# commentaries

text:
<p><em>And the people stood watching- </em>The other two were there, but the people all watched Jesus. He was lifted up, and He drew all men (all men's eyes, in the primary sense) unto Him (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>). And the cross has that same magnetism today.</p><p><em>And the rulers also scoffed at him, saying: He saved others- </em>A tacit recognition that His healing miracles and the resurrection of Lazarus were undeniable. “He saved others" would have been a reference to Lazarus. His was a well-known case among the Jews (was Lazarus there? It would have been strange if He had not been). The Lord's mind would have choked at the memory of dear Lazarus, Martha, Mary, the now shattered family whom He had loved and still loved. </p><h4><em>Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, His chosen!</em>-&nbsp; All the emphasis on save <em>yourself</em> was a temptation for Him to forget <em>us</em>. He would have reflected that He was saving Himself and us by staying where He was; coming down from the cross wouldn't lead to salvation. What the flesh understands by salvation and what the spirit understands by it are vastly different.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him offering vinegar, and saying</em>- Matthew notes that the Lord refused to drink it after tasting it. The tenses imply that the offer was made continually. </p><p>To give strong drink to those ready to perish was a well-known custom at crucifixion. The fact victims survived two or three days was only because they were given drink. The Lord didn't simply refuse the pain killer. He took it, tasted it, and then refused it. Why did He first taste it? Surely He knew the custom, and He knew what it was. Various alternatives arise in the mind, each a source of devotional inspiration:</p><p>- Was it that His eyesight was damaged by the punches and He didn't see what it was until He tasted it? "When Jesus therefore saw his mother::." may suggest that He didn't initially recognize her. The Messianic Scriptures mention the affliction of eyesight in Messiah's final suffering. Early crucifixion art shows the Lord with His right eye damaged (as does the Turin shroud). The mucous membrane (the thin slippery tissues which lubricate the human body) would have dried so that “they rip layers of tissues from the eyes every time the pupil is moved or blinked" (C:M. Ward). </p><p>- Maybe He realized as He had the cup on His lips that they were giving this to Him in the spirit of <em><a href='B:300 23:15'>Jer 23:15</a></em>: to show that He was a false prophet. In this case, for the sake of His respect for the implications of Holy Scripture, He endured a far higher degree of pain.</p><p>- Another explanation is that He wanted to speak out loud, saying (several times?) "Father, forgive them", and to perhaps recite Psalms 22. He was so parched from thirst (He had lost body fluid in Gethsemane) that He knew He couldn't speak out loud without some liquid. The dehydration would have made His tongue thicken so that speech was eventually almost impossible. But He only drank enough to moisten His throat, not to deaden any pain. This shows the majestic self-mastery within the Lord; He knew just when to stop, even though it must have been so tempting to keep on drinking.</p><p>- Taking the pain killer would not have been a sin, neither would it have theologically damaged the atonement. Perhaps the Lord took it, as doubtless the others did, and then had the self-control to think better of it and give it back. Such was His devotion to the absolute height of identity with us. It makes His action all the more poignant if He first tasted and then refused, rather than just refusing outright. </p><p>He was <em>repeatedly</em> offered the pain killer, the tense implies. Men offering Him myrrh in (mock) homage would have sent His mind back to the story dear Mary had told Him about the wise men bringing myrrh. And inevitably her tortured mind would have gone back there too. But I have another suggestion. When we read that “someone" offered him a sponge with wine mixed with myrrh (<em><a href='B:480 15:36'>Mar 15:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:48'>Mat 27:48</a></em>), we recall the use of myrrh in preparing bodies for burial (<em><a href='B:480 14:3'>Mar 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:56'>Luk 23:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:39'>Joh 19:39</a></em>). Pliny (<em>Natural History</em> 14:15:92,107) records: “The finest wine in early days was that spiced with the scent of myrrh… I also find that aromatic wine is constantly made from almost the same ingredient as perfumes, from myrrh". This alerts me to the real possibility that the unnamed bystander who did this was Mary Magdalene. Earlier she had anointed the Lord’s body with myrrh “to the burial". And now she has prepared the most expensive form of wine as some sort of pain killer. Perhaps the Lord was so touched by this that He accepted it, but didn’t drink it. His doing this is otherwise very hard to understand. Her love was on one hand inappropriate, and yet the Lord still accepted it, even though He couldn’t use it. He could have felt angry with her for tempting Him to the easier way. But He didn’t. And in so doing He showed her that the essence of the cross is that there is no easy way. The principles of all this are to be reflected in our cross carrying. </p><p>Another alternative presents itself from the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:230 69:21'>Psa 69:21</a></em>: “They gave me also gall". The Hebrew can stand the translation ‘poison’ (see RSV). Given the extended, agitated torture of crucifixion, there was a custom for close friends to get close enough to the cross to lift up a poisonous substance which the crucified would lick, and thereby die quickly. It is just possible that a friend (or even his mother?) or a sympathetic soldier did this. Again, in this case it would seem that the Lord chose the highest level; our salvation would surely have been theologically achievable if He had taken it. But He chose to attain for us not only salvation, but “such <em>great </em>salvation" (<em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em>) by always taking the highest level. He became obedient not only to death, but “even the death of the cross".</p><p>One feels that the Lord would have been justified in accepting the pain killer that was offered Him in His final agony; but He refused it, it seems to me, in order to achieve the <em>greatest </em>salvation for us. He never once used what I have called the principle of Jephthah's vow. In the same spirit, some faithful men of old refused legitimate deliverance from torture so that they might obtain "a better resurrection" (<em><a href='B:650 11:35'>Heb 11:35</a></em>). The record of the cross is full of examples of where the Lord in physical terms rejected legitimate comforts in His final hours. Yet throughout His life, He was ever ready to concede to the weakness of those who would genuinely follow Him. The way He spoke about demons without giving His hearers a lecture about the folly of such belief is proof of this. He could have insisted, as we do, on the rejection of such superstitions. But this was not His way. I am not suggesting that <em>we</em> have the right to make such concessions in our preaching and baptizing. But He did:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>If you are the King of the Jews- </em>His claims to Kingship, and the claim of His placard, was a repeated jibe. It must have seemed so incongruous that this wretchedly suffering man actually thought Himself to be a King. "If::. let him come down" may have been followed by a pause: is He going to do anything? In their hearts they must have known that He had had the ability to pull off this kind of thing. Those silent pauses must have been an agony for the Lord. There were probably many in that crowd half sympathetic to His wretched cause, who, on the surface, really might have believed if He had come down. But He had learned the lesson in the Galilee days, that impressive miracles didn't really instil faith (Pentecostals etc. still fail to realize this). </p><p>The mocking Jews fall strangely silent in the crucifixion accounts. The Lord had plainly foretold that when they had lifted up the Son of man, then they would know “that I am he", and would recognize His Divine Sonship (<em><a href='B:500 8:27'>Joh 8:27</a></em>). There was something about the vision of Christ crucified which convicted them of their folly and of the Divinity of God’s Son. And that power burns on today. </p><p><em>Save yourself</em>- All the emphasis on save <em>yourself</em> was a temptation for Him to forget <em>us</em>. He would have reflected that He was saving Himself and us by staying where He was; coming down from the cross wouldn't lead to salvation. What the flesh understands by salvation and what the spirit understands by it are vastly different.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there was also a written notice above him: This is the King of the Jews</em>- It was also written in Hebrew (Joh:), and putting together the gospel records, it said "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews". 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 [<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, <em>a man</em> 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, <em>full</em> 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. </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>). </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. </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. </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. </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. </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. </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. </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. </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>&nbsp;<p><em><a href='B:490 22:36'>Luk 22:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:38'>Luk 22:38</a></em> record that the inscription on the cross was “also" written- connecting with how the soldiers “also" mocked Him. The inscription was intended as another mockery; but it was a vital part in declaring God’s glory. The incident is typical of how those things which seem the most negative and unspiritual are used by the Father to His and our glory in the end. </p>


