Chapter and Verse
by Dr. Robert D. Luginbill
The Gospel of John (NASB) It is of this [Church] that I, [Paul], have become a minister according to God's
mandate given to me for dispensing [the truth] to you, in order to bring
completeness to God's Plan (lit., "word", Gk. logos).
John 1:4 (NASB) For God who said, "Let light shine forth from the darkness!", is He who has
shone forth [His light] into our hearts to illuminate our knowledge of God's
glory in the Person of Jesus Christ.
John 1:7-8 (NASB) The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
John 1:14 (NASB) "The One coming after me has surpassed me because He existed before me".
John 1:16 (NASB) For You will not abandon My soul (i.e., “life”) to hell (lit.,
sheol – the
underworld including paradise: Lk.23:43). You will not give your Holy One over
to see decay.
This is important because Peter would later use this verse to explain that our
Lord's resurrection fulfilled this prophecy – which could not apply literally to
David himself who said it – because David did die physically and has not [yet]
been raised from the dead (Acts 2:25-28; 2:31). "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
NIV SB: 3:3, 7 born again. The Greek may also mean "born from above" (see NIV
text note on v. 3). Both meanings are consistent with Jesus' redeeming work (see
1:13 and note). (25) He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the
prophets have spoken! (26) Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and
then enter his glory?" (27) And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he
explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
John 3:11 (NASB) John 3:22 (NASB)
I'm not sure how to understand that they "came in to the land of Judea" if
Jerusalem is already in Judea? And then I take it that in verse 4 Jesus leaves
Judea having attended the Passover and spent some time there and comes back to
Galilee through Samaria? This group made use of the same Bible (albeit translated into Aramaic, the
so-called "Samaritan Pentateuch", a form of which still exists today). But this
is a very interesting observation by our Lord. His words here should give pause
to anyone who wants to assume that because a group worships "God" that they
therefore have anything whatsoever to do with "/the/ God". Just because a
religion is monotheistic, this passage teaches, does not mean that they are in
anyway genuinely worshiping God Himself. That is certainly so because of all the
non-orthodox groups in the history of the world, the Samaritans came closer to
being orthodox than any other group ever could – but not close enough, as Jesus
makes quite clear.
However, according to the NIV SB, they do worship the true God: 4:22 worship
what you do not know. The Samaritan Bible contained only the Pentateuch.
Samaritans worshiped the true God, but their failure to accept much of his
revelation meant that they knew little about him. salvation is from the Jews.
The Messiah would come from God's historic people (see notes on Ro 1:16; 11:18). "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to
the rest it is given in parables, that 'Seeing they may not see, and hearing
they may not understand.' "
Finally, as to her way of approaching the men of the village, as another pastor
observed (I don't recall which one; I want to say Col. Thieme, but I can't
honestly remember for certain), was exceedingly wise. If she had said "This is
the Christ!", she may well have been discounted (not only because she was a
woman but also because of her personal background); because she put it the way
she put it, her comments invited personal investigation instead of prideful
opposition, and did result in the salvation of many in the town.
*A: Yes I think she did indeed believe in the Lord, and I also think the
observation above has value as well (it was actually one of my Talbot
professors, Prof. McDougall, who made the remark). That is to say, her words
don't indicate doubt but reluctance to proclaim directly something such as "I
have found the Messiah!", since she no doubt knew that this would only cause the
men of the town to get their hackles up so as not to give or Lord a fair hearing
– just because she was a woman and one in low standing at that. John 4:42 (NASB)
But original motivation to believe came from elsewhere. "Did you see all of that game?" "Yes." "What, you didn't go to the kitchen for a
sandwich?" "Well yes, but only twice and once to answer the phone, but other
than that I saw it all". "What, you didn't blink once in three and a half
hours?" "Now you are being ridiculous." "And of course they don't broadcast most
of the time between innings; they show commercials instead, so you couldn't have
seen that; and they usually only show one camera angle, so you couldn't have
seen what the left fielder was doing at all times". "You are holding me to an
impossible standard with your meaning of 'all' ".
John 4:43-45 (NASB) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who
raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies
through His Spirit who dwells in you.
John 5:25 (NASB) 14 Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My
testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do
not know where I come from or where I am going.
*A: The answer to both of these questions is that our Lord never testified or
witnessed to Himself alone. The witnesses to Him and to who He was/is were
powerful and credible, John the baptist, all of the prophets of the Old
Testament, the signs and miracles our Lord was given to do, and of course the
witness of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who saw and heard Him; last
but of course not least, the Father too witnessed to Him and substantiated His
authority (Jn.5:37). So in this conditional, the point is that our Lord was
not
"giving testimony on His own behalf" only – had that been so, He would not have
been who He was and claimed to be in truth, because in that hypothetical case He
would not have been sent by the Father. At John 8:14, our Lord's statement is
true: even if He were to give testimony on His own behalf, it would be true,
because He is the truth and everything He says is the truth. In other words, the
context verse gives a hypothetical wherein our Lord was not who He said He was;
the other verse, John 8:14, states a truth based upon our Lord being exactly who
He said He was. 10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up,
not publicly, but as if, in secret.
I) NIV SB: 7:8 not. See NIV text note. Jesus was not refusing to go to the
festival but refusing to go in the way his brothers suggested-as a pilgrim. When
he went, it would be to deliver a prophetic message from God, for which he
awaited the right time (see note on v. 6). The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have
found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ).
*Q: b) Again, our Lord's reply is unclear to me. Some say it's ironic, other
interrogatory. This would mean that by saying "You both know Me and know where I
am from" our Lord first refers to the earthly aspect of His life, but
immediately afterwards contrasts that with His divine origin, by saying: and I
have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. 29 I
know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me." (50) Nicodemus (he who came to Jesus by
night, being one of them) said to
them, (51) "Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is
doing?"
John 8:12 (NASB) John 5:31-32 (NASB)
Jesus has shown He has fulfilled the Law, since He has the Father testifying of
Him (John 5:31) and this testimony He used to support the veracity of His words
speaking as a human being under the Law and in John 5:31. In John 8:14, however,
our Lord speaks as the One who is divine and whose testimony, by virtue of being
divine, must be true. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the
heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the
image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
II) NIV SB: 8:23 Things other than death divide people (cf., e. g., v. 47; 3:31;
15:19 and note; 1Jn 3:10). of. Here denotes origin. Jesus was certainly in the
world, but he was not of the world. They belonged to "this world"-Satan's domain
(1Jn 5:19; cf. Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). (10) For the Day of the Lord will come like a thief, a day in which (i.e., over
the course of which) the heavens will depart with a roar, the very elements will
ignite and dissolve, and the earth and everything which has been done upon it
will be laid bare [for the Lord's inspection]. (11) Since the universe is going
to be dissolved in this way, what sort of people ought we to be, [walking] in a
sanctified (i.e., holy) and godly way, (12) eagerly looking forward to the
coming of the Day of God (i.e., the day of eternity)? For on that day the
heavens will burst into flame and dissolve, and the elements will catch fire and
melt. (13) But we are awaiting new heavens and a new earth just as He promised –
[a world] where righteousness dwells.
John 8:24 (NASB) Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on
all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which
they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly
sinners have spoken against Him.
John 8:27 (NASB) John 8:37-38 (NASB)
Similarly, shortly after they accuse Him of having a demon. Please explain. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is indeed key to this discussion
vis-a-vis Hades, but I do not think that it implies any particular knowledge of
what is transpiring on the earth. Abraham can see Torments, and the rich man can
see Paradise, but nothing in the parable indicates that their information about
what is happening on earth is current (i.e., it comes from what they know from
those coming out of the world: Abraham from Lazarus, and the rich man from his
own earthly experience).
So how does Abraham know and rejoices about Jesus? Is it to do with how he
understood the promise given to him by God? Is it by observing what happens on
earth? But if it is through observance, then doesn't it contradict your point
made above? "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of
God has come upon you."
John 10:39 (NASB) "He must increase, but I must decrease."
So for those who accepted John's testimony, it is doubly confirmed by 1)
correspondence to his message exactly, and 2) being further confirmed by the
miraculous signs our Lord performed (cf. Jn.12:9). "You call me ‘Teacher' and ‘Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am."
John 11:30 (NASB) Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee.
John 11:55-56 (NASB) 12 For when she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for
burial.
So in John Mary is to be left alone to keep the perfume for the day of burial,
but in Matthew she has poured this perfume to prepare Jesus for burial. What is
your take on this issue?
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of
Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have
eternal life."
*Q: When it comes to the logical sequence of our Lord's words in verses 30-32,
would you say the following summary is correct: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will
raise them up at the last day."
On "the judgment", this is the "decision" or "decisive moment" which is our Lord
being judged on the cross for all sin – an event which does indeed divide all
humanity into one camp or the other, depending upon our response to the cross. Awake, awake, put on strength,
Here "Arm of the Lord" is indisputably a personal title (neither literal arms or
concepts such as power can "wake up" or be addressed as if they were
individuals). The same is the case in the quote in context for all those who are
willing to see it. John 13:10 (NASB)
This distinction between being freed of sin at the moment of belief and then
cleansing needed throughout our lives isn't evident in the note. Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore
such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be
tempted.
John 13:14-15 (NASB) Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffer."
John 13:30 (NASB) “When I was with you daily in the temple, you did not try to seize Me. But this
is your hour, and the power of darkness.”
John 13:31 (NASB) "Don't be upset by what is happening and soon will happen. You do believe in God
the Father, so have some faith in me as well!".
John 14:2 (NASB) But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of
eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God.”
That was early on in the ministry. At this late date, with the crucifixion hours
away, the disciples certainly "knew" that salvation was through Christ alone –
the point of His words here. What they have hardened their hearts against is the
fact of His coming sacrifice and the necessity for it. In line with the above, Jesus' words at John 14:12 , "greater things", must mean
that ministering the completed Word is greater than performing miracles. That is
not the perspective of the immature, but the more we advance the more we realize
that nothing is more powerful or more important than the truth. And, after all,
even during our Lord's ministry (and also in those of the apostles), the purpose
of miracles and signs is to call attention to and gain a hearing for the truth.
That in most cases even so the truth was not received is telling. But for those
of us who are open to it, it is more powerful than any miracle our eyes could
ever behold.
John 14:13 (NASB) Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and
My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."
John 14:19 (NASB) Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.
John 14:27 (NASB) (6) Since He already existed in the very form of God, equality with God was
[certainly] not something He thought He had to grasp for. (7) Yet in spite of
this [co-equal divinity He already possessed], He deprived Himself of His status
and took on the form of a slave, [and was] born in the likeness of men. (8) He
humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even [His] death on
[the] cross [for us all].
John 14:30-31 (NASB) John 14:4-5 (NASB)
*A: Peter does use the same Greek words as at John 13:36. The problem is that
none of the disciples was willing to accept the answer. So none of them is
asking the right way, and as a result the Lord is not able to explain to them
the reason for and the meaning of the cross along with the distinction between
the first and second advents, because they are not yet willing and able to
receive it. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been
glorified.
John 16:8-9 (NASB) (10) regarding righteousness, because I am going to my Father and you are not
going to be seeing Me any longer [as the standard of righteousness];
Since you wrote that the world will no longer be able to see Christ as the
standard of righteousness, whereas the explanation above proposes the exact
opposite - our Lord's resurrection, ascension prove His righteousness, so in a
sense His departure shows His righteousness even more clearly. What is your take
on this? John 17:21 (NASB)
*A: The Lord wants all to be saved, but His prayer here is for those who are
believers to be kept safe in the world through the sanctifying power of the
truth. That involves us responding to the truth, so in no sense is it applicable
to unbelievers who need to come to the truth in the first place (a different
sentiment and a different prayer). He will not quarrel nor cry out,
And this: For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an
example, that you should follow His steps: "Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit
found in His mouth"; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He
suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges
righteously;
During the Tribulation, we may be called upon to witness to the truth in front
of an unfair judicial hearing. If so, we need to remember our Lord's words that
it will the Spirit who is testifying for us – and so take no heed ahead of time
as to what we ought to say (Matt.10:20). From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept
shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who
claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”
John 19:5 (NASB) He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to
those on the outside everything is said in parables."
*Q: If we exclude the non-scriptural number one, would you agree with the rest
of the order of Westcott's summary of our Lord's utterances from the cross? Q: Who is Levi? With regard to the sequence in which his calling is presented,
it seems to correspond to the calling of Matthew?
John 21:4 (NASB) *** 
NIV SB: Audience: Primarily Gentile believers and seeking unbelievers.
*Q: How do we know that John's gospel was aimed primarily at Gentile believers
and seeking unbelievers?
*A: This is a supposition but perhaps a reasonable one. We know that John was
active in Asia Minor at the time of writing, and that the churches he
corresponded with had large gentile memberships (cf. the three names mentioned
in 3Jn. are all gentile rather than Jewish names, and the seven churches of
Revelation are all in Asia Minor and would likely have had a majority gentile
complement – cf. what Acts has to say about Paul and Ephesus in Acts chapter
eighteen through twenty). However, the same could probably be said about almost
all of the New Testament – meaning "no particular, specific audience in mind" as
opposed to a predominantly Jewish audience assumed. After all, we are all
brothers in Christ, and all unbelievers need Christ regardless of ethnicity.
This is the "default position" (i.e., addressed "to all" as opposed to having a
Jewish audience in mind), given that this is the testament for the Church into
which the gentiles at time of writing (and up until this moment) had been
steadily flowing and would generally come to outnumber the Jewish Christians who
formed the backbone of most of the new churches. So unless a book specifically
says otherwise (as in the case of Hebrews and James), we would really be making
the assumption this note makes since God wants all to be saved and wants all to
grow after salvation.
NIV SB: The author knew Jewish life well, as seen from references to popular
Messianic speculations (see, e. g., 1:21 and note; 7:40-42); to the hostility
between Jews and Samaritans (see 4:9 and note); and to Jewish customs, such as
the duty of circumcision on the eighth day taking precedence over the
prohibition of working on the Sabbath (see note on 7:22).
*Q: The references to John 1:21 and Messianic speculations and to hostility
between Jews and Samaritans to support the point about knowing Jewish life are
clear, but the John 7:22 includes a quotation of the from our Lord rather than
John's own words, so I'm not sure if it should also be taken as evidence.
