting? Did they use the same ladder to place the inscription which Joseph later used to retrieve the body? Why do the records suggest that the inscription was placed after the stake had been erected? Was there initial resistance from the Jews? Was He impaled with the placard around His neck, and then the ladder was put up, and a soldier lifted it off and nailed it above His head? "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" written in Hebrew would have used words whose first letters created the sacred Name: YHWH. Perhaps this was why there was such opposition to it. "King of the Jews" would have been understood as a Messianic title. Either Pilate was sarcastic, or really believed it, or just wanted to provoke the Jews. In any case, somehow the Yahweh Name was linked with the Messiah: King of the Jews. The Name was declared in the Lord’s death, as He had foretold (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). Forgiveness of sins is through baptism into the Name (<em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>), as even in OT times forgiveness was for the sake of the Name (<em><a href='B:230 79:9'>Psa 79:9</a></em>). And yet through the cross and blood of Christ is forgiveness made possible. His blood and death therefore was the supreme declaration of God’s Name; through His cross the grace and forgiveness, love, salvation and judgment implicit in the Name was all enabled and revealed in practice. <em><a href='B:230 22:22'>Psa 22:22</a></em> prophesied that “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>, LXX". It was to us His brethren that the Name was declared; in the eyes of an unbelieving world, this was just another crucified man, a failure, a wannabe who never made it. But to us, it is the declaration of the Name. It was and is done in the midst of the ecclesia, as if the whole church from that day to this beholds it all at first hand. And our response is to in turn “Declare his righteousness" (<em><a href='B:230 22:31'>Psa 22:31</a></em>), in response to seeing the Name declared, we declare to Him…in lives of love for the brethren. For the Name was declared, that the love that was between the Father and Son might be in us:&nbsp;</p><p>It is possible to argue that "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" written in Hebrew would require the use of words, the first letters of which created the word YHWH:</p><p>y Jesus- Yeshua</p><p>h The Nazarene- Ha’Natzri cp. “the sect of ‘The Nazarene(s)’, <em><a href='B:510 24:5'>Act 24:5</a></em></p><p>v and King- u’Melek</p><p>h of the Jews- Ha’Yehudim</p><p>giving the Yahweh Name:</p><p>hvhy</p><p>This is why the Jews minded it so strongly when the title was put up. Pilate’s retort “What I have written I have written" may well have been an oblique reference to ‘I am that I am’. It was his attempt to have the last laugh with the Jews who had manipulated him into crucifying a man against whom there was no real charge. It was as if the Lord suffered as He did with a placard above Him which effectively said: 'This is Yahweh'. The Name was declared there, as the Lord had foreseen (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). The declaration of Yahweh’s Name to Moses in <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> thus becomes a foretaste of the Lord’s crucifixion. Some LXX versions render <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> as ‘Yahweh, Yahweh,&nbsp;<em>a man</em>&nbsp;full of mercy…’. In the crucifixion of the man Christ Jesus the essence of Yahweh was declared. And we, John says with reference to the cross, saw that glory, as it were cowering in the rock like Moses,&nbsp;<em>full</em>&nbsp;of grace and truth (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> RV).</p><p>There are other reasons for thinking that there was the supreme manifestation of Yahweh in the cross of His Son:</p><p>·&nbsp; It has been observed that the blood of the Passover Lamb on the lintels of the doors at the Exodus, three sides of a square, would have recalled the two repeated letters of ‘Yahweh’ (see above panel), as if His Name was manifested in the blood of the slain lamb:&nbsp;</p><p>·&nbsp; Yahweh laid on the Lord the iniquity of us all, as if He was present there when the soldiers laid the cross upon the Lord's shoulders (<em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>·&nbsp; Yahweh had prophesied of what He would achieve through the crucified Christ: “I am, I am: He that blots out thy transgressions" (<em><a href='B:290 43:25'>Isa 43:25</a></em> LXX). He declares His Name as being supremely demonstrated in His forgiveness of our sins through and in the Lord’s cross:&nbsp;</p><p>·&nbsp; Jehovah-Jireh can mean “Yahweh will show Yah" (<em><a href='B:10 22:14'>Gen 22:14</a></em>), in eloquent prophecy of the crucifixion. There Yahweh was to be manifested supremely:&nbsp;</p><p>·&nbsp; Paul speaks of how the cross of Christ should humble us, so that no flesh should glory in God’s presence (<em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>); as if God’s presence is found in the cross, before which we cannot have any form of pride:&nbsp;</p><p>·&nbsp; The LXX uses the word translated “propitiation" in the NT with reference to how God forgave / propitiated for Israel’s sins for His Name’s sake (<em><a href='B:20 32:14'>Exo 32:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 79:9'>Psa 79:9</a></em>). That propitiation was only for the sake of the Lord’s future death, which would be the propitiation God ultimately accepted. Having no past or future with Him, Yahweh could act as if His Son’s death had already occurred. But that death and forgiveness for “His name’s sake" were one and the same thing. The Son’s death was the expression of the Father’s Name:&nbsp;</p><p>·&nbsp; There was a Jewish tradition that the only time when the Yahweh Name could be pronounced was by the High Priest, when he sprinkled the blood of Israel's atonement on the altar. The Name was expressed in that blood:&nbsp;</p><p>·&nbsp; <em><a href='B:450 11:13'>Zec 11:13</a></em> speaks of Yahweh being priced at thirty shekels of silver by Israel. But these words are appropriated to the Lord in His time of betrayal. What men did to Him, they did to the Father:&nbsp;-</p><p>The Red Heifer was to be slain before the face of the priest, "as he watches" (<em><a href='B:40 19:3-5'>Num 19:3-5</a></em> NIV), pointing forward to the Lord's slaughter in the personal presence of the Father.-</p><p> The blood of the sin offering was to be sprinkled “before the LORD, before the veil" (<em><a href='B:30 4:6'>Lev 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:17'>Lev 4:17</a></em>). Yet the veil was a symbol of the flesh of the Lord Jesus at the time of His dying. At the time of the sprinkling of blood when the sin offering was made, the veil the flesh of the Lord Jesus was identifiable with Yahweh Himself. The blood of the offerings was poured out “before Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 4:15'>Lev 4:15</a></em> etc:), pointing forward to how God Himself, from so physically far away, “came down" so that the blood shedding of His Son was done as it were in His presence. And who is to say that the theophany that afternoon, of earthquake and thick darkness, was not the personal presence of Yahweh, hovering above crucifixion hill? Over the mercy seat (a symbol of the Lord Jesus in Hebrews), between the cherubim where the blood was sprinkled, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee" (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>). There we see the essence of God, and there in the cross we hear the essential word and message of God made flesh:&nbsp;</p><p>· The smitten rock was an evident type of the Lord’s smiting on the cross. And yet in Deuteronomy especially it is made clear that Israel were to understand Yahweh as their rock. And yet “that rock was Christ". God Himself said that he would stand upon the rock as it was smitten- presumably fulfilled by the Angel standing or hovering above / upon the rock, while Moses smote it. And yet again it is Yahweh who is described as smiting the rock in Psalms 78 and <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>. He was with Christ, directly identified with Him, at the very same time as He ‘smote’ Him.</p><p>See on <em><a href='B:470 26:65'>Mat 26:65</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:56'>Joh 8:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:37'>Joh 13:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:20'>Joh 19:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>This title many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin and in Greek</em>-</p><p> As noted on :19, the Jews objected to the Hebrew title because the first letters of the four words used spelled the memorial Name, YHWH. The point is made here that crucifixion was public. If we are to die with the Lord, and share His cross, then our commitment to Him likewise must be public. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. The tendency in our age is to be secret Christians, showing sympathy for His cause from behind our screens. But the essence of Christianity is to make a public declaration as the Lord did; and John's Gospel has a theme of secret believers either turning back to their surrounding world, or coming out openly for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:21'>Joh 19:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate: Do not write, The King of the Jews; but that: He claimed, I am King of the Jews</em>-</p><p> Pilate seems to have sincerely believed that the Lord was indeed Israel's king and Son of God; throughout <em><a href='B:500 19:1-15'>Joh 19:1-15</a></em> I have pointed out his struggle with his own conscience. This insistence of writing the title as he did was perhaps a rather pathetic attempt to make at least some statement of support for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:22'>Joh 19:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pilate answered: What I have written I have written</em>-</p><p> As noted on :19, perhaps an allusion to the YHWH Name, 'I will be that I will be', which was spelled out by the first letters of the four Hebrew words used for the title.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:23'>Joh 19:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout</em>-</p><p> This was all prefigured in how Joseph lost his garment before he went into the pit and before he went to prison (<em><a href='B:10 39:13'>Gen 39:13</a></em>). Presumably there were many soldiers around. The temple guard which was seconded to the Jews (<em><a href='B:470 27:65'>Mat 27:65</a></em>) was doubtless there in full force, lest there be any attempt to save Jesus by the crowd or the disciples. And yet <em><a href='B:500 19:23'>Joh 19:23</a></em> suggests there were only four soldiers, each of whom received a part of His clothing. This must mean that there were four actually involved in the crucifixion: one for each hand and foot. He had signs of nails (plural) in His hands. We are left to meditate as to whether He was nailed hand over hand as tradition has it (which would have meant two very long nails were used); or both hands separately.</p><p>It is likely that the Lord was crucified naked, thereby sharing the shame of Adam's nakedness. The&nbsp;<em>shame</em>&nbsp;of the cross is stressed (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 31:17'>Psa 31:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:6-7'>Psa 69:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:12'>Psa 69:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:19-20'>Psa 69:19-20</a></em>). And we are to share those sufferings. There&nbsp;<em>must</em>, therefore, be an open standing up for what we believe in the eyes of a hostile world. Preaching, in this sense, is for all of us. And if we dodge this, we put the Son of God to a naked shame; we re-crucify Him naked, we shame Him again (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). He was crucified naked, and the sun went in for three hours. He must have been cold, very cold (<em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>). Artemidorus Daldianus (<em>Oneirokritika&nbsp;</em>2:53) confirms that the Romans usually crucified victims naked. Melito of Sardis, writing in the 2nd century, writes of “his body naked and not even deemed worthy of a clothing that it might not be seen. Therefore the heavenly lights turned away and the day darkened in order that he might be hidden who was denuded upon the cross" (<em>On the Pasch</em>&nbsp;97). The earliest portrayals of the crucified Jesus, on carved gems, feature Him naked.</p><p>There is reason to think that the Jews put the Lord to the maximum possible shame and pain; therefore they may well have crucified Him naked. T. Mommsen&nbsp;<em>The Digest Of Justinian&nbsp;</em>48:20:6 reports that “the garments that the condemned person is wearing may not be demanded by the torturers"- the fact that they gambled for His clothes shows that the Lord was yet again treated illegally (quite a feature of the records) and to the maximum level of abuse. We not only get this impression from the Biblical record, but from a passage in the Wisdom of Solomon (<em><a href='B:500 2:12-20'>Joh 2:12-20</a></em>) which would have been well known to them, and which has a surprising number of similarities to the Lord’s life amongst the Jews:</p><p>“Let us lie in wait for the virtuous man, since he annoys us and opposes our way of life, reproaches us for our breaches of the law an accuses us of playing false…he claims to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a son of the Lord. Before us he stands, a reproof to our way of thinking, the very sight of him weighs our spirits down; His way of life is not like other men’s…in His opinion we are counterfeit... and boasts of having God as His father. let us see if what he says is true, let us observe what kind of end he himself will have. If the virtuous man is God’s son, God will take his part and rescue him from the clutches of his enemies<em>. Let us test him with cruelty and with torture, and thus explore this gentleness of His and put His endurance to the proof. Let us condemn him to a shameful death</em>&nbsp;since he will be looked after- we have his word for it".</p><p>Susan Garrett lists several Greek words and phrases found in the Gospel of Mark which are identical to those in this section of the Wisdom of Solomon. It would seem that Mark was aware of this passage in the Wisdom of Solomon, and sought to show how throughout the Lord's ministry, and especially in His death, the Jews were seeking to apply it to Him in the way they treated Him. See Susan Garrett,&nbsp;<em>The Temptations Of Jesus In Mark's Gospel</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) p. 68.</p><p>The idea of the Lord being subjected to the maximum pain and mocking must, sadly, be applied to Seneca’s description of how some victims of crucifixion were nailed through their genitals (<em>Dialogi</em>&nbsp;6:20:3). In this sense the paradox of Isaiah 53 would have come true- through losing His ability to bring forth children, the Lord brought forth a huge multitude of spiritual children world-wide. It’s an honour to be one of them:&nbsp;</p><p>There seems to have been something unusual about the Lord’s outer garment. The same Greek word&nbsp;<em>chiton</em>&nbsp;used in <em><a href='B:500 19:23-24'>Joh 19:23-24</a></em> is that used in the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:3'>Gen 37:3</a></em> to describe Joseph’s coat of many pieces. Josephus (<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;3:7:4,161) uses the word for the tunic of the High Priest, which was likewise not to be rent (<em><a href='B:30 21:10'>Lev 21:10</a></em>). The Lord in His time of dying is thus set up as High Priest, gaining forgiveness for His people, to ‘come out’ of the grave as on the day of Atonement, pronouncing the forgiveness gained, and bidding His people spread that good news world-wide.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They said to each other, Let us not tear it but cast lots for it, to determine whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled, which said: They divided my garments among them, and for my robe they cast lots</em>-</p><p> The robe was not to be torn,&nbsp;<em>schizein</em>. There was to be no schism in it. Ahijah tore his garment into twelve pieces to symbolize the division of Israel (<em><a href='B:110 11:30-31'>1Ki 11:30-31</a></em>). The Lord’s coat being unrent may therefore be another reflection of how His death brought about unity amongst His people (<em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21-22'>Joh 17:21-22</a></em>). Before Him, there, we simply cannot be divided amongst ourselves. Likewise the net through which the Lord gathers His people was unbroken (<em><a href='B:500 21:11'>Joh 21:11</a></em>). Note how all these references are in John- as if he perceived this theme of unity through the cross. Note the focus of the soldiers upon the dividing up of the clothes, whilst the Son of God played out the ultimate spiritual drama for human salvation just a metre or so away from them. And our pettiness is worked out all too often in sight of the same cross. As those miserable men argued over the clothes at the foot of the cross, so when Israel stood before the glory of Yahweh at Sinai, they still suffered “disputes" amongst themselves ( NIV cp. <em><a href='B:650 12:29'>Heb 12:29</a></em>). So pressing and important do human pettinesses appear, despite the awesomeness of that bigger picture to which we stand related.</p><p>The prophecy quoted is <em><a href='B:230 22:18'>Psa 22:18</a></em>, where the Psalmist speaks as if he is observing the parting of his garments before his own eyes. This had an incredibly accurate fulfilment in how the Lord from His impaled position was able to view this happening before Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>These things the soldiers did. There was standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene</em>-</p><p>The Torah required "two or three witnesses" (<em><a href='B:50 19:15'>Deu 19:15</a></em>); yet Roman law disallowed women as witnesses. Significantly, the Torah didn't, although later Jewish law did. The records of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus are carefully framed to show that there were always two or three witnesses present- and they are all&nbsp;<em>women</em>:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p></td><td>Cross</td><td>Burial</td><td>Resurrection</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Matthew</td><td>Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Joseph, Mother of the sons of Zebedee</td><td>Mary Magdalene, "the other Mary"</td><td>Mary Magdalene, "the other Mary"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mark</td><td>Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Joses, Salome</td><td>Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of Joses</td><td>Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Luke</td><td></td><td></td><td>Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The emphasis is surely deliberate- women, the ones who were&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;witnesses according to the world, were the very witnesses chosen by God to testify the key truths concerning His Son. And His same approach is seen today in His choices of and amongst us.</p><p>It is entirely possible that the sister of Jesus’ mother mentioned in the account of the crucifixion ("His mother’s sister") is to be identified with the woman named Salome mentioned in <em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em> and also with the woman identified as “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” mentioned in <em><a href='B:470 27:56'>Mat 27:56</a></em>. If so, and if John the Apostle is to be identified as the beloved disciple, then the reason for the omission of the second woman’s name becomes clear; she would have been John’s own mother, and he consistently omitted direct reference to himself or his brother James or any other members of his family in the fourth Gospel. Therefore "behold your mother" meant he was to reject&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;mother and take Mary as his mother, to alleviate the extent of her loss. Finally Mary came to see Jesus as Jesus, as the Son of God, and not just as her son. This was her conversion- to see Him for who He was, uncluttered by her own perceptions of Him, by the baggage of everything else. And so it can be with us in re-conversion. We each must face the reality of who Jesus really is, quite apart from all the baggage of how we were brought up to think of Him: the Sunday School Jesus, the Jesus of the apostate church, the Jesus we have come to imagine from our own human perceptions…must give way when we are finally confronted with who He really is. This line of thought is born out by a consideration of <em><a href='B:480 15:40-41'>Mar 15:40-41</a></em>: “There were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the little and of Joses, and Salome; who, when he was in Galilee, followed him and ministered unto him: and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem”. Jesus had two brothers named James and Joses (<em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em>). If the principle of interpreting Scripture by Scripture means anything, then we can fairly safely assume that the Mary referred to here is Mary the mother of Jesus. It was perhaps due to the influence and experience of the cross that His brother James called himself “the little”, just as Saul changed his name to Paul, ‘the little one’, from likewise reflecting on the height of the Lord’s victory. So within the crowd of women, there were two women somehow separate from the rest- “among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary”. Mary Magdalene was the bashful ex-hooker who was almost inevitably in love with Jesus. The other Mary was His mother. Understandably they forged a special bond with each other. Only Mary Magdalene had fully perceived the Lord’s upcoming death, hence her anointing of His body beforehand. And only His Mother had a perception approaching that of the Magdalene. It’s not surprising that the two of them were somehow separate from the other women. These women are described as following Him when He was in Galilee; and the mother of Jesus is specifically recorded as having done this, turning up at the Cana wedding uninvited, and then coming to the house where Jesus was preaching:&nbsp; The description of the women as ‘coming up’ (the idiom implies ‘to keep a feast’) with Him unto Jerusalem takes the mind back to Mary bringing Jesus up to Jerusalem at age 12. But my point is, that Mary is called now “the mother of James…and of Joses”. The same woman appears in <em><a href='B:480 16:1'>Mar 16:1</a></em>: “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James…had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint him”. Earlier in the Gospels, Mary is always “the mother of Jesus”. Now she is described as the mother of her other children. It seems to me that this is the equivalent of John recording how Mary was told by Jesus at the cross that she was no longer the mother of Jesus, He was no longer her son. The other writers reflect this by calling her at that time “Mary the mother of James” rather than the mother of Jesus. The way that Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene rather than to His mother (<em><a href='B:480 16:9'>Mar 16:9</a></em>) is surely God’s confirmation of this break between Jesus and His earthly mother:&nbsp;</p><p>The whole structure of the records of the crucifixion are to emphasize how the cross is essentially about human response to it; nothing else elicits from humanity a response like the cross does. Mark’s account, for example, has 5 component parts. The third part, the centrepiece as it were, is the account of the actual death of the Lord; but it is surrounded by cameos of human response to it (consider <em><a href='B:480 15:22-27'>Mar 15:22-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:28-32'>Mar 15:28-32</a></em>; the actual death of Jesus, <em><a href='B:480 15:33-37'>Mar 15:33-37</a></em>; then <em><a href='B:480 15:38-41'>Mar 15:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:42-47'>Mar 15:42-47</a></em>). John’s record shows a similar pattern, based around 7 component parts: <em><a href='B:500 19:16-18'>Joh 19:16-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:19-22'>Joh 19:19-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:23-24'>Joh 19:23-24</a></em>; then the centrepiece of <em><a href='B:500 19:25-27'>Joh 19:25-27</a></em>; followed by <em><a href='B:500 19:28-30'>Joh 19:28-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:31-37'>Joh 19:31-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:38-42'>Joh 19:38-42</a></em>. But for John the centrepiece is Jesus addressing His mother, and giving her over to John’s charge. This for John was the quintessence of it all; that a man should leave His mother, that Mary loved Jesus to the end… and that he, John, was honoured to have been there and seen it all. John began his gospel by saying that the word was manifest and flesh and he saw it- and I take this as a reference to the Lord’s death. Through this, a new family of men and women would be created (<em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:26'>Joh 19:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing by, he said to his mother: Woman, behold your son</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; Unearthed victims of crucifixion seem to have been impaled on stakes about 10 feet high. The cross would not have been as high as 'Christian' art usually represents it. The feet of the Lord would only have been about 4 feet above ground. His mother and aunty stood by the cross- the tragedy of His mother being there needs no comment. She would have seen the blood coming from the feet. Her head would have been parallel with His knees. His face marred more than the sons of men (<em><a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a></em>), sore from where His beard had been pulled off (<em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em>), teeth missing and loose, making His speech sound strange, fresh and dried blood mixing... and His mother there to behold and hear it all. She must have thought back, and surely He did too; for He was only a man. Mother around the house as a child, mending clothes, getting food, explaining things, telling Him about Simeon's prophecy, of how a sword would break her heart as well as his. This isn't just emotional speculation. <em><a href='B:230 22:9-10'>Psa 22:9-10</a></em> emphasizes the Lord's thoughts for His mother and His babyhood with her: "Thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou keptest me in safety (AVmg:- a reference to Herod's persecution) when I was on my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly". The temptation would have been to go on and on. Was I too hard on her in Cana? How I must have stung her when I said "Behold&nbsp;<em>my mother</em>&nbsp;and my brethren" are these half-hearted, superficially interested people (<em><a href='B:470 12:49'>Mat 12:49</a></em>). She was the best mother I could have ever had. Like any man would think. And He was a man. Not a mere man, but a man. I wonder if He said those words of breakage, of severance, between Him and her, because these feelings welling up within Him were affecting His concentration on the Father.</p><p>"<em>But</em>&nbsp;there stood by the cross..." makes the connection between Mary and the clothes. It seems that initially, she wasn't there; He looked for comforters and found none (<em><a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a></em> - or does this imply that the oft mentioned spiritual difference between the Lord and His mother meant that He didn't find comfort in her? Or she only came to the cross later?). His lovers, friends and kinsmen stood far off from Him (<em><a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a></em>), perhaps in a literal sense, perhaps far away from understanding Him. If Mary wasn't initially at the cross, John's connection between the dividing of the clothes and her being there would suggest that she had made the clothes. In any case, the four women at the cross are surely set up against the four soldiers there- who gambled over the clothes. Perhaps the other women had also had some input into the Lord’s clothing.</p><p>If indeed Mary and the few with her came from standing far off to stand by the cross, they were sharing the spirit of Joseph and Nicodemus: 'In the light of the cross, nothing, nothing, absolutely&nbsp;<em>nothing</em>&nbsp;really matters now. The shame, embarrassment nothing. We will stand for Him and His cause, come what may'.