text:
<p><em>And one of the criminals that hung there hurled insults at him, saying: Are not you the Christ? Save yourself and us</em>- The man believed Jesus was Christ, but he understood the Messiah as offering immediate salvation. And the Lord's whole teaching was that the Kingdom was about delayed gratification, coming to its full term in the future establishment of His Kingdom at His return and the resurrection of the dead. We learn from this that mere acceptance that Jesus of Nazareth was someone special, even very special, is no guarantee of salvation. It is His message, the word which was made flesh in Him, which has to be obediently believed.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the other answered, and rebuking him said: Do you not even fear God, seeing you have the same judgment?</em>- The thieves had the same judgment as the Lord Jesus; death on a cross. It was God who needed to be feared, rather than asking favours of Jesus as Messiah. And yet the second thief clearly believed the Lord was God's Son who would return as judge to establish His Kingdom. He displays therefore a fine appreciation of the relationship between the Father and Son. He urges the first thief to not ask favours of the dying Jesus, but to instead "fear God", appreciating that His Son was sharing in their deaths, and yet in the power of God would resurrect, and return in glory to judge men and establish His Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p><em>But we indeed justly. For we receive the due reward of our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong</em>- The cross is capable of interpretation as some kind of judgment seat or throne. And significantly, there are men on the right hand and left of the Lord, one rejected, the other gloriously accepted. It is possible to translate the repentant thief as telling the other: “Do you not fear God <em>when</em> you stand condemned?". Before Jesus crucified, we all stand condemned. And he stresses that “we are condemned justly" (<em><a href='B:490 23:41'>Luk 23:41</a></em>), for it was evident to all that here hung a just / righteous man. He, there, the just hanging for the unjust, convicts us of sin. Somehow the repentant thief came to know Jesus in the deepest possible sense. Truly could he address him as “Lord", perceiving already how the cross had made Him “Lord and Christ". The thief knew that judgment day was coming, and asked to be remembered for good there. He was surely alluding to <em><a href='B:230 106:4'>Psa 106:4</a></em>: “Remember me, Lord, in the course of favouring your people. Visit me with your salvation". And this connection between the cross and the judgment was evidently impressed upon the thief. Doubtless he also had in mind the desperate plea of Joseph: “Have me in remembrance when…" you come into your position of power (<em><a href='B:10 40:14'>Gen 40:14</a></em> RV). The thief had perhaps meditated upon the implications of the Lord’s prayer: “Thy kingdom come". He saw it as now being certain because of the cross- “when you come in your Kingdom…". And yet he felt as if he was in prospect already there before the coming King, as he hung there before Him on the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom</em>- Note the Joseph allusions- in prison with two malefactors (one good and one bad?) as Christ on the cross with two thieves (one good, one bad). "Remember me when it shall be well with thee" (<em><a href='B:10 40:14'>Gen 40:14</a></em>) = "Remember me".</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Truly, I can say to you today right now, that you will indeed be with me in Paradise</em>- "Luke elsewhere uses "today" to refer to immediate salvation (<em><a href='B:490 2:11'>Luk 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:21'>Luk 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:26'>Luk 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:32'>Luk 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:9'>Luk 19:9</a></em>); "Luke's Gospel, then, insists that salvation is not simply a radically future experience but a thing of the present". Always in the OT, “I say unto you this day" was used as a Hebraism to bring home the utter solemnity of some great truth (e:g. <em><a href='B:50 4:26'>Deu 4:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:39'>Deu 4:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:19'>Deu 8:19</a></em>). </p><h4>The thieves (and Barabbas) would have been tried along with Jesus; they would have been present at His trial. Roman law required that the death penalty be executed the same day as it was given. The crucifixion being quite early in the day, it seems almost certain that the four cases to be tried that day would all have been heard in the same room. The behaviour of the Lord must have really given those other three something to reflect on. An interesting point comes out of the Greek text of <em><a href='B:490 23:39'>Luk 23:39</a></em>: "One of the criminals who were <em>suspended</em> reviled him" (Diaglott). Ancient paintings show the thieves tied by cords to the crosses, not nailed as was Christ. <em>Hanging</em> on a tree became an idiom for crucifixion, even if nails were actually used (<em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:30'>Act 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:39'>Act 10:39</a></em>). If this were so, we see the development of a theme: that the whole ingenuity of man was pitted against the Father and Son. Christ was nailed, not tied; the tomb was sealed and guarded; the legal process was manipulated; the Lord was flogged as well as crucified. </h4><p>It is all too easy for us to see the thief on the cross as a pawn in the game of the Lord's crucifixion. But there is real New Testament evidence that we are to see in Him our personal representative. Thus Paul challenges us to be "co- crucified" with Christ (<em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:530 11:1'>1Co 11:1</a></em>). To be crucified together with Christ immediately sends the imaginative mind to the thief on the cross- the one who was literally crucified together with Christ. It is doubtful if the Spirit in Paul would speak of 'co- crucifixion' without deliberate reference back to the thief. Our Lord matched the idea of the word "Kingdom" in the thief's plea with the word "paradise". Occurring only three times in the New Testament, it is hard to resist the conclusion that in <em><a href='B:730 2:7'>Rev 2:7</a></em>, our Lord's mind was back in the agonizing conversation with the thief: "To him that overcomes will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God". It was to the thief on the cross, some years earlier, that Christ had made the same promise of paradise. It may be significant that <em><a href='B:730 2:7'>Rev 2:7</a></em> was specifically addressed to those who were zealous by nature, hating laxity, yet who had left their first love. The thief may well have been a 'zealot' who had once turned to Christ, but whose real faith had slipped away. But to any who overcome, the same promise of paradise is made. </p><p>It has often been pointed out that the brief words of the thief encompass all the basic beliefs of the One Faith. He believed in the sinfulness of man, the supreme righteousness of Christ, salvation by grace, the second coming and judgment seat of Christ, and the Kingdom. Yet not only did he believe those things as abstract principles. As he beheld, at close range, the sufferings of God's peerless son, the reality of those principles really came home to him. Perhaps he was a slave who had committed a relatively petty crime, but as a slave he had to be crucified. All prisoners and most condemned men feel keenly their relative innocence and the unfairness of it all. But with quite some pain he gasped: “:::and we indeed justly". He came to deeply understand the basic principles, and appreciate their personal bearing to himself. He knew the basic principles of the true Gospel, but it was his co- crucifixion with Christ that made him grasp hold of them for dear life. Job too went through the same process, thanks to his typical suffering together with Christ: "I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees you" (<em><a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a></em>). And us? The thief, not to say Job, represents us. If we are truly co- crucified with Christ, the basic elements of our faith will not be just a dry doctrinal skeleton. The coming of the Kingdom, the doctrine of judgment and the atonement, these will be all we live for! For they were all the thief had to live for, during his hours of co- crucifixion:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>It is possible that the thief had a really deep Bible knowledge. “Remember me when you come in your Kingdom" is almost certainly reference to <em><a href='B:10 40:14'>Gen 40:14</a></em>, where Joseph desperately and pathetically asks: “But think on me when it shall be well with you::.". Joseph went on to say “:::here also have I done nothing that they should out me into the dungeon" (<em><a href='B:10 40:15'>Gen 40:15</a></em>). This is very much the spirit of “This man hath done nothing amiss::.". It could be that when he asks to be remembered for good, he had in mind Abigail's words: that when David returned in glory in his Kingdom, "my Lord, then remember thine handmaid". This was prefaced by her asking: "Forgive the trespass of your handmaid::. a man is risen to pursue you, and to seek your soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord your God: and the souls of your enemies, them shall he sling out" (<em><a href='B:90 25:29-31'>1Sa 25:29-31</a></em>). And David's response was marvellously similar to that of the Lord to the thief: "Go up in peace to your house; see, I have hearkened to your voice, and have accepted your person" (<em><a href='B:90 25:35'>1Sa 25:35</a></em>). It would seem that the thief saw in David a type of the Lord, and saw in Abigail's words exactly the attitude he fain would have. And the Lord accepted this. </p><p>It is recorded in the other Gospels that both the thieves "railed on" Christ, joining in with the crowd to "cast the same in his teeth" (<em><a href='B:470 27:44'>Mat 27:44</a></em>). We must see the words of the repentant thief in Luke 23 against this background. There he was, knowing the truth, having fallen away, now facing his death. In his self- centeredness, he grew bitter against the one he knew to be his saviour. Despite the difficulty and pain which speaking whilst crucified involved, he made the effort to lambaste his saviour, as well as he knew how. But as he watched the Lord's silent response, sensing the deep spiritual communion with the Father which was then happening, he experienced a wave of even greater anger and remorse- this time, against himself. 'I could have made it, I could have repented, but now it's too late. I've added insult to injury, I've blasphemed and mocked my only possible saviour, in this my hour of desperate need'. So he fell silent, whilst (we may infer) the other thief kept up his insults and selfish pleas for immediate salvation. And he watched the suffering saviour, literally from the corner of his eye. Remember, the thieves were crucified next to Jesus. Indeed one wonders whether the other thief had also once been a believer when he says “Art not thou the Christ?" (<em><a href='B:490 23:39'>Luk 23:39</a></em> RV). </p><p>Such was the holiness, the supreme righteousness of the Lord, that the thought grew within him: 'Perhaps even now, while I've got life, I could ask for forgiveness, and a place in the Kingdom?' We can be sure that he grappled within himself with this thought, before ever presenting it verbally to Jesus. He would have seen the Lord's demeanour under trial, and the beauty and graciousness of His character and essential being must have made a deep impact upon the thief. When he speaks about Jesus having "done nothing amiss", he is repeating what he had heard hours before (<em><a href='B:480 14:56'>Mar 14:56</a></em>); and the Lord's confident words of <em><a href='B:470 23:23'>Mat 23:23</a></em> were still ringing in his ears when he spoke of wanting mercy when this crucified man came again in glory to establish His Kingdom (cp. <em><a href='B:490 23:42'>Luk 23:42</a></em>). And yet this perceptive man had just blasphemed Jesus with all the vicious vitriol he knew ("cast the same in his teeth" is the forerunner of 'a kick in the teeth'). It was supreme faith in and appreciation of the love and mercy of Christ which led him to make his request. I see the very fact he could make that request as a wonderful triumph of human faith over the weakness of human flesh when afflicted. That request was born out of a healthy fear of God. Before speaking to Jesus, he rebuked the other thief: "Don't you fear God:::?" (<em><a href='B:490 23:40'>Luk 23:40</a></em>). Appreciating the enormity of his sin, the repentant thief had come to fear God, to imagine the day of judgment and condemnation of sin. We dare to imagine the nervous tone of voice in which he then spoke to Jesus: "Lord, remember me (i:e. for good) when you come into your Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:490 23:42'>Luk 23:42</a></em>). He was pleading for acceptance at the day of judgment, provoked to do so by a fear of God's coming judgments. This was surely a spiritual pinnacle. The pain of his own sufferings, coupled with his close observation of the supreme holiness of Christ as he hung on the cross, had led him to appreciate his own sinfulness, and had inspired one of the greatest levels of faith in the mercy of Christ which mankind has reached. And so he received the ultimate assurance: You <em>will</em> be with me, in the Kingdom. The question of where the comma should be placed becomes irrelevant when we imagine how the Lord would have gasped for each word. There would, as it were, have been a comma between each word. </p><p>The thief was confident, in faith, that he would be heard. But how he would have hung upon every one of the quiet words which the Lord muttered in response, travelling over the few metres which separated them. "Verily I say unto thee this day: with me shalt thou be in Paradise" (Rotherham). We believe that to have been the emphasis in His words. 'Yes, I can really tell you, here and now, you will be in the Kingdom!'. Think of the spiritual ecstasy which would have come over the thief! God had caused him to triumph in Christ! He, the lowest sinner, had entered the highest rank of saints- those who have been directly assured that they will be in the Kingdom. Daniel, the disciples and Paul seem the only others in this category- along with the thief. </p><p>Crucifixion was a slow death. Mercifully, our Lord died abnormally quickly. Remember how Pilate "marvelled that he were already dead". Normally men lingered in agony for days before death. The thief lived a little longer. He would have seen Christ's death, "the lonely cry, the anguish keen"; the men taking the body from the cross. We can infer that he was still conscious when the soldiers broke his legs- if he was obviously dead, they would not have bothered. "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already::." (<em><a href='B:500 19:33'>Joh 19:33</a></em>) seems to imply this. The reason for breaking the legs was to stop the criminal having any chance of running away. Surely, amidst the waves of his pulsating pain, he would have marvelled at the way in which Christ was truly the lamb of God, seeing that "not a bone of him (was) broken". There he was, assured of the mercy of the Lord at judgment day, hanging on the cross, in physical agony which it is hard for us to enter into. In some ways, he continues to be a type of us. Whether we are dying of cancer, crippled with arthritis, emotionally trapped in a painful relationship, chained to a demanding job, we too can have every assurance of the Lord's mercy. "To him that overcomes", He has promised the paradise of the Kingdom, just as He did to the thief:&nbsp; </p><p>But like the repentant thief, our mind must be full of the vision of our dying saviour, triumphing in His holiness, freely confessing our sin and the justice of God's condemnation of it, thrilling with the certainty of our Hope- of being in the Kingdom with Christ. Not for the repentant thief the increasing bitterness of the other man. As his bitterness grew, so the serenity and hope, and anticipation and joyful expectancy of the Kingdom rapidly increased for our crucified brother. The bitterness and disillusion of the world should not be ours, as the pain rages within and around us. Ours should be the strength and (somehow, amidst it all) <em>peace </em>of Christ's example. And the thief is alluded to later on in the NT as a symbol of us all. The Lord’s promise to him that he would ‘be with him’ is the very language of <em><a href='B:540 5:8'>2Co 5:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em> about us all. </p><p><em>And they divided up his clothes by casting lots</em>- 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 (<em><a href='B:20 24:2'>Exo 24:2</a></em> 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>There seems to have been something unusual about the Lord’s outer garment. The same Greek word <em>chiton</em> 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> 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. The robe was not to be torn, <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. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it was now about the sixth hour; and a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour</em>- The way the sun was eclipsed at the Lord’s death is recorded in terms which clearly contrast with the prevailing view that at the demise of the emperors, the light of the sun was eclipsed. Both Plutarch (Caesar, 69:4) and Josephus (Antiquities 14:12:3,409) speak of eclipses of the sun at the death of Julius Caesar. The Lord Jesus in His death is thus being proclaimed as the true Caesar. Likewise Cassius Dio <em>History</em> 51:17:5) claims that at the fall of Alexandria to the Romans, “the disembodied spirits of the dead were made visible”. Similar claims were made for other Roman victories. And yet this is clearly put into context by the record that around the Lord’s victory, the graves were opened and the dead actually came forth. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>The sun's light failing; and the veil of the temple was torn in the middle</em>- The way into the most holy was now open to all, the veil torn from top to bottom because this was done by God. The High Priest's garments had been torn by him, and now the veil itself was open. Judaism was effectively over. Direct fellowship with God was now made possible through the Lord's death. We note by contrast how the same word is used to describe how the Lord's garment was <em>not</em> rent (<em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>). The rending of the veil is clearly alluded to in <em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a></em>; but as noted there, we must have boldness to enter in to the holiest. We all now are to act as the High Priest, going into the very presence of God for the same of others.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying: Certainly, this was a righteous man</em>- He said it twice: "This was a righteous man (Lk:), "truly this man was the son of God" (Mk:). And he might well have added in his own thoughts: “And I’ve crucified him". The Lord died through an act of utter self-control; consciously breathing out His last breath in the form of the words "Father into your hands I commit my spirit". He gave His life, it was not taken from Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And all the crowds that came together to this sight, when they saw the things that were done, returned, striking their breasts</em>-&nbsp;Contemplation of the death of the Lord Jesus is intended to stimulate our self-examination and self-knowledge. Those who saw it "smote upon their breasts" (<em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>), an idiom only used elsewhere for true penitence and realization of personal sinfulness (<em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 27:5'>Mat 27:5</a></em>. 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. People 'beheld::. the sight' (<em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>) - the verb <em>theoreo </em>and the noun <em>theoria&nbsp;here</em> suggest that people 'theorized', what they saw inevitably made them think out a response. See on <em><a href='B:480 15:33'>Mar 15:33</a></em>.</p><p>The disciples kept changing the subject whenever the Lord started speaking about His death. As He hung in ultimate triumph and suffering on the cross, men came and looked, and turned away again (<em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>). The spiritual intensity of it couldn't be sustained in their minds, as it cannot easily be in ours. The more we break bread, the more we try to reconstruct Golgotha's awful scene, the more we realize this. </p><p>Those who beheld the cross “beat their breasts", Luke records. The only other occurrence of this phrase is again in Luke, concerning how the desperate, sin-convicted publican likewise beat his breast before God in contrition (<em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>). Does this not suggest that those breast-beaters were doing so because “that sight" convicted them of their own sinfulness? Their “return" to their homes uses the Greek word usually translated ‘to repent’. The cross inspired their repentance. The records of the crucifixion are framed to focus upon the response of individuals to the cross. The response of those who beat their breasts is very similar to that of the Centurion: </p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Centurion </td><td>Crowds</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Having seen</td><td>Having observed</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Happening</td><td>Happenings</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Was glorifying</td><td>Returned / repented</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Saying</td><td>Striking breasts</td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>The parallel is between his glorifying God, and their returning / repenting. The need for repentance is a strong theme in Luke (<em><a href='B:490 10:13'>Luk 10:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:32'>Luk 11:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:3'>Luk 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:5'>Luk 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:10'>Luk 15:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:30'>Luk 16:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:3-4'>Luk 17:3-4</a></em>)- as if he perceived that the ultimate motivation to repentance was in the cross. The apocryphal <em>Acts of Pilate </em>4:5 claims that “all the crowds who were gathered together for the observation of this…returned striking their breasts and weeping awful tears". And yet the record of the cross also leads to faith, not only conviction of our desperation (<em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>, “these things" = the record of the cross).</h4><p>Appreciation of the cross will create unity between us; a common sense of failure, and yet also a common appreciation of the utter grace which we have been invited to behold and actually taste of. "All the people that <em>came together</em> to that sight" (<em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>) uses a word which really means to bond together in close association. This is the effect of the cross. Those who stared in wonder, yearning for a deeper appreciation, were somehow bound together by their experience of the cross. </p><p>The people 'coming together to that sight' might imply that the crowd which was milling around came clustering around the cross once the Lord uttered His final cries and so evidently died. The women also beheld His dead corpse from afar. This seems to be encouraging us to imagine the picture of the Lord just at that point; the dead body on the cross, the victory achieved. It was only at this stage that the curse of Deuteronomy 21 came into effect: "cursed (Heb. a curse; the Hebrew is <em>always</em> translated this way) is every one that hangeth on a tree" (<em><a href='B:50 21:22-23'>Deu 21:22-23</a></em>). These words have been misunderstood as meaning that the Lord as a living being was under one of the Law's curses of condemnation. This cannot be. It must be remembered that crucifixion was a Roman, not Jewish method. The Deuteronomy passage was not written with reference to crucifixion, but rather to the custom of displaying the already dead body of a sinner on a pole as a witness and warning (cp. the display of Saul's body). Sin brought the curse; and so every sinful person who died for their sin was bearing the curse of God. They were to be buried quickly as a sign of God taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The Lord died the death of a sinner; He bore our sins, and therefore our curse (<em><a href='B:550 3:13-14'>Gal 3:13-14</a></em>). Every condemned sinner whose body had been displayed had been a type of the sinless Son of God. He was exhibited there for one or two hours (until Joseph got the permission to take the body), totally, totally united with sinful man. And then, because God had no pleasure in this condemnation of sin, the body was taken and buried. Smiting the breast connects with the sinner smiting his breast in repentance (<em><a href='B:470 11:17'>Mat 11:17</a></em> RVmg:). The thoughts of many hearts are revealed by meditation on the cross (<em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em>). It leads us to repentance. The prophecy that the Jews would look on His they pierced and mourn in repentance may have had an incipient fulfilment at the crucifixion.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all his acquaintances, and the women that had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance watching these things</em>- The connection is between following the Lord in the easier times, at the height of His popularity in Galilee; and also following Him when all seems hopeless, and there seems absolutely no human advantage from identity with Him. Mark's reference to "many" women coming up to Jerusalem in support of Him would suggest that He may have had more female supporters than male. John says that the women were standing at the cross. To show such sympathy for the crucified could lead to their own arrest and crucifixion. They were perhaps asked by the Lord to draw back from Him. Or perhaps they are pictured here just before they summoned the courage to walk out across the no man's land between the crowd and the cross, to show their open devotion to the Lord.</p><p>It was only close family members who could beg for the body of the crucified. The way Joseph of Arimathaea is described as doing this is juxtaposed straight after the description of the Lord’s natural family standing afar off from Him (<em><a href='B:490 23:49'>Luk 23:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:52'>Luk 23:52</a></em>). The effect of the cross had brought forth a new family in that the Lord had now broken all His natural ties, not least with His beloved mother. </p>


text:
<p><em>And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man</em>- He was 'also' a disciple (Mt:), in God's eyes, in the same category as the women disciples who were so public about their discipleship (<em><a href='B:470 27:56'>Mat 27:56</a></em>). Whilst secret discipleship is not the Lord's intention, and He will arrange circumstances so that we 'come out' publicly, it is not for us to say that He doesn't count secret disciples as also His disciples, just as He did Joseph.</p>


text:
<p><em>(He had not consented to their decision and deed), a man of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God</em>- The entire Sanhedrin had unanimously agreed to the deed, but Joseph's internal lack of agreement was noted by the Father and this apparently weak man now comes out openly, and is spoken of so highly in the inspired record.</p>


text:
<p><em>This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus</em>- Remember that it was only close family members who could beg for the body of the crucified. </p><p>Joseph is now showing his open affinity with this crucified man. At that time, he didn't firmly believe in the resurrection. For sheer <em>love</em> 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><p>The text records that the Jews 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. 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 <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; indeed, “many” of the elders actually believed in Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>). 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> have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though <em>they</em> found no cause of death in him, yet desired <em>they</em> Pilate that He should be slain::. <em>they</em> took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre".</p><p>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>John gives the additional detail about the concern that Jesus might not be fully dead, and the piercing of His side. 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. " He that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe" (<em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>). 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. 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>And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet been laid</em>- Luke's record that Joseph himself took the body down invites us to imagine him using a ladder, perhaps that used to place the title. He identified himself with the crucified Lord, and laid Him where his own body should be laid. He lived out the essence of baptism. However, <em><a href='B:510 13:29'>Act 13:29</a></em> suggests that the Roman soldiers on behalf of Jewish people (i:e. Joseph) took the body down; Pilate "commanded the body to be delivered", implying he gave a command to underlings. So in what sense did <em>Joseph</em> take the body down and wrap it? Are we to imagine him humbling himself before the crowd to assist those soldiers in the physical act of taking the nails out and lowering the body down? Or it could be that he attracted so much attention to himself and had to humble himself so much to ask the soldiers to do it, that it was effectively as if he did it. But there is no reason to think that he himself didn’t walk out in that no man’s land between the crowd and the cross and humble himself to take it down, hearing the gasp from the crowd as he touched the blood and dead body which would make him unclean for the feast. His act was a tremendous mental sacrifice as well as a social and physical one. He is described as "honourable", literally 'well-formed / bodied', as if to emphasis his deportment befitting a leader of men. But he humbled himself before that stake. "He took it down" may imply that the stake was left standing. Or was it laid backwards and lowered down horizontal, with Joseph's anxious hands guiding it down? His contact with the body meant that he couldn't keep the Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:9-10'>Num 9:9-10</a></em>). The people would have watched incredulous as one of the leaders of Israel openly showed his preference for the crucified Nazarene as opposed to keeping the Mosaic Law. The phobia for cleanliness at Passover time would have meant that everyone was extremely sensitive to what Joseph did.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it was the day of the preparation; and the Sabbath drew on</em>- Businesses would have been closing. John records that Joseph bought a huge amount of spices, more than what was used to bury the Caesars. The cost would have been huge. To raise the cash he would surely have needed to capitalize his own possessions. And he did all this as business was closing. He gave all in response to the Lord's death, without, it seems, any hope of future personal reward or resurrection.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the women, who had come with him out of Galilee, followed and saw the tomb, and how his body was laid</em>- It is worth putting together two passages, both from Luke: “The women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after…” (<em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em>); and <em><a href='B:510 13:30-31'>Act 13:30-31</a></em>: “God raised him from the dead and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, and they are now his witnesses”. Surely Paul and Luke have in mind here the ministering women. They had followed from Galilee to Jerusalem, the risen Lord had appeared to a woman first of all, and now those women were witnessing to the people. Perhaps <em><a href='B:530 15:3-7'>1Co 15:3-7</a></em> is relevant here, where we read that the Lord appeared after His resurrection to the twelve, and yet on another occasion to “all the apostles”- perhaps referring to the group that included the women. An empty tomb was no proof that Jesus of Nazareth had risen- unless there were witnesses there present at that empty tomb who could testify also that it was in that very tomb that Jesus had been laid. And only women, not men, were witnesses of this. The Greek world placed great emphasis upon sight- “Eyes are surer witnesses than ears”, Heraclitus said. They related to the past visually; for a group of people to be eyewitnesses was considered conclusive. Hence the enormous significance of the way in which the Gospels repeatedly make the women the subjects of verbs of seeing (<em><a href='B:470 27:55'>Mat 27:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:49'>Luk 23:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em>). They were the eyewitnesses.</p><p>The women who stood afar off and watched in helplessness and hopelessness and lack of comprehension <em>also followed</em> the Lord (:49) and ministered to Him in the Galilee days. Their standing there like that was still reckoned to them as active following and ministry to Him. They also serve, who merely stand and wait.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they returned and prepared spices and ointments. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment</em>- The point is surely that this was the last Sabbath which needed to be kept. For the Lord's death had now ended the old covenant, the veil had been torn down. But they were ignorant of all that, and yet they were still loyally committed to the Lord Jesus, despite lacking full understanding. This is both comfort to ourselves, and also a lesson in tolerance towards others who likewise misunderstand aspects of the Lord's sacrifice but still love Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared</em>- The language hints very much at a new creation beginning. And yet it began in darkness, not only literally, but also in the darkness of the disciples' disappointment, misunderstanding and weak faith. From all this, great light was to arise:&nbsp;</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>- “O God, thou <em>art</em> 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;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 <em>our</em> soul <em>is</em> 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>