*A: Your point is well taken. It is fine and well to make use of the internal
evidence to be found in John's gospel to present a case that the book is as it
purports to be in fact written by the apostle John. But referencing words spoken
by our Lord as an indication of this suggests that they have been "made up" by
"someone who knew Jewish life well"; the comment betrays a questionable
understanding of the principle of divine inspiration. Our Lord told us that the
Spirit would "bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (Jn.14:26
NKJV), and that is what we have in John 7:22, the actual words of Christ brought
to perfect remembrance by the Spirit and recorded by John under divine
inspiration – and this would have been true even if John had not "known Jewish
life well" (which of course he certainly did, being Jewish).
Date: In general, two views of the dating of this Gospel have been advocated:
(1) The traditional view places it toward the end of the first century, c. AD 85
or later.
(2) More recently, some interpreters have suggested an earlier date, perhaps as
early as the 50s and no later than 70.
The first view may be supported by reference to the statement of Clement of
Alexandria (died between 211 and 216) that John wrote to supplement the accounts
found in the other Gospels (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6. 14. 7), and
thus his Gospel is later than the first three. It has also been argued that the
seemingly more developed theology of the fourth Gospel indicates that it
originated later.
The second view has found favor because it has been felt more recently that John
wrote independently of the other Gospels (See essay and chart). This does not
contradict the statement of Clement, referred to above. Also, those who hold
this view point out that developed theology does not necessarily argue for a
late origin. The theology of Romans (written c. 57) is every bit as developed as
that in John. Further, the statement in 5:2 that there "is" (rather than "was")
a pool "near the Sheep Gate" may suggest a time before 70, when Jerusalem was
destroyed. Others, however, observe that John elsewhere sometimes used the
present tense when speaking of the past.
What is your opinion on the date of John's gospel and the arguments presented?
*A: To take the last question first, the arguments are nonsensical. It is not
necessary for John to have written without any knowledge of the other gospels
for his gospel to have an earlier date than "traditionally" thought – it is only
necessary for the synoptics to have been written first (which they were). This
reasoning is a hangover from the time, not so long ago, when conventional wisdom
placed the gospels as much as a century or two after the events described. The
discover of papyri and other evidence for the text only a few decades removed
from the cross put paid to such erroneous, secular views. Taking the reasonable
proposition that Revelation, the last book in the Bible, was also the last
canonical work written by John, the gospel would have to precede it, and
Revelation was written no later than the death of Nero in A.D. 68, because Nero
is the sixth king who "now is" at John's time of writing (Rev.17:10), the last
of the Julio-Claudian emperors to be followed in the far future by the "seventh
king" (antichrist).
John 1:1 (NASB)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.
NIV SB: 1:1 In the beginning. A deliberate echo of Ge 1:1 (see note there) to
link God's action in behalf of the world through Jesus Christ (cf. 3:16) with
his first work, the creation of the world. Word. Greek logos, a term Greeks used
not only of the spoken word but also of the unspoken word, the word still in the
mind-the reason. When they applied it to the universe, they meant the rational
principle that governs all things. The Jews, however, used it to refer to the
"word" of God by which he created the world and governs it (see the Septuagint
[the pre- Christian Greek translation of the OT] rendering of Ps 33:6; 119:89;
147:15, 18) and to refer to the law of God that he gave the Israelites to be
their life (see Dt 32:47 and note on 30:20). Of the law the rabbis said that it
was "created before the world," that it "lay on God's bosom while God sat on the
throne of glory," that it was divine, that it was God's "firstborn" through whom
he "created the heaven and the earth," that it is "light" and "life" for the
world and that it "is truth." This Jewish use of logos as that which comes from
God to fulfill his purpose in and for the world appears to lie behind the
heavily freighted affirmation with which John begins his Gospel. with God. The
Word was distinct from the Father. was God. Jesus was God in the fullest sense
(see note on Ro 9:5). The prologue (vv. 1-18) begins and ends with a ringing
affirmation of his deity (see note on v. 18).
*Q: What is your take on the point made in this note that "This Jewish use of
logos as that which comes from God to fulfil his purpose in and for the world
appears to lie behind the heavily freighted affirmation with which John begins
his Gospel"?
*A: The word logos in Greek was also extremely "heavily freighted" at time of
writing, being a key philosophical term used for the better part of a millennium
by this time for the "rational principle" behind creation. That also could not
have been lost on John nor did the Spirit fail to take this into account. But we
need not go into such antecedents when one considers that the primacy of God's
Word – both the written and the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ (which are
actually inseparable) – is a fundamental principle of scripture from the
beginning ("and God said", Gen.1:3) to the end ("His Name stands [forever]: 'The
Word of God'."; Rev.19:13). As the One who carries out the policy / plan of the
Father, Jesus is the embodiment of His "word of command", the very truth of Him
who is the truth from beginning to end, the Alpha and the Omega.
Colossians 1:25
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
NIV SB: light of all mankind. This Gospel also links light with Christ, from
whom comes all spiritual illumination. He is the "light of the world," who holds
out wonderful hope for humanity (cf. 8:12 and note) and for the creation (see
3:16 and note). For an OT link between life and light, see Ps 27:1; 36:9 and
notes.
*Q: How specifically should we understand "Light" in this verse? As spiritual
illumination or is there a better way to put it in your view? Or should we
interpret this in more general terms, as a symbol of all the good things that
come through Christ?
*A: Light illuminates. Darkness obfuscates. The world is dark and the kingdom of
this world is a kingdom of darkness. The truth is light which illuminates the
heart just as the Light of the world "illuminates everyone" (Jn.1:9). Light is
glory and God is glorious. Light and glory and understanding through the truth
will be the eternal state of all whom God has chosen for Himself in Jesus
Christ, but darkness and separation from Him will be the lot of all who have
rejected Christ and His sacrifice for them. When we see the rainbow glory of God
face to face we will understand the full meaning of this description. Until then
we are looking "through a glass darkly" at the reflected glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ (1Cor.13:12; cf. 2Cor.3:9-18). God is light (1Jn.1:5; cf.
1Tim.6:16; Rev.22:5), and light represents His glory and essence, which in this
dark world can only be perceived and understood through the truth of Him who is
the Truth by means of the Holy Spirit.
2nd Corinthians 4:6
7 [a]He came [b]as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might
believe through him. 8 [c]He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the
Light.
a. John 1:7 Lit This one
b. John 1:7 Lit for testimony
c. John 1:8 Lit That one
*Q: Why does John in verse 7 use houtos (this one) to refer to John the Baptist,
but ekeinos (that one) in verse 8?
*A: The former is the near demonstrative, the latter the far demonstrative. In
the first instance John the baptist is the focus; but John the baptist is merely
the herald of the Messiah so by reversing these pronouns the Spirit gives the
apostle John to remove the baptist from center stage, so to speak, in order to
bring the focus back on the Son of God.
John 1:9 (NASB)
9 There was the true Light [a]which, coming into the world, enlightens every
man.
a. John 1:9 Or which enlightens every person coming into the world
*Q: Considering what is said in the footnote, do you agree with the NASB
rendering of this verse? Does "coming in to the world" refer to the light, or to
every man? Looking at Greek it seems it could go either way.
*A: It refers to "the Light". The verb form En which begins the sentence in
Greek is to be taken with erchomenon as a periphrastic past tense. That is what
the word order seems to me to demand. It also makes little sense to assume the
Christ enlightens people only at the point when they "come into the world" – and
if that phrase could be taken to mean "and thereafter" then there is little
point in having said it. But John is calling attention to Christ as God coming
into the world to bring light to its darkness. Some versions have this correct,
e.g., RSV:
John 1:9 RSV
14 And the Word became flesh, and [a]dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory
as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
a. John 1:14 Or tabernacled; i.e. lived temporarily
NIV SB: humanity. made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory. Cf. 2Pe
1:16-18; and note on 1:16. The Greek verb translated "made his dwelling" is
connected with the Greek noun meaning "tent/tabernacle" which, in turn, is
associated with the Hebrew word for "tent/tabernacle." The verse would have
reminded John's Jewish readers of the tent of meeting, which was filled with the
glory of God (Ex 40:34-35). Christ revealed his glory to his disciples by the
miracles he performed (see 2:11 and note) and by his death and resurrection.
*Q: Could you explain this point? How do we know that the phrase "made his
dwelling" would have been linked with Exodus 40:34-35 by the readers of John's
gospel? How is the Greek word used connected to the Hebrew term? Has it been
derived from it?
*A: The note is perhaps a good application of scripture but hardly a necessary
interpretation inasmuch as it is a commonplace in the Bible to refer to being in
this earthly body as sojourning in this world temporarily as in a tent – for
human beings who have no claim on God's glory (e.g, 2Cor.5:1-4; 2Pet.1:13-14).
John 1:15 (NASB)
15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said,
'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"
*Q: I'm not sure how this verse should be best rendered. Most versions render
emprosthen mou gegonen as referring to our Lord's status - "is greater than I",
"has surpassed me", others translate literally, which seems to relate to
chronological order of appearance - "has come before me" (the ending than goes -
"has come before me, because He was before me").
*A: It is meant temporally as expressing sequence; NASB wants to have one phrase
taken temporally and one not, but they are clearly meant to be parallels of one
another. This does not preclude the necessary inference that Christ is
(obviously) superior: NASB's rendering of what comes next, "for He existed
before me" is correct, namely, a temporal rendering which at the same time makes
clear Christ's deity.
John 1:15b
16 For of His fullness [a]we have all received, and [b]grace upon grace.
a. John 1:16 Lit we all received
b. John 1:16 Lit grace for grace
NIV SB: 1:16 grace in place of grace already given. To the blessing that came
through Moses has been added the greater blessing that has come through Jesus
(see v. 17; see also Heb 1:1-4 and notes). Another possible interpretation of
the Greek phrase is "grace on top of grace," meaning an abundance of grace.
*Q: How should we understand the phrase?
*A: The translation "grace on top of grace" is a good one since it makes use of
an English idiom which is comparable in meaning to the Greek here. The
preposition anti expresses things from the point of view of the observer so that
the "we" here behold/receive "grace", the favor and blessing of God, and more
grace yet behind that initial wave of grace (to an unlimited degree).
John 1:17 (NASB)
17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through
Jesus Christ.
*Q: Could you explain this verse? The point about contrasting the Law with grace
is quite clear, but why does John say that "truth" was realized through Jesus
Christ, as if it wasn't realized through Moses?
*A: It is not that the Law is not the truth, but it is the case that the truth
upon which the Law is founded is veiled in shadows which were not fully removed
until Christ came in the flesh (cf. 2Cor.3:6-18).
John 1:29 (NASB)
29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God
who takes away the sin of the world!
NIV SB: 1:29 Lamb of God. An expression found in the Bible only here and in v.
36. Many suggestions have been made as to which "lamb" John had in mind (e. g.,
the lamb offered at Passover or the lamb of Isa 53:7, of Jer 11:19, of Ge 22:8
or of Rev 5:6 [see note there]). It may be that John chose this unique way of
referring to Jesus' mission to point both to the sacrificial offering that Jesus
would become and to his subsequent conquest of all evil powers-the two ways by
which he "takes away the sin of the world" (see 1Jn 2:2 and note).
*Q: Aren't all the meanings of "lamb" contained in the passages mentioned
closely linked to each other? Why has the question been asked as to which "lamb"
John had in mind, as if there were many different ones?
*A: When I was in seminary, one of my theology professors had to be convinced
from scripture that the Passover lamb (and sacrificial animals generally)
deliberately foreshadowed and symbolized Christ's sacrifice on the cross. This
was the key passage he couldn't ignore. So while this connection seems so
obvious to us, having devoted ourselves to the truth of scripture, the depth of
ignorance in the present day church visible on such basic matters cannot be
overestimated. The note would seem to be reflective of just such confusion.
John 1:31 (NASB)
31 I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came
baptizing in water."
*Q: Can you explain how John didn't know Jesus?
*A: Though they were cousins, Jesus had lived in Galilee all of His life (after
returning from Egypt), but there is no indication that his cousin John had ever
left Judea. They might have met in their youth (i.e., at some family
get-together for one of the festivals in Jerusalem), but it seems clear from
this verse that John either did not recognize his cousin – or that he did not
understand that his cousin was the Messiah. John apparently expected the Messiah
to be obvious and glorious in appearance. In this verse, therefore, John is
contrasting his initial failure to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (which
probably astounded him) with the fact that the whole purpose of his ministry was
to proclaim our Lord's coming. This is a profound illustration of the
misapprehension under which Jesus' generation was laboring, imagining that the
Messiah would come in an obvious way like a conquering king. He will do so – at
the second advent – and to a degree to which "this generation" cannot really
fathom. But His first advent was for a different purpose: the salvation of us
all through the washing away of our sins. From the same general failure of
reasoning John was unwilling to baptize Jesus at first, but the symbolism of our
Lord's water baptism was fundamentally different from that of those who came to
John to be symbolically cleansed of their sins: our Lord went into the same
water, sinless though He is and was, and immersed Himself in all of the sins
symbolically washed off. This is part of the explanation of why He also calls
the cross a "baptism" (Lk.12:50), namely, His immersing of Himself in the sins
of the world, so to speak, in paying the penalty of judgment for them all so
that all may be saved. Our Lord's resurfacing symbolizes His resurrection, and
the Spirit descending upon Him shows both the Spirit's role in the resurrection
and also God's seal of approval on our Lord's work in dying for the sins of us
all.
John 1:33 (NASB)
33 I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me,
'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the
One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'
NIV SB: Holy Spirit. His normal title in the NT, though it appears only here and
in 14:26; 20:22 in this Gospel-emphasizing his holiness rather than his power or
greatness.
*Q: How should we understand that holiness of the Holy Spirit is emphasised
rather than His power or greatness? Aren't these linked?
*A: Of course. The question is, "why is He called the Holy Spirit?", and I think
that tells us a good deal about the nature of the plan of God. Holiness or
sanctification (biblical synonyms) refers to separation of that which is pure
from that which is impure. The devil's revolt introduced corruption into a
previously perfect world and resulted in God's judgment upon it. After its
reconstruction, the devil's temptation and our first parents' fall brought that
corruption to the whole human race. But the whole plan of God throughout the
seven thousand years of human history is all about rescuing those of us who are
willing to be rescued from corruption, and from the death and judgment which are
its necessary results. That is what the cross does: by dying for our sins, our
Lord liberated us from sin, death and otherwise inevitable condemnation. In the
end, we will be "ultimately sanctified", possessing resurrection bodies which
can never sin and living in a renewed universe wherein only righteousness dwells
(2Pet.3:13). At the point of salvation, the Spirit makes us one with Christ and
we become "positionally sanctified". In between, Christians endeavor (or should)
to walk in the Spirit at all times, that is, perfecting our "experiential
sanctification". The Spirit is the One who provides the empowerment for all of
this, at the new birth (Jn.3:5-8), in our spiritual growth (Gal.5:16-18), and at
the resurrection (Rom.8:11). So He is the Spirit of Holiness – because it is
only through Him that we are empowered to become holy/sanctified, initially,
progressively, and in the end.