</p><p>I can only ponder the use of the imperfect in <em><a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a></em>: 'There were standing'&nbsp;<em>may</em>&nbsp;imply that Mary and the women came and went; sometimes they were there by the cross, sometimes afar off. Did they retreat from grief, or from a sense of their inadequacy, or from being driven off by the hostile crowd or soldiers, only to make their way stubbornly back? Tacitus records that no spectators of a crucifixion were allowed to show any sign of grief; this was taken as a sign of compliance with the sin of the victim. He records how some were even crucified for showing grief at a crucifixion. This was especially so in the context of leaders of revolutionary movements, which was the reason why Jesus was crucified. This would explain why the women stood afar off, and sometimes in moments of self-control came closer. Thus the Lord looked for comforters and found none, according to the spirit of prophecy in the Psalms. And yet His mother was also at the foot of the cross sometimes. For her to be there, so close to Him as she undoubtedly wished to be, and yet not to show emotion, appearing to the world to be another indifferent spectator; the torture of mind must be meditated upon. Any of these scenarios provides a link with the experience of all who would walk out against the wind of this world, and identify ourselves with the apparently hopeless cause of the crucified Christ. The RV of <em><a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a></em> brings out the tension between the soldiers standing there, and the fact that: “But there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother…". The “but…" signals, perhaps, the tension of the situation- for it was illegal to stand in sympathy by the cross of the victim. And there the soldiers were, especially in place to stop it happening, standing nearby…</p><p>John taking Mary to his own home&nbsp;<em>may</em>&nbsp;not mean that he took her away to his house in Jerusalem. In any case, John's physical home was in Galilee, not Jerusalem. "His own (home)" is used elsewhere to mean 'family' rather than a physical house. This would have involved Mary rejecting her other sons, and entering into John's family. Spiritual ties were to be closer than all other. This must be a powerful lesson, for it was taught in the Lord's final moments. Whether we understand that John took Mary away to his own home (and later returned, <em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>), or that they both remained there to the end with the understanding that Mary was not now in the family of Jesus, the point is that the Lord separated Himself from His mother. The fact He did this last was a sign of how close He felt to her. She was the last aspect of His humanity which He had clung to. And at the bitter end, He knew that He must let go even, even, even of her. <em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em> speaks likewise as if the Lord’s relationship with His mother was the last part of His humanity which He had to complete / fulfil / finish. For it was “after this", i:e. His words to His mother, that He knew that “all was now finished".</p><p>And yet another construction is possible. It would seem that John&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;have a house in Jerusalem. Mary was John’s aunty, and so she was already in his ‘house’ in the sense of family. This might suggest that the Lord didn’t mean John was to accept Mary into the family, as they were already related. It is reasonable to conjecture that perhaps He sent her away to John's house, for&nbsp;<em>her</em>&nbsp;benefit. He didn't want her to have to see the end. For me, if I had been in His situation, I would have preferred to die with her there. At least there was the one and only human being who knew for sure, and He knew she knew for sure, that He was the Son of God. She was the one, on earth, that He could be certain of. She had pondered all these things for 34 years. And He knew it. But if He sent her away for&nbsp;<em>her</em>&nbsp;benefit, we have yet another example of the Lord rejecting a legitimate comfort; as He rejected the pain killer, the footrests, the opportunity to drink before He asked for it …indeed, the cross itself was something which He chose when other forms of obedience to the Father’s will may have been equally possible.</p><p>The thoughts presented here concerning Mary offer several possibilities, not each of which can be what really happened; not least concerning the question of for how long she stood by the cross. But this, to my mind, doesn't matter. Each man, yes, each and every one of us, must go through the process of the cross in his own mind, and thereby be inspired. These are only thoughts to help on the way. The whole record is designed, it seems, to provoke reverent meditation. One can only, for example, meditate in a vague way on what Mary's feelings will be when she rises from the sleep of death to see her son. As we will recognize Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom, so surely she will have that sense that "this is my boy". Reflecting upon the Lord's relationship with His mother as He died leads us a little deeper into His tension and ineffable sadness which the cross crystallized. His soul was sorrowful unto death in Gethsemane, as if the stress alone nearly killed Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:34'>Mar 14:34</a></em>). "My soul is full of troubles, and my life (therefore) draweth nigh unto the grave" (<em><a href='B:230 88:3'>Psa 88:3</a></em>). <em><a href='B:290 53:10-12'>Isa 53:10-12</a></em> speaks of the fact that Christ's&nbsp;<em>soul</em>&nbsp;suffered as being the basis of our redemption; the mind contained within that spat upon head, as it hung on that tortured body; this was where our salvation was won. Death is the ultimately intense experience, and living a life dedicated to death would have had an intensifying effect upon the Lord's character and personality. Thus He jumped at His mother's request for wine as being a suggestion He should die there and then (<em><a href='B:500 2:4'>Joh 2:4</a></em>). So many men reached their most intense at the end of their lives: Moses spoke Deuteronomy, Paul and Peter wrote their finest letters then. And the Lord was matchlessly superb at His end. He reached a peak of spirituality at the end, to the point where He showed us, covered in blood and spittle and human rejection as He was, what the very essence of God really was. He declared the Name of Yahweh in the final moments of His death.</p><p>A mother always feels a mother to her child. That’s basic human fact. The way the Lord as it were ended that mother-child relationship with Mary thereby carries all the more pain with it. The way the Gospel records refer to Mary as the mother of others amongst her children, e.g. “Mary of James” (<em><a href='B:490 24:10'>Luk 24:10</a></em>) shows the Gospel writers paid tribute and respect to this break that had been made. Perhaps this explains why the brothers of Jesus, James and Jude, chose not to identify themselves as the brothers of Jesus- Jude calls himself the brother of James (<em><a href='B:720 1:1'>Jud 1:1</a></em>), and James identifies himself as a servant of Jesus (<em><a href='B:660 1:1'>Jas 1:1</a></em>). In this way they both reflected the way that human relationship to Jesus now meant nothing at all.</p><p>It’s been observed by many that what a man needs most as he dies… is not to face death alone. To have someone with him. The way the Lord sent Mary and John away from Him at the very end is profound in its reflection of His total selflessness, His deep thought for others rather than Himself. It also reflects how He more than any other man faced the ultimate human realities and issues which death exposes. He wilfully faced them alone, the supreme example of human bravery in the face of death. And He faced them fully, with no human cushion or literal or psychological anaesthesia to dilute the awful, crushing reality of it. Remember how He refused the painkiller. And through baptism and life in Him, we are asked to die with Him, to share something of His death, the type and nature of death which He had... in our daily lives. Little wonder we each seem to sense some essential, existential, quintessential… loneliness in our souls. Thus it must be for those who share in His death. I’m grateful to Cindy for a quote from a wise doctor, Kurt Eissler: “What you can really do for a person who is dying, is to die with him”. How inadvertently profound that thought becomes when applied to the death of our Lord, and to us as we imagine ourselves standing by and watching Him there. “What you can really do for a person who is dying, is to die with him”.</p><p>We are asked to fellowship the sufferings of the Son of God, to truly begin to enter into them. The least we can do is to meditate upon their different facets, and begin to realize that if the cross really does come before the crown, then we can expect a life which reflects, in principle at least, the same basic agonies. The relationship between the Lord and Mary brings home two crystal clear points: Firstly, the sheer human pain and pathos of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ and those near Him; and secondly, the way in which He had to sacrifice His closest human relationship for the sake of His devotion to God.</p><p>There is something ineffably, ineffably sad about the fact that the mother of Jesus was standing only a meter or so away from Him at the foot of the cross. Absolutely typical of the Biblical record, this fact is recorded by John almost in passing. This is in harmony with the way the whole crucifixion is described. Thus <em><a href='B:500 19:17-18'>Joh 19:17-18</a></em> seems to focus on the fact that Jesus bore His cross to a place called Golgotha; the fact that there they crucified Him is mentioned in an incidental sort of way. Mark likewise: "And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments..." (<em><a href='B:480 15:24'>Mar 15:24</a></em>). In similar vein the agony of flogging is almost bypassed in <em><a href='B:470 27:26'>Mat 27:26</a></em>: “and when he had scourged Jesus...".</p><p>Simeon had early prophesied Mary's feelings when he spoke of how her son would be “spoken against" and killed: "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul&nbsp;<em>also</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em>). This means that the piercing of Christ's soul was felt by His mother at the same time. And so we picture that woman in her 50s at the cross, with a lifetime behind her of meditating upon God's words, meditating upon the strange road her life had taken, a road travelled by no other woman, keeping&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;these things in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em>; implying she didn't open up to anyone), a lifetime characterized by a deep fascination with her firstborn son, but also characterized by a frustrating lack of understanding of Him, and no doubt an increasing sense of distance from His real soul. Recall how when Mary asked Jesus for wine at the feast, He saw in her mention of wine a symbol of His blood. She asked for wine, on a human level; and He responded: 'Woman, what have I to do with you, can't you see that the time for me to give my blood isn't yet?'. They were just on quite different levels. It seems almost certain that Christ was crucified naked. If we crucify him afresh (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>), we put him to an "open" or naked (Gk:) shame. The association between shame and the crucifixion is stressed in Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53; and shame is elsewhere connected with nakedness.</p><p>We know that the Jews felt that Christ was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier; this is recorded to this day in the Mishnah. They had earlier taunted Him about this (<em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>). Translating into dynamic, modern English, it is not difficult to imagine the abuse they shouted at Him as He hung on the cross. Their mocking of His claim that God was His Father was doubtless related to this. And there can be no doubt that their scorn in this direction would have fallen upon Mary too. The sword that pierced Christ's soul on the cross was the sword of the abuse which was shouted at Him then (<em><a href='B:230 42:10'>Psa 42:10</a></em>); and the piercing of Christ's soul, Simeon had said, was the piercing of Mary's soul too. In other words, they were both really cut, pierced, by this mocking of the virgin birth. Neither of them were hard and indifferent to it. And the fact they both stood together at the cross and faced it together must have drawn them closer, and made their parting all the harder. She alone knew beyond doubt that God was Christ's father, even though the Lord had needed to rebuke her for being so carried away with the humdrum of life that she once referred to Joseph as His father (<em><a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a></em>). For everyone else, there must always have been that tendency to doubt. <em><a href='B:230 22:9-10'>Psa 22:9-10</a></em> were among Christ's thoughts as He hung there: "Thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly". If dying men do indeed think back to their childhood, His thoughts would have been with His mother:&nbsp;</p><p>She had sought Him&nbsp;<em>sorrowing</em>&nbsp;when He was 12, all her life she had been plagued by this problem of knowing He was righteous, the Son of God, her Saviour, and yet she didn't fully understand Him. How deeply would the pain of all this hung over her as she watched Him in His time of dying. Doubtless she had (on the law of averages) lost other children, but this one was something special. She was a woman a real mother, and her special love for Jesus would have been noticed by the others. This probably had something to do with the fact that all her other children had rejected Christ as a "stranger", i:e. a Gentile; perhaps they too believed that this Jesus was the result of mum's early fling with a passing Roman soldier (<em><a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a></em>). Inevitably people would have commented to Mary: "He's a lovely boy, isn't he". And although one doesn't sense she was arrogant in any way, her motherly pride would have risen. For He was a lovely boy, ever growing in favour with men, rather than falling out of favour with some over the petty things of village life. Remember how we sense her motherly pride surfacing at the wedding in Cana. At the cross she would have recalled all this, recalled Him as a clinging 5 year old, being comforted by her in childhood illnesses, recalled making and mending His clothes- perhaps even the cloak the drunk soldiers were gambling over. And as she beheld Him there, covered in blood and spittle, annoyed by the endless flies, alone in the darkness, evidently thirsty, with her helpless to help beneath- surely her mind would have gone back 34 years to the words of the Angel: "He shall be great". "He shall be great". And then the mental panic to understand, the crying out within the soul, the pain of incomprehension of death.</p><p>There is a great sense of pathos in those words of Jesus: "Woman behold thy son". It sounded first of all as if Jesus was saying 'Well mum, look at me here'. But then she would have realized that this was not what He was saying. We can almost see Him nodding towards John. He was rejecting her as His mother in human terms, He was ceasing to be her son, He was trying to replace His sonship with that of an adopted son. The way He called her "Woman" rather than mother surely reflects the distance which there was between them, as He faced up to the fact that soon He would leave human nature, soon His human sonship would be ended. In passing, note how He addresses God at the end not as “Father" but “My God"- as if His sharing in our distance from God led Him to feel the same. Hence His awful loneliness and sense of having been forsaken or distanced from all those near to Him. "Behold thy mother …behold thy son" suggests Jesus was asking them to look at each other. Doubtless they were looking down at the ground at the time. We get the picture of them looking up and catching each other’s eye, then a brief silence, coming to understand what Jesus meant, and then from that hour, i:e. very soon afterwards, John&nbsp;<em>taking</em>&nbsp;Mary away. We are invited to imagine so much. The long, long discussions between them about Jesus, punctuated by long silences, as they kept that Passover, and as they lived together through the next years. Above all we see the pathos of them walking away, backs to Jesus, with Him perhaps watching them.</p><p>All this would have contributed to His sense of being forsaken. The disciples forsook Him (<em><a href='B:470 26:56'>Mat 26:56</a></em>), His mother had now left Him, and so the words of <em><a href='B:230 27:9-10'>Psa 27:9-10</a></em> started to come true: “Leave me not, neither forsake me, O God... when my father and my mother forsake me". All His scaffolding was being removed. He had leaned on His disciples (<em><a href='B:490 22:28'>Luk 22:28</a></em>), He had naturally leaned on His mother. Now they had forsaken Him. And now His mother had forsaken Him. And so He pleaded with His true Father not to leave Him. And hence the agony, the deep agony of <em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>: "My God, my God, Why hast&nbsp;<em>thou</em>&nbsp;(this is where the emphasis should be) forsaken me?". The disciples' desertion is a major theme, especially in Mark 15 (written by Peter, the most guilty?). The young man followed, but then ran away; Peter followed, but then denied (<em><a href='B:480 14:51'>Mar 14:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:54'>Mar 14:54</a></em>); all the disciples fled (:50); Joseph and Nicodemus denied Him (:64). By instinct, we humans want someone by our side in the hospital the night before the operation, in the nursing home as death looms near, or in any great moment of crisis. The Lord needed, desperately, His men with Him. Hence the hurt, undisguised, of “could you not watch with me one hour?".</p><p><em><a href='B:580 2:11-15'>Col 2:11-15</a></em> describe the crucifixion sufferings of Jesus as His 'circumcision'. The cross did something intimate and personal to Him. Through the process of His death, He 'put right off the body of his flesh' (RVmg:). He shed His humanity. The saying goodbye to His mother, the statement that she was no longer His mother but just a woman to Him, was, it would seem, the very last divesting of 'the body of his flesh'. It seems to me that such was His love of her, so strong was His human connection to her who gave Him His human connection, that the relationship with her was the hardest and in fact the final aspect of humanity which He 'put off' through the experience of crucifixion. And this is why, once He had done so, He died.</p><p>There cannot be any of us who are not touched by all this. We are asked to fellowship the sufferings of the Lord Jesus. What can we expect but a sense of pathos in our lives, broken and sacrificed relationships, the loss of the dearest of human love. There seems to be a growing group of believers in their 20s -50s, some happily married, well blessed with the things of this life, who seem to preach a gospel of happy-clappy belief, of tapping each other under the chin and speaking of how much joy and happiness their religion gives them. And those who don't experience this are made to feel spiritually inferior. Yet that ‘other’ group are, world-wide, growing into the majority of the body of Christ. A real meditation upon the cross of our Lord and the frequent exhortations by Him to share in it places all this in perspective. We must suffer with Him if we are to be glorified with Him in His Kingdom. The joy and peace of Christ which is now available is the joy and peace which He had in His life, a deep joy and peace from knowing that we are on the road to salvation. Know yourselves, brethren and sisters. Search your lives. If we are truly, truly trying to share the cross of Christ, if we are beginning to know the meaning of self-sacrifice, of love unto the end, we will know the spirit of Christ on that cross, "the lonely cry, the anguish keen". We will be able to share His mind, to know the fellowship of His spirit, of touching spirits with Him. And in that is joy and peace beyond our ability to describe.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:27'>Joh 19:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he said to the disciple: Behold, your mother And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home</em>-</p><p> I take the comment that John therefore took her to his own home as meaning His own house, back in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:500 19:27'>Joh 19:27</a></em>). The same construction is used in <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 21:6'>Act 21:6</a></em> as meaning house rather than family. “Took to” is a verb of motion as in <em><a href='B:500 6:21'>Joh 6:21</a></em>. His feelings for her were so strong, so passionate, that He saw it could distract Him. He wanted to stay on earth with her, and not go to His Heavenly Father. This accounts for His again using the rather distant term “Woman”, and telling her that now, He wasn’t her Son, John was now, and she wasn’t His mother, she must be John’s mother. And many a man has chosen to leave mother for the sake of the Father’s work, as Hannah sacrificed her dear Samuel, to be eternally bonded in the gracious Kingdom to come. And even if one has not done this in this form, there is scarcely a believer who has not had to make some heart wrenching break with family and loved ones for the Lord’s sake. Only His sake alone could inspire men and women in this way:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now finished, so that the scripture might be accomplished, said: I thirst-</em></p<<p> This wasn't just ingenious thinking on the spur of the moment. Victims lived for around two days on the crosses, but this was only due to a regular supply of liquid being handed up to them. One wonders if the person who organized the drink was one of the relatives of the thieves, or perhaps His own relatives. Surely His mother and aunty and Mary had come prepared to do all they could for Him in this final agony. They knew what the relatives of the crucified had to do. The thieves had probably received liquid already during the ordeal. But our sense must be that the Lord didn't. Perhaps His mother even suggested it, with an inward glance back to the sweet days of early childhood: &quot;Do you want a drink? I can get you one&quot;. But as He refused the painkiller, as He refused to push down on the footrests, so He refused to quench His thirst. </p><p>Note that the sponge was placed on a hyssop plant, which is only 50cm. long at the most. This is internal evidence that the cross was quite low, and the Lord's feet only a few feet above the ground.  The Lord Jesus began to quote Psalm 22 in His final moments on the cross, and He earnestly desired to complete the quotation. He asked for something to wet His throat so He could complete the last few verses. This indicates not only His earnest desire to say out loud &quot;It is finished&quot; with all that meant, but also the level of His thirst. Every word He spoke out loud was an expenditure of effort and saliva. He was intensely aware of this. He realized that unless He had more moisture, He just would not be able to speak out loud any more. And yet He so desperately wanted His last words to be heard and meditated upon. His sweat in the Garden had been dropping like blood drops; the nervous tension of bearing our sins sapped moisture from Him. There would have been a loss of lymph and body fluid to the point that Christ felt as if He had been &quot;poured out like water&quot; (<a href='B:230 22:14'>Ps. 22:14</a>); He &quot;poured out his soul unto death&quot; (<a href='B:290 53:12'>Is. 53:12</a>), as if His sense of dehydration was an act He consciously performed; He felt that the loss of moisture was because He was pouring it out Himself. This loss of moisture was therefore due to the mental processes within the Lord Jesus, it was a result of His act of the will in so mentally and emotionally giving Himself for us, rather than just the physical result of crucifixion.</p><p>The Psalms, especially 22, indicate the extent of His dehydration- largely due to the amount of prayer out loud which He did on the cross (&quot;The words of my roaring&quot;). <a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb. 5:7</a> speaks of His strong crying and tears (again an expenditure of moisture) while on the cross; and <a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom. 8:26</a> alludes to this, saying that our Lord has the same intensity in His present mediation for us. The physical extent of His thirst is expressed by that of Samson, when in an incident typical of Christ's conquest of sin on the cross, he nearly died of thirst in the midst of a spectacular victory (<a href='B:70 15:18'>Jud. 15:18</a>). A perusal of that incident will enable us to enter into the thirst of our Lord a little more.</p><p>The Messianic Psalms also speak of the great spiritual thirst of the Lord Jesus in His sufferings. The intensity of His physical thirst therefore reflected His spiritual thirst, His desire to be with the Father, His desire to finish His work and achieve our salvation. We are better able to imagine His physical thirst than His spiritual thirst. Yet we are surely intended to see in that physical thirst a cameo of His desire for spiritual victory, His thirsting after God's righteousness. </p><p>&quot;As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God? My tears have been me meat...while they continually say unto me (on the cross), Where is thy God?&quot; (<a href='B:230 42:1-3'>Ps. 42:1-3</a>). Christ's thirst was to come and appear before God. Appearing before God is Priestly language. Now He appears in God's presence in order to make mediation for us (<a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb. 9:24</a>), and He will appear again as the High Priest appeared on the day of Atonement, bringing our salvation. This means that Christ thirsted not so much for His own personal salvation, but for ours; He looked forward to the joys for evermore at God's right hand (<a href='B:230 16:11'>Ps. 16:11</a>)- i.e. the offering up of our prayers. How this should motivate us to pray and confess our sins! This is what our Lord was looking forward to on the cross. This is what He thirsted for.</p><p>&quot;O God... my God (cp. &quot;My God, my God&quot;)... my soul thirsteth after thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is&quot; (<a href='B:230 63:1'>Ps. 63:1</a>)- cp. Christ as a root growing in a spiritually dry land on the cross (<a href='B:290 53:1'>Is. 53:1</a>)</p><p>&quot;I stretch forth my hands unto thee (on the cross): my soul thirsteth after thee, as a thirsty land&quot; (<a href='B:230 143:6'>Ps. 143:6</a>).</p><p>The thirsty land surrounding Christ on the cross represented spiritually barren Israel (<a href='B:290 253:1'>Is. 53:1</a>; <a href='B:230 42:1-3'>Ps. 42:1-3</a>); but the Lord Jesus so took His people upon Him, into His very soul, that His soul became a thirsty land (<a href='B:230 143:6'>Ps. 143:6</a>); He felt as spiritually barren as they were, so close was His representation of us, so close was He to sinful man, so fully did He enter into the feelings of the sinner. In the same way as Christ really did feel forsaken as Israel were because of their sins, so He suffered thirst, both literally and spiritually, which was a punishment for Israel's sins:</p><p>&quot;Thou shalt serve thine enemies... in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things&quot; (<a href='B:50 28:48'>Dt. 28:48</a>). This is an exact picture of Christ on the cross. And Paul likewise alluded to this language when describing his own sufferings for the sake of taking the Gospel to Israel (<a href='B:540 11:27'>2 Cor. 11:27</a>), as if he too felt that he was a sin-bearer for Israel as Christ had been. This is to be understood in the same way as his appropriating to Himself the prophecies concerning Christ as the light of the Gentiles. This is so relevant to the cross. </p><p>&quot;They shall not (any more) hunger or thirst&quot; (<a href='B:290 49:10'>Is. 49:10</a>) occurs in the context of comforting Israel that they will no longer be punished for their sins. </p><p>&quot;Ye are they that forsake the Lord... therefore... ye shall be hungry... ye shall be thirsty... ye shall be ashamed&quot; (<a href='B:290 65:11-13'>Is. 65:11,13</a>). This too is exactly relevant to the cross. </p><p>&quot;Let (Israel) put away her whoredoms... lest I... set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst&quot; (<a href='B:350 2:3'>Hos. 2:3</a>). </p><p>&quot;I will send a famine in the land, not a... thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord... in that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst&quot; (<a href='B:370 8:11-13'>Am. 8:11,13</a>).</p><p>This literal and spiritual thirst which was a punishment for Israel's sins came upon the Lord Jesus. He genuinely felt a thirst for God, He really felt forsaken, as if He had sinned, He truly came to know the feelings of the rejected sinner. And because of this He really is able to empathize (not just sympathize) with us in our weakness, to enter right into the feelings of those who have gone right away from God, as well as those who temporarily slip up in the way (<a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb. 5:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Nearby was a vessel full of vinegar. So they put a sponge full of the vinegar upon a hyssop stick, and held it to his mouth</em>-</p><p> As noted on :28, the hyssop stick would not have been more than 50 cm. long at the most; so the Lord was not that high above the ground, contrary to the impression given by Catholic architecture, with crucifixes lifted far above the ground.</p>


text:
<p><em>When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said: It is finished! And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit-</em></p><p> The suggestion is that His humanity was such that He needed at least some moisture in order to utter His final words. That perhaps is all there is to His request for a drink.</p><p>All crucified men bow their heads on death. The record of this therefore suggests that He lifted up His head to the Father, and then nodding His head towards His people, gave His Spirit towards them- those who had walked out across the no mans land between the crowd and the soldiers, those who stood there declaring in front of all their allegiance to this crucified King. Yet the spirit of Christ is essentially the mind and disposition of Christ rather than an ability to perform miracles etc. The power to be like Him is passed to us through an inbreathing of His example on the cross. In this sense, the Lord's lifting up in glory on the cross enabled Him to impart His Spirit to us (<a href='B:500 7:37-39'>Jn. 7:37-39</a>). Notice that Christ gave up His last breath of His own volition- the withdrawal of a man's Spirit by God, as with the withdrawal of the Spirit gifts, is to be seen as God's judgment of man. Gen. 6:3 LXX and RVmg. implies this. This cry was the giving up of the Spirit. He gave His life, it wasn't taken from Him. As He wasn't pushing down on the footrests, breathing was agonizingly difficult. I suggest He took one last great breath, with head uplifted, the nails tearing at that sensitive nerve in His hands as He did so, and then He felt His heart stop. In that last two seconds or so, He expired in the words &quot;Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit&quot;. Thus He gave His life- for us. The centurion, when he saw how He died (Mk., NIV), believed. The display of self-mastery, of giving, of love so great, so free, was what made that man believe (perhaps he was Cornelius?). It has been observed that the phrase &quot;He gave forth His spirit&quot; is unique; death isn't described like that in contemporary literature. &quot;Nowhere in antiquity is death described as the giving forth of one's spirit&quot; (I. de la Potterie, The Hour of Jesus (New York: Alba House, 1989) p. 131).</p><p>This was a final victory cry. The spirit of the New Testament is that the cross was a pinnacle of victory, not of temporal defeat. There is no way that Christ was just muttering the equivalent of 'Well, that's it then'. &quot;It is finished&quot; encompassed so much. That tiny word &quot;it&quot;, not even present in the Greek or Aramaic which Jesus actually spoke, compasses so much; the whole purpose of God. So we ask the question: What was finished? The key to this question is in <a href='B:500 17:4'>Jn. 17:4</a>: &quot;I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do&quot;. &quot;The work&quot; is therefore parallel with Christ's glorification of God. &quot;It is finished&quot; therefore reflects Christ's appreciation that He had now totally glorified His Father. But we need to ponder what exactly it means to glorify God. The glory of God refers to the characteristics intrinsic in God's Name; thus when Moses asked to see God's glory, the attributes of the Name were declared to him. Christ understood that in His death He would manifest God's Name / character to the full, although of course He had also manifested it in His life: &quot;I have declared unto them (the believers, not the world) thy name, and will declare it&quot; in His forthcoming death (<a href='B:500 17:26'>Jn. 17:26</a>). </p><p>It is a major theme of John's Gospel that God was glorified in the death of the Lord: </p><p>&quot;Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from Heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again&quot; at the cross (<a href='B:500 12:28'>Jn. 12:28</a>)</p><p>&quot;Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him (i.e. the achievement of God's glorification was internal to Jesus, within His mind, where characteristics are found). If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him&quot; on the cross (<a href='B:500 13:31-32'>Jn. 13:31,32</a>)</p><p>&quot;And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self (i.e. your fundamental being and character) with the glory which I had with thee...I have manifested thy name&quot; (<a href='B:500 17:5-6'>Jn. 17:5,6</a>).</p><p>&quot;I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it&quot; on the cross (<a href='B:500 17:26'>Jn. 17:26)</a>.</p><p>Christ's perfect character is only appreciated by the believers, and therefore it is only to them that God's Name / glory / very own self is revealed by Christ's example. It was to us that God's glory was finally revealed in the death of Christ. To those who wanted to see it, there was almost a visible righteousness exuding from Christ in His time of dying. &quot;Truly this man was the Son of God... Certainly this was a righteous man&quot; (<a href='B:480 15:40'>Mk. 15:40</a>; <a href='B:490 23:46'>Lk. 23:46</a>) was the response of the Centurion who was &quot;watching Jesus&quot;; and collating the Gospels, it seems he said this twice. &quot;It is finished&quot; implies that Christ's manifestation of the Father was progressive. He was &quot;made perfect&quot; by His sufferings, only becoming the author of our salvation when He had finally been perfected by them (<a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb. 2:9</a>; <a href='B:650 5:8-9'>5:8,9</a>). This surely teaches that Christ died once He had reached a certain point of completeness of manifestation of the Father. If we accept this, we should not think of Christ just hanging on the cross waiting to die. He was actively developing His manifestation of the Father's characteristics, until finally He sensed He had arrived at that totality of reflection of the Father. Likewise in our carrying of the cross we are not just passively holding on until the Lord's return or our death. We should be actively growing; for surely we only die once we have reached, or had the opportunity to reach, a certain point of spiritual completeness. This may well explain why some believers die young relatively soon after baptism; they reach their intended completeness, and are therefore taken away from the grief of this life. The perfection of Christ's manifestation of the Father was steadily progressing until at the point of death He completely manifested Him. Thus at Christ's most forlorn and humanly desperate point, utterly exhausted, with no beauty humanly that we should desire Him, utterly despised, rejected and at best misunderstood by every human being, the Lord Jesus at that point was supremely manifesting the Father; He was manifesting God's very own self at that point when He cried &quot;It is finished&quot; (<a href='B:500 17:5'>Jn. 17:5</a>). It is axiomatic from this that the Gospel of God will be generally rejected by men. The Lord foresaw that His cross would be the final consummation of God's plan in that He at times almost spoke as if He saw His death as His glorification. Thus He speaks of the cross as a going to the Father (<a href='B:500 16:16-17'>Jn. 16:16,17</a>,<a href='B:500 16:28'>28</a>). The description of Him as the snake lifted up in the wilderness is in the context of Christ ascending to Heaven (<a href='B:500 3:12-14'>Jn. 3:12-14</a>), as if the lifting up of the snake was a reference to both the crucifixion and ascension of the Lord.</p><p> </p><p>At the point the Lord expired, He laid down His life. So close was the link between Father and Son at this point, so deeply was God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, that John could later comment: &quot;Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His life for us: and we ought (in response) to lay down our lives for the brethren&quot; (<a href='B:690 3:16'>1 Jn. 3:16</a>). The love of Christ and the cross are paralleled in <a href='B:540 5:12'>2 Cor. 5:14</a>. To behold Christ there at the end, to imagine the sound of those words &quot;It is finished&quot;, to begin to sense Christ's spiritual supremacy at that point, should deeply deeply motivate us. Christ loved us with a love which was love &quot;unto the end&quot; (<a href='B:500 13:1'>Jn. 13:1</a>)- the same word translated &quot;finished&quot; in &quot;It is finished&quot;. As Christ said that, His love for us was complete, it was love unto the end, love right up to and beyond the limits of the concept of love. And we are actually asked to imagine that love, the growth of it for us until it was finished, perfected in the laying down of His life- and respond to it.</p><p>The Lord thought as much: &quot;I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it (in his forthcoming death, cp. <a href='B:500 12:26'>Jn. 12:26</a>): that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them&quot; (<a href='B:500 17:26'>Jn. 17:26</a>). &quot;In this we know love, that he laid down his life for us&quot; (<a href='B:690 3:16'>1 Jn. 3:16</a>). Herein was the definition of love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and gave His son for our sins (<a href='B:690 4:10'>1 Jn. 4:10</a>). By beholding the finished perfection of the Lord Jesus, the spirit of Christ will dwell in us, and the love of God will be deeply in our hearts. There is almost a mystical power in reflecting upon the example of the Lord Jesus on the cross; somehow by beholding His glory, His matchless display of God's righteousness at the end, we will start to reflect that glory in our very beings. &quot;We all, with open (RV &quot;unveiled&quot;) face beholding as in a glass the glory (moral attributes, the peerless character) of the Lord (Jesus), are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit (mind and influence) of the Lord (Jesus)&quot; (2 Cor. 3:18). Time and again is it stressed that the Lord did all this &quot;for us&quot;. <a href='B:500 10:14-15'>Jn. 10:14,15</a> link His knowing of us His sheep, and His giving His life for us. It was because He knew us, our sins, or kind of failures, who we are and who we would be, and fail to be… that He did it. And knowing our brethren, building understanding and relationship with them, is how and why we will be motivated to the same laying down of life for them.</p><p>But the work finished by the Lord Jesus was not just the faultless display of God's characteristics. The Son's manifestation of the Father was to the end that we might be saved (a point fundamental to an appreciation of the Gospel). The work that Christ ended when He cried &quot;It is finished&quot; was the execution of the whole will of God; for the work that He finished was God's will: &quot;I have meat to eat that ye know not of... my meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work&quot; (<a href='B:500 4:32-34'>Jn. 4:32,34</a>). The will of God is that we might be sanctified, counted as righteous, and ultimately given salvation (<a href='B:590 4:3'>1 Thess. 4:3</a>; <a href='B:680 3:9'>2 Pet. 3:9</a>; <a href='B:650 10:10'>Heb. 10:10</a>). &quot;I came down from heaven... to do... the will of him that sent me... and this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life&quot; (<a href='B:500 6:38-40'>Jn. 6:38-40</a>). God's will is that we should &quot;see&quot;, i.e. understand, the righteousness of Christ, and believe that this will be imputed to us, and thereby we can be saved. To have an appreciation of the righteousness of Christ is therefore something absolutely essential for us to develop.</p><p>To achieve that fullness of righteousness and salvation for us meant more to the Lord Jesus than physical food; His great physical hunger in John 4 was bypassed by the fact that He was bringing about the salvation of a fallen woman. He had a baptism, i.e. a death and resurrection, to be baptized with, and He was &quot;straitened until it be accomplished&quot; (<a href='B:490 12:50'>Lk. 12:50</a>), the same word translated &quot;finished&quot; in <a href='B:500 19:30'>Jn. 19:30</a>. He agonized throughout His life, looking ahead to that moment of spiritual completion. The more we appreciate this, the more we will be able to enter into His sense of relief: &quot;It is finished / accomplished&quot;. And this too should characterize our lives; ever straining ahead to that distant point when at last we will attain that point of spiritual completeness. The incident with the Samaritan woman in John 4 was recognized by Jesus as but a cameo of His whole life; our salvation through His perfect manifestation of the Father was the end in view, it was this which was all consuming for Him. He was not motivated solely by a desire firstly for His own salvation, as some of our atonement theologians have wrongly implied. His meat and drink was to do the Father's work and will, which was to save us through imputing Christ's righteousness to us. This is what motivated His obedience, His perfection; it was our salvation which was the last thing in His human consciousness as He cried &quot;It is finished&quot; . His attitude, both at the start of His ministry and in His approach to His death, was &quot;Lo, I come to do thy will, O God... by the which will we are sanctified (counted righteous) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ&quot; (Heb. 10:10).</p><p>&quot;I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do&quot; ultimately finished when the Lord cried &quot;It is finished&quot; (<a href='B:500 17:4'>Jn. 17:4</a>; <a href='B:500 19:30'>19:30</a>; it alludes to several Old Testament passages. <a href='B:340 9:24'>Daniel 9:24</a> had prophesied that Messiah's sacrifice would &quot;finish transgression... make an end of sins... make reconciliation for iniquity... bring in everlasting righteousness... and to anoint the Most Holy&quot;, as if a new sanctuary were being inaugurated. In prospect, the whole concept of sin was destroyed at the point of Christ's death, the devil (sin) was destroyed, the opportunity for us to have the everlasting righteousness of Christ imputed to us was opened up. &quot;It is finished&quot; may well have been uttered with an appreciation of this passage (for surely Dan. 9 was in the mind of our dying Lord). In this case, Christ died with the final triumphant thought that our sinfulness had now been overcome. Surely this should inspire us to a fuller and more confident, joyful faith in this.</p><p><a href='B:20 40:33'>Ex. 40:33</a> describes how Moses &quot;reared up&quot; the tabernacle, representing us (<a href='B:540 6:16'>2 Cor. 6:16</a>); &quot;So Moses finished the work&quot; God had given him to do. <a href='B:50 31:24'>Dt. 31:24</a> likewise speaks of Moses finishing the work. The Hebrew for &quot;reared up&quot; is also used in the context of resurrection and glorification / exaltation. As our Lord sensed His final, ultimate achievement of the Father's glory in His own character, He could look ahead to our resurrection and glorification. He adopted God's timeless perspective, and died with the vision of our certain glorification in the Kingdom. This fits in with the way Psalms 22 and 69 (which evidently portray the thoughts of our dying Lord) conclude with visions of Christ's &quot;seed&quot; being glorified in the Kingdom. There are a number of passages which also speak of the temple (also representative of the ecclesia) being a work which was finished (e.g. <a href='B:140 5:1'>2 Chron. 5:1</a>). In His moment of agonized triumph as He died, the Lord Jesus saw us as if we were perfect. Surely, surely this should inspire us to have the confidence that this is still how He sees us, both individually and collectively? The mystery of God will ultimately be &quot;finished&quot; in the Kingdom (<a href='B:730 10:7'>Rev. 10:7</a>); and yet on the cross Christ could see that effectively &quot;It is finished&quot; at that point, in that the way had now been made absolutely certain. So confident was the Lord in the power of His sacrifice, so great was His sense of purpose and achievement! And nothing has changed with Him until this day.</p><p>&quot;It is finished&quot; has some connection with the Lord loving His people &quot;to the very end&quot; (<a href='B:500 13:1'>Jn. 13:1</a> - eis telos). To the end or completion of what? Surely the Lord held in mind Moses' last speech before he died. Then, &quot;Moses had finished writing all the words of this Law in a book, even to the very end (LXX eis telos)&quot; (<a href='B:50 31:24'>Dt. 31:24</a>). It was Moses' law which was finished / completed when the Lord finally died. Again we marvel at the Lord's intellectual consciousness even in His death throes. The fact He had completed the Law was upmost in His mind. This alone should underline the importance of never going back to reliance upon that Law, be it in Sabbath keeping or general legalism of attitude.</p><p>Putting all this together, we see our Lord realizing that He had achieved the perfect reflection of the Father's glory, His character; He had finished the work the Father had given Him to do. He knew that the perfection of that manifestation which He had achieved would be imputed to us, and therefore He looked forward to us as if we were perfect, He foresaw our salvation, He saw us in the Kingdom. It is quite possible that in some sense the Lord Jesus had a vision of us in the Kingdom. It can be noted that Christ's working of the work of God is associated with His miracles. Each of them was part of the work which the Father had given Him to finish (<a href='B:500 5:36'>Jn. 5:36</a>). The Lord's miracles were not motivated by a desire to do solve the need of this present evil world; they were &quot;signs&quot; which spoke of the Father's character; they were a progressive manifestation of the glory of the Father in order to deepen the faith of the disciples (<a href='B:500 2:11'>Jn. 2:11</a>). This is why each of them can be seen as deeply parabolic, teaching so much about the character / glory of the Father. Any temporal physical help which they provided was only an incidental by-product.</p><p>The progressive nature of the Lord's manifestation of God's glory through the miracles is suggested by <a href='B:500 2:11'>Jn. 2:11</a>: &quot;This beginning of miracles did Jesus... and manifested forth his glory&quot;. Likewise Matthew's Gospel has at least four references to the fact that the Lord &quot;finished&quot; or &quot;ended&quot; revealing God's words (<a href='B:470 11:1'>Mt. 11:1</a>; <a href='B:470 13:53'>13:53</a>; <a href='B:470 19:1'>19:1</a>; <a href='B:470 26:1'>26:1</a>), using the same word as in <a href='B:500 19:30'>Jn. 19:30</a> &quot;It is finished&quot;. His words were a manifestation of the Father's glory / character. Thus in Jn. 17 the Lord associates His manifestation of the Father's Name / glory with His (progressive) giving of the Father's words to the disciples. Thus at the very end He must have felt that now He had reached the end of that progressive revelation, now He was manifesting the fullness of God, a God who is love- as He hung naked, covered in blood and spittle, totally misunderstood, deserted by His superficial disciples. At that point He was fully, fully, completely, manifesting the Father.</p><p>In His final physical agony, the mind of our Lord was full of thoughts of our salvation. Such was the extent of His devotion to us. It has taken us hundreds of English words to just begin to enter into the intensity of spiritual thinking which was going on in the mind of our Lord. And yet He asks us to share His cross, to run our whole life with endurance even as He endured on the cross (<a href='B:650 12:1-2'>Heb. 12:1,2</a>), to personally enter into His sufferings; to be likewise filled with an overpowering concern for the salvation of others and the reflection of God's character in our own. It seems that Paul was able to enter into the mind of the Lord Jesus in this. &quot;This also we wish, even your perfection&quot; (<a href='B:540 13:9'>2 Cor. 13:9</a>), your finishing, your rearing up as a perfect tabernacle; this was Paul's attitude to spiritually weak Corinth. &quot;I have finished my course&quot; (<a href='B:620 4:7'>2 Tim. 4:7</a>) uses the same word as in <a href='B:500 19:30'>Jn. 19:30</a> (&quot;It is finished&quot;). 2 Tim. 4 has a number of other allusions to Christ's final sufferings. As the Lord felt He had finished the work just before He actually had (<a href='B:500 17:4'>Jn. 17:4</a>), so did Paul in 2 Tim. 4; He felt He had entered into that sense of finishing which his Lord had on the cross. Our aim is to be perfected, to come to the full knowledge of Christ, &quot;unto a perfect man (a finished man; the same word as in &quot;It is finished&quot;), unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ&quot; (<a href='B:560 4:12-13'>Eph. 4:12,13</a>). As our Lord moved towards that point of ultimate spiritual completeness, so do we too. At last we will attain that perfection, at last we too will know the feeling of &quot;It is finished&quot; - as a result of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:31'>Joh 19:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Jews, because it was the preparation day, and so that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs be broken so that they might be taken away</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em> forbad bodies of those accursed by God from hanging overnight. Again, we see their masking of their awful consciences by legalistic obedience to God's laws and their own fences around those laws. This is what legalism is- a mask for a bad conscience over more fundamental failures. When hard line legalists are exposed as caught up in major sin, we should not be surprised. It is in fact to be expected that their legalism is but a cover for a guilty conscience in other areas.</p><p>John is at pains to point out that the Passover was coming on, as if he wishes us to be aware that the last supper was not the Passover, and the breaking of bread service was not the same as the Passover, but based upon it. He is ever seeking to show his Jewish readers that a new Israel, with new symbolisms and meanings, has been created. That Sabbath is here called "a high day", literally, 'the day of that Sabbath was great' (as in <em><a href='B:500 7:37'>Joh 7:37</a></em>). Perhaps here John is implying that the Lord's death made this the greatest Sabbath; and thereby removed the need for literal observance of it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:32'>Joh 19:32</a></em> - see on :18.</p><p><em>Therefore the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other that was crucified with him-&nbsp;</em>The legs were broken so that the victim could no longer rest their weight on the&nbsp;<em>sedile</em>, the piece of wood protruding from the cross on which they could rest their weight in order to get temporary relief and yet prolong their sufferings. The strange reference to "the first and... the other" may invite us to consider that "the first" was the repentant thief.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:33'>Joh 19:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they did not break his legs</em>-</p><p> He was so evidently dead; it was absolutely plain to the world that the Lord had died. Any ideas of a swoon theory are stopped dead in their tracks by this. He was not even worth a hammer blow to the legs, because He was so evidently dead.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:34'>Joh 19:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>However one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out of his side</em>-</p><p> The great theme of John has been that the Lord died in order to give us His life, His Spirit. That life, that spirit, has been likened to water in the account of the Samaritan woman at the well in chapter 4, and also in <em><a href='B:500 7:38-39'>Joh 7:38-39</a></em>, where we learn that the Spirit was to be given at the Lord's glorification. His death was central to that, indeed His lifting up on the cross could be read as a lifting up in glory from God's perspective. The life blood and water which flowed out from Him, having breathed His breath / spirit outward towards His misunderstanding and unspiritual disciples, all speaks of the gift of His life and spirit toward us. The gift of His life to us means that it lives within us, which is what is achieved by the gift of the Spirit to each believer. The connection is being made with the smitten rock out of which there flowed spring water for God's people (<em><a href='B:20 17:6'>Exo 17:6</a></em>). The water in John chapters 4 and 7 represents the gift of the Spirit made possible by the Lord's death. His Spirit was Him; the Comforter passages have explained that the coming of the Spirit was effectively His coming to His people. This is why <em><a href='B:690 5:6'>1Jn 5:6</a></em> explains that the Lord Jesus personally came to the believers through the water and the blood. The fountain of water and blood, representing His Spirit and His life, represented Him personally coming to His people.</p><p>A connection of thought arises from the word "pierced”. Simeon had prophesied that a sword would pierce Mary's heart as it also pierced that of Christ her son (<em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em>). This is one reason for thinking that Mary may still have been at the cross when the Lord died. It could be that John took her to his home, arm round her shoulders as she wrestled with the desire to take one last motherly look back, and then returned himself to the cross; and then Mary crept back, almost hot on his heels, or perhaps choosing another route, and hiding somewhere in the crowd where neither her son nor John, her new son, would see her. To me, this has the ring of truth about it. Simeon's prophecy, as that sweet baby in cheap cloths lay cradled in his arms, seems to imply that&nbsp;<em>as&nbsp;</em>the Lord's heart was pierced, so would his mother's be. Are we to conclude from this that there was a heart-piercing groan within her, as she saw the spear head enter and the blood flow out? Each time they called out ‘Come down from the cross’, her heart must have been in her mouth. Would He? She had learnt the lesson of Cana, not to pressurize Him for convenient miracles; not to catch His eye as if to say ‘Go on, do it, for my sake’. But nonetheless, because she was only human, she would have hoped against hope. But now, the finality of death forced itself upon her. And her heart was pierced in that moment. Yet Yahweh Himself had prophesied, years before: "They shall look upon&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for&nbsp;<em>him</em>... and shall be in bitterness for&nbsp;<em>him</em>" (<em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em>). The use of pronouns here seems to mean that God was in Christ on the cross, reconciling the world unto Himself (<em><a href='B:540 5:19'>2Co 5:19</a></em>). When the Son was pierced, so was the Father. And so at the moment of that sword-thrust, we see the connection of both parents with their suffering Son. As He was pierced, so were the Father and mother. Here we see the wonder and yet the tragedy of the Divine family. We have a very rare insight into the relationship between the Father and Mary. The notion of personal pre-existence and total Deity of Christ destroys this beauty and mystery. Indeed, the whole relationship between the Lord and His mother and Father is surpassingly beautiful, once His nature is correctly understood. There is so much one could speculate and yet dares not hardly think or say (e.g. whether the Lord appeared to His mother after the resurrection; what their relationship will be in the Kingdom).</p><p>The description of blood and water flowing has raised the question as to whether the Lord had been fasting, or had emptied His bowels in Gethsemane, before the crucifixion. It has been suggested that for this to have happened the Lord would have been pierced from the right hand side above the fifth rib, piercing the right auricle of the heart (from which the blood came) and also the pericardium, from where the serum came which appeared like water. However there are critics of these suggestions, which leaves the possibility that the flow of blood and water was in fact a miracle- hence John’s insistence that yes, he actually saw this happen. And he says that he records it so that we might believe. The implication is that meditation upon the cross is what inspires faith, as well as conviction of sin and repentance. The way the Lord’s blood flowed out from His heart is highly evocative of powerful lessons. He gave out from the very core and foundation of His being. We may serve God in good deeds, in writing books, in labouring for Him, without any real demand being made on our innermost self. The challenge of the cross is to give from the very centre and fountain of our life, our very selves, our person, our most vital soul.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe</em>-</p><p> It is difficult to tell if a body is dead or not. But there was something about the Lord's corpse which somehow shone forth the message that He had given up His life. Do we not get the sense here of a man, even under inspiration, grasping for adequate words and finding there are none? This is an experience beyond the paradigm of verbal description. There are links between the concept of ‘truth’ and the cross. In <em><a href='B:230 60:4'>Psa 60:4</a></em> God’s Truth is displayed on the banner (s:w. “pole", on which the snake was lifted up). John struggled with words, even under inspiration, to get over to us the tremendous truth and reality of what he witnessed at the cross. God is the ultimate Truth, and the cross was the ultimate declaration of His Truth. John's speaking and writing up of his Gospel was his testimony; and the Comforter passages have stressed that the Spirit bears witness through our witness. In the account of the Lord's death, the Spirit is appealing to all who hear of it.</p><p>"That you may believe" predicates faith upon acceptance of the fact the Lord really died. It is by Him there that we believe in God (<em><a href='B:670 1:21'>1Pe 1:21</a></em>). Apologetics do not give faith, and in that sense they are largely a waste of time, and at best a poor crutch for faith. We are invited to look at the death of the Lord on the cross- and believe, believe all that is implied in it. This may be scoffed at as intellectually weak, what is called 'fideism'. But it is what the Bible teaches and it is simply true to observed experience. We either believe He died as He did, with all the Biblically recorded claims about the significance of that death- or we do not. If we do believe, and those who do not believe in it are struggling against their consciences, then all falls into place; we come to Biblical "faith":&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:36'>Joh 19:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For these things happened so that the scripture might be fulfilled: A bone of him shall not be broken-&nbsp;</em>The prophecy of <em><a href='B:230 34:20'>Psa 34:20</a></em> about not a bone of the Lord being broken is here&nbsp;clearly applied to Him. But the context is clearly about all of us- any righteous man. The preceding verse speaks of how the Lord delivers the righteous man out of all his tribulations- and this verse is applied to other believers apart from the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:510 12:11'>Act 12:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:620 3:11-12'>2Ti 3:11-12</a></em>. The chilling fact is that we who are in the body of the Lord are indeed co-crucified with Him.