text:
<p><em>And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb</em>- The Angel descended and did this before the women arrived; for on the way, they had worried about how they would roll the stone away, but when they got there, they found it done already (<em><a href='B:480 16:2'>Mar 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:4'>Mar 16:4</a></em>). Women unable to roll away a stone recalls the scene when Rachel and her girls were unable to roll the stone away from the well until Jacob did it (<em><a href='B:10 29:3'>Gen 29:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 29:10'>Gen 29:10</a></em>). The idea would therefore be that the Lord's tomb was in fact a well of living water which would flow for God's people after and on account of His resurrection; and this idea is elsewhere stated specifically by the Lord in John's Gospel:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4><em>And they entered in, and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus</em>- The first reference to "the Lord Jesus"; His resurrection declared Him as Lord and Christ. They had observed where the body was laid, and so their surprise is the more understandable. </h4>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, while they were wondering about this, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel</em>- Their "wondering" was reflective of their lack of faith and understanding, and they are gently rebuked for it in :5. They should have assumed that now on the third day, His body indeed would not be there as He had predicted. We get the impression that this was the first time they had seen the Angels; the Angel sitting on the stone in <em><a href='B:470 28:2'>Mat 28:2</a></em> was therefore invisible to them, and his words to them of <em><a href='B:470 28:5'>Mat 28:5</a></em> were perhaps at this point, rather than at the point of entry into the tomb. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them: Why do you seek the living among the dead?</em>- The women had come to anoint the Lord's dead body, with apparently no expectation that He would indeed rise the third day as He had predicted. And yet the Angel generously counts this to them (Mt. 'I know / perceive / accept / count it') as if they were actively looking for Jesus. Their obvious error- that they assumed Him to still be dead- is not rebuked because the good news is simply so much greater. The resurrection records are full of such imputed righteousness. <em><a href='B:490 24:5'>Luk 24:5</a></em> enquires why they are 'seeking the living amongst the dead'. They were not seeking the living- they had come to anoint a dead body. Yet they are graciously counted as seeking Jesus as if they were seeking for a living person. John's record has the Lord asking Mary&nbsp;<em>whom</em>&nbsp;she is 'seeking', and this is how John's Gospel opens, with the Lord enquiring of His followers&nbsp;<em>whom</em>&nbsp;they were seeking (<em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). This question as to the Lord's identity echoes down to us, for we too can feel a devotion and identity with the idea of 'Jesus' without perceiving that He really is alive and active. The Lord counted righteousness to them, they are commended by the Angels for ‘seeking the Lord’- even though that seeking was deep in their subconscious. Yet the record notices that even incipient faith and understanding in those women, and counts it to them. Would that we would be so generous in our perception of others. The weeping, helpless standing afar off at the cross are described as still following the Lord Jesus and ministering to Him, as they did in the happier Galilee days (<em><a href='B:480 15:41'>Mar 15:41</a></em>). Their essential spirit was understood and credited to them, even though their actions seemed to belie this. Likewise our essential desires are read as our prayers, even if the words we use seem quite different.</p><p>Meetings with two separate Angels didn't make the women understand; now two Angels appear together and tell them the same words as the other Angels had said.</p>


text:
<p><em>He is not here, but is risen! Remember in what way he spoke to you when he was still in Galilee</em>- After He rose, the Angels pointed out this sense to His men: “:::remember <em>how</em> [the Greek sense is: ‘with what urgency’] he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man <em>must</em> be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again" (<em><a href='B:490 24:6-7'>Luk 24:6-7</a></em> AV). Like us, they heard and saw the compulsion, that Messianic <em>must</em>, but didn’t really appreciate it. The Lord was no fatalist, simply reflecting that what was to be ‘must’ be. Rather He meant that it ‘must’ be and therefore He strove to fulfil it. There was no fatalistic compulsion about the cross- for He need not have gone through with it. But He ‘must’ do so for the sake of that indescribable compulsion to save us, to glorify Yahweh’s Name, which He felt within Him. He reminded the two on the way to Emmaus: “<em>Ought </em>[s:w. ‘must’] <em>not </em>Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" (<em><a href='B:490 24:26'>Luk 24:26</a></em>). And consider <em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>: “Wherefore in all things it <em>behoved him </em>to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people". It was in His death that the Lord’s blood acted as a reconciliation for the sins of the people- an evident reference to the ritual of the day of atonement, which the same writer shows spoke so eloquently of the cross. And yet he was “behoved" to do this, it was an obligation He felt intrinsic within His very being. The same word occurs later: “And by reason hereof he <em>ought</em>, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man takes this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ::." (<em><a href='B:650 5:3-5'>Heb 5:3-5</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>- see on&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 27:26'>Mat 27:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>Saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again</em>- The Angels quoted the Lord's words, perhaps because they had been watching and listening to Him throughout His ministry. The reference seems to specifically be to the Lord's words of <em><a href='B:480 9:31'>Mar 9:31</a></em>, which the disciples had not understood because of their own obsession with who should be the greatest.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they remembered his words</em>- if the reference is to <em><a href='B:480 9:31-35'>Mar 9:31-35</a></em>, they would have recalled how their lack of belief in and understanding of the Lord's words was because of their own obsession with who was to be the greatest amongst them. </p>


text:
<p><em>And returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the others</em>- <em><a href='B:480 16:7-8'>Mar 16:7-8</a></em> says that initially their fear was so great that they were resolved not to tell anyone anything, i:e. to be disobedient to the commission to tell their brethren the good news. And so according to Matthew the Lord Himself intervenes to urge them to go tell their brethren. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles</em>- Most of the references to Joanna occur within Luke’s writings, and the central placement given to her in the passage in <em><a href='B:490 24:9-10'>Luk 24:9-10</a></em>. It would seem that Luke had an especial interest in chronicling the women who went with Jesus- his material accounts for two of the four parables that feature women (<em><a href='B:490 15:8-10'>Luk 15:8-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:1-14'>Luk 18:1-14</a></em>), and he has seven passages / incidents where women are central (<em><a href='B:490 7:11-17'>Luk 7:11-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:36-50'>Luk 7:36-50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:1-3'>Luk 8:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:38-42'>Luk 10:38-42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:27-28'>Luk 11:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:10-17'>Luk 13:10-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:27-31'>Luk 23:27-31</a></em>). And it is Luke alone who gives the impression that the Lord was not followed around Palestine by twelve men alone, but by a further group of ministering women. See on <em><a href='B:490 8:2'>Luk 8:2</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk, and they disbelieved them</em>- There is a strong theme in the Gospels that the disciples repeatedly disbelieved the news of the resurrection. And yet they were appealing for people to believe the message of the Lord's resurrection and be baptized into it. But they made that appeal on the basis of their own weakness and slowness to believe. "Idle talk" means literally the talk of the crazy. They assumed this was a story of the once demon-possessed Mary Magdalene, an outcome of her previous mental disturbance. When the Lord had so clearly foretold His resurrection. Luke is pointing out their own disbelief, implying it was almost to the point of blasphemy.</p><p>Each of the Gospel writers brings out a sense of inadequacy about themselves or the disciples, this self-criticism, in different ways. Luke’s account of the rich man in the parable of Luke 16 has several consciously-inserted connections with how he later describes the disciples: </p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Luke 16</td><td>Luke 24</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Disbelief in the face of meeting the resurrected man (<em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>)</td><td>“They did not believe…slow of heart to believe” (<em><a href='B:490 24:11'>Luk 24:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:25'>Luk 24:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:41'>Luk 24:41</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Double mention of Moses and the prophets as proofs of resurrection (<em><a href='B:490 16:29'>Luk 16:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>)</td><td>Ditto in <em><a href='B:490 24:27'>Luk 24:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:44'>Luk 24:44</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Should rise from the dead” (<em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>)</td><td>“Should rise from the dead” (<em><a href='B:490 24:46'>Luk 24:46</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“They will repent” (<em><a href='B:490 16:30'>Luk 16:30</a></em>)</td><td>Forgiveness of sins was to be preached because of Christ’s resurrection, as Luke brings out in <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:22'>Act 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>. </td><td></td></tr></table><p>Thus the tragedy and foolishness of the rich man in the parable is seen by Luke as applying to the disciples in their disbelief of the resurrection. And yet the purpose of Luke’s Gospel, as all the Gospels, was to proclaim the need for belief in the resurrection. </h4>


text:
<p><em>But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he departed to his home, wondering about what had happened</em>- 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>). "Myrrh::. glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead" (Leon Morris, <em>John</em> 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><p>The various records all use the same word for how Peter, John and Mary all 'stooped down' (<em><a href='B:500 20:5'>Joh 20:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:11'>Joh 20:11</a></em>) at this time; as if bowing before the resurrected Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem</em>- Seven miles would have taken just over two hours to walk. The conversation would likely not have been very long, as the Lord was not walking with them the whole time. One of them was Cleopas (:18); and it could be assumed from :34 that the other was Peter, although perhaps an unrecorded appearance to Peter is there referred to. However I prefer to think this Cleopas is the same "Clopas" of <em><a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a></em> whose wife Mary stood by the cross. The other unnamed disciple would then refer to Mary his wife.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they discussed with each other about all the things which had happened</em>- "Happened" translates a Greek word which means literally 'to walk together', just as they were doing; the idea is that they recognized that there was a meeting together of various threads, and they were struggling to understand what all the coincidences meant. The Lord had plainly stated His death and resurrection, and this alone made sense of the things they were noticing; but they failed to make the obvious connections. It was only when the Lord 'walked with them' that everything became clear.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, while they talked and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near and went with them</em>- As noted on :14, there is a play on ideas here. Whilst they perceived how the various recent events 'walked together', the Lord Himself walked together with them. The lively intellectual dialogue suggested by "talked and questioned together" was likely between Cleopas and his wife Mary (see on :13); a great pattern for Christian marriage.</p>


text:
<p><em>But their eyes were kept from recognizing him</em>- It seems that the eyes of the women were likewise kept from seeing the Angel seated on the stone in <em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em>. The blinding and opening of eyes is typically in response to whether a person themselves wishes to open or close their eyes. They did not perceive the Lord because they didn't want to; and were confirmed in that attitude. "Kept" is too mild; the Greek is usually used of violent 'taking hold' or arrest of a person, especially of the Lord Jesus and His preachers by the Jews. perhaps we are to assume that it was the Jewish mindset which likewise had taken hold of their mental outlook and was stopping them from seeing the obvious fulfilment of the Lord's words.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: What communications are these you have one with another as you walk? And they stood still, looking sad</em>- Being challenged with this question stopped them in their tracks. And the Lord so often used, and uses, questions- in order to likewise stop us in our tracks, as we come to self-realization. The Lord's questions were rhetorical, because He wanted to elicit self-understanding. "Looking sad" is a word only found elsewhere about the Jewish orthodox in <em><a href='B:470 6:16'>Mat 6:16</a></em>. As noted on :16, their eyes, their worldview and outlook, were influenced by them, they looked like them; and so refused to perceive the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And one of them, named Cleopas, answering said to him: Do you live alone in Jerusalem, and therefore do not know the things which have happened there recently?</em>- The zeal of Mary to be an obedient witness is remarkable. All Jerusalem knew the story of the risen Jesus still on “the third day” after His death- only someone totally cut off from society would have not heard this news, as Cleopas commented (<em><a href='B:490 24:18'>Luk 24:18</a></em> Gk:). If the whole of Jerusalem knew the story about the resurrected Jesus on the third day after His death, and the male disciples were evidently still nervous and doubtful about everything, it must be that this tremendous spread of the news had been achieved by Mary and the women. &nbsp;</p><p>Even after His resurrection, in His moment of glory and triumph, the Lord appeared in very ordinary working clothes, so that He appeared as a gardener. The disciples who met Him on the Emmaus road asked whether He ‘lived alone’ and therefore was ignorant of the news of the city about the death of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 24:18'>Luk 24:18</a></em> RV). The only people who lived alone, outside of the extended family, were drop outs or weirdos. It was almost a rude thing for them to ask a stranger. The fact was, the Lord appeared so very ordinary, even like a lower class social outcast type. And this was the exalted Son of God. We gasp at His humility, but also at His earnest passion to remind His followers of their common bond with Him, even in His exaltation. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: What things? And they told him the things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, that he was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people</em>- So often, if not always, the Lord's questions are to elicit self knowledge from us. "The things concerning Jesus::." is a term Luke's record will later use as a definition of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>). And the Lord will go on to expound to them "the things concerning" Himself (:27). But they knew these "things concerning" Him. They knew, but did not believe the reality of "the things" they knew. This progression from knowledge to belief is the essence of our conversion and reconversion.</p>


text:
<p><em>And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death and crucified him</em>- Even at that early stage it was clear to all that the responsibility for the Lord's death was with the Jews and not the Romans. The very words for "delivered up to be crucified" were several times on the Lord's lips, predicting His fate. But He had always continued with the prediction that then after three days, He would rise again (:7; <em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>). They were repeating His words but had subconsciously removed the idea of resurrection from them. All was in place for the penny to drop- in realizing that now, after three days, the Lord had indeed risen and appeared. </p>


text:
<p><em>But we had hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Moreover besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass</em>- When the night seems darkest, dawn often breaks. And so it was again here; the passing of three days meant they assumed that His body had now decomposed. When in fact the passing of those three days meant that now was the time to expect His predicted resurrection.</p><p>The two on the way to Emmaus commented that they thought Christ would have “redeemed” Israel (<em><a href='B:490 24:21'>Luk 24:21</a></em>). A:D. Norris makes a powerful case for one of those two being Peter (<em>Peter: Fisher Of Men</em> p:109). The only other time the Greek word is used is (again?) by Peter in <em><a href='B:670 1:18-19'>1Pe 1:18-19</a></em>, where he reassures his weary sheep that “Ye were redeemed by the precious blood of Christ”- as if to say ‘it’s really all wonderfully true! I too doubted it, as you know. But I know now that it is true; even I was redeemed, from the shame of those denials, and so much else. Believe it with me!’. After all the Lord had taught about salvation, the eloquent and yet simple explanation of salvation in the Kingdom through His death, Peter and the others thought that His cross (“precious blood”) hadn’t brought redemption. How weak their understanding was, how slow they were. And Peter again is gently prodding from his own example and pattern of growth: ‘Can’t you see the reality of it all? Or are you still as inexplicably slow to see it all as I was?’. &nbsp;</p><p>The disciples on the road to Emmaus were like Nicodemus. They made a great commitment to tell a stranger that they had believed in Jesus of Nazareth and His words about resurrection (<em><a href='B:490 24:19-21'>Luk 24:19-21</a></em>). Remember how at that very time, the disciples locked themselves indoors for fear of the Jews. They said what they did and took the ‘chance’ they did, without believing Jesus would rise. They were motivated by the cross to simply stand up and be counted, with no hope of future reward.</p><p>The Jewish public looked for Jesus to release them from Roman bondage; but He patiently and repeatedly explained that His Kingdom was not of this world, rather would it come in a political sense at His second coming; and the essence of the Kingdom and liberation He preached was spiritual and internal, rather than physical and external. Yet the disciples didn't get it- they thought Jesus would've redeemed Israel there and then (<em><a href='B:490 24:21'>Luk 24:21</a></em>). Their total lack of attention to the Lord's words is brought out by their lament that now was "the third day" after His death- when this ought to have been the very day they were looking for His resurrection!</p>


text:
<p><em>Further, certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb</em>- The disciples were "astonished" (<em><a href='B:490 24:22'>Luk 24:22</a></em>) and "marvelled" (<em><a href='B:490 24:12'>Luk 24:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:41'>Luk 24:41</a></em>). The same two Greek words recur together in <em><a href='B:510 2:7'>Act 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:12'>Act 2:12</a></em>, describing how the crowd to whom the disciples preached soon afterwards were likewise "amazed and marvelled". Perhaps this was how and why the disciples (and Peter especially) could achieve such a rapport with that crowd- because they had experienced those very same feelings when their faith and understanding was so weak.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they did not find his body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive</em>- The women said they had seen "a vision of Angels" rather than actual Angels (<em><a href='B:490 24:23'>Luk 24:23</a></em>). They like the disciples later (<em><a href='B:490 24:37'>Luk 24:37</a></em>) wished to spiritualize everything rather than face the fact that the real Christ had risen in concrete and actual reality. The theological tendency to spiritualize the person of the Lord Jesus likewise has its psychological roots in a difficulty in believing the wonderful literal truths of the Lord's resurrection, current personal existence, and His literal return.</p>


text:
<p><em>And some of them that were with us went to the tomb, and found it even as the women had said. But him they saw not</em>- Luke stresses that they had failed to believe the chosen witnesses of the Lord's resurrection; they were caught up in the secular spirit of their age, which refused to accept female testimony. And all this paves the way to the commission for them, the one time disbelievers and doubters without excuse, to go out and tell the world to believe in the Lord's resurrection, warning that there was going to be condemnation for those who disbelieved their message (<em><a href='B:480 16:16'>Mar 16:16</a></em>). Their appeal to men was therefore on the basis that they themselves had so miserably failed to believe. We note too that the claim that John saw and believed (<em><a href='B:500 20:8'>Joh 20:8</a></em>) was perhaps only momentary faith that then dwindled; or maybe the idea was that he only later believed:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!</em>- The Lord by contrast had been of quick understanding in spiritual things (<em><a href='B:290 11:3'>Isa 11:3</a></em>). Their slowness was inexcusable; it was related to a "hardness" of heart (<em><a href='B:480 16:14'>Mar 16:14</a></em>). They ought to have connected the events experienced not simply with the Lord's own predictions, but with the words in "all" the prophetic scriptures about the sufferings and resurrection of Messiah. We might be inclined to think that it is a tall order to discern these things in "all" the prophets. But the Lord expected it of His men. Misunderstanding and blindness to the things of God's word are therefore presented here as worthy of rebuke by the Lord Jesus. Our insistence that 'I just didn't see it' is not of itself an excuse. This should provide us every motivation in our Bible reading. The Father and Son are eager to reveal themselves to us. We are asked to have active minds, ever sensitive to the implications of God's words; just as we would be to the words of the 'other' in any human relationship. </p>


text:
<p><em>Was it not necessary that the Christ suffer these things and so enter into his glory?</em>- The idea of a suffering Messiah is somewhat veiled in the Old Testament, we might think. But the Lord expected them to see the obvious necessity of what had happened; that glory could only be entered through suffering. We note that the Lord felt He had 'entered glory' even before His ascension. And yet there is not a word about this in the historical account of His resurrection. </p>