John 1:35 (NASB)
35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples,
NIV SB: 1:35 two. One was Andrew (v. 40). The other is not named, but from early
times it has been thought that he was the author of this Gospel. his disciples.
In the sense that they had been baptized by John and looked to him as their
religious teacher.
*Q: Do you agree that John is meant here?
*A: Scripture does not say, but I would sooner think it to have been Philip. For
one thing, just before Jesus leaves for Galilee the next day, He finds Philip
and says "follow Me!" – whereupon Philip goes and tells Nathanael "We have found
the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also
wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (Jn.1:45 NIV). Now this makes more
sense if Philip was the unnamed disciple in our context (i.e., Philip not only
responding but knowing that Jesus was the Messiah – because he was the one who
was there when John the baptist said so). Also, Philip and Andrew knew each
other, being from the same town (Jn.1:44); we see this also from John 12:21ff.:
when certain Greeks want to meet Jesus and make their request of Philip, Philip
goes to Andrew to relay the request. So Philip was apparently friends with
Andrew and accustomed to being in his company (as was possibly the case in our
context too).
John 1:39 (NASB)
39 He *said to them, "Come, and you will see." So they came and saw where He was
staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the [a]tenth hour.
a. John 1:39 Perhaps 10 a.m. (Roman time)
*Q: The footnote says that it was Roman time - could you explain this, as Jewish
time was used in other gospels?
*A: This is a mistaken footnote (it seems to follow the work of Jack Finegan, a
scholar with controversial views on Roman time calculation). In the ancient
world, every day had twelve hours; and every night had twelve hours. Literal
midnight described the end of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh hour of
the night – though this was impossible to determine without a good knowledge of
the stars. In the day time, however, it was very easy to tell the time – at
least for people who lived most of their lives outside and made a habit of
telling time by the sun. When the sun was directly overhead, it was the end of
the sixth and the beginning of the seventh hour. And that was true no matter the
time of year. That is why sundials work. Of course, in this system, hours are
longer in the summertime and shorter in the winter time because the actual time
of daylight is divided by twelve whatever the time of year. This also was much
more natural than what we have to deal with today, rising the dark in the winter
and seeing the sun full up by the time we arise in the summer – if we keep to
the modern system of uniform hours of sixty minutes each with sixty seconds
(which we must of course do to get along in the present world).
So to translate "the tenth hour" into our clock, we have to know what time of
year this was. According to my calculations, Jesus' baptism by John marked the
inauguration of His three and a half year ministry which culminated at the cross
and resurrection at about the time of spring equinox. The event mentioned here,
then, probably took place around the fall equinox (cf. Jn.1:32). So this was one
of the two times of the year when the ancient "clock" came the closest to
squaring with our modern clock. "About" the tenth hour would mean somewhere
around the point when there would be two hours of daylight left – or about 4
P.M., roughly speaking. As to the note, the best I can do with this is that it
may represent an attempt to explain why at John 1:35 "the next day" becomes "the
tenth hour" in our verse so rapidly. This was an issue in antiquity as well, and
I note that at least one reputable manuscript (Alexandrinus) reads "sixth"
instead of "tenth" here. But the text is certain (well supported by all other
major mss.). Part of our problem as English readers is that Robert Estienne (who
inserted the verse division in the mid-16th c.) chose to put this phrase in
verse thirty-nine instead of in verse forty. But if a period is used after "and
they remained there that day", and then a new sentence is begun (preferable with
a conjunction), being linked to the following verse, then what the Greek
actually says is made more clear: "Now [when] it was about the tenth hour (i.e.,
after they had remained there most of "that day"), Andrew, the brother of Simon
Peter and one of the two who had heard [this] from John and had [thus] followed
Him, he, that is this man [Andrew] first finds his brother . . .". In other
words, the temporal phrase in question is employed by John to show that most of
the day had passed when Andrew got around to searching for his brother Peter.
John 1:40 (NASB)
40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon
Peter's brother.
*Q: Who was the other one?
*A: That is not known, but it makes a good point. Two men, both disciples of
John and thus apparently believers, were told by John himself that Jesus was the
Messiah and then had the great privilege of spending the day with Him. One of
these one then immediately goes and finds others dear to him to bring them to
Jesus – with the result that these share in the ministry; while the other
disappears from the narrative. Perhaps this person continued in the faith, and
perhaps even made some contribution to the Church of Jesus Christ; but this
mystery person does not have his name on one of the gates of New Jerusalem as
Peter and Andrew (and John and James) do. It is a good lesson for us to
remember: we all have bountiful spiritual opportunities for growth, progress and
production in this life, but not everyone is willing to make the most of them.
It is those who do who will receive the highest rewards.
John 1:41 (NASB)
41 He *found first his own brother Simon and *said to him, "We have found the
Messiah" (which translated means Christ).
John 1:45 (NASB)
45 Philip *found Nathanael and *said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in
the Law and also the Prophets wrote-Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
*Q: How did Andrew realize so quickly that Jesus was the Messiah? Was it through
John's testimony? The same could be asked about Philip in verse 45.
*A: John only gives us the general outline of what happened. I am certain that
over the course of the two days related in the context our Lord had plenty to
tell these men, and in many instances in the gospels it only takes a person with
a good heart who wants to believe (or someone who was already a believer) a few
words from the Lord to appreciate the light and truth they contain. And I am
sure that if you or I could spend just five minutes with the Lord we would
realize completely that John's testimony was the least of it.
John 1:50 (NASB)
50 Jesus answered and said to him, "Because I said to you that I saw you under
the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these."
*Q: I'm not sure how to interpret Jesus' words? Isn't it a good thing that
Nathanael believed in Jesus after a relatively small sign of His power? And
since it is a good thing, how should we understand our Lord's reply? Was Jesus
ability to see Nathanael supernatural? Was Nathanael surprised because he was at
a place where Jesus could not have seen him "normally"?
*A: Yes it was supernatural, and that was what impressed Nathanael – a clear
miracle being proof enough for Him that Jesus was who He claimed to be (not to
mention who John said He was). This impressed our Lord and that is why He
complimented Nathanael. Our Lord's words mean that what He had miraculously done
in this instance – which was enough for Nathanael to believe – was very small in
comparison to what was to come (though most of His countrymen would not believe
even so: Jn.1:11).
John 1:51 (NASB)
51 And He *said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens
opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
NIV SB: the angels of God ascending and descending. As in Jacob's dream (see Ge
28:12 and note), thus marking Jesus as God's stairway between heaven and earth,
"the way and the truth and the life" (14:6). He is God's elect one through whom
redemption comes to the world-perhaps identifying Jesus as "truly" the
"Israelite" (v. 47). Son of Man. Jesus' favorite self- designation (see note on
Mk 8:31).
*Q: I thought that verse 47 refers to Nathanael rather than Jesus, but this not
seems to suggest otherwise? What does our Lord mean here and when are these
words fulfilled? Do they refer to our Lord's ascension after His resurrection or
the Second Advent?
*A: These words clearly refer to what Nathanael will see, and, yes, he will see
the second advent . . . as will we all who have put our faith in Jesus Christ.
There is no mention of Nathanael seeing a vision of these things before they are
to happen, but it should be remembered that Peter, James and John saw a preview
of the second advent (at the mount of transfiguration: Matt.17:1-9; Mar.9:1-8;
Lk.28-36), that Paul saw heavenly things which may not be repeated:
2Cor.12:1-4), that Stephen saw "the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the
right hand of God" (Acts 7:55), and that John of course saw the heavenly host
attending the throne of God the Father and the Lamb (Rev.4-5). Whether or not
Nathanael saw any such vision while still on earth is not recorded – but he
certainly is witnessing it now. Greater things indeed.
John 2:1 (NASB)
2 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of
Jesus was there;
*Q: Third day from when is meant here? From the last verses of the first
chapter?
*A: Apparently on the third day from when our Lord made the statement to
Nathanael at the end of chapter one. In the inclusive counting of the ancient
world, this means two days later. So we may intuit from this that once our Lord
had made these disciples, He set out immediately for Galilee with them. In other
words, no time was wasted once the objective was accomplished (a good lesson for
us all).
John 2:4 (NASB)
4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has
not yet come."
*Q: Why does our Lord say at this point that His hour has not yet come?
*A: The time of our Lord's earthly ministry, though now at hand, had not yet
officially begun. The purpose of His miracles was to demonstrate the truth of
the gospel message He was giving, after all. But this was not an occasion where
He would be preaching repentance and the coming kingdom (Matt.4:17). That would
begin after John was put in prison (Matt.4:12; Mk.1:14; Lk.4:14) and after our
Lord moved His earthly family from Nazareth to Capernaum (Jn.2:12; cf.
Matt.4:13).
John 2:11 (NASB)
11 This beginning of His [a]signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested
His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.
a. John 2:11 Or attesting miracles; i.e. one which points to the supernatural
power of God in redeeming grace
NIV SB: In his account of Jesus' first display of "his glory" by providing an
abundance of wine at a wedding feast, John probably was testifying that Christ's
saving mission would culminate in the redemption of the creation from all its
distresses, so that the wine of joy would flow fully, as the prophets had
announced (see Isa 35:1-2; Joel 3:18; Am 9:13 and notes; cf. Ge 49:11 and note).
his
*Q: I have to say that the expression "supernatural power of God in redeeming
grace" isn't clear to me. Do you agree with that this first miracle was symbolic
in the way in which the NIV SB explains it?
*A: The note is attempting to explain the use of the word "sign" (Gk.
semeion),
but insufficiently so; i.e., all miracles and signs demonstrate God's
supernatural power, His grace is behind everything He does, and redemption, the
deliverance of mankind from sin, is the point of the incarnation of Christ and
the plan of God as a whole vis-à-vis mankind – but combining them in the way the
note does not only does not explain why this "sign" is unique but also manages
to obfuscate the other terms in the process. As to the meaning of "the beginning
of His signs" as explained in the NIV SB, I think rather that the explanation
John gives in contradistinction to what he had said before sums up the meaning.
That is to say, this was not "His hour" so that the sign/miracle was not an
official part of our Lord's preaching of the kingdom – that would begin very
shortly after this wedding as discussed in the previous Q/A. However, this sign
was very clearly a "manifestation of His glory", that is, a demonstration of His
status as the Messiah and the Son of God, and this was apparently the first time
He had done something like this publicly so that His disciples could witness it.
The words "sign" and "miracle" (or "power", Gk. dynamis) are essentially
synonyms as used in the New Testament. The only (occasionally observable)
difference is that the former is more often used of something done publicly and
thus "seen far and wide" (as in this instance where everyone at the feast sees
it and all the disciples realize who did it), whereas the latter may be applied
to supernatural acts done privately which only one person or a few persons may
see (as when our Lord tells certain individuals He has healed not to reveal who
did it). The two words overlap in most actual usage, however: the accomplishment
by our Lord of something that no one who was not empowered by God in an
unprecedented way could possibly do. Everything our Lord does and says is
"miraculous", after all, but "miracles" and "signs" are indisputable indications
that He is who He says He is, even for those who in their hardness of hearts
refuse to accept Him.
John 2:20 (NASB)
20 The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will
You raise it up in three days?"
NIV SB: 2:20 forty-six years. The temple was not finally completed until AD 64.
The meaning is that work had been going on for 46 years. Since it had begun c.
19 or 20 BC, the year of the event recorded here is c. AD 27 (see chart).
*Q: Do you agree with these dates?
*A: I would only agree that these Jewish unbelievers said what they said to our
Lord. They may have been wrong about the duration of the building process – they
were certainly wrong about everything else. As to when the forty-six years would
have commenced, assuming they were correct about that number, that is impossible
to peg chronologically. Those who attempt to do so are basing their start point
on the testimony of Flavius Josephus, Ant. 15.11.1 (whose testimony is incorrect
on very many points), and not only that – such interpretations are also thus
based upon other interpretations of what Josephus means (and these are often
incorrect as well). In short, based upon such flimsy evidence, there is no basis
for altering what we know about this date already (i.e., that since this is
approximately three years before the crucifixion, that it must have happened in
30 A.D., not 27 A.D.).
John 2:22 (NASB)
22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said
this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
NIV SB: 2:22 recalled what he had said. See 12:16; see also 14:26 and note. Then
they believed the scripture. See 20:9 and note. It is not clear whether
reference here is to a particular word from the OT (see, e. g., Ps 16:10; 17:15
and notes) or to the OT in general (cf. 1Co 15:4).
*Q: I thought that specifically the references to resurrection are meant in this
verse, but according to the NIV SB it could be OT in general - what is your
interpretation? What OT scriptures foresaw Jesus' resurrection?
*A: It's not a hard and fast rule, but generally when the word graphe ("writing"
or more particularly "scripture") is used in the singular as it is here, a
particular citation is meant. I take this to mean the scripture the disciples
are similarly recorded as having remembered about this incident just previously
in verse seventeen (the quote from Ps.69:9). The "scripture" and Jesus' words
are all the truth, and the two sandwich the incident in question giving it the
proper interpretation. Verse twenty-two, read carefully even in English, is not
talking about believing in the resurrection – they saw Him raised with their own
eyes, after all; rather it is about their remembrance of and belief in "what He
said" on this occasion, and, in my opinion, the scripture He quoted which they
likewise believed. In the Greek, "the scripture" and "His Word" are very closely
connected. As to the question of "what Old Testament scriptures foresaw Jesus'
resurrection", here is one important one to keep in mind:
Psalm 16:10
John 3:1-3 (NASB)
3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2
this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have
come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God
is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
*Q: a) Could you explain why our Lord answers Nicodemus the way He does? Since
Nicodemus says "we know that You have come from God as a teacher" and Jesus says
"unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God", does it mean that
Nicodemus has been born again? But then later on he shows the lack of
understanding of what being born again means.