</p><p>We are the Lord's body, of His flesh and bones (<em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em>). Crucifixion was designed to torture the bones; and yet none was broken. We suffer in Him, but shall not be finally broken. As the Passover lambs were being killed, the Lord died; and it was critical that not a bone of the Passover lambs be broken (<em><a href='B:20 12:46'>Exo 12:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 9:12'>Num 9:12</a></em>). John seems so keen to point out that the Lord died as the Passover lamb, and Paul perceives this when stating that He is "our Passover" (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). For no bone of the Lord to be broken, the nails driven through His hands the Greek can refer to the arms or wrists too would not have been large, and would probably have been driven through the 'Destot gap', the set of nerves in between the large wrist bones. The pain would have been intense at that point. The rough hammering of the nails through that point would have paid no attention to detail; but those hammer blows were Divinely guided so that no bone broke. And this would have been even more amazingly guided for the nails driven through the feet not to break a bone. It was only by the Lord refusing to relieve the pain by pushing down on the&nbsp;<em>sedile&nbsp;</em>that He avoided breaking any bones.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>And again another scripture says: They shall look on him whom they pierced</em>-</p><p> The Lord's death was effectively Israel's judgment. The Jewish world was judged then by Him. There, in that naked, abused body and infinitely tormented yet righteous mind, there was displayed the judgments, the character, the very essence of God; and the utter condemnation of the flesh, the devil, the prince of this world. Those judgments were displayed in front of a world which stood before it self-condemned. The prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em> concerning looking on the pierced Messiah is quoted in <em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em> concerning the judgment seat; and yet in <em><a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a></em> concerning the cross. See on <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>. Looking on Him there is what they shall do in the condemnation of the last day. And standing before Him there, beholding Him, we know our judgment too; for He died for us who believe in Him, that whoever looks toward Him in faith shall be saved. It is as simple as that.</p><p>The death of the High Priest was paralleled with a man standing before the judgment for his crime in <em><a href='B:60 20:6'>Jos 20:6</a></em> RV. This surely prefigured how the Lord's death was and is effectively our judgment. Further connection between the cross and the judgment is found in considering <em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em>, which states that men would look upon the pierced (i:e. crucified) Saviour, and mourn in recognition of their own sinfulness. This verse is quoted as having fulfilment both at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a></em>) and also at the final judgment (<em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em>). There is strong connection between these two events. And so it has been observed that the cross divided men into two categories: The repentant thief and the bitter one; the soldiers who mocked and the Centurion who believed; the Sanhedrin members who believed and those who mocked; the women who lamented but didn't obey His word, and those whose weeping isn't recorded, but who stood and watched and thought; the people who beat their breasts in repentance, and those who mocked as to whether Elijah would come to save the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And after these things Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus (but secretly for fear of the Jews), asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. Therefore he came and took his body away</em>-</p><p> John's Gospel emphasizes how secret believers either turned back to the surrounding world, or were provoked by the cross to 'come out' in full faith. It is twice stressed that Joseph was on the Sanhedrin council. So was Nicodemus (<em><a href='B:500 3:2'>Joh 3:2</a></em>). Yet the whole council unanimously voted for the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:480 14:64'>Mar 14:64</a></em>). "The whole Sanhedrin" (<em><a href='B:480 15:1'>Mar 15:1</a></em> NIV) agreed the High Priests' plan of action. They&nbsp;<em>all</em>interrogated Him and “the whole multitude of them" led Jesus to Pilate (<em><a href='B:490 22:66'>Luk 22:66</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:70'>Luk 22:70</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:1'>Luk 23:1</a></em>). This is some emphasis. Joseph “was not in agreement" with them, we are told, but it seems this was a position held within his own conscience. It was only the actual cross which brought faith into the open. “You shall not be in agreement with the wicked as an unjust witness" (<em><a href='B:20 23:1'>Exo 23:1</a></em>) probably tore out his heart. It may be that these men weren't present and that the Jews broke their own law, that the death sentence must be unanimously agreed. However, I have an intuitive sense (and nothing more) that these men voted for the Lord's death; and that they went along with the discussion in which “all" the council were involved, as to which incidents in His life they could remember for which they could condemn Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a></em>). They may not have consented to what was done in their hearts, but they still went along with it all on the surface. <em><a href='B:510 13:28-29'>Act 13:28-29</a></em> is at pains, almost, to associate Joseph, Nicodemus and the rest of the Sanhedrin: "<em>They</em>&nbsp;have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;found no cause of death in him, yet desired&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;Pilate that He should be slain…&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre". The text records that they desired Pilate for the death of Jesus; but the very same Greek words are used to describe how Joseph desired Pilate to let him have the body of Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 27:58'>Mat 27:58</a></em>)- as if to show how Joseph openly undid his request for the crucifixion, by requesting the body. They were secret disciples, fearing the loss of standing among the Jews. It was only after the Lord's death that they came out in the open. It seems to me that they voted for the Son of God to die. But in His grace, the Father emphasizes in the record that Joseph was a good man, and a just; a disciple, although secretly. The grace of God shines through the whole record. Thus only Matthew speaks about the suicide of Judas; the other three records are silent. A human god would inevitably have stressed that the betrayer of His Son went out in shame and took his own life. But the God of all grace is higher than reflecting vindictiveness in His word.</p><p>If the Lord died at 3p:m. and sunset was at 6p:m:, there were only three hours for Joseph to find Pilate, gain a hearing, make his request, for Pilate to verify that the body was dead, and then for Nicodemus to buy the spices and for the burial to be done. Joseph and Nicodemus must have decided almost immediately what they were going to do. And the lesson for us: Beholding the cross makes us see what we ought to do, it becomes urgently apparent, and then we give our all, with the spirit of 'nothing else matters', to achieve it as far as we can. But we can enter into their thoughts: I wish I'd done more for Him while He was alive, and now, even now, because of the pressure of time, I just can't bury and honour this body as I'd like to. All these things are against me. The self-hate and loathing and regret would have arisen within them, mixed with that love and devotion to the Lord of all grace. And there would have been an earnest desire for God to accept what little they could do, with time, the surrounding world, the Jewish culture, the unchangeable past, and their own present natures, all militating against the height of devotion they fain would show.</p><p>The body was sometimes granted to very close relatives. Joseph is now showing his open affinity with this crucified man. At that time, he didn't firmly believe in the resurrection. For sheer&nbsp;<em>love</em>&nbsp;of this crucified man, he was willing to sacrifice his standing in society, his economic position, risk his life, grovel before the hated Pilate to beg (Lk:), crave (Mk:) the body. This was something which only the close relatives of the crucified could presume to do. But he felt already that new relationship to the Lord, and whether or not He would ever be raised he wanted to show openly to the world his connection with Him, come what may. This was the effect of the Lord’s death upon him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:39'>Joh 19:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And there came also Nicodemus, he who came to him at the first by night; but now he brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds 45kg weight</em>-</p><p> Nicodemus and Joseph not only did something which placed them outside the religious and social elite of Israel. They humbled themselves in front of that cross. Joseph grovelled before Pilate for the body, he walked out into that no man's land between the crowd and the cross. Nicodemus bought 300 pounds of spices, far greater than the amount used at the most lavish royal burials of the time. The cost of this would have been colossal; equivalent to tens of thousands of dollars. And he did this on the spur of the moment; he bought it in the three hours between the Lord's death (3p:m:) and sunset (6p:m:). He didn't count the cost, thinking that OK, he'd given up his place in the society and economy, and would now have to live frugally on what he had for the rest of his days. no. Like the widow, he gave what he had, his capital, which many would have more 'prudently' kept for the rainy days ahead. To realize such a huge sum he must have run around in those hours, selling all he had for ridiculous prices (something similar to scenes in&nbsp;<em>Schindler’s List</em>). The holiday was coming on, and nobody was really in the mood for business. His wife, family, friends, colleagues... would have considered crazy, But all the time, beating in his brain, would have been the sense: ‘Now, nothing,&nbsp;<em>nothing else&nbsp;</em>really matters at all’. It's been observed: “If the aloe and myrrh were in dried or powdered form, a whole row of sacks would be necessary to carry this weight, and Nicodemus must have had assistance to be able to transport the load. The transport would have been even more difficult if the substance was dissolved in wine, vinegar or oil". Remember the Feast was coming on. To marshal such labour would have been so difficult and attracted so much attention and consternation. The Roman&nbsp;<em>litra</em>&nbsp;or pound was about 12 ounces, so 100 pounds (<em><a href='B:500 19:39'>Joh 19:39</a></em>) would have been about 75 imperial pounds. Such a weight would fill a considerable space in the tomb, forming a mound which would smother the corpse. Such was their love. It was common for kings to have such large amounts of spices (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 34:5'>Jer 34:5</a></em>). Those men were showing their belief that Jesus truly was Lord and King for them. To believe Jesus is Lord and King is not something which we can painlessly or cheaply believe. It demands our all. And there is no reason to think that Joseph ‘got away with it’. The&nbsp;<em>Acts of Pilate</em>&nbsp;12 reports that the Jews became so hostile when they heard that Joseph had asked for Jesus’ body that they imprisoned him. It should be noted that Joseph didn’t do what he did for hope of a future reward. The cross itself was enough to motivate him to give all purely for love of the Lord Jesus; not for any future hope. It could be that the reference to how he “waited for the Kingdom of God" when he begged for the body (<em><a href='B:480 15:43'>Mar 15:43</a></em>) suggests that he had lost hope for the future Kingdom at that time, he had earlier waited for it, but now he simply lived life for love of Jesus. And this should be our attitude if we are for some reason denied the Kingdom ahead; that, simply, we love Jesus, and would give our lives for Him all the same, Kingdom or no Kingdom. We who are baptized into both the death&nbsp;<em>and burial</em>&nbsp;of the Lord have a like senseless grace and love lavished upon us too (<em><a href='B:520 6:3-4'>Rom 6:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:10-12'>Col 2:10-12</a></em>). In passing, the question arises as to&nbsp;<em>why&nbsp;</em>Nicodemus bought such a huge amount of spices. Perhaps it is the nature of true devotion to behave in a humanly senseless way. Alternatively, the use of spices was to keep the body from decaying. It could be that he vaguely understood the promise of <em><a href='B:230 16:10'>Psa 16:10</a></em>, that the Lord’s body would not see corruption (cp. <em><a href='B:500 11:39'>Joh 11:39</a></em>), and thought that by his own extreme efforts he could bring this about. Despite his misunderstanding of that passage, his lack of faith and comprehension of the resurrection, all the same his devotion was accepted. There is significant extra-Biblical information about Nicodemus. Josephus mentions him as a distinguished man in&nbsp;<em>Wars of the Jews</em>&nbsp;II, 20 and IV, 3,9. He is mentioned in the Talmud&nbsp;<em>Gittin</em>&nbsp;56a as Nakdimon ben Gurion, one of the three richest nobles in Jerusalem. The Talmud also mentions a story about his daughter&nbsp;<em>Ketuboth&nbsp;</em>66a. It relates that one day when Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai was riding out of Jerusalem, he spoke to a poor young beggar woman, and discovered that she was Nicodemus’ daughter. He recalled that her father had lost his fortune, and had not practiced deeds of charity. This rather confirms our picture of Nicodemus. He did indeed lose his fortune, and his previous mean spiritedness was radically transformed by his experience of the outgiven life and love of Jesus. In the light of that, he gave away all. And the powerful impact of the cross of Christ can likewise banish all carefully calculated meanness from our hearts too, and concretely result in real generosity.</p><p>The life of radical grace is infectious. Mary’s lavish anointing of the Lord may well have been what inspired Nicodemus to so lavishly prepare the Lord’s body for burial. The vast quantities of spices he used was more than that used in the burials of some of the Caesars. He too must have bankrupted himself to anoint the Lord’s body. That two people did this within a week of each other is too close a similarity to be co-incidental. Surely the nature of Mary’s giving inspired that of Nicodemus. &nbsp;Paul likewise writes of how the generous commitments of the Corinthian ecclesias had “inspired very many” to generosity (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). And we too, in our abundant responses to God’s super-abundant grace, will inspire each other likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:40'>Joh 19:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as it is the custom of the Jews to bury</em>-</p><p> As we will note in chapter 20, the way the linen cloths and napkin were found still wrapped neatly is significant. For the myrrh would have made the linen stick to the Lord's body like glue. He did not have to fight His way out of them, nor was He somehow extricated from them by sympathizers and the corpse removed. Rather His very emergence from those cloths was itself part of the miracle of resurrection. The surrounding customs involved removing body parts; and the Romans burnt their dead. Only the Jews buried the entire body.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:41'>Joh 19:41</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb wherein no one had lain</em>-</p><p> Twice it is stressed that the tomb was near to where the Lord died (:42). Perhaps the Lord would have known that He would be buried there, and would have perhaps viewed the tomb from His elevated position on the cross. The Father provided encouragement to the Lord throughout His traumas, as He does to us in ours in ways great and small. The tomb had had no previous contact with a dead body, and so was ritually clean. This may be of no final consequence, because the Lord had been ritually defiled in about every way possible, but John maybe mentions this to try to make his Jewish audience as comfortable as possible. We too are to state truth as it is, but also be all things to all our hearers, as Paul was.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 19:42'>Joh 19:42</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There, because of the Jews' preparation day, they laid Jesus (for the tomb was nearby)</em>-</p><p> See on :41. Again John emphasizes that the Passover was coming on and therefore the last supper had not been a Passover meal. He is writing to and for Jews who were ever tempted to remain or return to Judaism. His point is that feasts like Passover had had their total fulfilment in the Lord's death. The way John, as a Jew writing to and for Jews, speaks of "the Jews' preparation day", along with other references to "the Jews", shows the chasmic gulf which he felt there to be between Christianity and Judaism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:1'>Joh 20:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb</em>-</p><p> Mary came seeking the Lord early in the morning… and this inevitably takes our minds to some OT passages which speak of doing just this:</p><p>- &nbsp;“O God, thou&nbsp;<em>art</em>&nbsp;my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is;&nbsp;&nbsp; To see thy power and thy glory” (<em><a href='B:230 63:1-2'>Psa 63:1-2</a></em>). The resurrection of Jesus showed clearly both the power (<em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em>) and glory (<em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>) of the Father. For Mary, life without her Lord was a dry and thirsty land. This was why she went to the grave early that morning. She was simply aching for Him. And she had well learnt the Lord’s teaching, that her brother’s resurrection had been associated with the glory of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 11:40'>Joh 11:40</a></em>). She went early to the tomb to seek the Father’s glory- so the allusion to Psalms 63 implies. She was the one person who had actually believed in advance the Lord’s teaching about resurrection. And yet even she was confused- half her brain perceived it all and believed it, and was rewarded by being the first to see the risen Lord; and yet another part of her brain was simply overcome with grief, believing that the gardener had somehow removed the body some place else. And our own highest heights of spiritual perception are likewise shrouded by such humanity too.-</p><p> “I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me” (<em><a href='B:240 8:17'>Pro 8:17</a></em>) is written in the first instance of wisdom. And yet the Lord Jesus has “wisdom” as one of His titles (<em><a href='B:470 12:42'>Mat 12:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>). Mary sat at the Lord’s feet to hear His wisdom; to her, she showed in practice what it means to comprehend Jesus as “the wisdom of God”. She anxiously heard His words. And thus she sought Him early…because she so wanted to hear His wisdom again. Of course, she loved Him. But that love was rooted in respect and almost an addiction to His wisdom. It was this that she loved about Him, and it was this which led her to the grave early. And it was this which led her to the honour of being the first to see the risen Jesus.-</p><p> “Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O LORD, have we waited for thee; the desire of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;soul&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee. With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early” (<em><a href='B:290 26:8-9'>Isa 26:8-9</a></em>) makes the same connection between seeking the Lord early, and loving His words. &nbsp;</p><p>John’s record seems to reflect how he saw parallels between himself and Mary in their witness to the resurrection. They both “came to the tomb” (<em><a href='B:500 20:1'>Joh 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:4'>Joh 20:4</a></em>), stood outside, “stooped” and looked into the tomb (<em><a href='B:500 20:5'>Joh 20:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:11'>Joh 20:11</a></em>), “beheld… saw” (<em><a href='B:500 20:5'>Joh 20:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:12'>Joh 20:12</a></em>). Yet Mary was the first to see the risen Lord. The testimony of a woman didn’t count in the 1st century world, and yet God chose her to be the first witness. In doing so, He was teaching that the work of witness and the sheer power of what we are witnesses to can transform the most hesitant and inappropriate person into a preacher of the irrepressible good news, even with the whole world against them. It’s as if John is saying in his account of the Gospel that Mary was in some ways his pattern; he and her were to be connected. He wasn’t ashamed to thus identify himself with the witness of a woman. Psalms 68 is prophetic of the Lord’s death and resurrection. Verse 18 is specifically quoted in the New Testament about His ascension. Verse 11 predicts that: “The Lord gave the word: the women that publish the tidings are a great host”. This primarily concerns the publishing of the Lord’s resurrection, although the imagery is based upon the singing of Miriam and the women of Israel after the Red Sea deliverance. Clearly enough, women were to play a major part in the witness to the Lord’s resurrection. This was shown by the women being commanded to go tell their brethren that the Lord had risen indeed. And yet there is ample evidence that it was women who in practice were the more compelling preachers of the Gospel in the first century ecclesia. The simple fact is that God delegated to women the duty of witnessing to what was for Him the most momentous and meaningful act in all His creation- the raising of His Son from the dead. He was clearly making a point- that those whose witness this world may despise, are those He uses. And in this we can take endless personal encouragement, beset as we are by our own sense of inadequacy as preachers:&nbsp;</p><p>John's record presents the resurrection through the eyes of Mary Magdalene. She went alone to the tomb while it was yet dark. This doesn't contradict the other accounts, which pick up the story at sunrise, when all the women were together there.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:2'>Joh 20:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>She ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them: They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him</em>-</p><p>Mary Magdalene was the first believer to call Jesus “the Lord”- despite His repeated teaching that this was His true position. They had called Him “Lord and Master” but not&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>Lord. Her example soon spread to her less perceptive brethren- for they likewise soon were speaking of Him as “the Lord” (<em><a href='B:500 20:25'>Joh 20:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>). Although the resurrection made Him Lord and Christ (<em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>), yet to her, it was as if He was risen and glorified already. This is an indication to me that she did really believe He would rise, but her humanity, her grief, the intensity of the moment, led her to act and speak as if this wasn’t the case. Consider all the descriptions of Jesus as “the Lord” even during His ministry; so certain was He that He would indeed be made Lord and Christ- and realize, how the fact Mary Magdalene too called Him “Lord” before seeing the proof of His resurrection indicates that she shared this perception.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:3'>Joh 20:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Peter with the other disciple therefore went out and went to the tomb-&nbsp;</em>Given the disrespect of women as witnesses, we see a humility here in them not only taking her seriously, but running in response to her word (:4). They set an example for all church leaders, one which was all the more radical in their age.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:4'>Joh 20:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They ran there together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came first to the tomb</em>-</p><p> Here we have another of the unusual usage of tenses which is characteristic of the Gospels. The imperfect here should be translated "they were running", inviting us to play Bible television with the narrative, seeing it unfolding before our eyes, seeing them running. John is displaying humility in recording that he outran Peter, running faster because he was perhaps younger or fitter; and yet going straight on to say that although he may have been faster in human terms, he was far slower than Peter in spiritual terms, for Peter was the first to enter the tomb and see the evidence for the Lord's resurrection (:5,6).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:5'>Joh 20:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not enter</em>-</p><p> Each of the Gospel writers reveals a sense of inadequacy about themselves or the disciples, this self-criticism, in different ways. The preaching of the twelve disciples is really an admission of their own weaknesses. For example, John mentions that when he and Peter arrived at the tomb, he John “did not go in”, but Peter did, and therefore believed before he did. We see here John’s gentle humility, and reflection in his own preaching of how he esteemed others better than himself, and of stronger faith. John says that “he saw and believed”, but goes straight on to say that he at that time did not understand that Jesus must rise from the dead (:8,9). He surely means that he&nbsp;<em>later</em>&nbsp;believed, but not right then.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:6'>Joh 20:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Simon Peter arrived behind him and entered into the tomb, and he saw the linen cloths lying there</em>-</p><p> Peter and John went to the tomb after having first of all disbelieved Mary Magdalene (<em><a href='B:490 24:11'>Luk 24:11</a></em>). The state of the linen cloths was what provoked John's faith (:8); for it is John who notes the huge quantity of myrrh used to embalm the Lord's body, and "myrrh... glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead" (Leon Morris,&nbsp;<em>John</em>&nbsp;p. 736). The fact the cloths were neatly placed as they were was therefore a powerful evidence that the Lord had risen, and not been extricated from the cloths by any human effort.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:7'>Joh 20:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the napkin that had been upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :6, for napkin to be rolled up meant the body had miraculously come out of them; for the myrrh would have glued them to the body in such a way that a person reviving and fighting their way out of the wrappings would have torn them; and they were neatly rolled up, not torn.</p><p>It does us good to reflect soberly and deeply upon the events of the birth, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. To reconstruct in our own minds what really happened, that we might know Him the better. That on a day in April, on a Friday afternoon, on a hill outside Jerusalem, 1970 years ago…there really was a man lead out to crucifixion. And that three days later, in a dark tomb, a tightly wrapped body came to life, and in a microsecond was standing outside his burial garments. The only sound would have been of the graveclothes collapsing or subsiding as the support of the body inside them was removed. The napkin wrapped around His head (cp. <em><a href='B:500 11:44'>Joh 11:44</a></em>) would suddenly have become a crumpled turban. The clothes would have been like a discarded chrysalis from which the butterfly has emerged. John saw the linen clothes “lying”, but according to one authority the Greek word can apparently stand the translation “collapsed”. That John saw the clothes “lying” is repeated twice, and the first time it is placed in an emphatic position in the Greek sentence- ‘He saw, as they were lying or ‘collapsed’, the linen clothes’. John also records his deep impression that the head napkin was not with the other clothes, but by itself. Apparently it was normal practice to bind the body and the head in graveclothes, but not the neck. It could be that John is saying that he was most struck by the way there was a slight gap between the collapsed body bindings and the head napkin- the gap where the neck of Jesus had been. This head napkin was “wrapped together”, but here we can with fair confidence say that the Greek word means more ‘twirled’. The word aptly describes the rounded shape which the empty napkin still preserved. And so John saw the stone slab, the collapsed graveclothes, and the shell of the head cloth, with a gap between the two where the Lord’s neck had been. And John “saw this and believed”. Now of course it is possible to reconstruct the whole scene otherwise. What I am saying is that in our personal following of the Lord we love, we each&nbsp;need to try to reconstruct for ourselves how it would have been. The artless style of the inspired records encourage us in this- one only has to compare them against the fantastic Apocryphal Gospels, with their descriptions of Jesus bursting from the tomb in power and glory, to see in the most obvious terms what is inspired and what isn’t.