text:
<p><em>And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted for them from all the scriptures, the things concerning himself</em>- This way of beginning in the prophets and explaining the "things concerning" the Lord Jesus was copied by Philip (<em><a href='B:510 8:35'>Act 8:35</a></em>). Luke, who also wrote Acts, is seeking to develop the idea of a continuity of witness between the Lord and all those in Him. "The things concerning" the Lord Jesus were the same things taught by Philip (<em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>). "He interpreted for them" may be seen as an act of His grace; for He has just implied that they were unreasonably slow to have interpreted the prophets; He had expected them to interpret them as pointing to the things of His sufferings and resurrection. And so He does it for them here. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they drew near to the village where they were going, and he made as though he would go further</em>- We recall how the Lord appeared as if He would have walked past the suffering disciples in the boat, and how He surely pretended to be asleep in the midst of a storm in another boat. He has this style to this day, not responding immediately to requests, or appearing to be distant- in order to pique our desire for Him. And so it worked here; they responded by desperately urging Him to abide with them, to eat with them in their home- the ultimate sign of spiritual fellowship and acceptance. But this was provoked by His apparent distance from them and appearance of wanting to go away from them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they urged him, saying: Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent. And he went in to stay with them</em>- This is all very much the language of John's gospel about the Lord wanting to abide with people. We also have here presented the ideal image of a house church, with the Lord welcomed in and abiding through His Spirit. The Comforter passages assure us that the Lord's presence is just as much with us through His Spirit as it was in physical terms. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to eat, he took the bread, and blessing and breaking it, he gave to them</em>- This is framed in the language of the breaking of bread service. It leads us to conclude that the 'breaking of bread' was simply an eating together; for to share food together at the same table was a religious act. Likewise Paul's sharing of food with his fellow passengers during the storm of Acts 27 is presented as a breaking of bread. Clearly the table was open to all, and was devoid of the fences placed around it by later Christian development. </p>


text:
<p><em>And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight</em>- The opening of their eyes is not to be taken as meaning that it was not their fault that they failed to perceive Him. For they are upbraided for being so slow of perception; but that hardness of heart (<em><a href='B:480 16:14'>Mar 16:14</a></em>) was confirmed, as Pharaoh’s was, by the Lord hardening their hearts. And that was only removed by grace. </p><p>He was recognized by the Emmaus disciples in the way that He broke bread. The way He handled the loaf, His mannerisms, His way of speaking and choice of language, were evidently the same after His resurrection as before (<em><a href='B:490 24:30-31'>Luk 24:30-31</a></em>). The Lord is the same today as yesterday:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to each other: Was not our heart burning within us, while he spoke to us on the road, while he opened up the scriptures to us?</em>- Their hearts were burning, on fire, with the unexpressed sense that this just might be the Lord. The opening of their eyes is paralleled here with the opening of the Old Testament scriptures. But academic understanding, the gift of hearing correct interpretation, left their eyes still closed, although their hearts / minds were on fire. It was still by grace that their eyes were opened to the real implications of all that wonderful Biblical exposition; that of itself did not open their eyes. There still had to be that higher hand, that other element.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together, and those that were with them</em>- Note that the great commission to preach which follows was first given to “the eleven and those with him”, i:e. the women. <em><a href='B:510 1:13-14'>Act 1:13-14</a></em> speaks of “the eleven and the women”- the same two groups. The great commission was not therefore solely given to the eleven. Their finding the "eleven" there rather precludes the otherwise attractive suggestion of Lightfoot and A:D. Norris that one of the two on the road to Emmaus was Peter. Likewise the two were told that the Lord had appeared to Peter (:34).</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying: The Lord has indeed risen, and has appeared to Simon!</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>. The graciously unrecorded appearing of the risen Lord to Peter (<em><a href='B:530 15:5'>1Co 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:34'>Luk 24:34</a></em>) may have involved the Lord simply appearing to Him, without words. It was simply the assurance that was there in the look on the face of the Lord. It was not until the meeting by the lake in Galilee in John 21 that the Lord raised Peter's denials with him. And this sets us an example in when and how to deal with issues. There is a time and place, and not always at first meeting. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they told the things that had happened on the road, and how he was known to them by the breaking of the bread</em>- The Lord held the memorial meeting as a keeping of a Passover, and yet He changed some elements of it. In like manner He was made known to the disciples “in the breaking of bread", perhaps because it was usual for the host to say the blessing before the meal, and yet Jesus the stranger, the guest, presumed to lead the prayer. We have established here the idea of the Lord's special manifestation at the breaking of bread meeting. He was and still is known to us in the breaking of bread:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And as they spoke these things, he stood in the midst of them, and said to them: Peace to you!</em>- The Lord was aware of their sense of guilt over deserting Him, and in not perceiving the obvious necessity of His resurrection. His first word to them was therefore an assurance of "peace", a term usually used in the Bible in the context of peace with God through forgiveness. </p>


text:
<p><em>But they were terrified and afraid, and supposed that they saw a ghost</em>- Yet again they are presented as lacking in faith and discernment; even the two who had just met the Lord in their own home. They preferred to think of Him as some disembodied spirit rather than face up to the amazing truth that He was before them in real, bodily, personal form. The theological tendencies towards belief in disembodied existence and the spiritualizing of the Lord's resurrection are likewise reflections of a basic lack of faith in the most challenging of realities; that the body of Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and He exist now in a personal form, and shall likewise return.</p>


text:
<h4><em>And he said to them: Why are you disturbed? And why do questions arise in your heart?</em>- "Questions" is literally 'reasonings'. 'It could be this, might be that::. who knows for sure' is therefore exposed as at times an excuse for lack of faith in challenging realities. Noting this is not to say that all things Biblical are clear and capable of simplistic explanation. Rather is it a caveat against dodging the requirement of simple faith by complex reasoning. We think of the Lord's criticism of "the depths of satan as they speak" noted on <em><a href='B:730 2:24'>Rev 2:24</a></em>. The disciples likely had considered all manner of conspiracy theories and wild possibilities, rather than face up to the simple requirements of faith. They had likewise been "disturbed" when they saw the Lord walking on the water and had again concluded it was a ghost (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 14:26'>Mat 14:26</a></em>). They were intended to have learned from that failure, just as we too are taught by our failures and are expected to build upon them for greater tests yet to come. The Lord had urged them not to be "troubled" (s:w. "disturbed") in <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>. He is now enquiring why those words of His had been ignored by them. </h4>


text:
<p><em>See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see! For a ghost has not flesh and bones, as you see me having</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>. He is concerned at their excusing their lack of faith in Him by their various wrong ideas about disembodied existence. Here we see how theological error, such as belief in ghosts or an immortal soul, leads us away from simple faith. </p><p>Note that whilst flesh and <em>blood</em> cannot inherit the Kingdom, the risen, immortal&nbsp;Lord Jesus described Himself as flesh and <em>bones.</em> In fact, we find that "flesh and bones" &nbsp; are often paralleled (<em><a href='B:10 2:23'>Gen 2:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 10:11'>Job 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 33:21'>Job 33:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 38:3'>Psa 38:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 14:30'>Pro 14:30</a></em>), and simply mean 'the person', or as the Lord put it on that occasion, "I myself". We ourselves will be in the Kingdom, with similar personalities we have now [that's a very challenging thought of itself]. "Flesh" doesn't necessarily have to refer, in every instance, to something condemned. Who we are now is who we will essentially be in the eternity of God's Kingdom. Let's not allow any idea that somehow our flesh / basic being is so awful that actually, the essential "I myself" will be dissolved beneath the wrath of God at the judgment. The Lord is "the saviour of the body" and will also save our "spirit" at the last day; so that we, albeit with spirit rather than blood energizing us, will live eternally. Understanding things this way enables us to perceive more forcefully the eternal importance of who we develop into as persons, right now. The Buddhist belief that we will ultimately not exist, that such 'Nirvana' is the most wonderful thing to hope for, appears at first hearing a strange 'hope' to be shared by millions of followers. But actually, it's the same essential psychology as that behind the idea that 'I' will not exist in the Kingdom of God, I will be given a new body, person and character. It's actually saying the same- I won't exist. And it's rooted in a terribly low self-image, a dis-ease with ourselves, a lack of acceptance of ourselves as the persons whom God made us and develops us into. Whilst of course our natures will be changed, so that we can be immortal, it is <em>we</em> who will be saved; our body will be resurrected, made new, and our spirit "saved" in that day, reunited with our renewed and immortal bodies. We have eternal life in the sense that who we are now, in spiritual terms, is who we will eternally be. Our spirit, the essential us, is in this sense immortal; it’s remembered with the Lord. In this sense, not even death itself, nor time itself, can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 8:35-39'>Rom 8:35-39</a></em>). Just as we still love someone after they have died, remembering as they do who they were and still are to us, so it is with the love of God for the essential us. Hence <em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em> speaks of how a “gentle and calm disposition” or spirit is in fact “imperishable” (NAB)- because that spirit of character will be eternally remembered. This is why personality and character, rather than physical works, are of such ultimate and paramount importance. How we speak now is in a way, how we will eternally speak- I think that's the idea of <em><a href='B:240 12:19'>Pro 12:19</a></em>: "The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment". Our "way" of life and being is how we will eternally be- and for me that solves the enigma of <em><a href='B:240 12:28'>Pro 12:28</a></em>: "In the way of righteousness is life; and in the pathway thereof there is no death". In Jeremiah 18, God likens Himself to a potter working with us the clay. We can resist how He wants us to be, and He can make us into something else::. we are soft clay until the 'firing'; and the day of firing is surely the day of judgment. The implication is that in this life we are soft clay; but the day of judgment will set us hard as the persons we have become, or have been made into, in this life. </p><p>The disciples thought the resurrected Christ was a spirit, a ghost. They returned to their old superstitions. Yet He didn’t respond by lecturing them about the death state or that all existence is only bodily, much as He could have done. Instead He adopted for a moment their position and reasoned from it: “A spirit has not flesh and bones as you see me have”. The essence of His concern was their doubt in Him and His resurrection, rather than their return to wrong superstitions.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet</em>- He wanted them to handle Him; and John opens his letters in <em><a href='B:690 1:1-4'>1Jn 1:1-4</a></em> by saying that this was exactly what they had done. Their reticence to touch Him was perhaps due to their sense that by doing so they would have to jettison all beliefs in ghosts and disembodied existence. We too can refuse to even consider evidence because too much is at stake if it is true.</p>


text:
<p><em>And while they still disbelieved for joy and wondered, he said to them: Have you here anything to eat?</em>- The disciples are described as sleeping for sorrow, not believing for joy. Both their unbelief and their sorrow and failure to support the Lord in His time of need are not really excusable by either sorrow nor joy. And yet the Lord generously imputes these excuses to His men, such is His love for them. They are described as being “glad” when they saw the risen Lord (<em><a href='B:500 20:20'>Joh 20:20</a></em>). Yet actually they didn’t believe at that time- for <em><a href='B:490 24:41'>Luk 24:41</a></em> generously says that they “believed not for joy”. And they assumed that Jesus was a phantom, not the actual, concrete, bodily Jesus. Placing the records together doesn’t give a very positive image of the disciples at this time. And yet the record is so positive about them. The disciples are said not to have believed "for joy" (<em><a href='B:490 24:41'>Luk 24:41</a></em>). But the Lord upbraided them for their arrant foolishness and plain unbelief. They slept, we are told, “for sorrow”- when they should have stayed awake as commanded. </p><p>One hallmark of the spiritual way of life is an indomitably <em>positive spirit</em>. Not a simplistic naivety, blindly hoping for the best in an almost fatalistic way. But as the Father and Son are so essentially positive, so will we be, if we absorb something of His Spirit:&nbsp; Thus the disciples are said not to have believed "for joy". But the Lord upbraided them for their arrant foolishness and plain unbelief.</p><p>Joy isn't really a cause for disbelief. It's the grace in the inspired record which makes that excuse for them. They preferred to spiritualize everything, as many do today, rather than face the actual implications of a Lord who is for real. They accepted it was Jesus, and yet they still disbelieved. Note in this context how the women said they had seen "a vision of Angels" rather than actual Angels (<em><a href='B:490 24:23'>Luk 24:23</a></em>).</p><p>This incident of eating was to yet again reassure them that He was for real. Note how later on, by the sea of Tiberias, Jesus again ate before them- He had to keep repeating Himself to get it home to them, that He was for real. If those men, who had heard the many predictions of resurrection from the lips of the Lord Himself, found it hard to believe He was for real when He stood before them- how understandably hard it is for us to grasp that He is for real.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they gave him a piece of a boiled fish</em>- Eating fish was something which they had likely seen Him do in their days together in Galilee. There was a continuity between His mortal life and His immortal life. The same Jesus who walked the streets of Galilee shall come again, and be essentially the same. For immortality does not swallow up basic personality; it is that which is in fact saved.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he took it and ate before them</em>- Taking and eating before the disciples is the very language of the last supper (<em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em>). He was replicating both the last supper and the meal He had just had with the two in Emmaus. Eating together was a sign of acceptance and religious fellowship; the Lord was and is demonstrating that He accepts us in that He shares food with us. The form of that food is not important; here He uses fish rather than bread.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: These are my words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things necessary be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms concerning me</em>- As the resurrected Lord stood before the disciples, he says: “These are my words which I spoke to you”, and goes on to say that His resurrection had been predicted throughout the Old Testament words of God. He had made both His words and the words of God into flesh as He stood there. His words were as it were of the same nature as the words of the Old Testament about Him. He didn’t say ‘Look everyone, I’ve risen!’. He just stood there, reminded them of the words of the prophets, and His own words, and said “These are my words”. He was so powerfully and completely the word made flesh. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then opened he their mind so that they might understand the scriptures</em>- He had already opened the Scriptures to the two from Emmaus, and had opened their eyes. Now He does that to the whole group, and therefore does this a second time to the two from Emmaus.</p>&nbsp;<p>Prophecy does not have to refer to specific, lexical statements; it can refer to the spirit and implication behind the recorded words. Thus "the Scriptures" prophesied Christ's resurrection after three days (<em><a href='B:490 24:45'>Luk 24:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:3-4'>1Co 15:3-4</a></em>); but nowhere is this explicitly prophesied. It is implied in the spirit behind the types, e:g. of Jonah and <em><a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a></em>. So as 'prophecy' is not just the words but the spirit behind them, so prayer is not just the words, but the spirit in the man's heart who prays, even if the words come out wrong. See on <em><a href='B:510 10:4'>Act 10:4</a></em>. </p><p><em>And he said to them: Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day</em>- This may be the rubric He used; quoting various Old Testament passages ["Thus it is written"] and then explaining how they meant that the Christ should suffer and rise again. This is how our teaching should also proceed; quoting the actual text of Scripture and then offering interpretation of the words read. </p>