*A: Our Lord has the perfect way of answering us all. Unlike us, He always knows
the motivations behind the questions asked and the answer which will most
benefit the one asking the question, assuming that the person doing so is really
interested in being helped. We know that Nicodemus did come to believe (Jn.7:50;
19:9), so our Lord is dealing with him as he is: a reluctant unbeliever
struggling with accepting the truth. Those not immersed in the Law as Nicodemus
was, easily threw aside the false teachings of their day to accept Jesus as
Savior. Nicodemus had been convicted of the emptiness of his course of life, but
was not yet willing to admit it was largely wasted. So he addresses our Lord in
what amounts to a condescending and flattering way, hoping, I suppose (if he had
thought it out) to be able to speak with our Lord, whose miracles proved to
anyone not totally hardened the truth of His deity, as a sort of equal – or at
least someone "on the same team". Our Lord immediately dispels all of Nicodemus'
false hopes based upon following the Law and makes it crystal clear that faith
alone can bring the new life which accompanies salvation. This is a good lesson
for us all. When we are dealing with unbelievers who are clinging to subtle
forms of religion wherein they think to be saved, we ought to give them the
truth straight and direct as our Lord does here – provided of course they
actually do manifest a spark of desire to be saved.
NIV SB: 3:2 at night. Perhaps Nicodemus was afraid to come by day. Or he may
have wanted a long talk, which would have been difficult in the daytime with the
crowds around Jesus.
*Q: b) Which one of the two reasons do you consider more likely to have
influenced Nicodemus?
*A: It seems clear that Nicodemus was at this point "wavering between two
opinions" (cf. 1Ki.18:21). He wanted to have it both ways, namely, to find out
about the Lord and the truth and yet not to jeopardize his standing as an
important man in the society. But we either have to follow the Lord or not –
there are no "secret Christians". Interesting here is also the contrast between
Jesus who is the Light of the world and this man wanting to cloak his own
actions in the dark of night (cf. Jn.1:4-5). As our Lord says to him a few
verses later:
John 3:19 NIV
*Q: c) What is your view on the rendering "born from above"?
*A: It is true that the Greek adverb anothen means both "anew" and "from above"
and is sometimes used in the New Testament deliberately in both senses at once
(e.g., Lk.1:3). I take that to be the case here (please see the link:
"Spiritual
Rebirth", section II.7 in BB 4B: Soteriology).
John 3:5 (NASB)
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and
the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
NIV SB: 3:5 kingdom of God. See note on Mt 3:2. born of water and the Spirit. A
phrase understood in various ways:(1) It means much the same as "born of the
Spirit" (v. 8; cf. 7:38-39; Titus 3:5 and notes). (2) Water here refers to
purification. (3) Water refers to baptism-that of John (1:31) or that of Jesus
and his disciples (see v. 22; 4:2 and notes). (4) Water refers to physical
birth, specifically to the water of the amniotic sac (cf. vv. 4, 6).
*Q: Why doesn't the NIV SB make a reference to the water of the Word? Having
browsed through the commentaries I found some which do actually reject the idea
of baptism (like Pulpit commentary), but water is not pointed as the meaning.
*A: It is a major error, especially since that – the Word of God – is precisely
what is meant (Is.55:1; Jn.3:5; 3:8; 4:10; 4:13-14; 6:35; 7:37-39; 1Cor.10:4;
Eph.5:26; Heb.10:22; 1Jn.5:8; Rev.7:17; 21:6; 22:1; 22:17; cf. Ex 17:5-6; Num.
20:8; Ps.42:1-2; 63:1; 84:5-7; Is.41:17; 44:3; Jer.2:13).
John 3:10 (NASB)
10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not
understand these things?
*Q: Does our Lord's question imply that Nicodemus should have understood these
things through Old Testament writings?
*A: Yes indeed. Compare:
Luke 24:25-27 NIV
11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we
have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
*Q: Why does our Lord use plural here?
*A: I think because Nicodemus stands here as a representative of the unbelieving
Pharisees who relied on the Law but without saving faith in the Lord. Unless and
until Nicodemus turned fully to the truth, he remained one of "you" and not one
of "us".
John 3:12 (NASB)
12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if
I tell you heavenly things?
*Q: Why does Jesus refer to what he has just told Nicodemus as "earthly things",
if he referred to being born of the Spirit and entering the Kingdom of God?
*A: The gospel is the entry into life eternal and the kingdom, and it must be
responded to positively on earth. All of the other truths of the Bible are
"heavenly" in that they can only be understood and appreciated by those who have
the Holy Spirit ministering to them (cf. 1Cor.2:10-16). Nicodemus had attempted
to engage our Lord in a spiritual conversation, but was not yet equipped to
receive spiritual information – because such things are heavenly, "spiritually
discerned" (1Cor.2:14). So our Lord understandably directs Nicodemus' attention
to "first things first": without responding to the gospel so as to be born
again, there was no point in discussing any other topic of truth since he would
not have been able to understand it.
John 3:13-16 (NASB)
13 No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of
Man. 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son
of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
*Q: Could you clarify the logical sequence of our Lord's reply? I'm not clear
about how the points made by Jesus from verse 10 to verse 16 are linked with
each other. Particularly the relationship between verse 13 and 14 is difficult
for me to comprehend.
*A: Verse 13 demonstrates Christ's deity; verse 14 explains the need for His
humanity, to die on the cross for the sins of the world, so that eternal life
may be offered to all willing to receive it (v.15), through accepting the person
(v.13) and work (v.14) of the Messiah. That is the essence of the basics of the
gospel which any "teacher of Israel" ought to understand, having the entire Old
Testament to hand (cf. Lk.24:25-27).
John 3:16 (NASB)
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
NIV SB: 3:16 God so loved the world. The great truth that motivated God's plan
of salvation (cf. 1Jn 4:9-10). "So" here means "in this way" rather than "so
much."
*A: Do you agree with how NIV SB explains the meaning of the word "so"?
*Q: Not at all. While I wouldn't rule out that this adverb also comprises the
way in which the Father loves the world (i.e., all whom He has made) – in giving
up His only Son for it – the key idea is very clearly the immensity of the
sacrifice He made for it – through the spiritual death of Jesus Christ for all
of the sins of the world.
John 3:22 (NASB)
22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and
there He was spending time with them and baptizing.
*Q: Why were Jesus' disciples still baptizing? Should John's baptism still have
been undertaken at the time when our Lord's ministry already commenced? With
regard to reconciling John 3:22 and John 4:2, commentators say that they were
performing the baptism "with the sanction" of Jesus, or "under His direction",
or that Jesus baptized "through them" - which is the best way to explain it in
your view?
*A: One foot is in (the disciples are doing it) but one is not – our Lord is not
water-baptizing. And it would have been inappropriate for Him to do so because
that ritual looked forward to His coming and He had indeed come. But it was
legitimate for the disciples to do it during the first advent to make the
connection between the Lord and His herald crystal clear, and also for the
apostles in the time of transition chronicled by Acts for the same reason in
ministering to the Jewish generation which had accepted John but which had not
accepted Christ for who He was (and the connection to John, His herald, is what
was emphasized through water-baptism).
John 3:25 (NASB)
25 Therefore there arose a discussion on the part of John's disciples with a Jew
about purification.
*Q: Who is meant by "a Jew" here?
*A: The correct text reads "[some] Jews" (Sinaiticus, Bodmer papyrus); there is
no definite article because otherwise one might assume, based upon John's usage
throughout the gospel, that "the Jews" referred to the unbelieving political and
religious rulers of Jerusalem (as is often the case in this gospel); whereas
these are merely some unidentified Judeans.
John 3:26 (NASB)
26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the
Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming
to Him."
NIV SB: 3:26 testified. See note on 1:7. John's disciples knew that he had
testified about Jesus, but they loved their master and were apparently envious
of Jesus' success.
*Q: Do you agree that John's disciples could have been envious of Jesus'
success?
*A: I don't think we have to impugn the motives of these followers of John –
almost certainly believers – who were naturally zealous for their own master.
John had been sent to "baptize with water", so one can understand why they were
at the very least surprised at this development – since John had prophesied that
Jesus, the Messiah, would "baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire"
(Matt.3:11; Lk.3:16). Since generations of the church-visible over thousands of
years have failed to understand that this water-baptism (by our Lord's
disciples) and the temporary continuation of water-baptism in the early part of
Acts had as its purpose merely the temporary linking of the Messiah to His
herald in order to demonstrate that Jesus was in indeed the Messiah, we should
not be so hard on these individuals who were seeing that unexpected (and
temporary) development for the very first time.
John 3:27 (NASB)
27 John answered and said, "A man can receive nothing unless it has been given
him from heaven.
NIV SB: 3:27 The words are true of both Jesus and John (and of everyone). Both
had what God had given them, so there was no place for envy. given. The Greek
verb is used 76 times in this Gospel, especially of the things the Father gives
the Son.
*Q: Isn't John referring here specifically to Jesus? Or is it a general
statement, applicable, as the NIV SB says, to everyone?
*A: I don't see any point in the statistic given here, but I do agree with the
note. The statement in Greek is generic: anthropos meaning "any human being",
male or female. You are certainly correct, however, that John is talking about
the Lord first (He had "been given" this authority and right) and about himself
secondarily (it was not John's place nor his intent to usurp the rights of the
Messiah).
John 3:29 (NASB)
29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who
stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. So
this joy of mine has been made full.
*Q: What is John referring to here by "the bride"? Did John understand it as
church?
*A: Whether or not John personally understood the doctrine of the Church, he did
say these words and the Spirit caused them to be recorded. Jesus is the
Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride, and that prophecy is also recorded in
the Psalms (Ps.45:9-17), and our Lord did use this analogy with prophetic effect
as well during His first advent (Matt.9:15; Matt.25:1-13; Mk.2:19; Lk.5:34).
John 3:31 (NASB)
31 "He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the
earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.
*Q: Does by the one "who comes from above" John is referring to our Lord and by
the one "who is of the earth" to himself?
*A: Yes.
John 3:32 (NASB)
32 What He has seen and heard, of that He testifies; and no one receives His
testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has set his seal to this, that
God is true.
*Q: Does John here refer to Jesus' testimony not being received?
*A: Yes. John is speaking about our Lord. Many did receive John's testimony
(though not all), but while our Lord "came to His own", for the most part "his
own did not receive Him" (Jn.1:11).
John 3:33 (NASB)
33 He who has received His testimony has set his seal to this, that God is true.
*Q: The logical sequence of "He who has received His testimony has set his seal
to this, that God is true" isn't clear to me - does John here mean that everyone
who believes Jesus confirms that God is true, as otherwise he wouldn't have
believed?
*A: Yes. Jesus is the incarnate Word of God. Believing in Him is accepting the
Father's testimony, accepting His Word. That is the only way to be saved, even
in the case of those of Jewish origin who respect and revere the Father. That is
why the Father has exalted His Word even over His own Name (Ps.138:2b) – because
accepting the Father's Gift, Jesus Christ, is what is necessary for salvation.
John 3:36 (NASB)
36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son
will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
NIV SB: 3:36 has. Eternal life is a present possession, not something the
believer will only obtain later (see note on v. 15). God's wrath. A strong
expression, meaning that God is actively opposed to everything evil. The word
"wrath" occurs only here in John's Gospel (see note on Ro 1:18). remains. No one
who persists in rejecting the Son of God as Savior and Lord can expect God's
wrath eventually to fade away. God's opposition to evil is both total and
permanent.
*Q: NIV SB says that God's wrath is "A strong expression, meaning that God is
actively opposed to everything evil." I thought that what was meant here is
God's wrath being "on hold" until the time of judgment rather than an active
opposition.
*A: You make a good observation in the face of a potentially confusing note.
Clearly, if God chose to actively oppose anyone, they would be instantly
destroyed. But our God is "longsuffering" because He is "not willing that any
should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2Pet.3:9). The devil and
his followers are given their time. Unbelievers are given their time. And even
we who have now believed are "given our time" on earth; the former to
demonstrate intransigence in the face of God's mercy (and to give place for
repentance in the case of some human beings), the latter to demonstrate to all,
ourselves included, just how much we love the Lord and how worthy we are of
being rewarded (or not).
John 4:1-2 (NASB)
Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making
and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus Himself was not
baptizing, but His disciples were),
NIV SB: 4:2 The disciples did not baptize without Jesus' approval (see 3:2 and
note).
*Q: Do you agree that our Lord gave the disciples the approval to baptize in
water?
*Yes. For the reason, see above on John 3:22.
John 4:3 (NASB)
Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making
and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus Himself was not
baptizing, but His disciples were), 3 He left Judea and went away again into
Galilee.
NIV SB: 4:3 left Judea. Success (which aroused opposition; see note on
7:1-8:59), not failure, led Jesus to leave Judea.
*Q: Why did our Lord leave Judea and go into Galilee having found out that
Pharisees "had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than
John 2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were)"? What
is the link between the two?
I'm trying to arrange the described events geographically. Since our Lord was in
Jerusalem for the Passover in chapter 2, should we understand that His dialogue
with Nicodemus also took place in Jerusalem? Then John 3:22 says:
After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and
there He was spending time with them and baptizing.
*A: On the question of "why?", this has to do with the continuation of Christ's
earthly ministry for the allotted time. Our Lord functioned as a true human
being without inordinate divine intervention by His deity so that His life
experience might be truly human as well (Heb.2:17; 4:15;
the doctrine of
kenosis; see the link). Accordingly, He took all good and godly proper
precautions – which included not unnecessarily endangering Himself or His
disciples by lingering in places and circumstances which might have otherwise
forced the issue and led prematurely to the cross. While of course the Father
could easily have intervened to prevent any such thing, there was a "right way"
for all He did "in order to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt.3:15), and our Lord
did everything in exactly the perfect way.
On the timing, the text of John 3:22 says in Greek ten Ioudaian gen. That is not
typical of John's phraseology. In fact, this is the only place in the gospel
where "Judean land" is found – everywhere else we have the noun "Judea" without
the word "land". I think NIV is correct in its translation, "the Judean
countryside". So there is no issue with understanding the events between the
first Passover of our Lord's ministry (Jn.2:13) and His return to Galilee (at
Jn.4:3) happening in Jerusalem, and then later (from Jn.3:22 onward) in the
countryside of Judea (rather than in Jerusalem proper).
I address the timing of these issues advent generally and the passages in John
pertinent to
the overall chronology of our Lord's 1st advent ministry in SR 5 (at the
link).