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:8'>Joh 20:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then the other disciple also entered, he who had arrived first to the tomb; and he saw and believed</em>-</p><p> To see and believe is another challenge which comes out of the text to readers and hearers, to do just the same. To see with the eyes of faith, and believe. But John is credited with believing, when he did not yet understand the Biblical basis for the Lord's resurrection (:9), and his immediate return to his own home (:10) is presented as an action of unbelief when we compare this with <em><a href='B:500 16:31-32'>Joh 16:31-32</a></em>, remembering that John rarely repeats phrases in his record unless he intends us to connect them: "Jesus answered them: Do you now believe? Behold, the hour comes, yes, has come, when you shall be scattered, every man to his own home". So John may be saying that his faith was weak, it was momentary. And that would explain the odd phrase used in the Greek; for "believed" has no object as Greek grammar would require. It is not implied&nbsp;<em>what</em>&nbsp;he believed in; although that nuance cannot really come through in English translation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:9'>Joh 20:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as yet they did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :8 and :9, this confirms the impression that John's 'belief' was momentary. However, a more generous interpretation is possible. It could be that John means to demonstrate here that faith in the risen Lord does not necessarily depend upon knowing or understanding the Old Testament texts which require Messiah's resurrection. For that requirement and implication is indeed there, but is hardly apparent to a casual reader or hearer; bearing in mind that most were illiterate and had no easy access to the scrolls. In this case, John would be appealing to Gentiles and illiterate Jews, the mass of first century society- and encouraging them that faith in the risen Christ is possible without any background of Old Testament theology and familiarity.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:10'>Joh 20:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So the disciples went away again to their own home</em>-</p><p> As noted on :8, this is an allusion to <em><a href='B:500 16:31-32'>Joh 16:31-32</a></em>, which says the disciples would do this because they did not really believe. John is appealing for faith in the empty tomb but explaining how his initial faith was momentary, and not based upon a Biblical understanding of the necessity of the Lord's resurrection. By implication he is appealing to his audience to have a faith stronger than his had initially been; and this is a very powerful way to appeal for faith from an audience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:11'>Joh 20:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping. So, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb</em>-</p><p> Mary “stood without”, and yet the same word is used in a rather negative context elsewhere in the Gospels: <em><a href='B:490 8:20'>Luk 8:20</a></em> Mary and His brethren standing without; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em> the rejected “stand without” with the door closed, seeking for their Lord; <em><a href='B:500 18:16'>Joh 18:16</a></em> Peter stood at the door without. It’s as if she was in the shoes of the rejected. And yet she is graciously accepted in a wonderful way by the risen Lord. And she is our representative. Her weeping likewise could be read negatively; for she ought to have gone to the tomb after three days with full faith and joy in expectation that the Lord had risen as He promised. Hence His question to her as to why she is weeping (:13,15):&nbsp;As noted earlier in this chapter, the Gospels are full of self-criticism of themselves as writers and their fellow disciples, stressing their weakness, and slow struggle towards the faith they now urged men and women to accept.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:12'>Joh 20:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And she saw two angels in white sitting there, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain</em>-</p><p> The scene is described in terms which recall the cherubim on either end of the "mercy seat", the blood stained cover of the ark of the covenant which Hebrews sees as so strongly representative of the Lord Jesus. As those cherubim were, it is emphasized, of the same material as the mercy seat (<em><a href='B:20 25:18-19'>Exo 25:18-19</a></em>), so the now invisible Lord was of their nature; hence His association with them as noted on :13.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:13'>Joh 20:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they said to her: Woman, why do you weep? She said to them: Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him</em>-</p><p> This comment on her weeping could be taken as a rebuke; see on :11. The Lord will soon repeat verbatim these Angelic words to Mary: “Woman, why are you weeping?” (<em><a href='B:500 20:13'>Joh 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). Likewise, when He appears to the women in <em><a href='B:470 28:9-10'>Mat 28:9-10</a></em>, He repeats the Angel’s words of <em><a href='B:470 28:5'>Mat 28:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:7'>Mat 28:7</a></em>. This indicates the unity which He felt with the Angels especially after His resurrection; see on :12.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:14'>Joh 20:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When she had said this, she turned herself around and saw Jesus standing there; but did not know that it was Jesus</em>-</p><p> She apparently perceived they were Angels (:12); but her focus on the Lord was so great that she was not impressed with that. All she wanted was Him. The later New Testament frequently tackles the Jewish obsession with Angels, to the point that the Christian Jews were losing their focus upon the Lord Jesus. And here in visual terms John addresses that issue, by presenting Mary as so focused upon the Lord that even meeting two white Angels was of no interest to her compared to her focus upon Him.</p><p>Jewish women were not supposed to talk to men in public. The fact that Mary addresses the man whom she thinks of as “the gardener” shows how her love for Jesus, her search for Him, led her to break out of gender roles. She perceived that through His death, there was now neither male nor female, but a new kind of family (<em><a href='B:500 20:14-15'>Joh 20:14-15</a></em>).</p><p>It is emphasized that Mary Magdalene beheld the cross of Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em>)- the same word is used about how she came&nbsp;<em>to see</em>&nbsp;the sepulchre (<em><a href='B:470 28:1'>Mat 28:1</a></em>); and now she&nbsp;<em>saw&nbsp;</em>Jesus standing (<em><a href='B:500 20:14'>Joh 20:14</a></em>). People beheld the spectacle of the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>) and repented, smiting their breasts in recognition of their sinfulness. She was representative of us all. John’s Gospel is full of references to the crucifixion, and especially the idea of ‘seeing’ / perceiving its’ real meaning. The prologue invites us too to be amongst those who “beheld his glory”. “This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life” (<em><a href='B:500 6:40'>Joh 6:40</a></em>) connects with the idea of looking unto the bronze snake (which represented Christ on the cross) and receiving life. &nbsp;“And he that seeth&nbsp;on the cross seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness” (<em><a href='B:500 12:45-46'>Joh 12:45-46</a></em>). Note again the linkage between seeing and believing; which John 3 applies to belief in the crucified Jesus, as Israel had to believe in the bronze snake on the pole. The light of the world was defined in John 3 as the light of the cross. In seeing / perceiving Christ on the cross, we perceive the essence of God- for the Father was so intensely manifested in the Son. There, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. &nbsp;The emphasis on Mary Magdalene being the one who beheld the cross, the one who perceived the things of the Lord’s death and resurrection, is surely to set her up as our example. For we can look at the cross without perceiving the glory and wonder it all, neither perceiving the urgency of the imperative in the things which were so uniquely crystallized there. She, the one with former 'demons' and a sinful past, and a mere woman, in the eyes of her world, is set up as a pattern for all who shall see the Son in faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: Woman, why do you weep?-&nbsp;</em>This could be understood as a rebuke, seeing she ought to have known that after three days the Lord would rise again. See on :11. Note too that the Lord repeats the Angelic words to her, showing His connection with them now by nature; see on :12,13.</p><p><em>Whom do you seek?-&nbsp;</em>This is another of those questions which fly out of the page to challenge every reader or hearer; whom do&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>seek? He was still the same Jesus. The Lord was recognized by the Emmaus disciples in the way that He broke the bread. How He broke a loaf of bread open with His hands&nbsp;<em>after&nbsp;</em>His resurrection reflected the same basic style and mannerism which He had employed&nbsp;<em>before&nbsp;</em>His death. Not only the body language but the Lord's choice of words and expressions was similar both before and after His passion. He uses the question "Who are you looking for?" at the beginning of His ministry (<em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>), just before His death (<em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>) and also now after His resurrection. And the words of the risen Lord as recorded in Revelation are shot through with allusion to the words He used in His mortal life, as also recorded by John. See on <em><a href='B:500 21:5'>Joh 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:20'>Joh 21:20</a></em>. “Whom do you seek?” are words He had used three times in His ministry (<em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:7'>Joh 18:7</a></em>). He used words which she ought to have recognized as a catch phrase of the Lord, and thereby have realized that it was the Lord speaking to her. She did, eventually, make the connection; she lived up to the spiritual potential which the Lord realized in her. She replies by exclaiming: Rabboni When three years earlier the Lord had “<em>turned&nbsp;</em>as He did again to Mary... and saith... What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi…’ (<em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>). And now Mary sees the similarity which the Lord has set up, and joyfully realizes the reality of His resurrection through it.</p><p><em>She, supposing him to be the gardener-&nbsp;</em>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><p><em>Said to him: Sir, if you have taken him from here, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away</em>-</p><p> Mary addresses the gardener as “sir”, but this is the same Geek word&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;as is translated “Lord’ a few verses earlier, when she describes Jesus as “the Lord” (<em><a href='B:500 20:2'>Joh 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). It seems to me that she half knew that this person standing there was Jesus. She was half expecting it. “They have taken away the Lord” (:2) almost sounds as if she felt Him to be alive and already made Lord and Christ. But the sheer grief of the situation distracted her from seeing that it was really Him. In this kind of thing there is, to me at least, the greatest proof of inspiration. It is all so real and therefore credible. She couldn’t dare believe that her wildest hope of every grieving person was actually coming true. And in this we surely see some echoes of the slowness to believe that we have actually made it which it seems there will be after the judgment seat experience.</p><p>Her desire to remove the Lord's body may appear strange, seeing He had been buried in an expensive new tomb. She was surely not thinking straight anyway, for it would have been hard for a woman to carry the heavily embalmed corpse of a man on her own. Where did she intend taking it? I suggest she had no concrete idea. She wanted&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;for herself; the point of the record is that her focus was so completely upon Him. And in that she is our example, and her disorientation and impractical ideas are exactly what we would expect of someone in that mental situation. The verisimilitude of the narrative comes over so strongly.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:16'>Joh 20:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: Mary-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's intonation and voice was just the same before and after His resurrection and change of nature. This is a profound reflection of how He is the same today as yesterday and forever.</p><p><em>She turned-&nbsp;</em>She had turned away from the Angels and had looked toward the Lord, but assuming Him to be a gardener, she has turned away again, and is speaking without looking at the one she is addressing. This again presents a realistic picture both of her disorientation, and also of her desire to focus on nothing and nobody apart from her Lord. In this she is set up as our example.</p><p><em>And said to him: Rabboni Which is to say, teacher</em>-</p><p> This was her instant response; and so we can assume she uses the title for the Lord which she usually used, and which reflects how she related to Him. He had been for her above all her Rabbi, her teacher. And the Jews considered it wrong for a woman to be taught the Law; yet the Lord was for her above all her teacher. This strong perception of Him as teacher explains their terrible concern that He was leaving them, and they would be without a teacher; hence the comfort that the Holy Spirit would empower them not only with a sense of His personal presence, but also would teach them as He had done personally. See on <em><a href='B:500 14:18'>Joh 14:18</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:17'>Joh 20:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: Don’t keep touching me; for I am not right now going to ascend to the Father</em>-</p><p> She thought that the Lord was about to ascend to the Father, understanding His previous references to 'going to the Father' as referring to an ascension through the sky to Heaven. But the Lord comforts her that she doesn't need to keep grabbing hold of Him to stop that ascension, for He was not planning on doing so immediately at that moment. This intense dislike of the idea of His ascension and desperate desire for His physical presence reflects how she totally hadn't understood His entire teaching about the Comforter in chapters 14-16. It was expedient for them that He went away to the Father, because then they would receive the gift of the Spirit, His abiding presence in their hearts which would be as if He were physically present with them, and even more profound. But the Lord is gentle, and doesn't apparently make that obvious point to her. Despite her serious inattention to His words and inadequacy of understanding on that point, He urges her to go and tell the simple good news of His resurrection to others. This is the essence of the good news, and a person can believe and preach it regardless of whether they correctly understand everything else in the Lord's teaching. Mary is the parade example of encouragement in this.</p><p><em>But go to my brothers and say to them: I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God</em>-</p><p> And she obeyed: she “went and announced…” (:18). This is the first time the Lord refers to the believers as His "brothers". He wishes to emphasize His connection with us despite the experience of resurrection and immortalization; and perhaps He felt that a new family relationship had now been forged through the gift of the Spirit working in their hearts, "the spirit of adoption" (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>), now enabled by His death.</p><p>Putting this alongside the other gospel records, this is all in the context of the disciples being commanded to take the good news of the risen Lord to all men. Surely Mary is being set up as an example of obedience to that command. She overcame all her inhibitions, the sense of “Who?&nbsp;<em>Me</em>?”, the embarrassment at being a woman teaching or informing men in the first century… and as such is the pattern for all of us, reluctant as we are to bear the good news. “Among the Hebrews women only had limited rights and above all could not act as witnesses”. And yet, the Lord chose Mary to be the witness to His resurrection to His brethren. He turned societal expectations on their head by setting her up as the bearer of the good news to them. Why? Surely to shake all of us from the safety of our societal and human closets; that we, whoever we are, however much we feel inadequate and ‘this is not for me’, are to be the bearers of the Lord’s witness to all men.</p><p>She was not to tell them ‘Jesus is going to ascend…’. She was to use the first person. Why? Surely because in her witness she was to be to them the voice of Jesus. And so it is for us all; we are witnesses in Him, we are Jesus to the eyes both of our brethren and this world. It was so significant that a woman should be chosen to make this witness, for women were not a valid witness in Judaism (Mishnah,&nbsp;<em>Rosh Ha-Shanah</em>&nbsp;1:8). Those who feel an intrinsic inadequacy are made adequate for this work of witness. And Mary's previous mental illness (<em><a href='B:480 16:9'>Mar 16:9</a></em>) and immoral lifestyle likewise seriously dented her credibility on a secular level.</p><p>Perhaps Mary Magdalene alone perceived from Psalms 110? that the Lord must ascend after His resurrection- for surely this was why she kept clinging on to Him after He rose, fearful He would there and then disappear Heavenwards. And therefore the Lord comforted her, that there was no need to cling on to Him so, for He was not just then going to ascend to the Father (<em><a href='B:500 20:17'>Joh 20:17</a></em>). But another reading of this incident is possible, once it is realized that the OT associates clinging to another’s feet with making a request of them (<em><a href='B:120 4:27'>2Ki 4:27</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>Perhaps the Lord called the disciples His “brothers” straight after His resurrection in order to emphasize that He, the resurrected Man and Son of God, was eager to renew His relationships with those He had known in the flesh. It’s as if He didn’t want them to think that somehow, everything had changed. Indeed, He stresses to them that their Father is His Father, and their God is His God. He appears to be alluding here to <em><a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a></em> LXX. Here, Ruth is urged to remain behind in Moab cp. Mary urging Jesus?, but she says she will come with her mother in law, even though she is of a different people, and “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God”. This allusion would therefore be saying: ‘OK I am of a different people to you now, but that doesn’t essentially affect our&nbsp;<em>relationship</em>; I so love you, I will always stick with you wherever, and my God is your God’:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 3:14'>Mar 3:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>Mary Magdalene went and told the disciples: I have seen the Lord And she told them that he had said these things to her</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Mary went to tell others “what she had seen and heard” (<em><a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a></em>), and John in one of his many later allusions back to his Gospel uses these very words about all the apostles- “that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you” (<em><a href='B:690 1:1'>1Jn 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:3'>1Jn 1:3</a></em>). He and the other brethren took Mary as their inspiration in the work of witness, as should we.</p><p>Mary is very convinced as to what she had witnessed; she goes and tells the others that she has actually seen the Lord in person, and that He spoke words to her which she was now telling them. By contrast, the other women spoke in more abstract terms of having seen “a vision of Angels” (<em><a href='B:490 24:23'>Luk 24:23</a></em>), rather than saying how they actually met Angels; and likewise the disciples understood the Lord’s appearance to them as them having “seen a spirit” (<em><a href='B:490 24:37'>Luk 24:37</a></em>). But Mary is far more concrete; she was immediately convinced of the actual, personal, bodily resurrection of the Lord. To ‘spiritualize’ is so often really an excuse for lack of faith. And so many, from ivory tower theologians to JWs, have fallen into this error. Faith in the end is about concrete, actual things which defy all the ‘laws’ of our worldviews. And it was this faith which Mary showed. See on <em><a href='B:480 16:9'>Mar 16:9</a></em>.</p><p>"I have seen the Lord" is consciously alluding to <em><a href='B:500 14:19'>Joh 14:19</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 16:16'>Joh 16:16</a></em>, where the Lord had prophesied that all the disciples would see Him. It's as if John saw her as the representative of them all. Further evidence of this is found in the way John records the Lord as saying that He calls His sheep by name, and they recognize His voice (<em><a href='B:500 10:5'>Joh 10:5</a></em>)- and by then recording how Mary Magdalene was the one who recognized the Lord’s voice when He called her name (<em><a href='B:500 20:16'>Joh 20:16</a></em>), as if she represents all the Lord’s sheep. A woman rising early and searching for the Man whom she loves, asking the watchmen whether they have seen him, then finding him, seizing him and not letting him go… this is all the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:260 3:1-4'>Son 3:1-4</a></em>, where the bride of Christ is pictured doing these very things. Mary Magdalene is therefore used by John as a symbol for all the believers, or at least for the Jewish Messianic community searching for Jesus. Compare too the Lord’s reassurance of Mary Magdalene with language of <em><a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a></em> to the whole community of believers: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name…”:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:19'>Joh 20:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and for fear of the Jews, the doors were locked where the disciples were; and Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them: Peace to you</em>-</p><p> The AV better reflects the Greek: "Where the disciples were assembled", or literally, 'synagogued'. The same phrase is used of church gatherings (<em><a href='B:510 20:7'>Act 20:7</a></em>). They were unwelcome in the synagogues and persons of interest to the Jews; and so they by default became their own synagogue. But without a Rabbi / teacher. The Lord's appearance in their midst as it were gave life to their synagogue / church. He fulfilled His promise that where two or three were gathered together for His sake, He would come into their midst. The standing "in their midst" is emphasized in :26. But it is John who will later use the same word in describing how after the Lord had been slain He was represented in Heaven as a freshly slain lamb possessing the Spirit standing "in the midst" of the Heavenly elders (<em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>). That was Heaven's reflection of that very humble situation on earth, where the illustrious elders of Heaven were reflected by the frightened, weak disciples in whose midst the Lord stood. But they were to become the elders of the new people of God, with representative Angels before the throne of God, in the court of Heaven. Our weak situations on earth have their far more glorious reflections in the Heavenly throne room.</p><p>The wishing of peace was no mere formality. It was another way of wishing them peace with God through the gift of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:20'>Joh 20:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 24:41'>Luk 24:41</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when he had said this, he showed to them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord</em>-</p><p> There is no mention of His feet, although crucifixion victims were usually nailed there too. Perhaps this was because in order not to break a bone of Him, the nails had not left major holes there. Their 'gladness' was in partial fulfilment of His word that their sorrow would be turned into joy when they 'saw' Him again, but I have suggested that the joy in view there more fully referred to the joy of His presence through the receipt of the Comforter in their hearts to replace His physical presence. It seems that they saw the Lord, but were not persuaded it was Him until they had seen the marks in side and hands. Mary was persuaded without being shown these. The record is continually emphasizing their weakness and slowness of faith. We also see the depth of their belief in disembodied spirits, a totally unBiblical belief. But such doctrinal failure was no reason for the Lord to break relationship with them, and neither should it be for us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jesus again said to them: Peace to you. As the Father has sent me, even so send I you</em>-</p><p> The gift of peace was no passing formality. To be given the Lord's attitude of mind, the peace He had with the Father, was part of the promised gift of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>); and here we go on immediately to read of the Spirit being given (:22). That gift was therefore primarily something internal, mental, psychological, in the heart; for that is where peace exists, especially peace with God of the kind the Lord enjoyed.</p><p>Again we have a Johannine version of the great commission. As the Lord was sent into the world, so are we. This parallel means that His 'sending into the world' cannot be harnessed to support any mistaken notion of personal pre-existence or coming from Heaven to earth at birth; for as He was sent, so are we. The synoptics record the risen Lord sending the disciples to preach Him and His resurrection; just as He was sent forth to testify of Himself. They are promised the strength of the Spirit to make that witness; here they are given "peace" and the gift of the Spirit (:22). And yet the disciples were weak and fearful at this time, hence the repeated assurance of "Peace unto you". We too receive the same commission against a backdrop of feeling so inadequate and lacking of resource to fulfil it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:22'>Joh 20:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> The gift of the Spirit was not and is not a once-off phenomenon, given just once in the experience of the believer. The New Testament records the believers being filled with the Spirit on various occasions, and the exhortations to allow ourselves to be filled with the Spirit are proof enough that it is given in an ongoing sense. Paul says that the Corinthians had received the Spirit at baptism, but he urges them to now be spiritual, to receive it and be filled with it again. There is therefore no chronological issue with the fact that Luke places a giving of the Spirit by the risen Lord at a slightly different point in the narrative.</p><p>The breathing of the Lord recalls His breathing His last breath toward the disciples at His death; "breath" and "spirit" are the same idea. The Spirit given is therefore fundamentally the spirit of Lord Jesus, His breathing, His life. Any manifestations of it through miraculous gifts in the first century are incidental to the essential idea- which is that His breathing, His living, the spirit of His mind, is given into ours and becomes ours as it displaces all human thinking and 'spirit' within us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained</em>-</p><p> Grammatically, the "any" refers to any type or class, rather than 'any individual'. This encourages us to understand this as John's version of&nbsp;the great commission to take the Gospel to all kinds of people; see on :21,22. "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (<em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em> NIV). These words have always been problematic for me, especially that last phrase. Can God’s forgiveness really be limited by the forgiveness shown by fallible men? Yet if these words are taken as a record of the great commission to go and preach, and the ellipsis is filled in, things become clearer: ‘I am sending you to preach the Gospel and baptism of forgiveness; if you do this and men respond, then the Gospel you preach really does have the power to bring about forgiveness. But if you don’t fulfil the commission I give you to preach forgiveness, then the sins of your potential hearers will remain unforgiven’. Again, the forgiveness and salvation of others is made to depend upon our preaching of forgiveness. “Whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” becomes the equivalent of “he that believeth not shall be damned”. The disciples did not go out into the world and tell some people that they were forgiven and others that they were not. There is no historical account of them doing that at all. Rather we see them going out into the world preaching the good news of forgiveness for any who wished.</p><p>Commentators have noted that the language of retaining here is similar to how the Rabbis spoke, and the basis upon which they either excommunicated or 'received into fellowship'. The Lord is saying that this power is not in their hands, but is in the hands of the preacher of the Gospel. And instead of stipulating who is in and out, they should take the Gospel of God's radical acceptance to the world. This is a powerful challenge to latter day Judaists within Christian churches who think in exactly these categories of receiving into fellowship or putting out of fellowship. That same mentality likewise misses the focus now placed by the Lord on taking the message of fellowship with Him out into the world, and leaving God to decide who finally is 'in' or 'out' on the basis of their acceptance or rejection of His offer.</p><p>The Greek for ‘retain’ strictly means ‘to hold / bind’, and that for ‘remit’ means ‘to loose’. This has evident connection with <em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>, where the keys of the Gospel of the Kingdom (which we all possess) have the power to bind and loose, i:e. to grant or not grant forgiveness. <em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em> also has some reference to the great commission: “…so shall ye be my disciples… that&nbsp;<em>ye should go</em>&nbsp;into all the world and bear fruit, and that your fruit converts? should abide”. The eternal life of the converts is a fruit brought forth by the preacher’s obedience to his Lord’s commission. Likewise through the preaching of John, he turned men’s hearts- the idea of repentance, being brought about by the preacher (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>).