text:
<p>records Luke's version of the great preaching commission given in Mark 16 and Matthew 28. He doesn't record that the Lord actually told the disciples to go out and preach. Instead He says that the OT prophets foretold the world-wide preaching of the Gospel of His death and resurrection, "and you are witnesses of these things". It's as if He's saying, 'If you are a witness to all this, you must be a witness of it to all' (cp. <em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>). If we are witnesses, we will bear witness; we will naturally. We have to; and note how <em><a href='B:30 5:1'>Lev 5:1</a></em> taught that it was a sin not to bear witness / testify when one had been a witness. This may well be consciously alluded to in the language of witness which we have in <em><a href='B:490 24:48'>Luk 24:48</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 10:35-36'>Act 10:35-36</a></em>. The parallel record to the preaching commissions of Mark 16 and Matthew 28 is found in <em><a href='B:490 24:45-47'>Luk 24:45-47</a></em>. There we read how the Lord explained to the disciples that their preaching of the Gospel "among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" was foretold in the Psalms and prophets. So the Bible student asks: <em>Where</em>&nbsp;in the Psalms and prophets? The Lord spoke as if the prophecies about this were copious. There do not seem to be any specific prophecies which speak of the twelve spreading the Gospel from Jerusalem in the first century. Instead we read of the Gospel being spread from Jerusalem <em>in the Kingdom</em>, and often the phrase "all nations" occurs in a Kingdom context, describing how "all nations" will come to worship Christ at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:230 22:27'>Psa 22:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 67:2'>Psa 67:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 72:11'>Psa 72:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 72:17'>Psa 72:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 82:8'>Psa 82:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 86:9'>Psa 86:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 117:1'>Psa 117:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:18-20'>Isa 66:18-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 3:17'>Jer 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:440 2:7'>Hag 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 8:23'>Zec 8:23</a></em>). This selection of "Psalms and prophets" is impressive. Yet the Lord Jesus clearly interpreted these future Kingdom passages as having relevance to the world-wide spreading of the Gospel. "All nations" also occurs in many passages exhorting us to praise Yahweh among all the nations of this world. The reason for this is that God's glory is so great it should be declared as far as possible by us. <em><a href='B:130 16:24-25'>1Ch 16:24-25</a></em> is typical of many such verses: "Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among all nations. <em>For</em>&nbsp;great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised::. for all the gods of the people are idols". World-wide preaching is therefore an aspect of our praise of Yahweh, and as such it is a spiritual work which is timeless. Because the Kingdom is to spread world-wide, we should therefore spread the Good News of this coming Kingdom world-wide. In prospect- and no more than that, let it be noted- the Kingdom has been established in that Christ has all power in Heaven and earth (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>). This is the language of <em><a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a></em> concerning the future Kingdom. The believer must live the Kingdom life now, as far as possible (<em><a href='B:520 13:12-13'>Rom 13:12-13</a></em>). In the Kingdom, we will be spreading the Gospel throughout this planet. In this life too we should live in the spirit of the Kingdom in this regard.</p><p>The preaching of the Gospel was prophesied as <em>beginning</em>&nbsp;at Jerusalem, Jesus said. If this world-wide preaching abruptly finished at the end of the first century, to begin&nbsp;again at Jerusalem in the Kingdom, surely this would be prophesied in the Old Testament? The impression one gets from the Old Testament passages listed above is that the Gospel would begin to spread from Jerusalem, and would <em>go on&nbsp;spreading</em> until the full establishment of the Kingdom. This explains why Christ's command to get up and go world-wide with the Gospel stands for all time. The command to preach to "all nations" would ring bells in Jewish minds with the promises to Abraham, concerning the blessing of forgiveness to come upon "all nations" through Messiah (<em><a href='B:10 18:18'>Gen 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:4'>Gen 26:4</a></em>). Therefore God's people are to preach the Gospel of forgiveness in Christ to "all nations”. The offer of sharing in that blessing did not close at the end of the first century. Putting the "all nations" of the Abrahamic promises together with Christ's preaching commission leads to a simple conclusion: The Hope of Israel now applies to all nations; so go and tell this good news to all nations.</p><p>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 twelve 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>. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em>.</p><p>As the Lord appeals to all nations, so should we. The prophecies which He interpreted as referring to the church spreading the Gospel world-wide are specifically described as prophecies about Him personally (<em><a href='B:490 24:44'>Luk 24:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>: "All things which were written in the prophets and in the psalms, concerning <em>me</em>::. that repentance and remission of sins should be preached::."). Thus the preachers of the Gospel would personally manifest Christ; which accounts for the special sense of His presence which they experience as they do this work (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>).</p><p>Such is the power of our preaching, the possibility which our words of witness give to our hearers. We have such power invested in us! If we are slack to use it, the Lord’s glory is limited, and the salvation of others disabled. As if to bring this home, the New Testament quotes several passages evidently prophetic of the future Kingdom as having their fulfilment in the preaching of the Gospel today:</p><p>- <em><a href='B:290 2:2-4'>Isa 2:2-4</a></em> (the word of Yahweh <em>will</em> go out from Jerusalem) = the ecclesia’s witness to the world today, “beginning at Jerusalem” (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). This, the Lord said, was in fulfilment of the OT prophets- and He could only be referring to those like Isaiah.</p><p>- <em><a href='B:370 9:11-12'>Amo 9:11-12</a></em> had its fulfilment in the work of preaching to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:510 15:13-18'>Act 15:13-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:16-18'>Act 26:16-18</a></em>).</p><p>- Likewise <em><a href='B:290 54:12'>Isa 54:12</a></em> = <em><a href='B:550 4:27'>Gal 4:27</a></em>; we extend the joy of the Kingdom to our hearers.</p><p>- <em><a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 10:15'>Rom 10:15</a></em>.</p><p>- <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 15:12'>Rom 15:12</a></em>.</p><p>The apparent inappropriacy or lack of context of these quotations need not worry us. It is not that they have no future fulfilment They evidently will have, at the Lord’s second coming. But God sees that which shall be as already happening; His perspective is outside of our kind of time. The ecclesia’s preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom to the world is effectively a spreading of the Kingdom to them; in that those who respond properly will ultimately be in God’s Kingdom. But God sees through that gap between their response and the final establishment of the Kingdom; He invites us to see it as if we have spread the Kingdom to them. As we present the Gospel to men and women of all races, we are enabling the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham. The more we preach, the more glorious is their fulfilment This is the power of our Gospel and the preaching of it. Let’s not treat it as something ordinary or optional or to be fitted in to our spare time.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:32'>Act 5:32</a></em>.</p><p><em>You are witnesses of these things</em>- He died and rose as the representative of all men; and therefore this good news should be preached to all kinds and all races of people. Men from all nations were in prospect sprinkled by His blood (<em><a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a></em>); and therefore we must extend the knowledge of this to all men, both in our collective and personal witness. <em><a href='B:490 24:48'>Luk 24:48</a></em> simply comments that the disciples were witnesses to the resurrection and the fact that forgiveness and salvation was therefore potentially available to all men. The parallel records in Mt. and Mk. say that they were told to go out and witness to the resurrection world-wide. Putting them together it is apparent that if we are truly witnesses of the resurrection in our own faith, then part and parcel of this is to take this witness out into our own little worlds. </p><h4>Matthew and Mark record how the Lord told the disciples to go world-wide with the message of His death and resurrection; He commanded them to do this. Luke’s account is different. He reminds them of His death and resurrection, and simply adds: “And you are witnesses of these things”. Not ‘you <em>will be</em>, I’m telling you to be, witnesses…’. The very fact of having seen and known them was of itself an imperative to bear witness to them. This is the outgoing power of the cross:&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em>And I will send to you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high</em>- John's record shows that they disobeyed this, returning to Galilee in disillusion, where the Lord met them again. The disciples then returned from Galilee to Jerusalem and were given the great commission again, as recorded in Matthew and Luke. The sending of what the Father promised refers to the Comforter, the abiding presence of the Lord Jesus in the hearts of His people, to such an extent that His physical absence is more than compensated for by this very real sense of His presence. Being clothed with heavenly power refers to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, given to the disciples to help them take the Gospel to all the world. This is why the implication is that once they had received them, they were not to remain in Jerusalem, but to leave the city and go into all the world. The clothing with miraculous power was the first century manifestation of the gift of the Comforter, but the Comforter was and is a gift for all time.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he led them out until they were as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them</em>- Whilst the disciples went from Bethany to the mount of Olives and there met the Angels, the point of ascension was from Bethany. It has been argued that Bethany counts as part of the mount of Olives, but checking out a map will indicate that this is a forced and desperate claim. He ascended from Bethany; and the next we know we read of them being told by Angels on the mount of Olives that the Lord shall return (<em><a href='B:510 1:12'>Act 1:12</a></em>). I suggest they hurried the two miles to the highest point nearby to watch His slow ascent into Heaven. He is therefore pictured in the house church at Bethany, and ascending from there, with hands raised in blessing upon His church, as the High Priest of the new Israel (<em><a href='B:30 9:22'>Lev 9:22</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven</em>- The blessing would likely have been that of <em><a href='B:40 6:23'>Num 6:23</a></em>, with uplifted hands (:50). And He ascended with those uplifted hands, still uttering blessing upon them. This is how He was to be imagined in Heaven, blessing us, His wondering but obedient people. He died on the cross with hands likewise uplifted, so we are invited to see Him living out the spirit of His death for us even in His ascension and subsequent heavenly glory. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they did homage to him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy</em>- Humanly speaking, they would have felt sad at His departure. But they had great joy. This is in exact fulfilment of the promise of the Comforter; that His physical departure would be more than compensated for by the gift of His spirit in their hearts which would result in His joy being within them. At His physical departure, this blessing was given to them. </p>


text:
<p><em>And were continually in the temple, praising God</em>- They continued to hold the wrong idea that the temple was somehow the sacred space where God was to be praised. Their misunderstandings did not however mean that they were not legitimately in fellowship with the Father and Son. We have noted elsewhere that Luke's concluding words are connected with words at the opening of his gospel (see on :47). And here we have a clear connection with Anna, who was continually in the temple praising God (<em><a href='B:490 2:37'>Luk 2:37</a></em>). That woman is presented as representative of the disciples at this point, and thereby of the entire body of Christ, who are to be continually occupied in God's house with His service, based upon our experience of His Son.</p>


text:
<p>Notes</p><p>(1) G:B. Caird,&nbsp;<em>Christ For Us Today</em>&nbsp;(London: SCM, 1968) p. 79.</p><p>(2) Oscar Cullmann,&nbsp;<em>The Christology Of The New Testament</em>&nbsp;(London: SCM, 1971) p. 261.</p><p>(3) Raymond Brown,&nbsp;<em>The Epistles of John</em>&nbsp;(Garden City: Doubleday, 1982) p. 164.</p><p>(4) C:H. Dodd,&nbsp;<em>The Interpretation Of The Fourth Gospel</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 1960) p. 264.</p><p>(5)&nbsp;<em>The Community of the Beloved Disciple</em>&nbsp;(New York: Paulist, 1979) and in his&nbsp;<em>The Epistles of John</em>&nbsp;(Garden City: Doubleday, 1982). These are lengthy and at times difficult reads, and I can't agree with all the conclusions, and yet I'd heartily recommend them to serious Bible students. One pleasing feature of his writings is his frequent admission that Trinitarian theology is an interpretation of what the NT writers, especially John, actually wrote- and they themselves didn’t have the trinity in mind when they wrote as they did. He comments on the hymn of Philippians 2 about Christ taking the “form of God”: “Many scholars today doubt that “being in the form of God” and “accepting the form of a servant” refers to incarnation”&nbsp;<em>The Community Of The Beloved Disciple</em>&nbsp;p. 46.</p><p><em>And the word was towards God, and the word was Divine</em>- That is a strictly correct translation. The word of the Gospel, which is epitomized in the life and person of the mortal Lord Jesus, was Divine. John is writing for Jews, whose supreme focus upon God led them to ignore the possibility of His deep manifestation in other persons or things. John is emphasizing that the message of the Gospel, the life and person of His Son, is the essence of Him. To believe in God meant to believe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus. To reject that was to reject God Himself.</p><p>Not believing in God and not believing in His word of the Gospel are paralleled in <em><a href='B:690 5:10'>1Jn 5:10</a></em>. God is His word. The word “is” God in that God is so identified with His word. David parallels trusting in God and trusting in His word (<em><a href='B:230 56:3-4'>Psa 56:3-4</a></em>). He learnt this, perhaps, through the experience of his sin with Bathsheba. For in that matter, David "despised the commandment (word) of the Lord::. you despised me" (<em><a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a></em>). David learnt that his attitude to God's word was his attitude to God- for the word of God, in that sense, was and is God. By our words we personally will be condemned or justified- because we too ‘are’ our words. When Samuel told Eli of the prophetic vision which he had received, Eli commented: “It is the Lord” (<em><a href='B:90 3:18'>1Sa 3:18</a></em>). He meant ‘It is the word of the Lord’; but he saw God as effectively His word. “The word”, the “word of the Kingdom”, “the Gospel”, “the word of God” are all parallel expressions throughout the Gospels. The records of the parable of the sower speak of both “the word of God” (<em><a href='B:490 8:11-15'>Luk 8:11-15</a></em>) and “the word of the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>). The word / Gospel of God refers to the message which is about God, just as the “word of the Kingdom” means the word which is about the Kingdom, rather than suggesting that the word is one and the same as the Kingdom. “The gospel of God” means the Gospel which is about God, not the Gospel which is God Himself in person (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:8-9'>1Th 2:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:17'>1Pe 4:17</a></em>). So, the word of God, the word which was God, the Gospel of God, was made flesh in Jesus. “The word of Jesus” and “the word of God” are interchangeable (<em><a href='B:510 19:10'>Act 19:10</a></em> cp. 20; <em><a href='B:590 1:8'>1Th 1:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 2:13'>Joh 2:13</a></em>); as is “the word of the Gospel” and “the word of Jesus” (<em><a href='B:510 15:7'>Act 15:7</a></em> cp. 35). The word wasn’t directly equivalent to Jesus; He manifested the word, He showed us by His life and words and personality what the Kingdom was like, what God is like; for the word which He “became” was about God, and about the Kingdom. He was the entire Gospel, of God and of His Kingdom, made flesh. He could speak of His words abiding in us (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>), and yet make this parallel to He personally abiding in us (<em><a href='B:500 15:4-5'>Joh 15:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:20'>Joh 14:20</a></em>). "The word was God" can't mean that the word is identical with God- for the word "was with God", or "was in God's presence". The NEB therefore renders: "What God was, the Word was". G:B. Caird suggests the translation: "In the beginning was a purpose, a purpose in the mind of God, a purpose which was God's own being" (1).</p><p>In the person of Jesus, there was an uncanny and never before, never again experienced congruence between a human being and his words. And our witness should be modelled on His pattern- we should be the living embodiment of the doctrines we preach. The message or word of Jesus was far more than the words that He spoke from His lips. In one sense, He revealed to the disciples everything that He had heard from the Father (<em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em>); and yet in another, more literal sense, He lamented that there was much more He could tell them in words, but they weren't able to bear it (<em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>). His person and character, which they would spend the rest of their lives reflecting upon, was the 'word' of God in flesh to its supremacy; but this doesn't necessarily mean that they heard all the literal words of God drop from the lips of Jesus. I have shown elsewhere that both the Father and Son use language, or words, very differently to how we normally do. The manifestation of God in Christ was not only a matter of the Christ speaking the right words about God. For as He said, His men couldn't have handled that in its entirety. The fullness of manifestation of the word was in His life, His character, and above all in His death, which <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> may be specifically referring to in speaking of how John himself beheld the glory of the word being made flesh. It seems to me that many of us need to learn these things in our hearts; for our preaching has so often been a matter of literal words, Bible lectures, seminars, flaunting our correct exposition of Bible passages and themes. When the essential witness must be of a life lived, a making flesh of the word which is God. To ignore this will lead us into literalistic definitions of literal words, arguments about statements of faith, endless additions of words and clauses to clarify other words:::whereas " the word" which the Lord Jesus manifested was not merely human words. There was far more to it than that. It was and is and must ever be a word made flesh. This is why nothing can replace personal witness and personal, one on one teaching as the way that conversions are really made. And yet increasingly we tend to try to use media to preach- TV, CDs, internet, video, tapes etc. There is nothing personally 'live' in all this; there can be no communication of truths through their incarnation in our own personalities. And yet this was how God communicated with us in His Son; and how we too reveal His word in flesh to others.</p><p>“The word was God”. The words of the Lord Jesus were the words which He had 'heard' from the Father. But this doesn't mean that He was a mere fax machine, relaying literal words which the Father whispered in His ear to a listening world. When the disciples finally grasped something of the real measure of Jesus, they gasped: "You do not even need that a person ask you questions" (<em><a href='B:500 16:30'>Joh 16:30</a></em>). They had previously treated Jesus as a Rabbi, of whom questions were asked by his disciples and then cleverly answered by him. They finally perceived that here was more than a Jewish Rabbi. They came to that conclusion, they imply, not by asking Him questions comprised of words and hearing the cleverly ordered words that comprised His answers. The words He spoke and manifested were of an altogether higher quality and nature than mere lexical items strung together. Here was none other than the Son of God, the Word made flesh in person. And this, of course, was why the unbelieving Jews just didn't understand the literal words which He spoke. They asked Him to speak plainly to them (<em><a href='B:500 10:24'>Joh 10:24</a></em>); and the Lord's response was that their underlying problem was not with His language, but with the simple fact that they did not believe that He, the carpenter from Nazareth, was the Son of God. Is it going too far to suggest that all intellectual failure to understand the teaching of Jesus is rooted in a simple lack of faith and perception of Him as a person?</p><p>As the word of God, the message of God in flesh, Jesus was God’s agent, and as such could be counted as God, although He was not God Himself in person. P. Borgen brings this out in an article ‘God’s Agent In The Fourth Gospel’ (2). He quotes the halakhic or legal principle of the rabbis, that “An agent is the like the one who sent him”, and quotes the Babylonian Talmud Qiddushin 43a: “He ranks as his master’s own person”. This, therefore, was how those in the 1st century who understood Jesus to be God’s agent would have understood Him. John Robinson, one time Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, observed that popular Christianity “says simply that Jesus was God, in such a way that the terms ‘Christ’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable. But nowhere in Biblical usage is this so. The New Testament says that Jesus was the Word of God, it says that God was in Christ, it says that Jesus is the Son of God; but it does not say that Jesus was God, simply like that” (3). And he goes on to apply this good sense to an analysis of the phrase “the word was God” in John 1. He argues that this translation is untenable because: “In Greek this translation “the word was God” would most naturally be represented by ‘God’ with the article, not&nbsp;<em>theos</em>&nbsp;but&nbsp;<em>ho theos</em>. Equally, St. John is not saying that Jesus is a ‘divine’ man… that would be&nbsp;<em>theios</em>. The NEB, I believe, gets the sense pretty exactly with its rendering, ‘And what God was, the Word was’. In other words, if one looked at Jesus, one saw God”- in the sense that His perfect character reflected that of the Father (4). The lack of article "the before "God" is significant. "In omitting the article before&nbsp;<em>theos</em>, the author intends to say that the Logos is not actually God but only::. a divine emanation" (5).</p><p>Notes<br/>(1) G:B. Caird<em>, The Language And Imagery Of The Bible</em>&nbsp;(London: Duckworth, 1988) p. 102:&nbsp;<br/>(2) In&nbsp;<em>Religions In Antiquity</em>&nbsp;(Leiden: Brill, 1968) pp. 137-148.<br/>(3) John Robinson,&nbsp;<em>Honest To God</em>&nbsp;(London: S:C:M:, 1963) p. 70.<br/>(4)&nbsp;<em>Ibid</em>&nbsp;p. 71.<br/>(5) Oscar Cullmann,&nbsp;<em>The Christology Of The New Testament</em>&nbsp;(London: S:C:M:, 1971) p. 266.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:2'>Joh 1:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This existed, in the beginning, with God</em>- The word, not the Lord personally, existed in the beginning with God. As noted above, the essence of the Gospel was not made up by God at the time of Jesus, as John's Jewish audience tended to think. His purpose in His Son had been from the beginning; in whatever way one wants to read "the beginning". Be it the beginning of the Christian message or the beginning of creation. God is not making up His story as He goes along, as it were. That was the typical Jewish objection to the Gospel; that it is something new, and they preferred to stay with what they considered to be the original. The point is that the original essence of God was the things concerning His Son and His Kingdom.</p><p>The Hebrew idea of being "with" someone can carry the idea of being 'in their presence'. <em><a href='B:120 5:1-2'>2Ki 5:1-2</a></em> speak of how Naaman was "with" his master, and the RVmg. gives "before" or 'in the presence of' as a translation of this idiom. He is paralleled in the record with the maid who was "before" (RVmg:) her mistress, Naaman's wife. When we read that the word was "with" God, the idea is that the word was always before God, in His presence, in His perspective. Applied to an abstract idea like the logos, surely the idea is that God always had this plan for a Son before Him, in His presence / perspective.</p><p>The idea of a “word” being “with” God or even another person has an Old Testament background. Job comments: “Yet these things you have concealed in your heart, I know that this is with you" <em><a href='B:220 10:13'>Job 10:13</a></em>; NIV “in your mind”). Similarly <em><a href='B:220 23:13-14'>Job 23:13-14</a></em>: "What his soul desires, that he does, for he performs what is appointed for me, and many such decrees are with him". God’s essential plans are therefore ‘with Him’, in this figure of speech. When those plans are revealed in words, i:e. they are openly verbalized, it would be true to say: "I will instruct you in the power of God; what is with the Almighty I will not conceal" (<em><a href='B:220 27:11'>Job 27:11</a></em>). Wisdom, personified as a woman, was “with God” before creation- it was not ‘with’ the sea, but it was ‘with’ God (<em><a href='B:220 28:14'>Job 28:14</a></em>). To hold a plan in one's own mind is to have it ‘with’ them. The Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:10 40:14'>Gen 40:14</a></em> bears this out, when Joseph is begged: “Remember me with yourself”. So for the essential purpose of God in His Son to be ‘with’ Him does not in any sense imply that a person was literally ‘with’ God in Heaven. Note the parallel between the word of God and the work of God in <em><a href='B:230 106:13'>Psa 106:13</a></em>: “They soon forgot his works; they waited not for his counsel”. Whatever God says / plans comes to concrete fulfilment; and the idea of a Son was always in His mind. That word became flesh, became real and actual, in the person of Jesus.</p><p>The basic idea in John 1 is repeated in Proverbs 8. In the beginning, there was a logos / word / intention with the Father. His ‘idea’ of having a Son was not thought up at the last minute, as some sort of expediency in order to cope with the unexpected problem of human sin, as some of the critics and false teachers of the first century taught. In fact, it wouldn’t be going too far to say that John actually has Proverbs 8 in mind when speaking about the logos being in the beginning with the Father. <em><a href='B:240 8:22-31'>Pro 8:22-31</a></em> (ASV) reads: “Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him, Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men”.</p><p>The key issue is whether “wisdom” in Proverbs is in fact the Lord Jesus personally. A brief glance at Proverbs surely indicates that wisdom is being personified as a woman. Wisdom in Proverbs stands at the gates and invites men to come listen to her. She dwells with prudence (<em><a href='B:240 8:12'>Pro 8:12</a></em>), and in Solomon’s time cried out to men as they entered the city (<em><a href='B:240 8:1-3'>Pro 8:1-3</a></em>). None of these things are intended to be taken literally. “Wisdom” is wisdom- albeit personified. Wisdom was “possessed” by God- and yet the Hebrew word translated “possessed” is defined by Strong as meaning ‘to create’. When God started His “way” or path with men, He had principles and purpose. He didn’t make up His principles as He went along. And this was what was being said by John’s first century critics. Therefore John alluded to Proverbs 8 in explaining that the essential purpose of the Father was all summarized and epitomized in the person of His Son; and that logos was created / conceived by the Father from the very beginning. Note that <em><a href='B:240 8:24-25'>Pro 8:24-25</a></em> describes wisdom as being “brought forth” by the Father from the beginning. Again, God as it were hatched a plan. Even if we were to equate wisdom with Jesus personally, He was still created / brought forth from the Father. Somewhat different to the false Trinitarian notion of an ‘uncreate’ Jesus who ‘eternally existed’. Wisdom was the “master workman” (<em><a href='B:240 8:30'>Pro 8:30</a></em>), or ‘the one trusted / believed in’ (Heb:)- in the sense that all of God’s natural creation was made according to and reflective of the principles of “wisdom”. John’s allusion to Proverbs 8 shows that this “wisdom” was above all to be embodied and epitomized in God’s Son. From this it follows that the whole of the natural creation was designed with the Lord Jesus in mind. Somehow it speaks of Him; will be used by Him; and will in some sense be liberated and redeemed by Him from “the bondage of corruption” to share the glorious liberty of us God’s children (<em><a href='B:520 8:21-24'>Rom 8:21-24</a></em>). And perhaps this is why we sense that the Son of God was strangely at peace with the natural creation around Him, and could so effortlessly extract deep spiritual lessons from the birds, flowers and clouds around Him. “Then I was by Heb. toward him” (<em><a href='B:240 8:30'>Pro 8:30</a></em>) is the idea behind the Greek text of <em><a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a></em>: “The word was toward God”. It wasn’t Jesus personally who was with God or God-ward; it was the word / wisdom /&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;which was, and this was then “made flesh” in the person of the Lord Jesus. And this&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;was the "wisdom" in Proverbs.</p><p>We’ve demonstrated that John’s Gospel begins with the idea that the “word” of God in the Old Testament was made flesh in the person of the Lord Jesus. But John actually continues that theme throughout his Gospel. He continually refers to things which the Jews saw symbols of the Torah- and applies them to Jesus. Examples include the bread / manna and water, and also light. The Assumption of Moses speaks of the Torah as “the light that enlightens every man who comes into the world”- and this is exactly the language of <em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em> about Christ. Bearing this in mind, it is interesting to discover that nearly all the phrases used in the prologue to John’s Gospel are alluding to what Jewish writers had said about the “Wisdom of God”, especially in Proverbs and the apocryphal writings known as the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (1). And they understood “Wisdom” to primarily refer to the Torah. For example, <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> RVmg. states that the Lord Jesus as the word made flesh “tabernacled amongst us”. Yet <em>Sir_24:8</em> speaks of Wisdom ‘tabernacling’ amongst Israel:&nbsp;<em>Skenoo</em>, the verb ‘to tabernacle’, is of course related to the noun skene, the tabernacle. As Israel lived in tents in the wilderness, God too came and lived with them in a tent- called the tabernacle, the tent where God could be met. The idea was that God wasn’t so far from them, He chose to come and be like them- they lived in tents, so He too lived in a tent. He didn't build a huge house or palace to live in- because that's not how His people lived. He ‘tented’ in a tent like them. This pointed forward to the genuine humanity of the Lord Jesus; for the human condition is likened to a tent in <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>. So rather than proving that ‘Jesus was God’, this whole prologue to John’s Gospel actually proves otherwise.</p><h4>The language of pre-existence was applied by the Jews to the Torah and Wisdom, and so when John demonstrates that the ultimate Wisdom / Torah / logos / word which was from the beginning has now been fulfilled in and effectively replaced by Jesus, he’s going to reference that same ‘pre-existence’ language to make his point. As an example, the Mishnah stated (Aboth Nathan) that “Before the world was made the Torah was written and lay in the bosom of God” (2). John’s desire is that his fellow Jews quit these fanciful ideas and realize that right now, in Heaven, the Son of God is in the bosom of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>). He right now is the word-made-flesh. The uninspired Jewish writings spoke of the descent and re-ascent of Wisdom (1 Enoch 42; 4 <em><a href='B:150 5:9'>Ezr 5:9</a></em>; Ezra 2 Bar. 48:36; 3 Enoch <em><a href='B:500 5:12'>Joh 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:3'>Joh 6:3</a></em>), and Philo especially connects Wisdom and the Logos. It seems that these wrong Jewish ideas found their ways into Christianity, and were taken over and wrongly applied to Jesus. Indeed I would go so far as to argue that John's 'Logos' passage in <em><a href='B:500 1:1-14'>Joh 1:1-14</a></em> is in fact a deconstruction of those wrong ideas; he alludes to them and corrects them, just as Moses alluded to incorrect pagan myths of creation and shows a confused Israel in the wilderness what the true story actually was:&nbsp;<br/>________________________________________<br/>Notes<br/>(1) This is shown at great length throughout Rendel Harris,&nbsp;<em>The Origin of The Prologue To St. John’s Gospel</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 1917):&nbsp;<br/>(2) Cited in C:H. Dodd,&nbsp;<em>The Interpretation Of The Fourth Gospel</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 1953) p. 86.</h4>