John 4:4 (NASB)
4 And He had to pass through Samaria.
NIV SB: 4:4 had to go. Perhaps the necessity lay in Jesus' mission rather than
in geography. Samaria. Here the whole region, not simply the city. Jews often
avoided Samaria by crossing the Jordan and traveling on the east side (see notes
on Mt 10:5; Lk 9:52).
*Q: Do we know why our Lord had to go through Samaria?
*A: By far the most expeditious way from the lower Jordan valley back to Galilee
would have taken them through Samaria. We need not understand "had to" (Gr.
edei)
in the sense of dire necessity; it merely means here that no other route was
reasonable. One can go from France to Poland without going through Germany, I
suppose, but it would involve making an unnecessarily onerous and round-about
journey, e.g.
John 4:6 (NASB)
6 and Jacob's well was there. So Jesus, being wearied from His journey, was
sitting thus by the well. It was about [a]the sixth hour.
NIV SB: John 4:6 Perhaps 6 p.m. Roman time or noon Jewish time
*Q: According to which time reckoning did John write his gospel?
*A: See above on John 1:39. The note is incorrect. John makes use of the most
common way time was told in the ancient world, namely, dividing the daylight
hours of the day into twelve parts. So "about the sixth hour" would be going on
"high noon", that is, when the sun was directly overhead. In our western method
which is now divorced from the actual solar mechanics this only happens at the
equinoxes in spring and fall. But in this most common method of reckoning,
anyone who spent a good deal of time outdoors could estimate the hour by casting
a glance at the sun just as easily as we do by glancing at our wristwatches (or
cell phone).
John 4:7 (NASB)
7 There *came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus *said to her, "Give Me a
drink."
NIV SB: 4:7 to draw water. People normally drew water at the end of the day
rather than in the heat of midday (see v. 6; Ge 24:11 and note). But the
practice is attested by Josephus, who says that the young ladies whom Moses
helped (Ex 2:15-17) came to draw water at noon.
*Q: Do you agree with Josephus' point?
*A: This happened at noon we know because that is what John writes. At Mark
14:13 and Luke 22:10 our Lord commands the disciples to prepare the Passover and
directs to a man carrying a vessel of water. This had to be well before the end
of the day since the Passover was to be eaten directly after the sun went down
and took some lengthy time to prepare. So even if women usually carried the
water and did so at dusk, here we have a man doing it and at midday. I think if
a person went to any third world venue where water must similarly be collected,
one would find water being drawn and carried by all and sundry and at various
times. In other words, there may be such a rule, but the exceptions are so
numerous and common as to make this event (drawing water at midday)
unexceptional. I will also note that as one reads this passage, the impression
is not given that there are numerous people drawing water but rather that the
woman is alone with our Lord in having this conversation.
John 4:7-38
*Q: How is it that Jesus speaks with this Samaritan women and later stays with
the Samaritans, when He was ministering to Jews (cf. Syrophoenician woman) and
He told His disciples not to go among the gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6)?
*A: Our Lord is elsewhere also recorded as healing a Samaritan (Lk.17:12-19). On
that occasion he calls the man an "alien" or "foreigner" (Gr.
allogenes), but
not a "gentile". The Samaritans, as seen also from Acts, represented a sort of
middle-type between Jew and gentile. They dwelt in the land, had their own
version of the Torah (the Samaritan Pentateuch) and worshiped in a way which
mimicked the true worship in Jerusalem. As such, they are given here an
exceptional blessing from the Lord on account of the readiness of heart He knew
He would receive – and this readiness to believe stands in stark contrast to the
hardness of heart presented to Him by those who by birth were "of Israel" (cf.
Jn.1:11) and serves as sign to His own people as a result (cf. Matt.21:31).
John 4:9-10 (NASB)
9 Therefore the Samaritan woman *said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew,
ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings
with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of
God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him,
and He would have given you living water."
*Q: Why does our Lord reply the way He does to the question asked by the
Samaritan woman?
*A: To shift the conversation to the important issue of salvation from the
unimportant issue of race: "the gift of God" (our Lord about to die for our
sins) and "who it is" (Jesus Christ the object of faith) – these are the two
essential aspects of the gospel, the Person and work of Christ.
John 4:10 (NASB)
10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is
who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have
given you living water."
NIV SB: 4:10 gift. The Greek for this word is used only here in this Gospel and
emphasizes God's grace through Christ. Jesus gave life and gave it freely.
living water. Not stagnant cistern water but fresh, flowing water, as of a
spring or mountain stream, that revives and refreshes life. In 7:38-39 the term
is explained as referring to the Holy Spirit, but here it refers to that which
produces eternal life (see v. 14).
*Q: Do you agree that living water is used with two different meanings in these
passages? I'm not clear about the distinction drawn here.
*A: "Living water" in Greek does refer to what we would call "fresh, running
water" as opposed to water drawn from a well as we have here. The participle
"living" can thus be either objective or subjective in application, depending
upon how the person hearing receives the phrase. In the latter instance, the
water is "living" in the sense of itself being on the move instead of being
inactive (i.e., "dead"); in the former instance, it is "living" in the sense
bestowing life. While the woman may have sensed before further explanation that
there was more to this phrase as our Lord was using it than was commonly the
case, His method of using parables and approaching things indirectly can be seen
in this encounter as well. Some respond and demonstrate their positiveness to
the truth; others "keep on hearing but not understanding". This is a good lesson
for anyone sharing the gospel. We need not worry about slamming the message home
– the Spirit is the actual Evangelist in all such situations.
John 4:12 (NASB)
12 You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and
drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?"
a) NIV SB: 4:12 our father Jacob. Deep regard for the past prevented her from
seeing the great opportunity of the present.
*Q: Why does the Samaritan women call Jacob her father? Do you agree that the
regard for the past stood in the way?
*A: What both Samaritans and Jews had in common in our Lord's day was their
preference of tradition over truth. But while many of our Lord's own countrymen
saw His miracles and heard His words of truth and were even so not prompted to
respond in faith, this woman – and here fellow town-folk – recognized our Lord
as the Messiah based at least at first merely on His knowledge of the woman's
past. So in fact her "past" led to salvation, since in her heart she preferred
the truth to any and all tradition which may have otherwise stood in the way.
John 4:15-16 (NASB)
15 The woman *said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty
nor come all the way here to draw." 16 He *said to her, "Go, call your husband
and come here."
*Q: Again, why does Jesus reply in this way?
*A: This is our Lord graciously moving from the symbolism of the truth to a
tangible proof of it (in this case, knowing things He could not otherwise know),
based on the positive inclination of this woman's heart obvious from her
response in asking for the living water.
John 4:22 (NASB)
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is
from the Jews.
*Q: Regarding Samaritan worship you wrote:
I take it you disagree with the point made here?
*A: In my opinion, no one who is not truly saved can truly worship. Who knows
what is really in the heart of an unbeliever? Many religions claim to worship
"one god" or "the One true God", but do they really? If they (their adherents)
are not willing to respond to the basic truth of the gospel so as to be saved,
then I think we have to conclude with Isaiah that "their fear (i.e., "worship")
of Me [consists only in] the commandment[s] of men taught [by tradition]"
(Is.29:13).
John 4:24 (NASB)
24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
NIV SB: 4:24 God is spirit … worship in the Spirit and in truth. The place of
worship is irrelevant, because true worship must be in keeping with God's
nature, which is spirit. "True worshipers" (v. 23) must worship God in the power
(enablement) of his Spirit and in accordance with truth. In John's Gospel truth
is associated with Christ (see notes on 1:14; 14:6), a fact that has great
importance for the proper understanding of Christian worship.
*Q: Do you agree that our Lord's message here is that the place of worship is
irrelevant?
*A: I would not put it that way. Clearly, there is no special advantage to any
place of worship unless the Lord says there is. Jerusalem was the place chosen
by God for the temple and also for the sacrifice of our Lord which the rites of
the temple merely foreshadow. But our Lord's words in verse 23 make it clear
that even though Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed, worshiping Him will
always be possible – for those who are truly His (as we who have been sealed by
the Holy Spirit always shall be).
John 4:25 (NASB)
25 The woman *said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called
Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us."
NIV SB: 4:25 Messiah … will explain everything. The woman's last attempt to
evade the issue. The matter was too important, she reasoned, for people like
Jesus and herself to work out. Understanding would have to await the coming of
the Messiah (see note on 1:25). The Samaritans expected a Messiah, but their
rejection of all the inspired writings after the Pentateuch meant that they knew
little about him. They thought of him mainly as a teacher.
*Q: Were the words in the parenthesis spoken by the woman or added by John as an
explanation? Do you agree with the NIV SB point that the woman tried to evade
the issue?
*A: There are only two other places in the New Testament where this construction
is found as an explanation given by someone who is represented as speaking them
(Matthew 27:17 John 9:11), and once where a similar verb is used likewise as an
explanation or gloss by a speaker (Acts 8:10 ); in all three of these other
instances, the speaker is indeed giving the explanation, not the writer of the
book. What we can take from this is that this woman most likely was the one to
explain what she meant by "Messiah" (she does not use the definite article with
this term). It is possible that she was speaking in Aramaic, but in my view more
likely that this conversation took place in Greek, and that this was the reason
for the Greek explanation of "Messiah", that is, "the Anointed One" (Christ).
As to evasion, I think instead this is a manifestation, however dim, of some
positive interest in the truth. She was genuinely looking forward to the coming
of the Messiah. She had not received the answers she would have liked to have
had up to this point – and understandably so inasmuch as the Samaritans, not to
mention the Jewish teachers and authorities, were not walking in the truth. I
think we can intuit that she had heard of John's ministry which heralded the
Messiah's coming and that this is one reason why she makes the comment she does.
This also helps to explain why she was quick to accept Jesus as Him – she had
been hoping for Him and looking for Him all along. It says a lot that the person
who was most interested in salvation and thus most ready to accept Christ was a
woman and a person who was no doubt looked down upon by the religious crowd
because of her behavior, a situation not unparalleled in Israel (cf. the example
of Mary Magdalene).
John 4:26 (NASB)
26 Jesus *said to her, "I who speak to you am He."
NIV SB: 4:26 I am he. The only occasion before his trial on which Jesus
specifically said that he was the Messiah (but see Mk 9:41, "Messiah"). The term
did not have the political overtones in Samaria that it had in Judea, which may
be part of the reason Jesus used the designation here.
*Q: Do you agree with the reason given in the NIV SB for our Lord disclosing
that He is the Messiah?
*A: As our Lord says elsewhere,
Luke 8:10 NKJV (cf. Matt.10:11; Mk.4:11)
To those who were willing to accept the truth, our Lord gave the truth unveiled.
To those who were not interested in the truth, He spoke in parables, that they
might have the truth but at the same time be able to do what they really wanted
to do with it, namely, reject it. This took place so that the issue of free will
in accepting God's Gift might be maintained in spite of the dramatic proofs,
given through various and sundry miracles that our Lord performed, of who He was
and is – the Son of God.
John 4:27 (NASB)
27 At this point His disciples came, and they were amazed that He had been
speaking with a woman, yet no one said, "What do You seek?" or, "Why do You
speak with her?"
*A: Was even speaking to a woman considered improper at that time?
*Q: The role of women in antiquity generally was of course significantly
different from what we find in modern western societies (cf. 2Ki.4:27), and that
is reflected in Orthodox Jewish practice even today. So for example, women are
not allowed to pray at the "Wailing Wall" except in a small portion set aside
for them, and they are not allowed many other things allowed to men. So the
disciples are surprised to see the Lord engaging in a private conversation in
public with a woman and a Samaritan woman at that, not in this case because it
was improper but because it stood in stark contrast with the customs of the
times.
John 4:29 (NASB)
29 "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the
Christ, is it?"
*Q: Was this woman a true believer? Regarding this question you wrote
previously:
NIV SB: 4:29 everything I ever did. An exaggeration, but it shows the impression
Jesus made on her. Could this be the Messiah? Her question seems full of
longing, as though she did not expect them to say "Yes," but she could not say
"No."
*Q: Do you agree that the motive given in the NIV SB - longing (to be saved
perhaps) - could also explain her question?
*A: Our Lord's detailed knowledge of the woman's past was the proof for her –
all she needed – that He was the Messiah as He said He was (cf. Jn.1:47-49). It
was only natural that she should share this proof with those she was urging to
consider our Lord's words. Her motive is that the rest of her people be saved
even as she had been saved.
John 4:31-32 (NASB)
31 Meanwhile the disciples were urging Him, saying, "Rabbi, eat." 32 But He said
to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about."
*Q: Should we understand our Lord's reply literally, as meaning that doing God's
will even subdues physical needs, or is it a reference of only spiritual meaning
and Jesus here changes the focus from earthly nature of disciples concern, to
the importance of what's eternal?
*A: I'm not sure it's either or. Our Lord needed to be physically and mentally
sharp and to have a clear voice for the work He was about to do, whereas a meal
in the middle of a hot day after a tiring journey would induce sleepiness and
also affect the voice (as all singers and public speakers understand). This is
another example of our Lord putting the spiritual well being of others in front
of His own basic needs – a good lesson for us all.
John 4:35 (NASB)
35 Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'?
Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are
white for harvest.
*Q: Why does our Lord say "they are white for harvest"? Does any type of grain
whiten when it's ripe?
*A: Not being intimately connected with agriculture, I wouldn't want to weigh in
on this with specificity. What I can say is that this description is meant to
demonstrate that the crop is ready to be harvested (and I do believe I'm correct
in saying that many cereal crops turn from green to a darker or lighter
colorless complexion when they ripen). The point is that anyone who looks on
this "crop" can see that it is ready to be picked or harvested, and that is the
work that our Lord is entering into and encouraging the disciples and us by
extension to enter into as well.
John 4:36 (NASB)
36 Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life
eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together.
*Q: Who does our Lord mean by the one who sows and the one who reaps? Are Old
Testament prophets meant here as those sowing?
*A: This verse makes it clear that all work for the kingdom of God is valuable,
regardless of whether or not we see any clear result ourselves from our labors
at the time, and regardless of whether or not we are directly involved or
supporting the ministries of others. In this case, the Samaritans had the
Pentateuch and no doubt knew of many other if not all of the prophetic writings
of the Old Testament. They also could hardly have been unaware of John the
baptist's ministry. So in this case all who came before who had given this woman
and the people in this village a basic understanding of the things of God (and
an anticipation of the coming of the Messiah) had "sown" the truth and made
ready a crop which our Lord was about to reap with the disciples assisting in
this process. To apply this to our day and age, whenever we as teachers help
someone forward spiritually through ministering the truth, odds are we are not
the very first to have worked this field. Any Christian who has contributed
through the Spirit to the work of sharing the truth of God's Word will receive a
reward for it, even if the results of his/her labor were not necessarily visible
at the time.