</p><p>20:24 There's meaning in the fact that Thomas' other name, Didymus, is given (<em><a href='B:500 20:24'>Joh 20:24</a></em>). 'Didymus' means literally 'the double', presumably implying he was a twin. But 'Didymus' is a form of the same Greek word we find in <em><a href='B:470 28:17'>Mat 28:17</a></em>, describing the 'doubt', literally the doubleness, i:e. the double mindedness, which there was in the disciples. Again, the element of doubt and lack of faith is being emphasized.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:24'>Joh 20:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came</em>-</p><p> His surname 'the twin' could hint at his suffering from the dual nature we all have when it comes to matters of faith; we can believe and yet disbelieve. Perhaps his absence from the group was related to his strongly expressed disbelief.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:25'>Joh 20:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The other disciples told him: We have seen the Lord But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe</em>-</p><p> When John records Thomas as saying “If I do not see… and put my finger… I will never believe”, he is connecting back to the Lord’s very similar words: “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will never believe” (<em><a href='B:500 4:48'>Joh 4:48</a></em>). It’s as if John is bringing out the weakness of faith in his friend Thomas, the struggle there was to believe, knowing it would elicit a chord in his hearers, thus building a bridge between the hearers and the preacher. And John goes on to record that there is a greater blessing for those who believe, not having seen the Lord, than there is for preachers like himself, who had believed because they had seen and touched the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>). It’s as if John shows the utmost humility before his audience, imputing to them greater faith than he had. And Peter does likewise, alluding here when he says that his readers love the Lord, although they unlike he had never seen Him (<em><a href='B:670 1:8'>1Pe 1:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:26'>Joh 20:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them, and said: Peace to you</em>-</p><p> For the significance of His 'standing among them' see on :19. They still weren't obedient to their risen Lord- they didn't go immediately into Galilee. They remained at least eight days in Jerusalem, until the Lord Jesus appeared to Thomas there. The fact they met a week later, taking 'an eight days' as a week by the Jewish inclusive method (<em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>), suggests they had already begun meeting regularly together. His special presence during their gatherings may speak of His presence at communal gatherings of His people, although the Comforter presence is ever present in the heart of every individual believer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:27'>Joh 20:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he said to Thomas: Reach here your finger and see my hands, and reach here your hand and put it into my side; and be not faithless but believing</em>-</p><p> His finger was the appropriate size to enter the nail wounds, and his hand the right side to enter the spear gash in the Lord's side. “Do not persist in your disbelief, but become a believer” (Gk:). And then He pronounces to Thomas: “You have now believed” (<em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>, Syriac text). It’s as if John is challenging his hearers and readers in the same way, and setting up his buddy ‘doubting Thomas’ as their pattern. John makes the point that Thomas didn’t initially believe the ‘preaching’ of the Gospel of the resurrection by the other disciples; just as John anticipated some would not accept his account of the same Gospel on first hearing. And again, "be not faithless but believing" jumps out of the text to challenge each of us, as do so many questions and exclamations in John's Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:28'>Joh 20:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God</em>-</p><p> Although Thomas’ exaltation “My Lord and my God” may appear an off-the-cuff gasping out of praise, can I suggest there was far more to it than that. I suggest he was alluding to or quoting <em><a href='B:230 35:23'>Psa 35:23</a></em>: “Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, my God and my Lord" . The Lord Jesus had indeed arisen and stirred up in resurrection, and Thomas realized that it was to his judgment. When we look closer at the Psalm, it seems to reveal something of the thoughts of the Lord Jesus. He had desired God to awake to&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;need. And now Thomas shares those same thoughts, through his relationship to Jesus. And this is a very Johannine theme; that the relationship between Father and Son is to be shared by the believers, on account of the way they relate to the risen Lord Jesus. Or perhaps Thomas had <em><a href='B:230 91:2'>Psa 91:2</a></em> in mind: "I will say of the Lord, he is my refuge, my fortress, my God; in him will I trust”. When Thomas addressed Jesus as&nbsp;“My Lord and my God”, he was likely alluding to the way the Emperors Domitian especially, according to Seutonius demanded to be called "&nbsp;<em>Dominus et Deus noster</em>" - Our Lord and our God. Thomas was saying something radical- he was applying to the Lord Jesus the titles which those living in the Roman empire were only to apply to Caesar. And our exaltation of the Lord Jesus should be just as radical in practice:&nbsp; Further, note that Yahweh Elohim is usually translated in the Septuagint '<em>Kyrios, ho theos mou</em>'-&nbsp; Lord, my God”. Am I going too far in thinking that Thomas saw in the risen Jesus the fulfilment of the Yahweh Elohim name? He would thus have been fulfilling the Lord's prophecy in <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>: "When you lift up the Son of man, then you will realize that I Am...". Finally the disciples were grasping that "All men may honour the Son just as they honour the Father" (<em><a href='B:500 5:23'>Joh 5:23</a></em>). Thomas’ expression of praise was thus blasphemy to both Jews and Romans. A true perception of the exaltation of the Lord Jesus leads us to a unique position which cannot be accepted by any who are not truly of Him:&nbsp;</p><p>Again and again we have to emphasize that we read the Biblical documents at a great distance from the culture in which they were first written. It was quite understandable for a person to carry the name of their superior, without being that superior in person. And so it was and is with the Lord Jesus. To give just one of many possible confirmations of this: "In <em>2<a href='B:190 5:43-46'>Est 5:43-46</a></em>... God's spokesman, the angel Uriel, is questioned by Ezra as though he were both Creator and Judge which God alone is. Ezra uses the same style of address to Uriel ("My lord, my master") as he uses in direct petition to God. This practice of treating the agent as though he were the principal is of the greatest importance for New Testament Christology i:e. the study of who Christ is". The acclamation of Thomas "My Lord and my God" must be understood within the context of first century usage, whereas Paul says, many people were called Lord and "god" (<em><a href='B:530 8:4-6'>1Co 8:4-6</a></em>). If we're invited by our manager "Come and meet the president", we don't expect to meet the President of the USA. We expect to meet the president of the company. The word "president" can have more than one application, and it would be foolish to assume that in every case it referred to the President of the USA. And it's the same with the words "Lord" and "God" in their first century usage. Hence a Jewish non-Trinitarian like Philo could call Moses "God and king of the whole nation" (<em>Life Of Moses</em>&nbsp;1:158)- and nobody accused him of not being monotheistic Significantly, there is in the New Testament the Greek word&nbsp;<em>latreuo</em>&nbsp;which specifically refers to the worship of God- and this is always 21 times applied to God and not Jesus. The worship of Jesus that is recorded is always to God's glory, and is recorded with the same words especially&nbsp;<em>proskuneo</em>&nbsp;used about the worship of believers (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>, Daniel (<em><a href='B:340 2:46'>Dan 2:46</a></em> LXX), kings of Israel etc. (<em><a href='B:130 29:20'>1Ch 29:20</a></em> LXX)).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and have believed</em>-</p><p> We naturally tend to think of ourselves as the referent here. And indeed we are. But the tenses here read strangely if future generations are in view; for then we would need something like 'not seen yet will then believe'. He implies there were others at that time who had not seen but had believed. The Lord knew there were some who had heard His promise of resurrection after three days, and believed it- although they had not seen Him. This means that the disciples were spiritually second class citizens at that point, even amongst the body of believers. Some had not seen and believed He had risen; they had seen, but doubted- despite the great blessing of having the Lord appear to them. This again highlights the point being made throughout all the Gospels; the disciples were weak, even amongst the other believers; and yet they came through in the end, and were used by the Lord to found His church. Peter alludes to this passage when encouraging his converts that they had not seen and yet had believed, using the same words (<em><a href='B:670 1:8'>1Pe 1:8</a></em>). He writes that fully aware that he was one privileged to have seen and yet whose faith was weak, and who literally 'went fishing' in disillusion even after having seen the risen Lord. The phrase 'blessed for having not seen but have believed' is found in the Rabbinic writings concerning proselytes. John continues his theme of a new Israel being developed, suggesting that the new Israel was based around the "twelve" cp. the twelve tribes of Israel, and proselytes would be joined to them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:30'>Joh 20:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Many other signs Jesus did in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book</em>-</p><p> The context is of :29 stating that some believed without seeing the risen Lord, whereas the disciples saw Him but doubted. Here that self-critical spirit continues, with John admitting that the Lord not only appeared to them but did many signs in their presence, witnessed by them- making their slowness to believe all the more reprehensible. John concludes by saying that he has written down these signs so that "you", his audience who had not seen but whom he hoped would believe, might be better than him and the disciples- believing in what they had not seen.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name</em>-</p><p> See on :30. John’s Gospel was written for the specific purpose of bringing others to faith- like most of the New Testament, it is essentially a missionary document. The gospel preached by John is what is transcripted here. We must ask then whether any other theology is actually part of the Gospel message. <em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em> makes it clear that the purpose of John's Gospel was to bring unbelievers to faith in Christ: "This has been written in order that you may hold the faith that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, holding this faith, you may possess life by His name". C:H. Dodd comments: "The tense of the verbs... the aorists... would necessarily have implied that the readers did not so far hold the Christian faith or possess eternal life". The gift of eternal life in John refers to the present receipt of the gift of the Spirit, the life and spirit of live lived by the Lord Jesus, the life we shall eternally live. This is why life is "in his name". There may be reference to baptism into His Name, but the "name" of a person refers to the summation of their character and being. Life is lived in "His name", living, thinking, feeling and acting as He did and does.</p><p>“That ye might believe” implies John intended his readership to be unbelievers rather than believers in the first instance. <em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em> implies that the community for whom John was writing had John as the basic source of their knowledge about Jesus, and was highly respected as their spiritual father. 'John' is therefore his inspired write-up of the Gospel he had taught his converts, and therefore it has various specific features highly relevant to them. Acts likewise seems to be written as a preaching document, recording the speeches of basic apologetics which were made to both Jews and Gentiles. The early preachers would have gone around telling the good news about Jesus Christ, and in so doing would have recited time and again His teaching and life story. John seems to suggest that he chose which miracles to record so that "ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name" (<em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>). The implication is that he wrote his Gospel with the intention of it being used as a preaching document.</p><p>The Gospel records are transcripts of the original preaching of the Gospel delivered by e.g. Matthew or John. Thus John wrote down his gospel “<em>that you may believe&nbsp;</em>that Jesus is the Christ, the&nbsp;<em>Son of God</em>, and that by believing you may have&nbsp;<em>lif</em>e in his&nbsp;<em>name</em>” (<em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>). His first letter was written, it seems, to the converts which his Gospel preaching had made: “I write these things to&nbsp;<em>you who believe</em>&nbsp;in the&nbsp;<em>name&nbsp;</em>of the&nbsp;<em>Son of God</em>&nbsp;so that you may know that you have eternal&nbsp;<em>life</em>” (<em><a href='B:690 5:13'>1Jn 5:13</a></em>). It has even been suggested that John was writing in order to win converts to Christianity from a specific synagogue somewhere in the Diaspora. Another suggestion is that John is aiming at converting Samaritans or at least, a group of Gentiles perhaps associated with a synagogue. For John records how Samaritans came to Jesus, how “the world” includes them and not just Jews (<em><a href='B:500 4:42'>Joh 4:42</a></em>); how physical descent from Abraham is irrelevant now (<em><a href='B:500 8:33-41'>Joh 8:33-41</a></em>); how the true Israelite is anyone who has been born again (<em><a href='B:500 1:47'>Joh 1:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:3-8'>Joh 3:3-8</a></em>), and John stresses that the true sheep of Jesus for whom he died are not just Jews (<em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:51-52'>Joh 11:51-52</a></em>). John records Jesus’ explaining that He has already done the sowing, but the reaping of the Samaritans / Gentiles is up to us the reapers (<em><a href='B:500 4:35-38'>Joh 4:35-38</a></em>). The lesson is that we must each preach the Gospel to others in a way that is relevant to them, not compromising the basic message, but articulating it in ways that connect with their needs and situation. The New Testament is simply full of encouragement and example in this.</p><p>But it could also be that John was writing to confirm the faith of those who had heard his preaching of the Gospel and been baptized. For they would have largely been illiterate and would need some way of being reminded of that in which they had believed. It is possible to translate: "That you may continue to believe".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:1'>Joh 21:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias; and he manifested himself in this way</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 28:10'>Mat 28:10</a></em> sounds as if the Lord Jesus intended not to reveal Himself to the disciples until they met in Galilee. The fact He did so earlier shows that He changed plans, perhaps out of concern for their very weak faith, or perhaps simply from an overpowering love of them and desire to be with them. <em><a href='B:500 21:1'>Joh 21:1</a></em> stresses that He revealed Himself to them in Galilee&nbsp;<em>again</em>, as if the necessity for this was somehow shameful; and <em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em> notes this was the third time that the disciples as a group saw the risen Lord. Perhaps the degree of their unbelief was unexpected even to the risen Lord.</p><p>Perhaps this incident fulfils the Lord's intention to meet them on a mountain in Galilee (<em><a href='B:470 28:16'>Mat 28:16</a></em>); but the planned meeting never happened because instead of going to the prearranged meeting place on a mountain there, they went fishing. Their going fishing might imply that they just returned to their old business. Meeting the risen Christ still didn't have a permanent effect upon them. This follows straight on from the blessing just pronounced upon those even at that time who had not seen but had believed; the disciples saw multiple times but still 'went fishing'; see on <em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:2'>Joh 21:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There was together Simon Peter and Thomas called Didymus and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee and the sons of Zebedee and another two of his disciples</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1, the 'going fishing' incident was shameful. The Lord had already appeared to them twice, and they had arranged a meeting on a mountain in Galilee (<em><a href='B:470 28:16'>Mat 28:16</a></em>). But now they just go fishing, as if in disinterest or continued disbelief. Perhaps this is why the group who did this are named and shamed, by themselves, as it were.</p><p>The Gospel writers each conclude their message with some reference to their own incredible slowness to believe the very Gospel which they were now preaching to others. Between them, the preaching of the twelve makes it clear that they saw the risen Lord in Jerusalem, at least twice, were commissioned as preachers of that good news… and yet returned to Galilee in disbelief and resumed their previous occupations. And of course they recall their Lord’s rebuke of them for their slowness and blindness. Truly they were appealing to their hearers on the basis of their own humanity and weakness of faith. They weren’t painting themselves as immaculate, never doubting believers. They were so strongly portraying their humanity, knowing that they were appealing to men and women who were equally human and frail of faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:3'>Joh 21:3</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 10:28'>Mar 10:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>Simon Peter said to them: I am going fishing. They said to him: We will go with you. They went out and entered into the boat, and that night they caught nothing</em>-</p><p>John perhaps especially brings out their blindness at this time. He describes how they were fishing on the lake, having given up, it seems, their faith in Jesus, despite His appearances to them. Yet John describes that incident in language which evidently alludes to the account in Luke 5 of the Lord’s first call to them by the same lake, whilst they were fishing. Consider the similarities:-</p><p> They have fished all night but caught nothing-</p><p> The Lord tells them to cast their nets-</p><p> They obey and catch many fish-</p><p> The effect on the nets is mentioned-</p><p> Peter reacts emotionally, and in both records is called ‘Simon Peter’-</p><p> The presence of “the sons of Zebedee” is mentioned both times (<em><a href='B:500 21:2'>Joh 21:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:10'>Luk 5:10</a></em>)-</p><p> Jesus is called ‘Lord’-</p><p> The same Greek words are used for climbing aboard, landing, the nets etc.</p><p>The point being that John is saying: ‘Durrr We were so dumb, not to realize the similarities more quickly&nbsp;<em>Of course it was Jesus</em>&nbsp;But we were so, so pathetically slow to accept it. After the encounter by the lake in Luke 5, Jesus made us fishers of men. But we refused to be, initially. So He had to re-commission us yet again after this second incident’. John uses the verb&nbsp;<em>helkein</em>&nbsp;to describe how they ‘drew’ the nets to land- the same word used elsewhere by him for people being ‘drawn’ to Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:44'>Joh 6:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>). He is recognizing that they had had to be re-taught the call to be fishers of men, because they had pushed off to Galilee in disbelief and disobedience to the great commission to go and catch men. Perhaps John records Peter being asked the same question “Lovest thou me?” three times, in order to show how terribly slow they all were to accept the teachings of the Lord which now they were asking others to accept.</p><p>Peter is presented as the leader of the group, and is mentioned first in the list (:2); as if to demonstrate that the one who led them fishing, in disbelief and disobedience to the command to meet in a mountain nearby (<em><a href='B:470 28:16'>Mat 28:16</a></em>), was the very one who became the leader of the early church. Again and again, the weakness of the disciples is emphasized in their own preaching; for the Gospel records are transcripts of their preaching to others. The details of them walking to the shore and getting into the boat are recorded in detail because John wishes us to imagine the shameful incident.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:4'>Joh 21:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach. The disciples did not know that it was Jesus</em>-</p><p> The record has twice described the Lord as 'standing' among them in His two appearances to them in the locked room in Jerusalem. His form should therefore have been familiar to them. If we enquire why exactly they were so slow to fully believe, despite all the evidence and appearances, there is no immediately apparent answer. It could be that they so deeply believed in ghosts and disembodied spirits that they struggled to believe in His bodily resurrection; in which case we see that false theology and worldviews can militate against a true faith in the Lord Jesus. Or it could be that as John has shown with His references to how the Lord's miracles failed to convert the Jews, literal miracle and 'seeing' are not of themselves abidingly persuasive. John was writing for those who had not seen but had believed; and he is perhaps developing the point that their lack of literally having witnessed the resurrection is no excuse for disbelief. For the disciples literally saw the Lord in several appearances, but failed to be motivated thereby to a lasting faith. They too had been given the Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 20:22'>Joh 20:22</a></em>), but still failed to believe; just as the Corinthians were given the Spirit but were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). The Comforter was to make the Lord even more persuasively present in the hearts of believers than any physical presence; so perhaps John labours the point that physical meeting of Him was only inspirational to faith at the time, just as the miracles had been; lasting faith was from other sources.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:5'>Joh 21:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus called to them: Boys, have you something to eat? They answered him: No-&nbsp;</em>Here we have a rather nice indicator of the Lord’s conscious effort to show His ‘humanity’ even after His resurrection. The risen Lord of heaven and earth calls out to the disciples over the lake, calling them “lads”. The Greek&nbsp;<em>paidion</em>&nbsp;is the plural familiar form of the noun&nbsp;<em>pais</em>, ‘boy’. Raymond Brown comments that the term “has a colloquial touch… as we might say ‘My boys’ or ‘lads’ if calling to a knot of strangers of a lower social class”. Why use this colloquial term straight after His resurrection, something akin to ‘Hey guys’, when this was not His usual way of addressing them? Surely it was to underline to them that things hadn’t changed in one sense, even if they had in others; He was still the same Jesus. Likewise the term for "something to eat" is unusual, and perhaps colloquial for 'Any nice grub'. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. See on <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>.</p><p>The question was to recall His question to them, as to whether they had food to feed the multitude. The implication then was 'No, but You can provide any amount of food'. He was seeking to stir their memories and to recognize Him, as well as through the clear similarities with the earlier fishing incident noted on :3. He knew that provoking them to join the dots and see the picture was going to be far more powerful than a direct appearance to them. And that is so relevant for all today who have not had any appearance to them of the risen Lord, but all the same believe.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:6'>Joh 21:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you shall find. There they cast their net; and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fish</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; The 'drawing in' of the nets here and in :11 implies the drawing in of the Gentiles, from all nations. It is the same word as in <em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>: "When I am lifted up from the earth in death, I shall&nbsp;<em>draw&nbsp;</em>all men unto myself". The nets were not torn&nbsp;<em>schizein</em>&nbsp;in that there must be no division amongst true preachers of the Gospel who all teach the same basic Gospel- contrast this with how John frequently mentions the&nbsp;<em>schizein&nbsp;</em>which occurred amongst those who would not fully accept the Lord's message (<em><a href='B:500 7:43'>Joh 7:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:16'>Joh 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:19'>Joh 10:19</a></em>). And likewise we can learn that all human resources will be provided in order to fulfil the great commission, no matter how they are stretched apparently beyond their natural limit. The 153 fish caught in the net may refer to 153 being the total number of species of fish recognized by the Greek zoologists. The Lord's cross will draw all men- i:e. men from all nations- unto Himself through our preaching, through our undivided drawing in of the nets. This means that true believers will be found to have come from every nation; the Gospel must therefore go to them all and make converts. This has only been achieved in recent times, and is a sure sign of the Lord's soon return. It shows however that basic belief in the Gospel is what is required; for no one Protestant denomination has won converts from every single nation.</p><p>The drawing in of nets is used by the Lord elsewhere as a figure for His return and judgment- only when they are all drawn in can the bad fish be cast away. So the conclusion has to be faced: there must be fish caught in the net, i:e. men and women who have responded to the true Gospel, amongst "all men", every species of humanity, before the Lord's return. If we are convicted that we teach the true Gospel, then it follows that there must be true Christian communities amongst "all men" before the Lord returns; and thus His return will be hastened by our establishment of those groups. When the Gospel goes into all the world, then shall the end come.</p><p>The disciples were unable to draw in the catch, representing response from "all nations", on their own. They needed the help of their brethren. The Lord prayed in John 17 that our unity would convert the world, and perhaps this is being again said here in more visual terms.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter: It is the Lord-&nbsp;</em>The presentation of John and Peter together by John always seems in the end to Peter's glory. Here again, John is the first to realize, but Peter the first to act.</p><p><em>So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he wrapped his coat about him (for he was naked) and threw himself into the sea</em>-</p><p> Peter's casting of himself into the sea uses the same word as just used for the casting of the nets in :6. Perhaps Peter perceived that the nets represented them, and they should be out preaching, gathering in men rather than fish; and with characteristic zeal and repentance, he cast himself into the sea as he had just cast the net into the sea. He thereby recognized that he was part of that net that should be catching men, in obedience to the great commission. Peter's wrapping of himself in his outer coat before swimming was at best clumsy. Again we get the impression of someone rather uncoordinated or not thinking through implications. And yet such was the man chosen to lead the early church.</p><p>Peter knew the Lord Jesus had risen, and he had met Him and been “glad” when he saw the Lord, and in some form had joyfully proclaimed the news to the others:&nbsp; The whole flavour of this record would make it seem that this was the first time Peter had met the risen Lord. But it clearly wasn’t. Surely the point is that like us, we can know theoretically that Christ rose; we can be sure of it. But the personal implications in terms of confession of sin and service to that risen Lord can be lost on us, to the point that we&nbsp;<em>don’t really accept</em>&nbsp;that Christ is risen, even if in theory we do know and confess it.