text:
<p>Consider other occurrences of “made by” in John’s Gospel:<br/><em><a href='B:500 4:14'>Joh 4:14</a></em> The water of the life of Jesus shall be ‘made’ in the believer “a well of water springing up into everlasting life”<br/><em><a href='B:500 5:9'>Joh 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:14'>Joh 5:14</a></em> the lame man “was made” whole<br/><em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em> the believers shall be made (RV ‘shall become’) one flock<br/><em><a href='B:500 12:36'>Joh 12:36</a></em> may be ‘made’, RV ‘become’, “the children of light”<br/><em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em> So shall ye be ‘made’ my disciples<br/><em><a href='B:500 16:20'>Joh 16:20</a></em> Your sorrow shall be turned ‘made’ into joy.</p><h4>All these examples speak of the creative power of the Lord Jesus in human lives, through the agency of the Spirit. This Spirit was poured out as a result of His sacrifice. The very same Greek words are used in <em><a href='B:500 19:36'>Joh 19:36</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 24:21'>Luk 24:21</a></em> in describing the cross: “These&nbsp;<em>things</em>&nbsp;were&nbsp;<em>done</em>&nbsp;s:w. ‘made’". All things of the new creation were made on account of His cross.</h4><p>"Apart from him not a thing came to be" (<em><a href='B:500 1:3'>Joh 1:3</a></em>) is a phrase repeated by the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>, where He says that "apart from me" we can bring forth no spiritual fruit. The things that came into being in <em><a href='B:500 1:3'>Joh 1:3</a></em> would therefore appear to be the things of the new life enabled and empowered in Christ. In this sense Jesus can be described as the creator of a “new creation” (<em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em>), a new world, but a world of persons. The allusion is indeed to the power unleashed at the natural creation but the reference is not to that, but to the new world of believers in Christ. But in practice, it is the word of the Gospel, the message of Jesus, which brings this about in the lives of those who hear and respond to it. We are born again by the word, the “seed” of the living God (<em><a href='B:670 1:23'>1Pe 1:23</a></em> RV mg:). In this arresting, shocking analogy, the “word” of the Gospel, the word which was made flesh in the person of Jesus, is likened to the seed or sperm of God. We were begotten again by “the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creations” (<em><a href='B:660 1:18'>Jas 1:18</a></em>). In God’s word, in all that is revealed in it of the person of our Lord Jesus, we come face to face with the imperative which there is in what we know of Him to be like Him. In this feature of God’s word, as it is in the Bible record and therefore and thereby as it is in and of His Son, we have the ultimate creative power, the dynamism so desperately needed by humanity, to transform our otherwise shapeless and formless lives. And in a multitude of lives, “All things were made by him”. As the Lord Jesus was sent into this world, so are we. We evidently didn’t personally ‘pre-exist’; and so we cannot reason that He did because He was sent by the Father. ‘Sending’ in Scripture can refer to being commissioned to speak forth God’s word (<em><a href='B:290 48:16'>Isa 48:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 3:4-5'>Eze 3:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 2:8-11'>Zec 2:8-11</a></em>). Thus God is often described as sending forth His prophets. We too must allow ourselves to be sent forth as our Lord was, making the word of the Gospel flesh in us as it was in Him. For like Him, we personally are the message which we preach. The word of God / the Gospel is as seed (<em><a href='B:670 1:23'>1Pe 1:23</a></em>); and yet we believers end our probations as seed falling into the ground, which then rises again in resurrection to be given a body and to eternally grow into the unique type of person which we are now developing (<em><a href='B:530 15:38'>1Co 15:38</a></em>). The good seed which is sown is interpreted by the Lord both as the word of God (<em><a href='B:490 8:11'>Luk 8:11</a></em>), and as “the children of the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>). This means that the word of the Gospel becomes flesh in us as it did in our Lord. The word of the Gospel is not, therefore, merely dry theoretical propositions; it elicits a life and a person. We will be changed; not just physically, but we will each be given our own, unique ‘body’, as Paul puts it. There will be eternal continuity between who we now become, and who we grow into throughout eternity. This is the amazing power of the word of the Gospel; for this is the seed, which transforms the essential you and me into a seed which will rise up to great things in God’s future Kingdom. In all this, the Lord was and is our pattern. “All things were made by him”.</p><p>Notes<br/>(1) G:F. Moore,&nbsp;<em>Judaism In The First Centuries Of The Christian Era&nbsp;</em>(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927) Vol. 1 p. 415.<br/>(2) References in James Dunn,&nbsp;<em>Christology In The Making&nbsp;</em>(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980) p. 221.<br/>&nbsp;</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:6'>Joh 1:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It happened that a man of God was sent. His name was John</em>- AV "Sent from God",&nbsp;<em>para&nbsp;</em>God. The similarity of language was in order to emphasize that the in the same way as the Lord was sent from God, so was John. There is no way therefore that such language refers to any superhuman descent of a pre-existent being, because it is used of John the Baptist. Indeed this is but one of many examples of where John’s Gospel uses exalted language to describe the person of Jesus- but actually, if one looks out for it, John uses the very same terms about all of humanity. Here are some examples:&nbsp;</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>About Jesus</td><td>About humanity generally or other human beings</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Came into the world (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em> of “every man”; <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em>. ‘Came into the world’ means ‘to be born’ in <em><a href='B:500 16:21'>Joh 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sent from God (<em><a href='B:500 1:6'>Joh 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 3:2'>Joh 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:29'>Joh 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A man of God (<em><a href='B:500 9:16'>Joh 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:33'>Joh 9:33</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 9:17'>Joh 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:31'>Joh 9:31</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>‘What I saw in my Father’s presence’ (<em><a href='B:500 8:38'>Joh 8:38</a></em>)</td><td>The work of ‘<em>a man</em>&nbsp;who told you the truth as I heard it from God’ (<em><a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>God was His Father</td><td><em><a href='B:500 8:41'>Joh 8:41</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He who has come from God (<em><a href='B:500 8:42'>Joh 8:42</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 8:47'>Joh 8:47</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Father was in Him, and He was in the Father (<em><a href='B:500 10:37'>Joh 10:37</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 15:5-10'>Joh 15:5-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21-23'>Joh 17:21-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Son of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>)</td><td>All believers are ‘the offspring of God Himself’ (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:29'>1Jn 2:29</a></em> -<em><a href='B:690 3:2'>1Jn 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:9'>1Jn 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:7'>1Jn 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:1-3'>1Jn 5:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:8'>1Jn 5:8</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Consecrated and sent into the world (<em><a href='B:500 17:17-19'>Joh 17:17-19</a></em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jesus had to listen to the Father and be taught by Him (<em><a href='B:500 7:16'>Joh 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:26'>Joh 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:49'>Joh 12:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:10'>Joh 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>)</td><td>All God’s children are the same (<em><a href='B:500 6:45'>Joh 6:45</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Saw the Father (<em><a href='B:500 6:46'>Joh 6:46</a></em>)</td><td>The Jews should have been able to do this (<em><a href='B:500 5:37'>Joh 5:37</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Not born of the flesh or will of a man, but the offspring of God Himself</td><td>True of all believers (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr></table>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a></em>.</h4><p><em>But whoever accepts him, those who believe in his name, to them he gave the right to become children of God</em>- "Accepts" or "receives" is the term used of receiving the gift of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:10'>1Pe 4:10</a></em>). The idea is not of our intellectually accepting truths, but of receiving what we are given. And we are given Him, His life, His Spirit; or as it is here expressed, the power or force to become God's children. This power is clearly that of the Spirit, given to those who show their belief in His Name by baptism into it. This gift of the Spirit is alluded to in the next verse, and the ideas here are developed further in <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> in talking of the birth of the Spirit rather than that of the flesh. <em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em> is clear that we become "the children of God" (same Greek words as here) through the work of the Spirit. John four times uses the term "children of God" when writing to his converts, those who had heard the gospel of John and been baptized (<em><a href='B:690 3:1-2'>1Jn 3:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:10'>1Jn 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:2'>1Jn 5:2</a></em>). He saw them as God's children because the Spirit had worked in them to make them his.</p>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this, the word became flesh, and indwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth</em>- The climax of this verse is "Full of grace gift and truth". The gift or grace of the Spirit was given as a result of the Lord's death and glorification. Here we have the explanation of "For this::."; the preceding verses have spoken of the gift of the Spirit, and this was made possible by the Lord's humanity, death and resurrection.</p><p>Because Jesus was the&nbsp;<em>only&nbsp;</em>Son of God, therefore He is&nbsp;<em>full</em>&nbsp;of the Father’s grace and truth. <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> makes this connection between fullness and only Sonship. Because of the wonder of this, we should therefore hear Him, respecting and thereby obeying His word simply because of our appreciation of who He is and was- the Son of God (<em><a href='B:490 9:35'>Luk 9:35</a></em>). And yet this description of Him as the begotten Son of God connects with how we have just read that we too are to be born of God and not of the flesh, if we accept the spirit of Jesus.</p><p>It seems that in the Lord Jesus alone we see the perfect fusion of "grace and truth" (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>); in Him alone mercy and truth met together, in His personality alone righteousness and peace kissed each other (in the words of the beautiful Messianic prophecy of <em><a href='B:230 85:10'>Psa 85:10</a></em>):&nbsp; Somehow it seems that we both individually and collectively cannot achieve this. We are either too soft and compromise and lose the Faith, or we are too hard and lose the spirit of Christ our Lord, without which we are "none of his" (<em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em>).</p><p>"We beheld his glory" makes John's Gospel his personal testimony. It would seem that the Gospels were so clearly etched in the minds of the first century believers because the message of the Gospel was preached in the form of reciting a 'Gospel', a record of the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. This is why 'gospel' as in the message and 'Gospel' as in the four Gospels are the same word, although this seems to be overlooked by many. The Gospel according to Matthew is the good news about Christ which Matthew preached and then wrote down. John of all the Gospel writers makes it openly apparent that his preaching of the Gospel is based around a recital of the things which he himself saw and heard in the Lord's life (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:24'>Joh 21:24</a></em>). His Gospel is full of what have been called "the artless notes of the authentic eye-witness" (e:g. his comment that "the house was filled with the odour of the ointment"):&nbsp;John begins his preaching of the Gospel by saying that he had beheld the glory of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>)- and I suggest he was referring to how he beheld the cross and the Lord’s manifestation of the Father’s glory there (<em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>). The cross, the glory of the Lord shown there, was what motivated John’s preaching, just as it should ours. The cross impels us to witness.</p><p>The continuity of personality between the human Jesus and the now-exalted Jesus is brought out by meditation upon His “glory”. The glory of God refers to His essential personality and characteristics. When He ‘glorifies Himself’, He articulates that personality- e:g. in the condemnation of the wicked or the salvation of His people. The Lord Jesus had that “glory” in what John calls “the beginning”, and he says that he and the other disciples witnessed that glory (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). “The beginning” in John’s Gospel often has reference to the beginning of the Lord’s ministry. There is essentially only one glory- the glory of the Son is a reflection or manifestation of the glory of the Father. They may be seen as different glories only in the sense that the same glory is reflected from the Lord Jesus in His unique way; as a son reflects or articulates his father’s personality, it’s not a mirror personality, but it’s the same essence. One star differs from another in glory, but they all reflect the same essential light of glory. The Lord Jesus sought only the glory of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 7:18'>Joh 7:18</a></em>). He spoke of the glory of God as being the Son’s glory (<em><a href='B:500 11:4'>Joh 11:4</a></em>). Thus Isaiah’s vision of God’s glory is interpreted by John as a prophecy of the Son’s glory (<em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>). The glory of God is His “own self”, His own personality and essence. This was with God of course from the ultimate beginning of all, and it was this glory which was manifested in both the death and glorification of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em>). The Old Testament title “God of glory” is applied to the Lord Jesus, “the Lord of glory” (<em><a href='B:530 2:8'>1Co 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>). It is&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;glory which radiates from the face of Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>). Jesus is the brightness of God’s glory, because He is the express image of God’s personality (<em><a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a></em>). He received glory from God’s glory (<em><a href='B:680 1:17'>2Pe 1:17</a></em>). God is the “Father of glory”, the prime source of the one true glory, that is reflected both in the Lord Jesus and in ourselves (<em><a href='B:560 1:17'>Eph 1:17</a></em>). What all this exposition means in practice is this. There is only “one glory” of God. That glory refers to the essential “self”, the personality, characteristics, being etc. The Lord Jesus manifested that glory in His mortal life (<em><a href='B:500 2:11'>Joh 2:11</a></em>). But He manifests it now that He has been “glorified”, and will manifest it in the future day of His glory. And the Lord was as in all things a pattern to us. We are bidden follow in His path to glory. We now in our personalities reflect and manifest the one glory of the Father, and our blessed Hope is glory in the future, to be glorified, to be persons (note that-&nbsp;<em>to be persons</em>) who reflect and ‘are’ that glory in a more intimate and complete sense than we are now, marred as we are by our human dysfunction, sin, and weakness of will against temptation. We now reflect that glory as in a dirty bronze mirror. The outline of God’s glory in the face of Jesus is only dimly reflected in us. But we are being changed, from glory to glory, the focus getting clearer all the time, until that great day when we meet Him and see Him face to face, with all that shall imply and result in. But my point in this context is that there is only one glory. The essence of who we are now in our spiritual man, how we reflect it, in our own unique way, is how we shall always be.</p><p>It’s evident to even the most casual reader that there are many connections between John’s Gospel and the Revelation. John’s later writing, just like Paul’s, was shot through with references to the Gospels. The same phrases and words are used. But the question is, What is the connection between them? One comment I have in answer to this is to observe that much of the language of the Gospel of John relating to the&nbsp;<em>present</em>&nbsp;status of the faithful is repeated in Revelation and applied to the faithful in their&nbsp;<em>future</em>&nbsp;glorification. This observation is best explained by examples:&nbsp;</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>John’s Gospel</td><td>The Revelation</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>God tabernacled amongst us in the person of Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> RVmg:)</td><td>“The tabernacle of God is with men” at the second coming of Jesus (<em><a href='B:730 21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rivers of water flow now in the experience of the believer (<em><a href='B:500 7:38-39'>Joh 7:38-39</a></em>)</td><td>The river of water of life bursts forth once Jesus is enthroned upon earth in the future (<em><a href='B:730 22:1'>Rev 22:1</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The manna / bread of life is given to the believer now (John 6)</td><td>Those who overcome will be given “the hidden manna” to eat at the Lord’s return (<em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>At the crucifixion, the prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em> was fulfilled when the Jews looked upon the Christ whom they had pierced (<em><a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a></em>)</td><td>The same <em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em> passage is quoted in <em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em> and given a future application, to the response of the Jews at the Lord’s second coming.