John 4:39 (NASB)
39 From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of
the woman who testified, "He told me all the things that I have done."
*Q: According to NIV SB woman's words were an exaggeration: "4:29 everything I
ever did. An exaggeration, but it shows the impression Jesus made on her. Could
this be the Messiah? Her question seems full of longing, as though she did not
expect them to say "Yes," but she could not say "No." " So is it the case that
genuine belief of Samaritans (and it does seem genuine, but please correct me if
I'm wrong) was started by an exaggeration? It does seem that their focus shifts
later:
42 and they were saying to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said
that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is
indeed the Savior of the world."
*A: Anyone who is gifted to be an evangelist or an apologist would do well to
consider this example. In the way she approaches the matter, she legitimately
invites further investigation into the truth in a way which encourages it rather
than repelling it.
It seems to me overly pedantic to call this woman's words an exaggeration. I
have written elsewhere about the false purity of our present day
hyper-analytical view of things, induced no doubt by our modern love of science.
But it is important to point out that science knows nothing for certain
(understanding of all matters is constantly "growing"); science merely
approximates the absolute (physical) truth. The same is true when we use words
such as "all" and "everything" in contemporary speech. It's just that our
standard of "all" and "everything" is different from that used in the ancient
world, especially in the Hebrew culture. Our understanding of "everything" or
"all" or "whole" when used in conversation is also not meant to be absolutely
complete, after all:
43 After the two days He went forth from there into Galilee. 44 For Jesus
Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country. 45 So when He
came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He
did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they themselves also went to the feast.
*Q: Since our Lord was brought up in Galilee, why does John say in verse 44 that
he moved from there into Galilee because "a prophet has no honor in his own
country"? Wasn't Galilee considered "His own country"?
*A: Our Lord was of the house of David in Judea. The family had moved to Galilee
to avoid persecution by Herod's family. It is true that also the people of
Nazareth likewise resisted the truth about Him more than others because of the
assumptions made on the basis of familiarity (Matt.13:54ff.).
NIV SB: 4:45 welcomed him. The welcome of the Galileans actually was a kind of
rejection, for they were interested only in Jesus' miracles. They were not
welcoming the Messiah who could bring forgiveness of sins, but only a miracle
worker who could meet all their physical needs and expectations. all that he had
done. See 20:30 and note. Passover Festival. The one narrated in 2:13-25.
*Q: Do you agree with the NIV SB take on the issue? It seems somewhat
circumventive to me. I'm also not sure about the point whether by "all that he
had done" we should understand our Lord's cleansing of the temple or the signs
referred to in John 2:23.
*A: I would translate the key part here, "the Galileans received Him because
they had seen the things which He had done in Jerusalem during the festival".
This would include the cleansing of the temple, but I think it is fair to say
that these unbelievers were indeed more impressed by the healing and miracles He
had performed – even Herod later wanted to meet Jesus because "he hoped to see
some miracle done by Him" (Lk.23:8). The fact that they were impressed by our
Lord's supernatural acts is not a bad thing – the whole point of these signs was
to demonstrate His Messiahship and the power of God; the fact that they did not
even so respond to Him in faith was the problem.
John 4:54 (NASB)
54 This is again a second sign that Jesus performed when He had come out of
Judea into Galilee.
NIV SB: 4:54 second sign. This was the second time Jesus performed a sign after
coming from Judea to Galilee (see 2:11 and note; see also chart).
How should we reconcile John's counting of our Lord's miracles with Luke's
account which is chronological?
*A: See answer at Jn.2:11 above. There is no definite article here with the word
"sign". I would prefer to translate, "This was a second famous miracle Jesus did
[in Galilee], [on this occasion] having [just] come from Judea" (the first being
the changing of the water into wine which also apparently became widely known).
Clearly, our Lord did many miraculous things daily. So John is merely making a
special point of emphasizing an event which caught everyone's particular
attention.
John 5:1 (NASB)
5 After these things there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem.
NIV SB: 5:1 one of the Jewish festivals. Probably Passover, Pentecost or
Tabernacles. The identity of this festival is significant for the attempt to
ascertain the number of Passovers included in Jesus' ministry, and thus the
number of years his ministry lasted. John explicitly mentions at least three
different Passovers: the first in 2:13, 23 (see note on 2:13), the second in 6:4
and the third several times (e. g., in 11:55; 12:1), suggesting a public
ministry lasting between two and three years. However, if the festival of 5:1
was a fourth Passover or assumes that a fourth Passover had come and gone,
Jesus' ministry would have lasted between three and four years.
*Q: Do we know what feast is meant here? What is your take on the points made in
the NIV SB note? Do you agree with the chronology proposed in this graph?
*A: This was in fact the Passover of 31 A.D., the second Passover of our Lord's
three and a half year ministry (He was crucified on the fourth).
John 5:2 (NASB)
2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in [a]Hebrew
[b]Bethesda, having five porticoes.
a. John 5:2 I.e. Jewish Aramaic
b. John 5:2 Some early mss read Bethsaida or Bethzatha
*Q: Is "Bethesda" the correct spelling?
*A: Spelling of place names in ancient texts is often problematic, and that
difficultly is much more pronounced in the New Testament because we have the
issue of transliterating Hebrew place names (as well as all proper names) into
Greek. Add to that the fact that there was no accepted convention for such
transliteration (the place name "Megiddo" is transliterated dozens of different
ways in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, and the NT takes
much from that version). We also see in the NT that different authors follow
different conventions on this issue. Finally, there is also no hard and fast
convention in English for the spelling of Bible names. As with Classical proper
nouns, the most we can say is that if someone or some place is famous, then we
are obliged to make use of the transliteration in common use. So for example
"John" is what we have always used for Iōannes / Iōanes (note the two different
spellings in Greek), a name which according to transliteration from the Hebrew
would be closer to Yōchanan.
The derivation of this noun is uncertain, and the textual tradition contains
variants. The traditional rendering, "Bethesda", represents a possible
Hebrew/Aramaic combination meaning "house of mercy"; however, the text reads "in
Hebrew" (pace those who want to make the adverb hebraisti mean "in Aramaic"),
and Sinaiticus has "Bethzatha", which might mean "house of olives". Since "house
of mercy" fits the story nicely, it is likely that this alternative was
preferred for that reason rather that following the more difficult text, so I
would prefer "Bethzatha".
John 5:3-4 (NASB)
3 In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, [[a]waiting
for the moving of the waters; 4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain
seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the
stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with
which he was afflicted.]
a. John 5:3 Early mss do not contain the remainder of v 3, nor v 4
*Q: Should verse 3 and 4 be a part of the scripture? Could you explain the
phenomenon of the angel of the Lord stirring up the water? Is it attested
anywhere else in the scripture?
*A: John 5:4 is not a part of scripture. The verse is absent from the all of the
oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testament (including Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, Ephraemi rescriptus, the Bodmer papyri, and many other important
witnesses). No doubt this verse and a half was added by someone wishing to
explain just why these individuals were waiting by the pool, supplying what was
seen as a reasonable explanation based upon what this man says in verse seven.
The man does not say that an angel was responsible for the movement of the
waters, and neither our Lord's words nor the scripture give us any reason to
suppose that there were any healing properties in these waters at all, stirred
or not. That clearly is what the man (and the other invalids) supposed,
regardless of their reasoning or popular myths about this pool.
John 5:7-9 (NASB)
7 The sick man answered Him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when
the water is stirred up, but while I am coming, another steps down before me."8
Jesus *said to him, "Get up, pick up your pallet and walk." 9 Immediately the
man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk.
NIV SB: 5:7 when the water is stirred. The man did not see Jesus as a potential
healer, and his mind was set on the supposed curative powers of the water.
NIV SB: 5:9 the man was cured. Ordinarily, faith in Jesus was essential to the
cure (e. g., Mk 5:34), but here the man did not even know who Jesus was (v. 13).
So while Jesus usually healed in response to faith, he was not limited by a
person's lack of it.
*Q: Our Lord healed the man despite him not seeking rescue in Him, but still
being fixed on the curative powers of the water - could you clarify? Normally
Jesus healed those who believed. The same refers to not on verse 9, which says
that "Jesus usually healed in response to faith, he was not limited by a
person's lack of it". I would have thought that our Lord indeed didn't heal
those who did not believe.
*A: This is indeed a special situation, and here our Lord sought this man out,
out of sympathy for his long suffering, asking him if he wished to become
"healthy". This is a good example of the fact that our Lord died for all our
sins that all might be made "healthy" in salvation, not saved from disease but
from the sins for which we otherwise have no answer (disease is symbolic of sin:
Is.53:4; Matt.8:17). It is also a good example of the fact that God wants" all
to be saved and to come to acceptance of the truth" (1Tim.2:4; cf. Ezek.18:23;
Matt.18:14; Jn.12:47; 2Tim.2:24-26; 2Pet.3:9). The fact that this man, sought
out by the Lord Himself, healed from a condition which had plagued him for 38
years, after being miraculously made whole nevertheless seems to want nothing in
particular to do with our Lord or the truth demonstrates decisively that
suffering is not the reason why people are lost nor is healing or deliverance
from trouble a panacea when it comes to salvation. A person has to want to be
saved and has to be willing to put his/her faith in Jesus Christ for that
salvation in order to receive it. I think this the reason for this episode – and
also for its uniqueness.
John 5:14 (NASB)
14 Afterward Jesus *found him in the temple and said to him, "Behold, you have
become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you."
NIV SB: 5:14 Stop sinning. Implies that the man's sins had caused his
disability. In 9:1 Jesus repudiates the idea that disabilities (such as
blindness there) are always caused by sin, but he does not say they are never
caused by sin. something worse. The eternal consequences of sin are more serious
than any physical ailment.
*Q: Do you agree with both points given here - that the disability was caused by
sin and that our Lord has eternal consequences in mind here?
*A: NIV SB correctly reports what our Lord says here and what He says elsewhere
(Jn.9:1), but I believe that they miss the point. Sin is a problem for us all.
The fact that our Lord tells this man to "sin no longer" is remarkable – because
no one is capable of living in this world in the body we presently occupy
without any sin whatsoever, and saying otherwise is essentially calling God a
liar (1Jn.8-10). I take this command along the lines of many other things our
Lord said to bring the true issue home with force in the minds and consciences
of His listeners. Along the same lines, for example: "it is harder for a rich
man to enter heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle"
(Matt.19:24-26), to which the disciples respond, "who, then, can be saved!"
Their response represents an appropriate assessment of the ramifications of
Jesus words. Our Lord's response to them, "with God all things are possible"
makes clear what the point of the statement was, namely, to demonstrate that
without divine intervention of an amazing sort (i.e., the cross of Jesus Christ)
no one can be saved at all. The proper response from an honest assessment by
this man just healed would have been to throw himself down on his knees and beg
forgiveness, confessing the inveterate sinfulness he knew to be lodged in his
heart. That would have led to faith in Christ and salvation. But by his actions
he makes it clear that he was not only ungrateful but unrepentant.
John 5:21 (NASB)
21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son
also gives life to whom He wishes.
NIV SB: 5:21 the Father raises the dead. A firm belief among the Jews (except
the Sadducees; see this essay), who also held that the Father did not give this
privilege to anyone else. Jesus claimed a prerogative that, according to his
opponents, belonged only to God. the Son gives life. Probably refers to Christ's
gift of abundant life here and now (10:10), though possibly also to the future
resurrection (see 11:25 and note).
*Q: How should we understand the words "the Son also gives life" here?
*A: While separate persons, the Trinity are also "one" in a way and to a degree
human beings cannot completely grasp; but we can say that they have never had a
disagreement, and that everything that they are doing in history is part of a
completely unified and preordained plan that encompasses absolutely everything.
For us to exist, for us to have the image of God, free will, so as to be able to
decide for ourselves our eternal future, for any of this to be possible required
God to become man as well as God. As such, Jesus Christ in His first advent was
required to live His life, conduct His ministry, and run the gauntlet of the
cross – including first and foremost bearing our sins in His body in the
darkness until He had atoned for every single one of them – as a man without
undue intervention from His deity. It is in this regard that there is
significance in the giving of life being attributed to the Son. He gives us life
eternal when we believe in Him. But attempting to separate things out between
the members of the Trinity is a questionable thing to do. In terms of giving
life, for example, we also know that the Spirit is the Agent of regeneration;
and in terms of the resurrection, the Spirit too has an undeniable role therein:
Romans 8:11 NASB
25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will
hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
*Q: How should we understand that the hour is not only coming, but "now is", if
the verse refers to the resurrection?
*A: "and now is" is not part of the original text (absent, e.g., from
Sinaiticus).
John 5:27 (NASB)
27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is [a]the Son of
Man.
a. John 5:27 Or a son of man
*Q: I checked this passage in Greek and thought - why isn't it simply rendered
"Son of Man" without "a" or "the", as in the Greek?
*A: As "the Son of Man", our Lord is the archetypical human being, the Last
Adam, the one who in contrast to the first Adam whose sin spread to all mankind
provided redemption for all mankind through faith by His death on the cross for
us all (Rom.5:12-21). Our Lord had to become a true human being – in addition to
His undiminished deity – in order for us to be saved, because He had to bear all
of our sins in His body on the cross (1Pet.2:24; cf. 2Cor.5:21). As far as I can
tell, this is the only place where the definite article is not used in this
title for our Lord, and the text here is not in doubt. Therefore the absence
must be significant. The meaning will then be that the Father has handed the
function of judging other human beings over to "a son of man", that is, to a
genuine human being, namely, "the Son of Man", our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
This passage, therefore, specially emphasizes the fairness and equity of we
human beings judged by one of our own, a Person who can sympathize with
everything that we as human beings have had to go through in this world, having
done so Himself, only without sin (cf. Heb.2:17-18; 4:15).
John 5:29 (NASB)
29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life,
those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
*Q: Do you agree with the addition of "deeds" here by the NASB? Such addition
makes it impossible to interpret "the doing of good" as believing in Jesus, and
I was wondering whether our Lord could have had this in mind here.