</p><p>When Peter realized that it was Jesus standing on the shore, this was at least the third time he had met the risen Lord. But when John says “It is the Lord”, Peter throws himself into the water to rush to Him as if it’s the first time they have met after the denials. Surely it was a higher appreciation of what Christ’s Lordship entailed that suddenly struck him at that moment, and he now rushed eagerly to Him, believing surely in His gracious forgiveness. No wonder in a month or so’s time he was appealing for men to repent and accept forgiveness on the basis that really, Jesus is Lord. The Lordship of Christ convicted Peter (and all men) of both their sinfulness (as they see themselves in the peerless light of His moral majesty) and also of the reality of His forgiveness. “I am a sinful man,&nbsp;<em>O Lord</em>” (<em><a href='B:490 5:8'>Luk 5:8</a></em>) is a case in point. A case could be made to argue that Peter’s use of ‘Master’ tends to be at times when he is weak or doubting (<em><a href='B:490 5:5'>Luk 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:45'>Luk 8:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:21'>Mar 11:21</a></em>); whilst he saw Jesus as a master who simply gives directives to His slaves, there was not such great inspiration to faith. But the utter and surpassing Lordship of Jesus had quite a different message. Peter’s perception of Jesus as ‘Lord’ climaxed when he perceived that “It is the Lord” whilst fishing on Galilee after the resurrection. His sense of the greatness of this more-than-man led him to do something counter instinctive and even absurd- he adds clothes before jumping into the water to swim to Him, in order to be attired as best he could be before Him. It would seem that He was imitating the body language of the Lord when He washed Peter’s feet- he tied a towel around Him s:w. as Peter wrapping his outer garment around him, <em><a href='B:500 13:4-5'>Joh 13:4-5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:8'>Joh 21:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from the land, only about meters from shore), dragging the net full of fishes</em>-</p><p> The distance given is about 90 meters. For Peter to swim this with his outer garment would have been quite exhausting for him, and he would have arrived before the Lord panting.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:9'>Joh 21:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>.</p><p><em>So when they reached the shore, they got out of the boat; and saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon and bread</em>-</p><p> Again by a charcoal fire (s:w. only <em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>), the three fold “do you love me?” probed Peter’s three denials, and the threefold commission to “feed my sheep” confirmed his total re-instatement to grace. Fish and bread was exactly what the Lord had miraculously provided in <em><a href='B:500 6:9'>Joh 6:9</a></em>. They were continually being directed back to incidents in the gospels in order to demonstrate to them that the Lord was the same then, after His resurrection, as He had been during His ministry.</p><p>Anyone who has reflected on any length of ecclesial experience will realize the truth of the fact that so many of our spiritual exercises in preaching and pastoral work are in fact for&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;benefit, although we may feel that they are only for the benefit of others. This is especially true of preaching: the disciples laboured so hard to catch all the fish according to the Lord's command, but when they reached land with all the fish, they found the Lord already had fish and prepared them for breakfast. All the labour for the fish was for their benefit: not because the Lord needed fish (cp. converts); He already had his.</p><p>Even after His resurrection, in His present immortal nature, the Lord thoughtfully cooked breakfast on the beach for His men (John 21; John 9, 12). And this is the Lord who will return to judge us. He knows how to cook fish and unleavened bread. The Lord Jesus was male, and yet in so many ways He combined feminine sensitivity with His almost heroic, classic masculinity, as the King, warrior, brave captain who gave His life for His friends. You see it even after the resurrection- He cooked a meal for the guys as they were out fishing (<em><a href='B:500 21:9'>Joh 21:9</a></em>). From our cultural distance it's not immediately obvious, but in first century Palestinian terms this was so obviously the work of a woman. The men fished, the woman sat on the beach preparing food for the hungry workers when they returned off night shift. But it was a man, a more than man, the exalted and risen Lord of the universe, who chose and delighted to do this very feminine, thoughtful and sensitive action of service. The incident isn't merely an insight into the Lord's humility even after His resurrection. It speaks of how He incorporates in His person both male and female characteristics, as the ideal and perfected humanity, the Man fully and ultimately in the image of God. And there are other examples in His life. He perhaps rejoiced to lead His disciples to the breaking of bread through setting up the sign of a man carrying a pitcher of water- which was evidently women's work. The way the Lord held John to His breast at the last supper is likewise a classic female image.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:10'>Joh 21:10</a></em><em>&nbsp;Jesus said to them: Bring some of the fish which you have now taken</em>-</p><p> This detail is significant. Breakfast was ready, with His fish and bread on the fire. But He asks them to contribute&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;fish, so that the breakfast finally enjoyed included both their fish and His; even though 'their' fish had actually been brought to them by the Lord. We think of His teaching of bringing His sheep together with other sheep not of this fold, making one fold. The fishing incident clearly spoke of the great commission, and of how He would work together with them, so that the final harvest was a joint result of their work and His provision. They alone caught nothing, but with His help, they caught 153 fish, the number of species of fish which were understood to exist.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:11'>Joh 21:11</a></em><em>&nbsp;Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken</em>-</p><p> Again we see the enthusiasm and yet clumsiness of Peter; the Lord had asked for "some of the fish", and Peter drags the entire net full of 153 fish to the Lord. Although 153 is the numerical value of "sons of God", 153 was the number of species of fish which were understood to exist in the sea. This wrong idea was used by the Lord. These men were fishermen, who thought they knew all about fish; and He uses their incorrect science to make His point. With His help, they could bring representatives of all nations into the Gospel net. He would send fish to them; and we need to sense this too rather than preaching in our own strength, praying daily for the Lord to send people to us. The unbroken net speaks of how in the power of the Spirit, we will be provided with the resources, fully stretched as they may be, in order to fulfil His bidding in the great commission.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:12'>Joh 21:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to them: Come. Break your fast. And none of the disciples did inquire of him: Who are you? Knowing that it was the Lord</em>-</p><p> This meal looked forward to the Messianic banquet, which will be as a result of our obedience to the great commission with the Lord's direction and blessing. The Lord had to tell the disciples after the resurrection to “Break your fast” (<em><a href='B:500 21:12'>Joh 21:12</a></em> RV). Despite the Lord having appeared to them as recorded in John 20, they were fasting for the dead. No wonder the Lord urged them to break that fast. But the point is made, by John himself, as to how terribly slow they were to believe in His resurrection. As this was the third time He had appeared to them (:14) and they had disobeyed His command to meet them on a mountain in Galilee, instead returning to their fishing, I would have been minded to rebuke them. But there is no word of rebuke from the Lord, but rather a command to fish, and a using of them in His service. There are times when disciplining a person or again rebuking them is futile; treating them as partners and asking them to get involved in the Lord's work is the more effective way of developing their faith. And the Lord uses that method here.</p><p>He typically avoided making direct statements about who He was, notably before Pilate. His whole person and behaviour was Him, He was His word or proclamation made flesh in Himself. He had no need to proclaim His Divine Sonship in so many words; it was evident. And we see this beautifully effected here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:13'>Joh 21:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus took the bread and gave it to them, and the fish likewise</em>-</p><p> Again this was to recall how He had distributed bread and fish to them in the feeding of the 5000. The implication was that they were to distribute that bread and fish wider; and perhaps they literally did so, seeing they had 153 large fish in their net. Again the Lord is seeking to point out that who He was in His earthly ministry was who He continued to be after resurrection. The process of immortalization will not obliterate personality; who we are now is who we shall eternally be. This points up the eternal importance of development in this life of personality and character, the spirit, spiritual formation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This was the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after he had risen from the dead</em>-</p><p> The synoptics appear to record other appearances, so this must mean that this was the third time recorded in John that Jesus revealed Himself to them all together as a group at one and the same time. The same word for "manifested" is used when John later writes that "the life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness..." (<em><a href='B:690 1:2'>1Jn 1:2</a></em>). He has in view the resurrected Lord of life, whom they saw and handled. But the witness they were making to this 'manifestation' included a recognition in the resurrection accounts that they had been so slow to accept that 'manifestation' of life which they now urged others to accept. Again we see a humility in their witness, which would have made them very convincing and approachable as preachers and teachers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:15'>Joh 21:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So when they had broken their fast, Jesus said to Simon: Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yes, Lord. You know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs</em>-</p><p>The Lord Jesus had already met Peter at least twice since His resurrection, but hadn’t raised the obvious issue of Peter’s denials. And now He does it only&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;He has first eaten with Peter. We must bear in mind that to eat together, especially to take bread and give it to others, implied acceptance and religious fellowship (the scene here is reminiscent of the breaking of bread, the same words for ‘bread’, ‘take’ and ‘give’ are found in <em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>). The Lord firstly fellowshipped with Peter and only then moved on to probe the issue of his disloyalty, after having first affirmed His abiding love for Peter. This is a pattern for us in dealing with others' failure. The human tendency is to demand all is resolved between us before we can move on together, but the Lord was wiser than that. He had tried to arrange circumstance to provoke Peter to himself engage with the issue- for the triple questioning, the triple invitation to work for Him, all took place by a fire of coals- just as Peter’s triple denials had. We see clearly portrayed here the gentle, seeking spirit of the Lord.</p><p>“Do you love me?” was a question for Peter’s benefit, not in order to give the Lord information which He didn’t have. His great sensitivity to Peter led Him to foresee the obvious question in Peter’s mind: ‘Has He forgiven me?’. And the Lord is saying that Peter knows the answer insofar as Peter knows how much he loves Jesus, on the principle that whoever loves much has been forgiven much (<em><a href='B:490 7:47'>Luk 7:47</a></em>). The allusion back to that incident in Luke 7 is confirmed by the way that the phrase ‘to love more’ occurs elsewhere only there, in <em><a href='B:490 7:42'>Luk 7:42</a></em>: “Which of them will&nbsp;<em>love</em>&nbsp;him Jesus&nbsp;<em>most</em>&nbsp;s:w. “more":&nbsp; Jesus had already forgiven Peter; the answer to Peter’s concern about whether he had been forgiven was really ‘Yes you have, if you believe it; and if you believe it, you will love me, and according to how much you love me, you will know how much forgiveness you have received’. In all this, we see the careful sensitivity of the Lord Jesus to His people, foreseeing and feeling our doubts and fears, our questions; and responding to them in a profound way.</p><p>“You know that I love you” was met by the Lord with the comment that Peter must feed His sheep. This wasn’t so much a commandment / commission, as the Lord explaining that Peter’s love for Him personally would be reflected in the degree to which Peter loved the Lord’s sheep. John grasped this clearly, when he underlines throughout his letters that we cannot have love for God without loving our brethren. The Father and Son are to be identified with their people.</p><p>"Do you love me more than these?" is grammatically ambiguous. The reference could be to the nets and ships, or to Peter’s other brethren. On both fronts, Peter needed provoking to self-examination. For he was proud of his profession and too eager to return to Galilee and get back to work; and he had boasted earlier that “Though all men deny you, yet I will not”. There are purposeful ambiguities in some parts of God’s word, not every sentence is intended to have a final ‘right interpretation’ which stands for all time; the ambiguities are to provoke our self-examination.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:16'>Joh 21:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to him, a second time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: Yes, Lord. You know that I love you. He said to him: Tend my sheep</em>-</p><p> In the first two engagements, the Lord asks Peter if he 'loves'&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;Him, and Peter replies that yes, he 'loves'&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;Him. In the third engagement the Lord asks Peter if he really 'loves'&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;Him, and Peter replies that yes, he does&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;Jesus. To argue that&nbsp;<em>phileo&nbsp;</em>and&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;are interchangeable is to miss the point here; indeed, this whole exchange would surely show that they are not. And if they are, then we wonder why the two words are used as if there is a difference. Only surface level reading would suggest they are interchangeable. For&nbsp;<em>agape&nbsp;</em>is the otherwise colourless Greek word which has been chosen in John to refer to the Lord's love for us, the new commandment being to love&nbsp;<em>as He loved us</em>. Peter hasn't yet grasped that, and can think only in terms of&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>, the love of human friendship.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:17'>Joh 21:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he asked him a third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you. Jesus said to him: Feed my sheep</em>-</p><p> As noted on :16, Peter has responded to the question about whether he has&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;for the Lord by saying that he has&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>. The Lord now in the third exchange as it were gives up trying to get Peter to respond to&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;with&nbsp;<em>agape</em>, and probes whether he really has the&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>, the love of human friendship, which he professes. The Lord doesn't make any claim as to whether Peter does or doesn't have the&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;he professes; His response is that love for Him will be reflected in love for those in Him, His sheep. This is brought out in John's letters, where love for the Father and Son is only legitimate if we love their spiritual children, the Lord's sheep.</p><p>Peter was full of a simple, pure love for the Lord as he stood before Him. And he wanted to assure the Lord of that. But the Lord's response seems to be that love for Him is not the passion of a moment. It is shown by loving our brethren, His sheep, over a lifetime of service- as Peter went on to do.</p><p>Peter is asked to feed give food to the lambs (:15); then pastor / shepherd the mature sheep (:16); and now to feed give food to the mature sheep (:17). John took this as a command for him and to us all, for he alludes to it in his spiritual care for the young men cp. lambs and the more mature "fathers" in <em><a href='B:690 2:14'>1Jn 2:14</a></em> (Catholics are wrong to assume these words apply only to Peter). The point is that mature sheep still need feeding as they did when they were lambs, although they also need shepherding.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Truly, truly, I say to you: When you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you shall be old, you shall stretch forth your hands, and another shall gird you, and carry you where you do not wish to go</em>-</p><p> This follows straight on from the command to Peter to show his love for the Lord by how he treated the Lord's flock. The Lord seems to be saying that He knows that Peter does love Him, and that Peter will indeed give his life to caring for the Lord's sheep- and because of this, Peter will finally suffer and die, as the Lord did. This prediction of Peter's future suffering for the sake of his work for the Lord's flock is therefore the Lord's way of saying that yes, He does accept that Peter truly loves Him- because He knows how He will suffer for his love of the Lord's people.</p><p>Consider how the Lord's words to Peter here about girding himself would have offered him tremendous comfort in <em><a href='B:510 12:8'>Act 12:8</a></em>, if he appreciated them; see note there. <em><a href='B:500 21:18-19'>Joh 21:18-19</a></em> could be taken as meaning that Peter was to die the death of crucifixion, which would be the final fulfilment of the charge to “follow me”. <em><a href='B:500 21:19'>Joh 21:19</a></em> contains the observation that as he would be led to that place of execution, it would be a death that “you do not wish”. The Lord foresaw that Peter’s unwillingness to accept the cross would surface even then. One of the most well attested extra Biblical traditions about Peter is found in the apocryphal ‘Acts of Peter’. It is that as he was being led to crucifixion, the Lord Jesus appeared to Peter, and Peter asked: ‘<em>Domine, quo vadis</em>?’- ‘Lord / Master, to where are we going?’ (repeating his words of <em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>), as if somehow even then, he found the final acceptance of the cross hard. As indeed, it would be.</p><p>In <em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>, the Lord had answered the question by telling Peter that then, he wasn’t able to follow Him to death. But he would do so at a later date. And that time had come, although it took a lifetime to reach. This tradition has, to me, the ring of truth about it, from all that we know of Peter’s problem with the cross. And it exactly mirrors our own difficulty in facing up to the stark realities of the life of self-sacrifice and ultimate self-crucifixion to which we are called, the question of&nbsp;<em>Quo Vadis</em>? Only then, at the very end, did he realize that following Christ was a call to follow Him to His cross. And another extra Biblical tradition has a similar likelihood of truth: it is said that when finally Peter was brought to the place of crucifixion, he insisted on being crucified upside down, as he was unworthy to die the same death as his Lord. Another tradition says that because of this unusual angle of crucifixion, the nails fell out and Peter was offered the chance of release, which he refused, and asked to be crucified with his Lord, still upside down.</p><p>If all this is so, he finally learnt the lesson which we likewise struggle for a lifetime to learn: that following Christ means going to His cross with Him, and in the process learning and feeling through and through our unworthiness. And he learnt too that to die with Christ is never forced upon us by the Lord who bought us: in Peter’s final, willing choice of death, as with our day by day denials of the flesh for Christ’s sake, we make the choices purely from our own volition. We alone decide, in the terror, pain and difficulty of a genuine freewill, that thus it must be for us. And for us,&nbsp;<em>Quo Vadis</em>?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:19'>Joh 21:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now this he spoke, signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he said to him: Follow me</em>-</p><p> After Peter’s ‘conversion’, the Lord told Peter in more detail how he would die. He would be carried, as the Lord was carried to the cross. But his death would "glorify God” (as the Lord’s death also did: <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</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>). Having said this, the Lord invited Peter: “Follow me” (<em><a href='B:500 21:19'>Joh 21:19</a></em>). Live the life of cross carrying now, Peter. And they went on walking, with Peter walking behind Jesus. But he couldn’t concentrate on the crucifixion life, and got distracted by his issues with John.</p><p>Significantly, both Luke and John conclude their Gospels with the risen Lord walking along with the disciples, and them ‘following’ Him (<em><a href='B:500 21:20'>Joh 21:20</a></em>)- just as they had done during His ministry. His invitation to ‘Follow me’ (<em><a href='B:500 21:19'>Joh 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:22'>Joh 21:22</a></em>) is the very language He had used whilst He was still mortal (<em><a href='B:500 1:37'>Joh 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:27'>Joh 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:26'>Joh 12:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:18'>Mar 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:14'>Mar 2:14</a></em>). The point being, that although He was now different, in another sense, He still related to them as He did when He was mortal, walking the lanes and streets of first century Palestine. Elsewhere I have pointed out that the fishing incident of John 21 is purposefully framed as a repetition of that recorded in Luke 5 - again, to show the continuity between the Jesus of yesterday and the Jesus of today. It’s as if in no way does He wish us to feel that His Divine Nature and glorified, exalted position somehow separates us from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:20'>Joh 21:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Peter, turning about, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following- he who had leaned back on his breast at the supper and asked: Lord, who is he that betrays you?</em>-</p><p> Like Lot’s wife, he turned around, away from the Lord, and saw John also following, the one who had leaned on Jesus’ breast at the last supper (is this detail included here to suggest that this was a cause of jealousy for Peter?). And he quizzed the Lord as to His opinion of John. Peter got distracted from his own following, his own commitment to self-crucifixion, by the powerful fascination human beings have in the status of others and the quality of their following. The Lord replied that even if John lived until His return, without ever having to die and follow Him to the literal death which Peter would have to go through, well, so what: “What is that to you? You- follow me”. This was the same message the Lord had taught Peter through the parable of the 1st hour labourer getting distracted by the reward of the 11th hour one. He had that tendency to look on the faults of others (<em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em>), to compare himself with others (<em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em> cp. 27; <em><a href='B:470 26:33'>Mat 26:33</a></em>).</p><p>And so, so many tragic times we do the same. We are distracted from the quintessence of our lives, the following, to death, of the Lord, by our jealousy of others and our desire to enter into their spirituality rather than personally following. Remember that it is so often recorded that multitudes followed the Lord wherever He went. But they missed the whole point of following Him- to die the death of the cross, and share His resurrection life. John’s Gospel has a somewhat strange ending, on first sight. The synoptics end as we would almost expect- the Lord ascends, having given His last commission to preach, and the disciples joyfully go forth in the work. But John’s Gospel appears to have been almost truncated. Christ walks away on His own, with Peter following Him, and John walking some way behind Peter. Peter asks what the Lord’s opinion is of John, and is told to ignore that and keeping on following Him. John inserts a warning against possible misunderstanding of this reply- and the Gospel finishes. But when we appreciate that the language of ‘follow me’ is the call to live the life of the cross, to follow the Man from Nazareth to His ultimate end day by day, then this becomes a most impressive closing scene: the Lord Jesus walking away, with His followers following Him, in all their weakness. John’s Gospel was originally the good news preached personally by John, and there is an impressive humility in the way in which he concludes with a scene in which he follows the Lord He has preached, but some way behind Peter. An awareness of our frailty and the regrettable distance with which we personally follow the Lord we preach is something which ought to be stamped on every witness to the Lord. To follow the Lord in cross bearing is indeed the end of the Gospel. And Peter understood this when he wrote that “hereunto were you called i:e. this is the bottom line of life in Christ: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow in his steps” (<em><a href='B:670 2:21'>1Pe 2:21</a></em>). Fellowshipping His sufferings and final death is following Him. Little would Peter have realized that when he first heard the call “Follow me”, and responded. And so with us. The meaning of following, the real implication of the cross, is something which can never be apparent at conversion.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:21'>Joh 21:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Peter therefore seeing him, said to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do?</em>-</p><p> There is a fatal fascination with the question of why some weren’t called. But who are we as the clay to argue with the potter’s grace? John’s Gospel closes by addressing this question. Peter was following Jesus, walking behind Him, in response to Jesus’ command to follow Him. But John was also following Jesus, and Peter turned around, turned back from following Jesus just as he lost his focus on Jesus when he was walking on the water towards Jesus... to notice John was also following. The fate of others, the nature of their following or not of Jesus, is not in this sense directly our concern; our focus must be upon single-mindedly following Jesus as we by grace have been called to do.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:22'>Joh 21:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: If I will that he remains till I come, what is that to you? You follow me</em>-</p><p> If Peter had to die the death of the cross, he wondered what John would have to suffer. The Lord's reply is that if John were not called to be a martyr, but lived without tasting death until the Lord's return- what was that to Peter? He ought to still "Follow me". The Lord may be speaking literally, or using hyperbole in order to make Peter realize that absolutely nothing in the path or destiny of another man should distract him from&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;path. And we can well take that lesson; for so many stumble in their following of the Lord, or staying on the path intended, because of obsessions with others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:23'>Joh 21:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This saying therefore went forth among the brothers, that that disciple should not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he should not die, but: If I will that he remains till I come, what is that to you?