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>I would suggest a chronological progression in <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>:<br/>“The word was made flesh"- His birth&nbsp;<br/>“And dwelt among us"- His life<br/>“And we beheld his glory, full of grace and truth"- His death on the cross. Christ’s glory is elsewhere used by John with reference to the glory He displayed on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 12:38-41'>Joh 12:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>). John thus begins his Gospel with the statement that he saw the Lord’s death. However, it is also so that John “saw his glory" at the transfiguration; and yet even there, “they saw his glory" (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>) as “they spake of his decease which he should accomplish". His glory and His death were ever linked. The fullness of grace and truth is one of John’s many allusions to Moses’ experience when the Name was declared to him- of Yahweh, a God&nbsp;<em>full&nbsp;</em>of grace and truth (<em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> RV). The Name was fully declared, as fully as could be, in the cross. The Law gave way, through the cross, to the grace and truth that was revealed by Christ after the Law ended (<em><a href='B:500 1:17'>Joh 1:17</a></em>). In His dead, outspent body grace and truth finally replaced law. John goes on to say that the Son has&nbsp;<em>declared&nbsp;</em>the invisible God (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>)- another reference to the cross. The implication may be that as Moses cowered before the glory of the Lord,&nbsp;<em>even he&nbsp;</em>exceedingly feared and quaked, we likewise should make an appropriate response to the glory that was&nbsp;<em>and is&nbsp;</em>(note John’s tenses) displayed to us in the cross. Mark how the naked man, covered in blood and spittle, was there declaring God’s glory. Aaron the High Priest bore the judgment for Israel’s sins, in another anticipation of the cross, whilst arrayed in garments of glory and beauty (<em><a href='B:20 28:30'>Exo 28:30</a></em>). And so was the naked Lord arrayed, for those with spiritual sight. Thus the word was manifested in glory through the cross; and thus <em><a href='B:530 2:1-2'>1Co 2:1-2</a></em> links the crucified Christ with “the testimony of God". See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</h4><p>The essential&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of God in Christ was articulated not only in the birth of the Lord, not only at the start of His, but supremely in His death. John’s Gospel is packed with allusion to Moses. Here the reference is to Moses cowering in the rock, beholding the glory of Yahweh and hearing the declaration of the Yahweh Name. Speaking of His forthcoming death, the Lord was to say: “And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them" (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). This second declaration of the Name was to be in His death. The same allusion back to the declaration of Yahweh in Exodus 34 is to be found in <em><a href='B:500 12:27-28'>Joh 12:27-28</a></em>: “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again". This second glorifying of the Name was surely in the Son’s declaration of the Name in His death. And this connects will with the evidence elsewhere presented that the Yahweh Name was closely connected with the Lord’s death, in that ‘Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews’ in Hebrew would have used words, the first letters of which spelt ‘Yahweh’. John’s claim that he beheld the glory of God’s Son may therefore be a specific reference to the way he describes his own ‘seeing’ of the crucifixion in <em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>: “And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe". He seems to be saying: ‘I saw Him there. I really and truly did’. He uses the same kind of language in <em><a href='B:690 4:14'>1Jn 4:14</a></em>: “we have seen and do testify cp. “his record is true" that the Father sent the son to be the saviour of the world" in the cross.</p><p>“The only begotten of the Father" is a phrase nearly always used in the context of the Lord’s death (e:g. <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). The love of God was defined in the way the Lord laid down His life in death (<em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>); but it is equally defined in that “God sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might live" (<em><a href='B:690 4:9'>1Jn 4:9</a></em>). God sending His son into the world was therefore in His death specifically see notes under <em><a href='B:500 3:14-18'>Joh 3:14-18</a></em>. And it was through this that life was won for us. As He hung covered in blood and spittle, as He gasped out forgiveness for His enemies, God’s Son as it were came into the hard world of men. The light shone in the darkness, and the darkness did not and does not overcome it. There, the word, the essential love and grace and judgment and mercy of Yahweh, was made flesh, and tabernacled amongst us.</p><p>The common translation “dwelt" can give the sense that John is merely saying ‘Jesus lived in Israel’; but there is far more to it than that. In clear allusion to his Gospel, John opens his first letter by speaking of the Lord Jesus, whom “we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled a reference to the taking down of the body and embalming?, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness cp. <em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us" (<em><a href='B:690 1:1-3'>1Jn 1:1-3</a></em>). The manifestation of the Son was supremely in His death (<em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:9'>1Jn 4:9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em> Gk:; <em><a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em> cp. 26). And John exalts that they saw this, and now they too declare / manifest it to the world. One cannot behold the cross of Christ and not witness it to others. John says that he beheld “his glory". Christ’s glory is elsewhere used by John with reference to the glory He displayed on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 12:38-41'>Joh 12:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>). However, it is also so that John “saw his glory" at the transfiguration; and yet even there, “they saw his glory" (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>) as “they spake of his decease which he should accomplish". His glory and His death were ever linked. The fullness of grace and truth is one of John’s many allusions to Moses’ experience when the Name was declared to him- of Yahweh, a God&nbsp;<em>full&nbsp;</em>of grace and truth (<em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> RV). The Name was fully declared, as fully as could be, in the cross. The Law gave way, through the cross, to the grace and truth that was revealed by Christ after the Law ended (<em><a href='B:500 1:17'>Joh 1:17</a></em>). In His dead, outspent body grace and truth finally replaced law. John goes on to say that the Son&nbsp;<em>has declared&nbsp;</em>the invisible God (<em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>)- another reference to the cross. The implication may be that as Moses cowered before the glory of the Lord,&nbsp;<em>even he&nbsp;</em>exceedingly feared and quaked; we likewise should make an appropriate response to the glory that was&nbsp;<em>and is&nbsp;</em>(note John’s tenses) displayed to us in the cross. All of God’s word was made flesh in the crucified body of the Lord Jesus. The very essence of Yahweh and all His self-revelation was epitomised there. Therefore when the Son of man was lifted up, men knew the truth of all God’s words see notes on <em><a href='B:500 8:21-28'>Joh 8:21-28</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord was “full of grace and truth". Yet according to <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em> RV, on the cross the Lord emptied Himself. Yet there He was filled with the essence of Yahweh’s own character; for the RV of Exodus 34 stresses that Yahweh is a God whose name is&nbsp;<em>full</em>&nbsp;of grace and truth. On the cross He was emptied of self and yet totally filled. The fact that the word was made flesh in the crucifixion explains why the atonement is described time and again with metaphors, as if it is a struggle for language alone to convey what happened. In the person of the crucified Christ, the ideas, the language, the words… became real and concretely expressed in a person. There is far more revealed by meditation upon the cross than can ever be put in words. There, the word, all the words, were made flesh. It is possible to see the fulfilment of the idea of the word being made flesh in Pilate's mocking presentation of the bedraggled Saviour: "Behold the man”. Rudolph Bultmann commented: "The declaration "the Word became flesh" has become visible in its extremest consequence”. There in the spat upon Son of God we see humanity as it is meant to be; "the flesh", "the man" as God intended, unequalled and unmatched in any other human being.</p><p>John uses the same word for 'dwelling' in writing in Revelation of how the Father and Son shall dwell with men, and shall be their sole light, the only light that shines forth in their experience and existence. These ideas are all used here in <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> and the context regarding what He is doing now in the hearts of His people. This gift of His life is therefore a pre-experience, a foretaste, of the life we shall eternally experience. In this sense we "have eternal life" now. We live the life we shall eternally live- His life. Paul puts in another way when he says that the Spirit is given to us as the foretaste or deposit guaranteeing our final salvation (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>).</p><p>How exactly was the word made flesh in the person of Jesus? It was not simply a question of the nature of His birth. ‘The word’ was a title given to the Lord in recognition of His achievement in being and becoming the ‘word made flesh’. It wasn’t something which automatically happened to the Lord, as an irresistible process in which He played no part. The Lord’s Old Testament allusions, His familiarity with and use of His Father’s words doubtless had a lot to do with His becoming ‘the word made flesh’. If Paul alluded to the words of the Lord Jesus once every four verses on average, it is to be expected that the Son of God quoted and alluded to His Father’s word even moreso. And this is what we find, when we search the Lord’s words for their allusions to the Old Testament.</p><p>An example of the Lord’s perhaps unconscious usage of His Father’s words is to be found in His exasperated comment: “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?” (<em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em>). Of course the Lord would have spoken those words and expressed those ideas in Aramaic- but the similarity is striking with His Father’s Hebrew words of <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation…?”. As a son comes out with phrases and word usages which ‘Could be his father speaking’, so the Lord Jesus did the same thing. What I am saying is that the Lord was not merely quoting or alluding to the Father’s Old Testament words, in the way that, say, Paul or Peter did. As the Father’s Son, He was speaking in the same way as His Father, no doubt saturated with the written record of the Father’s words, but all the same, there were those similarities of wording and underlying thinking which are only seen between fathers and sons. And His words of <em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em> seem to me to be an example of this.</p><p>The level, depth and multiplicity of Old Testament allusions becomes the more amazing when we accept that these were spoken words, some of them clearly spoken unprepared and off-the-cuff. Literature can be crafted to pack multiple allusions. But when a speaker produces such a depth of allusion, one can only marvel at his intellectual depth. But with the Lord, it reflects His utter familiarity with the Father’s word, grasping the real spirit of it all. He breathed it, thought it, spoke it, lived it. And in all He said, this was reflected. He truly was “the word made flesh”. The following are just a few examples from the first words of Jesus; but the list can be continued. The simple fact is that on average, the Lord is alluding to the Old Testament at least 3 times in every verse This means that every phrase of every sentence He is recorded as speaking- is alluding to His Father’s word. It would’ve been like an orphaned son ‘finding’ his late father’s words. He would read the words with such delight, and somehow eagerly pick up their sense in the way nobody else could.</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>The Words Of Jesus</td><td>Old Testament Allusions</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 3:15'>Mat 3:15</a></em> Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.</td><td><em><a href='B:330 18:19'>Eze 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 18:21'>Eze 18:21</a></em> fulfil righteousness</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 4:4'>Mat 4:4</a></em> It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God</td><td><em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em> direct quote</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 4:7'>Mat 4:7</a></em> It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.</td><td><em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em> direct quote</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 4:10'>Mat 4:10</a></em> Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.</td><td><em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em> direct quote</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em> Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.</td><td><em><a href='B:230 40:17'>Psa 40:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:4'>Mat 5:4</a></em> Blessed are they that mourn:</td><td><em><a href='B:290 61:1-3'>Isa 61:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:2'>Isa 66:2</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>for they shall be comforted.</td><td><em><a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:5'>Mat 5:5</a></em> Blessed are the meek:</td><td><em><a href='B:230 37:11'>Psa 37:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 37:20'>Psa 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:21'>Isa 60:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 22:24-25'>Pro 22:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 25:8'>Pro 25:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 25:15'>Pro 25:15</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>for they shall inherit the earth.</td><td><em><a href='B:10 15:7-8'>Gen 15:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:13'>Exo 32:13</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em> Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.</td><td><em><a href='B:10 49:18'>Gen 49:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 17:15'>Psa 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:20'>Psa 119:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:6'>Jer 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:24'>Isa 45:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 55:1'>Isa 55:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:13'>Isa 65:13</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:7'>Mat 5:7</a></em> Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.</td><td><em><a href='B:100 22:26-27'>2Sa 22:26-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 18:25-26'>Psa 18:25-26</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:470 5:8'>Mat 5:8</a></em> Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.</td><td><em><a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 17:15'>Psa 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 38:3'>Isa 38:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 38:11'>Isa 38:11</a></em></td><td></td></tr></table><p>If you follow through some of those allusions- and there are surely many more that I’ve not picked up- it becomes apparent that the Lord had a mind capable of operating on several different levels of allusion at once. So it was not simply that He was hyper-familiar with His Father’s word. He had the intellectual ability, with all the intelligence of God’s very own Son, to think and speak on several levels at once. Hence His words were absolutely&nbsp;<em>full</em>&nbsp;of God’s thoughts and words. He was so fully and deeply “the word made flesh”. And in analysing&nbsp;<em>from where</em>&nbsp;in the Old Testament the Lord quoted, we find that He had His favourite places- just as we’d expect from a genuine man. He appears to have been especially fond of the references to the “Servant” in the latter half of Isaiah; and also of the Psalms. He quotes from them both literally and freely, with all the confidence and appropriacy of a person who is thoroughly familiar with the text. But the way and extent to which He applied it all to Himself makes Him in very reality “the word made flesh”.</h4><p>It wasn't only in words but in actions too that the Lord was the word made flesh. The Lord Jesus lived life; He didn't just let events happen to Him. Much as I respected Harry Whittaker both as an individual and an expositor, I can never understand why throughout his monumental&nbsp;<em>Studies In The Gospels</em>, he repeatedly makes the point that the Lord Jesus didn't go around consciously trying to fulfil Bible prophecy. My reading of the Gospels tells me that the Lord did do exactly this. The writers stress that He did action X or spoke word Y in order to fulfil Bible prophecy A and B. He consciously made the word flesh in Himself. A case can be made that He carefully planned out His ministry; He didn't just let events happen to Him. I don't find it hard to believe that He consciously engineered the timing of His own death to be at Passover time, after a three and a half year public ministry. He purposefully seems to have pressed all the buttons in Jewish expectations to lead them to revolt against the dashed expectations they had of Him. His actions in the temple could be read as almost asking to be killed. He knew what makes people tick and act to an extent we can't begin to understand. He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem to die there (<em><a href='B:490 9:60'>Luk 9:60</a></em>). He laid down His life- it wasn't taken from Him.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:500 1:27'>Joh 1:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that comes after me, his shoelace I am not worthy to untie</em>- Untying the shoelaces, or carrying the sandals, are idioms for 'being a herald'. John doesn't mean that he did not do this because he was not worthy to do so; he means that he was doing the work of a herald, which he was not worthy to do. His witness to the Lord is continually laced with his own confession of weakness and unworthiness. Given that his moral standards were apparently radically higher than those around him, such humility has much to commend it. It ought to be the hallmark set upon all our witness to the Lord, and it will make our appeal the more compelling. Perhaps John was somehow aware that any who would not carry the Lord's cross with Him were "not worthy" of Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em> s:w:).</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Nathanael said to him: Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him: Come and see</em>- Like many primitive people, there was the sense that all people from a particular town or area are "not good". We have here an insight into the Lord's utter humanity; He was known as one "out of" Nazareth, He spoke and acted like a man from Nazareth. We can also reflect that His earlier history of having been born in Bethlehem was presumably unknown to people. Mary and Joseph had kept all that to themselves, and the Lord Himself had not spoken of it.</h4><p>The teaching of both Old and New Testaments concerning the ultimate value and meaning of the individual person was radical stuff, so radical that it was rarely fully understood even amongst the people of God. For example, it was important to know where a person was from- because people from certain areas were understood as being a certain person. Hence the Jewish refusal to accept that Jesus could be Messiah, because He was from Galilee, and "out of Galilee arises no prophet" (<em><a href='B:500 7:52'>Joh 7:52</a></em>), indeed nothing good could come out of Nazareth (<em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>). This led to what we would call today stereotyping and racism. People didn't travel very far, and so this of itself reinforced some of the stereotypes. Horizons were extremely limited for the average person. Vergil could say that "to know one Greek is to know them all"; and Philo likewise made total generalizations about Egyptians in his writings. Paul refers to the common maxim that "Cretans are&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;liars::. lazy drunkards" (<em><a href='B:630 1:12'>Tit 1:12</a></em>)- but goes on to appeal to the Cretan believers to&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be like that, to challenge and break the stereotype It's the same with the Corinthians- the very term "Corinthian" meant a drunkard, shameless man. And yet it was in this very city that so many were called to the Lord, and He attempted to turn them away from that very stereotype they had been born into. And the very fact that the Son of God was from "that despised Nazareth" was the ultimate deconstruction of this understanding- that leaders, kings etc. could only come from some areas and not others. We need to ask ourselves whether we don't follow the same kind of stereotypes when we assume things about people- he's from&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;family, she's from&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;country, they're from&nbsp;<em>that&nbsp;</em>church / ecclesia::. These attitudes deny the wonderful meaning and value of the individual of which our Lord showed us in His teaching, life, death and current work amongst us.