*A: The Greek has ta agatha, which, literally translated, means "the good
things". "Deeds" is only problematic if it is misunderstood. A "deed" is
anything done, and, in biblical terms, anything thought, said or done. The
neuter plural here is meant to stand for the totality of every positive choice
the believer has made in this life (just as ta phaula, "the vile things", does
for the actions of unbelievers). So this phrase does embrace accepting Christ in
the case of believers – that is the first "good thing" anyone can do (it is,
"the work/deed of God": Jn.6:29), since it is the first thing done in the power
of the Spirit (and similarly "vile things" will preeminently include failing to
accept Christ or rejecting Him outright).
John 5:31 (NASB)
31 "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not [a]true.
a. John 5:31 I.e. admissible as legal evidence
*Q: Could you explain the point made in the footnote? Do you agree with NIV SB
take on it:
5:31 Jesus' testimony about himself required the support of all God's
revelation. Otherwise, it would have been unacceptable. How to reconcile this
verse and our Lord's words with John 8:14 (NASB):
John 5:32 (NASB)
32 There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He
gives about Me is true.
*Q: Does our Lord mean John here or the Father?
*A: The Father is primarily meant (cf. v.37), but our Lord knew that John was
going to be thought to be the person mentioned – and certainly John did witness
to our Lord's Messiahship as well. As mentioned above, John the baptist, all of
the prophets of the Old Testament, the signs and miracles our Lord was given to
do through the Holy Spirit along with the Spirit's supernatural witness and the
Father of course too were "witnesses" to this truth. The fact that our Lord says
"another" does not negate the fact of this panoply of witnesses, and anyone who
was truly saved and who knew the truth would have recognized as much.
John 5:34 (NASB)
34 But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so
that you may be saved.
NIV SB: 5:34 Not that I accept human testimony. Probably meaning that he does
not rely on human testimony-which is always fallible and often fickle (1Jn 5:9).
*Q: What is the meaning of this verse? It is rendered in a number of ways in
different versions.
*A: NASB quoted above is fine. The meaning is that the true witnesses to our
Lord's Messiahship were all supernatural, not earthly and worldly – as would be
the case on earth in any judicial proceeding according to the Law.
John 5:35 (NASB)
35 He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to
rejoice for a while in his light.
*Q: It seems that Meyer gives quite a good explanation of the words "and you
were willing to rejoice for a while in his light": "[A] striking description of
the frivolous worldliness which would gratify its own short-lived excitement and
pleasure in this new and grand manifestation, instead of making use of it to
obtain saving knowledge, and allowing its full solemnity to operate upon them.
The Jews flocked in great crowds to the Baptist (Matthew 3:5; Matthew 11:7 ff.),
as to the messenger of the approaching glorious kingdom of the Messiah; but
instead of finding what they desired, they found all the severity of the spirit
of Elias calling to repentance, and how soon was the concourse over! In like
manner, the Athenians hoped to find a new and passing divertissement when the
Apostle Paul came among them. "Johanne utendum erat, non fruendum," Bengel.
Would you agree with the points made here?
*A: At all times in all generations, it seems, people want excitement and
spectacle. Our Lord's generation's interest in John and their expectation of
what he was preaching is analogous to present day Charismatics who want the
excitement of the power of God but not according to the truth He is actually
trying to get them to respond to.
John 5:37 (NASB)
37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard
His voice at any time nor seen His form.
NIV SB: 5:37 the Father … has himself testified … his voice. Probably a
reference to God's voice in the Scriptures (see vv. 38-39). God had also given
his voice of approval at Jesus' baptism (see Mt 3:17 and note). nor seen his
form. Probably refers to their lack of spiritual perception of who Jesus really
is.
*Q: Does Jesus have here in mind any specific type of Father's testimony -
scriptures, voice during our Lord's baptism? Or are all meant here?
*A: The words are equally straight-forward in Greek and English. We human beings
have neither seen nor heard the Father. As verse 36 shows, our Lord is speaking
of the miracles empowered by the Father that testify to the truth of who He is.
John 5:39 (NASB)
39 [a]You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal
life; it is these that testify about Me;
a. John 5:39 Or (a command) Search the Scriptures!
*Q: Should indicative or imperative be used here? It seems either could work.
*A: It is a command. There is no indication here or elsewhere that these
individuals where actually "searching the scriptures" for anything. Our Lord is
commending the Word of truth to them, the very scriptures whose keeping (in
their flawed way) they think give them live eternal, when in fact these
scriptures tell of the coming of the One who would give them life eternal . . .
through faith in Him.
John 5:42 (NASB)
42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves.
NIV SB: 5:42 love of God. May mean God's love for them or theirs for God.
Probably it is the latter.
*Q: Which one is meant here in your view? The latter sense seems better here.
*A: This is what is called a "objective genitive" in grammar. The "in
yourselves" makes that especially clear in the Greek (i.e., Jesus is speaking of
something going on internally in the listeners – or rather something that is not
going on). Our Lord states that these individuals were not "producing [as the
subjects of the action] love for God"; not that they were not receiving it from
Him – they clearly were receiving the love of God, as evidenced by the gift to
that generation uniquely of the Son of God Himself.
John 5:43 (NASB)
43 I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes
in his own name, you will receive him.
*Q: Does our Lord mean the antichrist here by "another"?
*A: It means any manner of "other" speaking lies whom unbelievers will gladly
accept, but it does have a particular application to the beast who will pretend
to be Christ.
John 5:46-47 (NASB)
46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47
But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
a) NIV SB: 5:46 he wrote about me. The authors of the NT books sometimes
expressly stressed and everywhere assumed that the OT, rightly read, pervasively
points to Christ (see Lk 24:25-27, 44-46 and note on 24:44). Here Jesus applies
this truth specifically to the writings traditionally ascribed to Moses. He may
have had Dt 18:15, 18 especially in mind but probably was thinking more broadly
of the whole scope of what the Pentateuch disclosed concerning God's saving
program in history, which Jesus the Messiah came to complete.
*Q: Does Jesus have Deuteronomy 18:15 in mind here, or is He speaking more
broadly? Should our Lord's question be understood as meaning - "If you don't
believe Moses, even though you claim you do believe in him, then how will you
believe my words, if you despise me?"
*A: There are many passages in the Pentateuch which speak of Christ (e.g., the
Seed of Gen.3:15); and of course the entire symbolism of the Mosaic Law is meant
to point to Christ who is the Lamb without spot or blemish. As to belief, the
Bible is the Word of God, so anyone who refuses to believe the Bible is not
going to be persuaded by extra-biblical arguments since that person has already
rejected God's authority. That is why it is largely pointless to argue about the
truth with anyone who does not accept the veracity and inspired nature of
scripture.
John 6
*Q: In this chapter NASB has got a chapter called "Words to the People" and
"Words to the Jews" - could you explain the basis on which this distinction is
made?
*A: As I say in another place, "Sometimes, as here [Jn.7:13], John uses [the
word "Jews"] to mean "those in Judea who belong to the power structure"; that
is, the sort of people in positions of authority you would expect to find if you
went to Judea or more particularly to Jerusalem in Jesus' day. In such contexts
I feel it would be helpful to translate "[religious] Jews [who do not believe"
(Jeremiah's usage at Jer.43:9 is similar); that makes the distinction a bit more
clear (and the brackets let the reader know that the word "religious" is an
interpretive addition)".
John 6:5 (NASB)
5 Therefore Jesus, lifting up His eyes and seeing that a large crowd was coming
to Him, *said to Philip, "Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?"
NIV SB: 6:5 Philip. Since he came from nearby Bethsaida (see 1:44 and note), it
was appropriate to ask him.
*Q: I'm not sure about the link between Philip coming from Bethsaida and our
Lord's question being appropriately directed towards him, as our Lord's question
was about spiritual discernment rather than the knowledge of the surroundings?
*A: An excellent observation on your part. To the point, the problem was one of
insufficient resources which no knowledge of local geography could solve. That
said, it was "a test" (as the next verse tells us), and the Lord does say "where
shall we buy?" – so the commentators have fallen into the same mistake Philip
did, seeing things from the earthly perspective when this was a spiritual test.
John 6:14 (NASB)
14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said,
"This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world."
NIV SB: 6:14 sign … Prophet. It pointed people to the Son of Man and the food
for eternal life that he gives (see v. 27 and note), but they thought only of
the Prophet, i. e., the prophet of Dt 18:15, 18 who would be like Moses (see
1:21 and note). Through Moses, God had provided food and water for the people in
the wilderness, and they expected the Prophet to do more than this.
*Q1: Do you agree with the point made in NIV SB? Did this miracle really point
people "to the Son of Man and the food for eternal life"? Was not their focus
only on physical provisions? This is also what is suggested by our Lord's words
shortly after (Jn.6:26-27).
*A1: I agree with you. Just as the Jewish people of that day were looking
forward to a conquering Messiah who would destroy their enemies and restore
their political independence, so they were looking for the Millennium and the
miraculous provision which Moses and the exodus generation had experienced. This
highlights their inability to hear and believe what the Lord was actually saying
to them, namely, that the kingdom of God is spiritual first and foremost
(salvation by grace through faith in Christ), and that the eternal blessings
which will one day be ours are based upon that spiritual conversion. Settling
for material advantage here and now is the typical mindset of the unbeliever
after the pattern of Esau.
*Q2: What is meant by "but they thought only of the Prophet, i. e., the prophet
of Dt 18:15, 18 who would be like Moses (see 1:21 and note). Through Moses, God
had provided food and water for the people in the wilderness, and they expected
the Prophet to do more than this"? The verse doesn't seem to imply what the note
suggests.
*A2: It is a confused note. Jesus is "the Prophet". Jesus is "the Messiah". The
problem with our Lord's generation by and large was that they wanted the crown
without the cross, and they wanted the material promises of Millennium without
the spiritual dynamic through which believers receive them.
John 6:15 (NASB)
15 So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force
to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone.
NIV SB: 6:15 make him king by force. Jesus rejected the widely held Jewish view
of the Messiah's kingship (cf. notes on 18:36; Lk 24:21).
*Q: I take it that only temporal rejection by Jesus is meant here, until He
comes again?
*A: That is a charitable interpretation. Jesus is the King (Jn.18:33-37; cf.
Matt.27:11; Lk.23:3; Jn.12:15), but the timing was not that of the crown first
but of the cross first – that is what our Lord's contemporaries did not
understand and were unwilling to accept.
John 6:21-25 (NASB)
21 So they were willing to receive Him into the boat, and immediately the boat
was at the land to which they were going. 22 The next day the crowd that stood
on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other small boat there,
except one, and that Jesus had not entered with His disciples into the boat, but
that His disciples had gone away alone. 23 There came other small boats from
Tiberias near to the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given
thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples,
they themselves got into the small boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus.
25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "Rabbi,
when did You get here?"
*Q: I think that after numerous attempts I got a grasp of this sentence and I
have now realized it has exercised commentators too. Your clarification of the
course of events here would be appreciated.
*A: One needs to read all of the gospel accounts to get every detail of this
event. Things proceed as follows: 1) our Lord sends the disciples ahead and they
depart by boat while He dismisses the crowd and goes up to the top of the
mountain in order to have some much needed prayer time (Matt.14:22-23;
Mk.6:45-47); 2) the disciples meanwhile make little headway because of an
adverse wind (Matt.14:24); 3) so our Lord is able to catch up with them later,
walking toward them on the sea (Matt.14:25; Mk.6:48); 4) they are alarmed when
they see Him, but He assures them that "It is I" (Matt.14:26-27; Mk.6:49-50); 5)
Peter then asks to join Him, is told to come out, does well until an upsurge in
wind and waves startles him, and has to be saved by our Lord (Matt.14:28-31); 6)
our Lord (and Peter) get back into the boat and the wind dies down
(Matt.14:32-33; Mk.6:51-52); 7) the boat then miraculously and instantly arrives
at the farther shore with no further rowing necessary (Jn.6:21). John's gospel
shows, in addition, that the crowd had seen the disciples depart but had waited
for the Lord instead of following them. There not being any physical means for
Him to follow in the normal human way, they are surprised when they do find Him
at Capernaum – which demonstrates their hardness of heart in not recognizing
that God can do anything (even though they had just been miraculously provided
with a heaven-sent meal).
John 6:28-29 (NASB)
28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works
of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you
believe in Him whom He has sent."
NIV SB: 6:29 work of God. Believing in Jesus Christ is the indispensable "work"
God calls for-the one that leads to eternal life (see 9:4 and note).
*Q: How should we understand "the work of God? Is it what NIV SB says - work
which "God calls for"? Or should we take this phrase as literally the work which
God does? I don't know what type of genitive is meant here. Also, what do you
think of the following interpretation: "What shall we do, so that we may work
the works of God?" (a question proceeding from the erroneous idea of salvation
by works) to which Jesus replies "This is the work of God, that you believe in
Him whom He has sent" (Jesus corrects them by redirecting their attention not to
their own work, but to the work of God, who gave His Son as a redemption for
sin). Please clarify.
*A: I agree with both the NIV SB and the comment included: the "work of God"
here is "the work God wants us to do". This discussion is taking place, please
recall, in the context of a people who had replaced the grace of God with a
works-based adherence to their parti pris interpretation of the Mosaic Law as
the basis for salvation. But that was not what the Father required. The
underlying spiritual purpose of the Law is to demonstrate that no one is good
enough to be saved – and to foreshadow God's solution to this primary problem
through His provision of a Substitute to die for our sins (as symbolized in the
Law's sacrifices). On the grammar, in Hebrew and also in biblical Greek in
particular (which adopts much from Hebrew expression), genitives constructions
(termed "construct" in Hebrew) are very flexible. Systematizing the types is of
some help, but it is often difficult to categorize particular cases. The
important thing is to perceive the correct meaning from the context. That is
plainly evident here – because "the work of God" turns out to be something we
are supposed to do as our Lord explains it, namely, "the work God wants us to
do" – put our faith in His Son.
John 6:30-31 (NASB)
30 So they said to Him, "What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and
believe You? What work do You perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the
wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.'"
NIV SB: 6:31 manna. A popular Jewish expectation was that when the Messiah came
he would renew the sending of manna. The crowd probably reasoned that Jesus had
done little compared to Moses. He had fed 5,000; Moses had fed a nation. He did
it once; Moses did it for 40 years. He gave ordinary bread (see note on vv.