</em>-</p><p> We have a window here onto how easily there could arise misunderstandings in an illiterate community, going only on the reported speech of the Lord, passed around by memory and repetition. Hence the need for the Spirit to inspire definitive Gospel records as we have them, correcting such errors which would inevitably arise. We also note John's title for the believers as "the brothers". A new family relationship had been born due to the Lord's resurrection and continued spiritual life amongst them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:24'>Joh 21:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This is the disciple that testifies of these things and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true</em>-</p><p> The Gospel of John is the eyewitness account of John- he says that he testifies to all he has written. The "we" presumably refer to the elders of the Johannine community, the converts he had made, who as it were published his Gospel. If so, they would only have know that his witness was true because of the work of the Comforter, the presence of the Spirit of Jesus in their hearts enabling them to discern truth about Him. Alternatively, the "we" would refer to the other disciples, who alone had been with the Lord and John from the beginning of His ministry, and who could testify that John's account was true:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:25'>Joh 21:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And there are many other things which Jesus did, which if each one of them should be written down, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written</em>-</p><p> The books written parallel the personal witness made of :24. The Lord had done so much in so many lives, that if each person were to write down their account, then "I suppose" the world could not contain the records. "I suppose" reads strangely as it stands; John is hardly one for using throw away terms such as "I guess...". The Greek literally means 'to make as oneself'. The idea may be that each one in whom the Lord Jesus had done things could write a witness as John had done in his Gospel record; and the world could not contain so many books of witness. But "the world" in John is nearly always the Jewish world; and so often, he alludes back to the prologue. His conclusion of the Gospel is surely a place where he would allude to the prologue. There we read that the Jewish world did not "receive" the testimony or&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of the Lord; and "contain" here can also mean "receive" [s:w. "All men cannot receive this saying", <em><a href='B:470 19:11'>Mat 19:11</a></em>]. So the idea may be that the Jewish world would in no way receive all the testimonies made. This however would be a rather negative way to end. We have detected allusions to the great commission so often in John. Perhaps the idea is that the world, both the Jewish world and the&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>, could and should be flooded with books of witness from those in whose lives the Lord had done things. For He "did" [s:w. "made"] disciples of men (<em><a href='B:500 4:1'>Joh 4:1</a></em> s:w:), doing or making people whole (<em><a href='B:500 5:15'>Joh 5:15</a></em> s:w:). Their 'books' would be like John's book of witness in his Gospel record; but all slightly different. This, then, would be the taking of the Lord Jesus into all the world, by personal witness of what He had done in human lives:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The former account- </em>Gk. <em>protos logos</em>. When John begins his Gospel with the idea of the <em>arche</em> <em>logos</em>, he is perhaps saying the same thing. The <em>logos</em> was the word or account of God's purpose in Jesus. Luke's Gospel was written for the purpose of preaching to Theophilus, who had already been 'catechized', taught by rote, one of the Gospels (probably Mark), but who wanted to have a more detailed and factual account (<em><a href='B:490 1:3-4'>Luk 1:3-4</a></em>). Luke later describes his Gospel as his <em>logos</em>, his 'word' about all Jesus did (<em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em> Gk:). The Lord seems to have foreseen this when He spoke of how "Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, which this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her" (<em><a href='B:470 26:13'>Mat 26:13</a></em>). There is evident connection with Christ's prophecy of how the Gospel would be preached in all the world (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>). He seems to have seen the 'Gospel' that would be preached as a re-telling of His life and incidents in it, such as the woman's anointing of Him. It is significant that her anointing is mentioned in all four Gospel records. In <em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em> we read that wherever the gospel was to be preached, what she had done would be narrated in memory of her. So ‘preaching the Gospel’ is defined there as a narration of the events and sayings of the Lord Jesus in His ministry.</p><p>Regarding the initial intention of Luke-Acts, see on <em><a href='B:510 21:19'>Act 21:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>I made</em>-</p><p> This is the same Greek word used in the next clause, concerning all that Jesus began to make or "do". The work or doing of Jesus is continued through the written record of that work- that seems to be the idea.</p><p><em>O Theophilus</em>-</p><p> A case could be made that Luke’s account in his Gospel and in the Acts actually emphasizes how wealthy and middle class people came to the Lord- e.g. Joanna wife of Chuza, Cornelius the Centurion; Dionysius; Sergius Paulus, governor of Cyprus. Perhaps a reason for this was that he dedicated his works to the “noble” [Gk. ‘well born’, ‘wealthy’] Theophilus (<em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em>). Luke, it seems to me, was writing to Theophilus because he wanted to convert him. And so he gives other examples of wealthy people who had also converted. He was urging the middle class to allow the radical call of Christ to reach to them. Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus" may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. </p><p><em>Concerning all that Jesus began to do and to teach</em>-</p><p> Reading Luke and Acts through together, it becomes apparent that the author [Luke] saw the acts of the apostles as a continuation of those of the Lord Jesus. This is why he begins Acts by talking about his “former treatise” of all that Jesus had <em>begun </em>to do, implying that He had continued His doings through the doings of the apostles (cp. <em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em>, Jesus “began” to speak the Gospel and we continue His work). See on <em><a href='B:510 2:6-7'>Act 2:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:40'>Act 8:40</a></em>. Luke uses the same word translated ‘preach’ in both Luke and the Acts [although the other Gospels use it only once]. In Luke we find the word in <em><a href='B:490 1:19'>Luk 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:10'>Luk 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:43'>Luk 4:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:22'>Luk 7:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:1'>Luk 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:6'>Luk 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:1'>Luk 20:1</a></em>; and in Acts, in <em><a href='B:510 5:42'>Act 5:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:4'>Act 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:25'>Act 8:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:35'>Act 8:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:40'>Act 8:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:20'>Act 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:32'>Act 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:7'>Act 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:15'>Act 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:21'>Act 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:35'>Act 15:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:18'>Act 17:18</a></em>. Luke clearly saw the early ecclesia as preaching the same message as Jesus and the apostles; they continued what was essentially a shared witness. This means that we too are to see in the Lord and the 12 as they walked around Galilee the basis for our witness; we are continuing their work, with just the same message and range of responses to it. <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em> concludes the Gospel with the command to go and preach remission of sins, continuing the work of the Lord Himself, who began His ministry with the proclamation of remission (<em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). Acts stresses that the believers did just this; they preached remission of sins [s:w:] in Jesus’ Name, whose representatives they were: <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:43'>Act 10:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:38'>Act 13:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>Until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandments through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen</em>-</p><p> The day the Lord was taken up, He gave one commandment to the apostles, related to their possession of the Holy Spirit: to go into all the world with the Gospel. But why does Luke speak in the plural, “commandments”? It could be that here we have one of many examples of Hebrew idiom being used by the Jewish writers of the New Testament, even though they wrote in Greek. There is in Hebrew an ‘intensive plural’, whereby something is put in the plural (e.g. “deaths” in <em><a href='B:290 53:9'>Isa 53:9</a></em>) to emphasize the greatness of the one thing (e.g., <em>the</em> death, of Messiah). Could it not be that here we have something similar? The one great commandment is to go into all the world with the Gospel. We are the light of this world. We, the candles, were lit so that we might give light to others. Our duty is not merely to inform others of our doctrinal position, but to gain, win or catch [as fishermen] our fellow men for Christ. </p>


text:
<p><em>To whom, after his suffering, he also showed by many convincing proofs- </em><em><a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a></em> says that the Lord showed Himself to be alive to the disciples "by many infallible proofs". The suggestion is that they simply didn't accept Him as He stood there before Him; they failed to grasp that He was for real. They gave Him food to eat to check Him out; and He again ate before them in Galilee on His initiative.</p><p><em>That he was alive, being seen by them for forty days, and speaking about the kingdom of God- </em>The Greek is literally: 'Speaking about the things concerning the Kingdom of God'. And this is exactly how the content of the Apostolic preaching is described in <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em>. Clearly what the Lord taught them became the basis of their teaching to others. They were a continuation of Him on earth, just as our witness should be likewise. It could even be that "the things concerning the Kingdom of God" became a technical term for a body of material which the Apostles taught, having heard it directly from the Lord during those 40 days. </p>


text:
<p><em>And, being assembled together with them, he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> Rendered by AVmg. and RVmg. "eating together". We can note the association between eating and proof of resurrection; and also the idea of fellowship together. In the first century, to eat together was to fellowship together. It would seem that the command to remain in Jerusalem was given whilst 'eating together', in instruction at the breaking of bread meeting. That meeting continues to be the place where we receive instruction from our Lord, if we approach it in that spirit.</p><p><em>But to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, you heard from me- </em>Presumably referring to the promise of the Comforter made in the Upper Room. </p>


text:
<p><em>For John indeed baptized with water, but soon you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> The implication is that they had all been baptized by John the Baptist; his work of preparing the way for the Lord succeeded with that small group, even if it failed nationally. The contrast is between <em>with</em> water and <em>in </em>Spirit. I suggest therefore that the baptism in the Spirit refers to something internal and psychological, the gift of the Spirit in human hearts promised as “the comforter” in John 14-16, which in some cases in the first century was manifest by visible external signs. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, when they had come together, they asked him</em>-</p><p> The imperfect means they kept on asking. </p><p><em>Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?</em>-</p><p> Once the Gospel is preached world-wide, then the end will come (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>). And so the Lord replied to the question: ‘When are you coming back?’ by telling the questioners to go and preach the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 1:6'>Act 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>), as if the preaching of the word and the timing of the second coming are related. Likewise in the Olivet prophecy, the Lord gave them some signs of His return but told them that firstly, i:e. most importantly, the Gospel must be preached to all the world (<em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em>)- implying that it is spreading the Gospel world-wide, not looking for the fulfilment of signs, that will bring about His return. Surely this would associate the exact timing of the Lord's return- for which He and the Father are ever eager- with the time when we have satisfactorily spread the Gospel far enough. When the harvest is ripe, then it is harvested. The Lord has to delay His coming because of the slowness and immaturity of our development; in these ways we limit Him. And it isn’t enough to think that if we merely preach world-wide, therefore the Lord's coming will automatically be hastened. It is the bringing forth of fruit to His Name that is important to Him.</p><p>The disciples' request to know exactly when the Kingdom would be restored ('When will <em><a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a></em> be fulfilled?') was met with a promise that while they would never know the exact date, that was immaterial as they would possess the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit soon (<em><a href='B:510 1:7-8'>Act 1:7-8</a></em>)- implying that what they would do with them would be a primary fulfilment of the Kingdom prophecies which they were enquiring about:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: It is not for you to know times or seasons</em>-</p><p> There is clearly a difference between them. <em>Chronos</em>, "times", is at times used to mean 'delay'; and <em>chairos</em>, "seasons", is also translated "opportunity". There would appear to be reference here to the variable nature of the Divine program; there are delays, extensions, and preconditions which must be fulfilled, and therefore opportunities for hastening or realizing the day of the Lord's coming. But by the same token, there is apparently no calendar date set for it.</p><p><em>Which the Father has set within his own authority</em>-</p><p> Or, power. The Lord made two statements to the disciples which he surely intended to be connected: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth... it is not for you (the inquisitive eleven standing on Olivet) to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:7-8'>Act 1:7-8</a></em>). But <em>all</em> the Father's power has been given to His glorified Son, and this therefore includes knowledge of the "times and seasons" of the second coming. In the exalted Lord "are hid all the riches of wisdom and knowledge" (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>); it is thereby inconceivable that the Father would still keep back some knowledge from the Son. The point of all this is that when the Lord Jesus said that "of that day and that hour knoweth (present tense) no man, no, not the angels... neither the Son" he was not laying down a general principle for all time. He was speaking of the situation at that time: 'You can't know now, indeed at the moment even I don't know; but these are the signs which will tell the believers when I'll come'. By implication he was saying 'You can't understand them, although I'm giving them to you, but in the future some will understand them, because these signs will accurately pinpoint my return'. This was exactly the spirit of what the Angel told Daniel when he too wished to know when Messiah would come in glory; he was basically told 'It's not for you to understand, but in the last days understanding of these things will be increased among God's people; they will know the time, but you can't'. There are so many connections between the Olivet prophecy and Daniel that perhaps it is legitimate to think that the Lord was alluding to the Angel's refusal to tell Daniel the time of Messiah's coming. That the Lord was primarily referring to the twelve when he spoke of them not knowing "when the time is" (<em><a href='B:480 13:33'>Mar 13:33</a></em>) is confirmed if we appreciate that the Lord Jesus sometimes uses "the time" as a reference to the appointed time for his own death (<em><a href='B:470 26:18'>Mat 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:6'>Joh 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:8'>Joh 7:8</a></em>). The disciples were fascinated with the time of his return, and the Lord was giving them the signs. But knowing his death was only days away, inevitably he had in mind "the time" of his passion. And he knew that as they didn't know the time of his return, so they didn't understand the time of his death. Having pointed out that they knew not "the time", in words surely reminiscent of his criticism of Jewry generally for not knowing "the time" of his coming and death (<em><a href='B:470 16:3'>Mat 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:44'>Luk 19:44</a></em>), the Lord went on to tell the story of the man (himself) who left his household (the disciples) and told them to watch, with warnings as to what would happen if they didn't. Every one of those warnings, and some other language in the Olivet prophecy,&nbsp; came true of the disciples in the next few days, in the context of "the time" being the time of Christ's death.</p>


text:
<p><em>But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the remotest part of the earth- </em>When the watchman of <em><a href='B:290 21:11'>Isa 21:11</a></em> calls out “What hour of the night [will it come]?” (RVmg:) the answer is “Turn ye” (RV). This is when it will come- when Israel turn again in repentance. This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:510 1:7-8'>Act 1:7-8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 13:28-33'>Mar 13:28-33</a></em>, where the answer to the question ‘When will Jesus return?’ is basically: ‘Preach to Israel; lead them to repentance. That’s when the Lord Jesus will return’.</p><p><em>The Gospel</em>&nbsp;was to be preached for a witness to all nations (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>); and yet “<em>you</em>&nbsp;are witnesses…&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;will be witnesses” (<em><a href='B:490 24:27'>Luk 24:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>). The preacher of the Gospel&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the Gospel; the man is the message, just as the very same word / message was made flesh in the Lord. Israel of old were taught this. They were to keep and do the commandments of God, and&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;would be the witness of their wisdom and understanding to the nations around them- who would thereby be brought to Israel’s God (<em><a href='B:50 4:6-8'>Deu 4:6-8</a></em>). The imparting of wisdom and understanding therefore didn’t come so much through specific doctrinal exposition, as through living out those principles in daily life. But&nbsp;<em>marturion</em>, “witness”, can simply be a legal term referring to testimony or witness in a prosecution. Perhaps the sense is that judgment will come upon all the world once the Gospel has been witnessed to them; it is their receipt of that information which gives them the knowledge which makes them responsible to Divine judgment. For once this witness has been made, then the end comes.</p><p>The possession of the Holy Spirit in the first century was possessing "the powers of the world to come" (<em><a href='B:650 6:5'>Heb 6:5</a></em>), showing that at that time there was a foretaste of the coming Kingdom. Thus in answer to the question about whether He would then fully restore the Kingdom of God, our Lord basically said: 'When, exactly, you can't know. But you will receive Holy Spirit power coming upon you (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em> AVmg:) and will spread the Gospel world-wide from Jerusalem; which is tantamount to saying that in a limited sense the Kingdom is coming right now, although when it will finally be fully established is not for you to know'. Further support for this is found in our suggestion elsewhere that Kingdom prophecies like Isaiah 2 were fulfilled to some degree in the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem in the first century.</p><p>The record of the Acts is a continuation of all that Jesus <em>began</em> to do and teach as recorded in the Gospels (<em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em>). The preachers were witnesses <em>of Jesus</em> (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>). The logical objection to their preaching of a risen Jesus of Nazareth was: ‘But He’s dead! We saw His body! Where is He? Show Him to us!’. And their response, as ours, was to say: ‘I am the witness, so is my brother here, and my sister there. We are the witnesses that He is alive. If you see us, you see Him risen and living through us’. In this spirit, we beseech men in Christ’s stead. Just as the Lord strangely said that His own witness to Himself was a valid part of His overall witness, so our lives are our own witness to the credibility of what we are saying:&nbsp;</p><p>When we read of how we are to be "witnesses" to all the world, a look under the surface of the text shows that the Greek word 'martyr' is being used (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>). We're all martyrs. Augustine said that “The cause, not the suffering, makes a genuine martyr”. That needs some reflection and time spent processing that profound observation. In his play <em>Murder in the Cathedral</em>, T. S. Eliot defines a martyr as one “who has become an instrument of God, who has lost his will in the will of God, not lost it but found it, for he has found freedom in submission to God. The martyr no longer desires anything for himself, not even the glory of martyrdom”. We can all enter into the definition of witness / martyrdom in this sense, insofar as we are 'in' the suffering Christ, even if in practice we may never be called to take a single blow to our body as the result of our witnessing.</p><p>Samaria is perhaps mentioned specifically because of the earlier command not to preach there during the Lord's ministry (<em><a href='B:470 10:5'>Mat 10:5</a></em>).</p><p>“To the remotest part of the earth” need not be a reference to the great commission. It could be that this prediction had a specific, one-time fulfilment at Pentecost, where the Gospel was witnessed to Jews from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to Jews from the very ends of the earth / land promised to Abraham. If we understand the "earth" in a literal, global sense, then the Apostles didn't achieve this. They were told that the coming gift of the Holy Spirit would enable them to make this witness, and the most comfortable fit for the fulfilment of this is to simply read on in Acts and learn how the gift of speaking in the languages of the Jewish diaspora was given to them. They indeed achieved the intended witness on the day of Pentecost to Jews from the very areas predicted here in 1:8.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had said these things, as they were watching, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight</em>-</p><p> surely it was a cloud of Angels not water droplets. But so it looked to them standing on earth, and the record is written from that perspective. We find this so often in the Bible- the language of creation in Genesis 1 is an example, as are the references to 'demons'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And while they were looking earnestly into heaven as he went, two men stood by them in white clothing</em>-</p><p> Of the 14 usages of the Greek word here used for “looking earnestly” in the NT, 12 are by Luke. This is what we would expect with Divine inspiration- the personality and word choice of an individual still comes through noticeably in the written word, the writers were not zombified; and yet the overall product also uses words chosen by the Spirit, and is the Spirit's work and infallible.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who also said: You men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven</em>-</p><p> Why address them in this way? What was significant about them all being Galileans? We note that the Jewish audience of <em><a href='B:510 2:7'>Act 2:7</a></em> remarked likewise- "Look, are not all those who speak Galileans?", and Peter's Galilean accent could not be disguised in the courtyard. The records emphasize that the Lord was also considered a Galilean (<em><a href='B:470 26:69'>Mat 26:69</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:6'>Luk 23:6</a></em>). Yet Galilee was despised. Perhaps the Angels were encouraging those men not to worry about their own inadequacy, lack of culture or erudition. Instead of just gaping at their vanishing Master, with thoughts of ethnic inadequacy arising in them, they were being encouraged to go out and make the witness which the Lord had asked of them. And the Angels were comforting them that their humble origins were full well known to God, and would not hinder them in their work for Him.</p><p><em>Shall return in like manner as you saw him going into heaven</em>-</p><p> The <em>same </em>Jesus who went into Heaven will <em>so</em> come again <em>in like manner</em>. The record three times says the same thing. The “like manner” in which the Lord will return doesn’t necessarily refer to the way He gradually ascended up in to the sky, in full view of the gazing disciples. He was to return in the “like manner” to what they had seen. Yet neither those disciples nor the majority of the Lord’s people will literally see Him descending through the clouds at His return- for they will be dead. But we will ‘see’ Him at His return “in like manner” as He was when on earth. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. The Jesus who loved little children and wept over Jerusalem's self-righteous religious leaders, so desirous of their salvation, is the One who today mediates our prayers and tomorrow will confront us at judgment day.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near to Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey</em>-</p><p> In obedience to the command to remain in Jerusalem until they were given the Spirit (:4). I suggested on <em><a href='B:490 24:50'>Luk 24:50</a></em> that the Lord’s ascension was from Bethany, and that perhaps they had gone out to the nearby mountain to see if they could still see Him. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they arrived, they went into the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James</em>-</p><p> The definite article suggests this was a well-known, specific meeting place. We note how Peter is always placed first in the lists of disciples. He, the most unstable and apparently least qualified for leadership, was the one chosen by the Lord as the leader of the pack. And He works with the same style today.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>.</p><p><em>These all with one accord- </em>There are a number of words and phrases which keep cropping up in Acts, especially in the early chapters, which are kind of hallmarks of that early ecclesia. “With one accord” is one such. We begin in <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>: "These all continued with <em>one accord</em> in prayer". Then <em><a href='B:510 2:1'>Act 2:1</a></em>: "When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all <em>with one accord</em> in <em>one</em> place":&nbsp; Now over to v:46: "Continuing daily <em>with one accord</em>... breaking bread... with... <em>singleness of heart</em>". And on to <em><a href='B:510 4:24'>Act 4:24</a></em>: "They lifted up their voice to God <em>with one accord</em>". Now to <em><a href='B:510 5:12'>Act 5:12</a></em>: "They were all <em>with one accord</em> in Solomon's porch". There is another example in <em><a href='B:510 15:25'>Act 15:25</a></em> too. So it's quite obvious, then, that the fact the early ecclesia was "with one accord" in those early, heady days is stamped as a hallmark over this record. But this phrase "with one accord" is also used in Acts about the united hatred of the world against those early brethren and sisters. The Jews ran upon Stephen "with one accord" (<em><a href='B:510 7:52'>Act 7:52</a></em>), those of Tyre and Sidon were "with one accord" (<em><a href='B:510 12:20'>Act 12:20</a></em>), "The Jews made insurrection against Paul with one accord" in Corinth (<em><a href='B:510 18:12'>Act 18:12</a></em>), and at Ephesus the mob "rushed with one accord" against Paul (<em><a href='B:510 19:29'>Act 19:29</a></em>). The same Greek word is used in all these cases (and it scarcely occurs outside Acts). It's quite obvious that we are intended to visualise that early ecclesia as being "with one accord". But we are also supposed to imagine the world around them “with one accord" being against them. The difference between them and the world was vast. The world was actively united against them, and thereby they came to be strongly united with each other. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Continued earnestly in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers- </em>Mary is portrayed as somehow separate from the other ministering women. It would have been psychologically impossible, or at best very hard, for the mother of the Lord to hang around with them. The group dynamics would have been impossible. Likewise in <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em> we have “the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus”, as if she is separate from them. She followed Him to Cana, uninvited, and also to Capernaum. Next she is at the cross risking her life, but she isn't among the women who went to the grave. Why not? It was surely natural that she would go there, and that the other women would go with her to comfort her. But she was a loner; either she went alone, as I think I would have tried to, or she just couldn’t face contact with the others and simply hid away. And could it be that Jesus, in recognition of her unique perception of Him, appeared to her first privately, in a rightfully unrecorded meeting? But by <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>, she was in the upper room, as if His death led her to be more reconciled to her brethren, to seek to get along with them... although by nature, in her heart and soul, she was a loner, maybe almost reclusive. A struggler to understand. A meditator, a reflector, who just wanted to be alone, one of those who take their energy from themselves rather than from other people. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