</p><p>He was “despised and rejected of men”, as Isaiah had foretold so long before. It’s perhaps hard to feel from our distance the extent to which Galilee was despised by the Jerusalem Jews. Although Jerusalem to Galilee is only around 100 km:, “only in exceptional circumstances will someone living in Jerusalem have travelled to the distant province of Galilee, as the&nbsp;<em>Life</em>&nbsp;of Josephus shows… a journey to Rome would be more likely for a better class Jerusalem dweller than one to provincial Galilee, which was the back of beyond… the people of Judaea despised the uneducated Galileans and were not particularly interested in this remote province”. Yet it was exactly from&nbsp;<em>here</em>&nbsp;that the Son of God came It was from the parochial, the ordinary, from the nothing special, that God’s holy child came forth to change this world. So if you too feel a nobody, a cut below the rest, held back by your background… this is the very wonder of God manifestation. It’s through you and me, the kids from the backstreets, the uneducated, the duffers, the dumbers… that God Almighty reveals Himself to this world.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:500 2:6'>Joh 2:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nearby there were six stone waterpots, placed there for the Jewish custom of purifications, each holding 75 to 115 litres</em>- The idea was that Mosaic purification ritual was not the answer to human need. The Lord's life and blood, encased as it were within the strictures of the Mosaic system, was what was required. Waterpots of that size were all made of stone; but the point is made to emphasize how the Lord was like the stone of Daniel's image, a stone cut out from the earth. It was His humanity which was so necessary in order to bring forth the wine of the new covenant. The wine was poured out from the waterpots into another vessel; there was no way the servants would pour directly into the cups from a 100 litre capacity stone waterpot, that no man could carry alone. So the source of the new wine was in a sense hidden; and John has been developing the point that although John and the disciples knew of Jesus, His humanity had shielded their eyes from knowing what was within Him.</h4><p>We note the super abundance of wine. At least 600 litres was created, maybe as much as 700 litres. The Lord would have left them with the question: 'What ever is such a huge amount of wine doing in our waterpots? Who put it there? Didn't we see you all pouring water into the pots, as if preparing for cleansing from some major defilement?'. The answer would have been: 'This is Jesus of Nazareth:::'.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 2:22'>Joh 2:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spoke this, and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken</em>- This 'remembering' would have been the result of the function of the Comforter (<em><a href='B:500 14:26'>Joh 14:26</a></em>), which likewise works with us to illuminate Scripture so that we see its personal relevance. Unaided intellectual effort will not achieve this. Which is why there is no direct link between academic Bible study and personal spirituality.</p><h4>Both Matthew and Mark record how the people later mocked the Lord Jesus over His comment that if the temple were destroyed, He would rebuild it in three days (<em><a href='B:470 27:40'>Mat 27:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:29'>Mar 15:29</a></em>). This had also been an issue at the Lord's trial (<em><a href='B:470 26:60'>Mat 26:60</a></em>). Yet John records that when the Lord actually said those words, the disciples didn't believe those words and actually forgot them until the time of the resurrection (<em><a href='B:500 2:22'>Joh 2:22</a></em>). The implications of that are tragic. The Lord's critics remembered His words more than His disciples did. And as He stood there in the awful loneliness of His trial, and hung there in the desolation of crucifixion, and heard those taunts based around His earlier words::. He would've known that His own men had forgotten those words and likewise disbelieved them. No wonder after the resurrection He raised the matter with them. My point in this context is that John's comment in <em><a href='B:500 2:22'>Joh 2:22</a></em> about the fact the disciples forgot those words until after the resurrection::. is actually a conscious recognition by the disciples of their own tragic weakness in understanding and support of their Lord. And it is within their own preaching of the Gospel that they make this point. Our witness likewise should be shot through with allusion to our own moral fallibility.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered: Truly, truly, I say to you: Except one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God</em>- <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em> clearly alludes here: "He saved us by the washing laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit". The gift of the Spirit associated with baptism is vitally necessary; water alone will not save. At baptism we are born of (or by) water-and-spirit (the Greek implies one act, combining water and spirit). See on <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>. As the prologue states, birth is not of ourselves; we were born not of the will of the flesh but of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>). It is Christ, not the actual baptizer, who brings a person to new birth and actually does the moral washing of a person from their sins when they are baptized. Consider these simple parallels within John’s Gospel:&nbsp;</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>&nbsp; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:500 13:8'>Joh 13:8</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unless</td><td>If</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>One is born of water and Spirit</td><td>I do not wash you</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He cannot enter into the Kingdom</td><td>You have no part in me</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Not only does this reflect the crucial importance of baptism; it indicates that it is the Lord Jesus who does the moral washing of a person when they are baptized. Once we accept that, then&nbsp;<em>who</em>&nbsp;performs baptisms becomes irrelevant. And all the way through, we see His grace; our spiritual life and existence has its source in His activity and not our own.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up</em>- Perhaps these were the "heavenly things" which the Lord had intimated He wanted to tell Nicodemus of in :12.</p><h4>It was the serpent which gave salvation to sin-stricken Israel, not Moses; and the&nbsp;<em>serpent</em>&nbsp;represented Christ in this case. It was as it were a dead serpent; the Lord had put to death the power of sin within Himself. Moses "lifted up" the serpent in the same way as the Jews "lifted up" Christ in crucifying him (<em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>). Moses drew attention to the serpent and its power to save, in the same way as his Law drew attention to how sin would be condemned in Christ as the means of our salvation. The connection between Moses “lifting up" Christ&nbsp;and Israel doing likewise is another indicator of how Moses was representative of Israel (cp. Christ). The altar "Jehovah-Nissi" connected Yahweh personally with the pole / standard / ensign of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 17:15'>Exo 17:15</a></em>). Yet&nbsp;<em>nissi</em>&nbsp;is the Hebrew word used for the pole on which the brass serpent was lifted up, and for the standard pole which would lift up Christ. Somehow Yahweh Himself was essentially connected with the cross of Christ. “There is no God else beside; a just God and a Saviour (Jesus)::. look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth" (<em><a href='B:290 45:21-22'>Isa 45:21-22</a></em>) is evident allusion to the snake on the pole to which all Israel were bidden look and be saved. And yet that saving symbol of the crucified Jesus is in fact God Himself held up to all men. The Hebrew word&nbsp;<em>nasa</em>&nbsp;translated "forgive" is also translated 'bear' as in 'bearing / carrying iniquity'. When God forgave, He bore / carried sin; and the idea of carrying sin is obviously brought into visual, graphic meaning in the literal carrying of the cross by the Lord Jesus. Indeed, the Hebrew word&nbsp;<em>nes</em>, translated "pole" in the record of the bronze snake being lifted up on a "pole", is the noun for which&nbsp;<em>nasa</em>&nbsp;is the verb. The essence of cross carrying had therefore been performed by God for millennia, every time He forgave human sin. It's understandable, therefore, that He had a special manifestation in the final sufferings and death of His Son. See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</h4><p><em><a href='B:500 3:13-14'>Joh 3:13-14</a></em> link the Lord’s ascension to Heaven, and His ‘lifting up’ on the cross. They were all part of the same, saving process. Likewise the atonement is a function of His death and resurrection combined; it was only the empty tomb that gave the cross any power at all. "Lifted up" is literally to exalt; His lifting up by His enemies was in their eyes His final disgrace, to die the death of the cross; but to spiritual eyes, it was His greatest exaltation. There are many similar things in life today which from a secular viewpoint may be a man's nadir, but which from a heavenly perspective are his greatest exaltation. The process of death itself is often an example.</p><p>The same&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;which led Him to His passion (see on <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:49'>Luk 2:49</a></em>) is the very same compulsion which “behoves" us to preach that passion which we have witnessed and benefited from. In His ministry, He had taught that we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be born again, and in the same discourse spoke of how He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be lifted up in crucifixion (<em><a href='B:500 3:7'>Joh 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>). His cross, His will to die in the way He did, must be our inspiration. “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and&nbsp;<em>we ought</em>&nbsp;to lay down our lives for the brethren" (<em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>).</p><p><em><a href='B:500 3:14-21'>Joh 3:14-21</a></em> One of the most powerful links between the cross and the judgment is to be found in <em><a href='B:500 3:14-21'>Joh 3:14-21</a></em> (which seems to be John’s commentary rather than the words of Jesus Himself). Parallels are drawn between:<br/>- The snake lifted up on the pole (=the crucifixion), teaching that whoever believes in the crucified Christ should live<br/>- God so loving the world (language elsewhere specifically applied to the crucifixion: <em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:10-11'>1Jn 4:10-11</a></em>)<br/>- God giving His Son (on the cross, <em><a href='B:520 5:15'>Rom 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em>), that whoever believes in Him should live<br/>- God sending His Son to save the world (<em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>)<br/>- Light coming into the world (at His death, the darkness was ended).</p><p>All these phrases can refer to the life and person of the Lord; but sometimes they are specifically applied to the cross. And further, they are prefaced here in John 3 by a reference to the Lord as the snake lifted up on the pole. The essence of the Lord, indeed the essence of God Himself, was openly displayed in its most crystallised form in the cross. There was the epitome of love, of every component of God’s glory, revealed to the eyes of men. There above all, the light of God’s love and glory came into the world. In this context John’s comment continues: “This is the condemnation / judgment, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest". If we understand “the light" as pre-eminently the cross, we see further evidence that there indeed was and is the judgment of this world. The Lord described His impending death as “the judgment of this world" (<em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>); and here He says that the judgment of this word is that He is the light of the world and men shy away from Him. The link between the light of the world and the snake being lifted up on the pole would have been more evident to Hebrew readers and thinkers than it is to us. The “pole" on which the snake was lifted up was a standard, a pole on which often a lamp would be lifted up: “a beacon upon the top of a mountain::. an&nbsp;<em>ensign</em>&nbsp;(s:w:) on an hill" (<em><a href='B:290 30:17'>Isa 30:17</a></em>). The ‘light’ would have been understood as a burning light rather than, e:g:, the sun. The light of which the Lord spoke would have been understood as a torch, lifted up on a standard. The same Greek word is used in describing how the jailor asked for a “light", i:e. a blazing torch, in order to inspect the darkened prison (<em><a href='B:510 16:29'>Act 16:29</a></em>). Speaking in the context of the snake lifted up on a pole, Jesus would have been inviting His audience to see Him crucified as the light of their lives. And this would explain why Isaiah seems to parallel the nations coming to the ensign / standard / pole of Christ, and them coming to the Him as light of the world (<em><a href='B:290 5:26'>Isa 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 11:12'>Isa 11:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:22'>Isa 49:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 42:6'>Isa 42:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:3'>Isa 60:3</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 1:78-79'>Luk 1:78-79</a></em> foretold how the Lord would be a lamp to those in darkness- and this had a strange fulfilment in His death. His example there on the cross was a light amidst the darkness that descended on the world. In the light of His cross, true self-examination is possible. Significantly perhaps, the Greek word for “light" occurs in <em><a href='B:490 22:56'>Luk 22:56</a></em>, where Peter sits by the “fire" and was exposed. It was as if Peter was acting out a parable of how the “light" of association with the suffering Christ makes our deeds manifest. The day of “light" is both the crucifixion, and the last day of judgment, when all our deeds will be made manifest before the light (<em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em>). By coming to the cross and allowing it to influence our self-examination, we come to judgment in advance.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 3:20'>Joh 3:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For every one that does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, in case his works should be reproved</em>- If men love darkness, they are not therefore passive nor indifferent to the light. They hate it. John uses the same word four times in his first letter, warning that those who claim to believe but hate their brother are still in darkness. The division is not, therefore, simply between those who claim to believe and those who do not. If we hate our brother, we hate the Lord Jesus whom he represents; we hate the light, we are not led by the light of Him crucified. For if we are so led, hatred of our brother will simply not happen. And this is how to overcome feelings of hatred against others; not to steel will ourselves not to feel like that, but to positively focus upon the crucified Lord as light of our lives.</p><p>The Greek phrase "come to" has been used in the context for how Nicodemus had "come to Jesus" by night (:2; stressed again in <em><a href='B:500 7:50'>Joh 7:50</a></em>). But the Lord seems to be saying that he had not truly come to Him. And He locates the deep subconscious reason as a fear that his works should be reproved. And this for all time is the reason why people will not come to Him completely, regardless of all the excuses they make. On the surface, "all men came to" Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 3:26'>Joh 3:26</a></em>); but He later comments: "But you will not come to me, that you might have life" (<em><a href='B:500 5:40'>Joh 5:40</a></em>). The feeding of the multitude likewise features multitudes 'coming to Him', and the Lord using the same phrase in explaining that if they truly came to Him, they would never again hunger and would certainly be eternally saved (<em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:44-45'>Joh 6:44-45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:65'>Joh 6:65</a></em>). There is a major play on the idea of 'coming to' Jesus. The warning is against surface level coming to Him, as if trooping out to church; and coming in truth, in which case we shall be utterly assured of our salvation. And our coming to the Lord will be matched by His coming to us, right now in this life, through the gift of the Spirit in our hearts. The same phrase is again used of this wondrous experience, where the Lord meets with man in man's own heart (<em><a href='B:500 14:18'>Joh 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:28'>Joh 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:7'>Joh 16:7</a></em>).</p><h4>Whenever God’s Truth is presented to a man, the raw nerve of his conscience will somehow be touched. He is in God’s image, and knows somehow he should respond to this. He may react by flinching away, covering up his weakness; He will not come to the light, lest his deeds are reproved. Or he may realise that he has been touched, and respond in humility. So often the introduction of the Gospel is treated by people with indifference: ‘Oh, another leaflet’, a woman may jovially respond when she’s handed one of our tracts. But when she realises it’s about Jesus… then, things will change. ‘Oh, I see…’ she may say, and her body language will change. She has been touched on the raw nerve. She may get angry because of this, or quickly change the subject- or let her conscience be touched.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:500 4:5'>Joh 4:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Sychar, near to the parcel of ground which Jacob gave his son Joseph</em>- This place was rich in Jewish history; it was the parcel of ground purchased by Jacob, where Joseph's bones were buried (<em><a href='B:60 24:32'>Jos 24:32</a></em>), and where Jacob had built an altar (<em><a href='B:10 33:18-20'>Gen 33:18-20</a></em>), called 'The mighty one, the God of Israel'. Jacob had also conquered territory there with his own sword and bow, fighting the people of the land. Abraham had been there (<em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em>), and Shechem 'Sychar' was one of the oldest towns in Israelite history. But at the time of the Lord Jesus, it was inhabited by the despised Samaritans. It's rather like a town square with a war memorial and traditional British architecture in the United Kingdom- which is now inhabited by Moslem immigrants, with the Anglican church now turned into a Mosque. And one of the local women with a clearly immoral background- was one of the Lord's star converts. And she in turn converts the local menfolk to Christ. Just as traditional white churches in the West would view the conversion of asylum seekers and recent darker skinned immigrants with suspicion and disgust, so we can imagine people responding to the Lord's conversion of this woman.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:500 4:22'>Joh 4:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You worship that which you do not know. We worship what we know. For salvation is from the Jews</em>- The Lord went along with her as far as He could, but as in our witness to folks, there comes a time when we have to put our foot down. Salvation was "from the Jews" in that the Messianic saviour would be from them. And the identity of the Messiah was the issue here. The Lord doesn't take away from the Samaritans the fact they worshipped; but they worshipped in ignorance without accepting Messiah as being a Jew rather than one of their re-incarnated prophets (see on :19). There is a very similar situation in <em><a href='B:510 17:23'>Act 17:23</a></em>, where Paul declares to people the God whom they had worshipped in ignorance through sacrificing to "the unknown God". The "we" cannot refer to Jews generally; for they did not know the Father nor His Son (<em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:27'>Joh 8:27</a></em>). He meant "we" as in Himself and the disciples who were now regrouping around Him. "We worship&nbsp;<em>what</em>" we know could as well be translated "<em>who</em>&nbsp;we know". Acceptable worship of the Father was predicated upon acceptance of Himself as Messiah, the salvation of and from the Jews.</h4>


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