1-15; see also note on v. 14); Moses gave "bread from heaven" (see notes on Ex
16:4; Nu 11:7).
*Q: How is it that people ask Jesus for a sign and mention Moses and manna when
they have themselves only just were miraculously fed? Do you agree with how NIV
SB explains question asked by the people?
*A: John's added information about this event leaves little doubt about the fact
that very few of those who came to hear our Lord teach were very interested in
the truth. They were interested in being healed. They were interested in
miracles – being miraculously fed was certainly of great interest to them. They
were no doubt interested by the excitement of His ministry and the expectation
that He "might be the Messiah" which would mean that He would restore the
kingdom of Israel to power and independence – according to their thinking, at
any rate. But they were not willing to acknowledge His deity nor were they
interested in a Savior who would die for their sins. For all these reasons He
taught them via the parable method that "Seeing they may see and not perceive,
and hearing they may hear and not understand" (Mk.4:12 NKJV).
John 6:32 (NASB)
32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has
given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true
bread out of heaven.
*Q: How should we understand these words? Does our Lord mean here that his
listeners should understand that it was God who gave manna rather than Moses?
I'm also not entirely clear about the contrast here, since the second part of
the sentence is in the present, rather than the past. Jesus doesn't say "it is
not Moses who gave you the bread, but it is My Father who gave it", but rather
"it is not Moses who gave you the bread, but its My Father who gives you the
true bread".
*A: Indeed, Moses was a great man of God, but he did nothing himself – God was
the One who empowered all the miracles of course. The present "this generation"
seems to think that a "special man" can do all manner of miraculous things
independent of the plan of God. They certainly have that expectation of the
Messiah – wanting, for example, the crown without the cross. Jesus Christ is the
true Bread of Life, and that "bread" is the Father's grace offer of life eternal
through faith in His Person and work whose acceptance is demonstrated
symbolically by eating the bread He provided (eating symbolizes faith in Him;
cf. the communion ceremony).
John 6:33 (NASB)
33 For the bread of God is [a]that which comes down out of heaven, and gives
life to the world."
a.John 6:33 Or He who comes
*Q: Should the verse say "that which" or "He who"? Does our Lord mean Himself
here?
*A: Either translation is acceptable (as a legitimate way to translate the
attributive participle construction ho katabainon), as long as we understand it
to refer to our Lord. Yes, our Lord is "the Bread of Life" and so He is
referring to Himself as the only way to receive life eternal by grace through
faith in Him and His work in dying for our sins.
John 6:35 (NASB)
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not
hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
NIV SB: 6:35 I am. The first of seven (the number of completeness and
perfection) self-descriptions of Jesus introduced by "I am" (see 8:12; [9:5;]
10:7, 9; 10:11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5; see also chart). In the Greek the
words are solemnly emphatic and echo Ex 3:14 (see notes on Ex 3:12-15) and the
seven "I am he" statements in Isaiah (41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12; 51:12).
Cf. note on 2:11. the bread of life. May mean "the bread that is living" and/or
"the bread that gives life." What is implied in v. 33 is now made explicit, and
it is repeated with minor variations in vv. 41, 48, 51.
*Q: Do you agree that it's significant that "I am" as our Lord's
self-description appears seven times? Should we take "the bread of life" as "the
bread that is living" or "the bread that gives life"?
*A: The number is notable but the fact of our Lord's self-description as "I AM",
that is, YHVH the Lord, is what is important – and would be even if He'd said it
only once. More notable is the fact of the hardness of heart of His listeners
who do not seem to understand or accept this truth despite it being repeated so
often. As to "living" versus "life-giving", either is a legitimate way to
translate the genitive phrase "bread of life" here. In Hebrew and in Greek too
(especially the NT which is heavily influenced by Hebrew), such genitive or
"construct" phrases (the Hebrew term) are more common than in English and admit
of much greater flexibility in meaning and therefore in (proper) translation.
The bread is characterized by "life", but how so? First, it is alive itself (it
refers to our Lord), but also it is eaten by us (we accept Him and His work by
faith) so that we are made alive by it.
John 6:37-38 (NASB)
37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I
will certainly not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My
own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
*Q: Does by "all that" Jesus mean "all those"? Should we understand this passage
in the following way: "I came to do not my own will, but my Father's and so I
will not cast out anyone who comes to me - because the Father doesn't want these
to be cast out"? One difficulty here is that our Lord contrasts His will with
the Father's will, which may sound as if it was the Father's will not to cast
out the ones who were coming to Him, but could have been His will?
*A: To take these in reverse order, the Son and the Father as God have no
variation in will. The Trinity have never had a disagreement or "seen things
differently"; that is a human perspective. But our Lord is also now a true human
being following the incarnation. Mind you, He in His humanity has never been at
odds with His deity either – He is still One Person, albeit now with two
natures, human and divine. Our Lord says these words for our benefit: obviously,
no human being following his/her own desires and wishes would want to have to
endure what our Lord had to endure, not only in the sacrifice of everything
human beings hold dear (Is.53:8), even His physical life, but most especially in
dying for the sins of the world in the darkness of the cross – His spiritual
death which transcends everything in creation to an infinite degree. As to "all
that the Father gives Me", we are speaking about "all those" people whom the
Father has given to belong to Christ as His Church.
John 6:39 (NASB)
39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose
nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
NIV SB: 6:39 I shall lose none. True believers will persevere because of
Christ's firm hold on them (see 10:28-29; Php 1:6 and notes; cf. Heb 3:6, 14 and
notes).
*Q: I'm not clear about this verse, the NIV SB explanation also didn't clarify
it.
*A: The NIV SB is written from a Calvinistic perspective and understands this
verse from the standpoint of "perseverance of the saints. It is the case that
all believers are saved, and that all who do persevere in fact (as opposed to
any theological interpretation of that word), maintaining their faith in Christ
to the end and not falling away into apostasy, are saved, are part of Christ's
Church, and will be raised "on the last day" when our Lord returns (the second
advent).
John 6:44 (NASB)
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will
raise him up on the last day.
NIV SB: 6:44 draws. People do not come to Christ strictly on their own
initiative; the Father draws them.
*Q: Do you agree with NIV SB note on this verse? Doesn't it violate the
principle of free will? Is it not the case that God knows who will choose for
Him and draws that person, but doesn't draw those who are not interested in the
truth against their will?
*A: I agree with your analysis. Nothing is impossible for God, but He does not
violate free will. Anyone willing to be saved is saved, and that includes God
doing absolutely everything for the person in question to be saved, including
whatever might be necessary to bring him/her to Christ. After all, the Father
sacrificed the Son on our behalf, and Jesus died in the darkness for all of our
sins. "Drawing us" to Him – if we are willing to respond – is a small thing
indeed by comparison.
John 6:53 (NASB)
53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
NIV SB: 6:53-58 "Flesh" and "blood" here point to Christ as the crucified one
and the source of life. Jesus speaks of faith's appropriation of himself as
God's appointed sacrifice, not-at least not directly-of any ritual requirement.
*Q: NIV SB says that these verses speak of Jesus' sacrifice and not directly of
any ritual, but isn't the communion in view here?
*A: Yes, it is absolutely in view. Communion, after all, harkens back to the
sacrificial offerings of the Law wherein the believers ate in communion with the
Lord and demonstrated their faith in His coming Substitute represented by the
slain animal. Jesus is "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world"
(Jn.1:29). The shift from meat to bread merely represents the shift from the old
covenant of shadow to the new covenant of revealed truth.
John 6:61-63 (NASB)
61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does
this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to
where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits
nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
*Q: How does the point about the Spirit giving life links back to what our Lord
said in verses 61 and 62?
*A: Only through the Spirit can we understand the truth and follow the truth –
and only through the Spirit do we have life eternal, the prerequisite for that.
So until these hard of heart individuals accepted Jesus as God and accepted that
He was going to give up His life for them so as to be saved, they would not have
any way to understand the truth because the Spirit's ministry to unbelievers is
restricted to truth related to the gospel.
NIV SB: 6:62 Son of Man. See notes on Mk 8:31; Lk 6:5; 19:10. ascend. Probably
refers to the series of events that began with the cross, where Jesus was
glorified (see note on 7:39). where he was before. Referring to Jesus' heavenly
preexistence (see 8:58; 17:5 and note).
*Q: Do you agree that our Lord here refers to the series of events beginning
with the cross? Does He not mean the literal ascension, as described by Luke?
*A: You are correct that this refers to the ascension following the cross.
John 6:65 (NASB)
65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come
to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
*Q: How should we understand our Lord's words here? Why doesn't Jesus here put
unbelievers' free will choice first?
*A: First, our Lord always spoke in parable fashion to unbelievers who were hard
of heart, both to fulfill prophecy (e.g., Is.6:10ff.), and also for the
continuation of His ministry in face of otherwise untenable opposition. Second,
this statement would certainly provoke – from anyone with a single tender spot
in their heart – a fearful rush to mercy in wishing to be one to whom the Father
did grant salvation and not be shut out of the kingdom instead. And of course to
any and all who did respond in humility instead of reacting in anger, the Father
most definitely did grant salvation.
John 6:66 (NASB)
66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with
Him anymore.
NIV SB: 6:66 From this time. May also mean "For this reason." many … turned
back. Jesus had already made clear what discipleship meant, and many were not
ready to receive life in the way he taught.
*A: Should we translate "from this time" or "for this reason"?
*Q: Since the Greek does not exclude either, it is appropriate to see both as
being the case (i.e., the Greek overlaps both English meanings).
John 7:4-5 (NASB)
4 For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly.
If You do these things, show Yourself to the world." 5 For not even His brothers
were believing in Him.
NIV SB: 7:4 It is not clear whether the brothers claimed some knowledge of
Jesus' miracles that other people did not have or were suggesting that any claim
to Messiahship must be decided in Jerusalem. Their advice was not given
sincerely, for they did not yet believe in Jesus (v. 5).
*A: I'm not clear about the relationship between the words of our Lord's
brothers and their unbelief in Him - how does the fact that they wanted Him to
show Himself to the world prove that they lacked faith?
*Q: Our Lord was ministering openly daily but He was speaking in parables and
not parhesia, "freely" in Greek – precisely because almost no one of "this
generation", including His brothers, was willing to accept the truth. What they
and their fellow Israelites wanted was for Jesus to "get down to business" and
lead a revolution to throw out the Romans – or better yet to call down divine
fire to destroy them out of hand. They wanted the second advent without the
sacrifice of the first. Telling God what to do is never a sign of great
spiritual maturity, so I think we can fairly conclude that they did not believe
in who He was – as the next verse states explicitly.
John 7:6 (NASB)
6 So Jesus *said to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always
opportune.
*Q: How should we understand these words? Our Lord has already begun His
ministry at this point, so I'm not clear why He says "My time is not yet here".
*A: This comes as a response to His brothers who are attempting to get Him to go
up to Jerusalem openly – a very unwise thing to do which would of resulted in
His premature arrest (which is why He did not do so). Our Lord's "time" to be
offered up for the sins of the world was yet to come. But for those who are both
in and of the world (as our Lord's brothers still were at this point), it is
always opportune to make use of the world which only hates those who are not of
it as Christ was never of it (Jn.15:18-19).
John 7:7 (NASB)
7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its
deeds are evil.
NIV SB: 7:7 The world. Either (1) people opposed to God or (2) the human system
opposed to God's purposes (see note on 1Jn 2:15). The brothers belonged to the
world and therefore could not be the objects of its hatred. Jesus, however,
rebuked the world and was hated accordingly.
*Q: How should we understand "the world" here? Aren't the two meaning proposed
by the NIV SB amounting essentially to the same thing?
*A: Yes, indeed, and I would add that the system really is the devil's system
even though human beings respond to it and further it.
John 7:8-10 (NASB)
8 Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time
has not yet fully come."9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in
Galilee.
*Q: Why does our Lord go the feast having said that he doesn't? NIV SB
explanation doesn't clarify it to me. This verse has exercised commentators and
numerous explanations are proposed here, some also discuss the textual issue of
oupoo being present here, but I'm not sure if it is a part of the text or not.
Ellicott's commentary gives one of the more reasonable interpretations:
"He is not going up unto the feast in the sense in which they intended-openly,
with the usual caravan from Galilee. Another going up publicly, as they
intended, and with an issue the dark presages of which now crowd upon Him, is
present to His mind. "Ye, go ye up to the feast; I go not up to this feast." The
verb is in the present, and its meaning does not exclude a going up afterwards.
(See also Note on John 7:10.) They were then going; the caravan was preparing to
start. I am not going up (now). The time is coming, but it has not yet fully
come. (Comp. Note on Luke 9:51.)." The verb is in the present and so our Lord
can go to the feast later without breaking His word. Verse 10 says that our Lord
went to the feast "not publicly, but as if, in secret" and yet in verse 14 He
goes to the temple and teaches there in front of people?
*A: Think of this as along the lines of our Lord's use of parables. We are not
to throw pearls before swine "lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
and tear you in pieces" (Matt.7:6 NKJV). We are not obligated to be direct and
completely forthcoming with people who are only planning to use that response to
indict us or destroy us. Being prudent in answering is not at all the same thing
as deliberately misleading someone; failing to understand that critical point
can bring a naive or self-righteous Christian into great peril. Wisdom requires
gauging every situation and giving the proper response, one which may not be
what the inquisitor wanted but will be godly and prudent – as was the response
of our Lord, the wisest person who ever lived. His enemies were bent on
destroying Him and His brothers were jealous of Him and no doubt would have
rashly bruited abroad any information He gave them about His precise plans. For
practical reasons, therefore, to carry out the Father's plan He answers as He
answers. As to later teaching publicly, our Lord was absolutely courageous. In
the venue of the temple, teaching publicly with a crowd enrapt with the power of
His truth, His enemies could not easily seize Him without first refuting Him –
which of course they were powerless to do.
John 7:11-13 (NASB)
11 So the Jews were seeking Him at the feast and were saying, "Where is He?" 12
There was much grumbling among the crowds concerning Him; some were saying, "He
is a good man"; others were saying, "No, on the contrary, He leads the people
astray." 13 Yet no one was speaking openly of Him for fear of the Jews.
*Q: I'm not clear about this - in verse 11 the Jews ask where Jesus is, verse 12
says that "there was much grumbling among the crowds concerning Him" and yet in
verse 13 John says that "no one was speaking openly of Him for fear of the
Jews"?
*A: The answer to this and to similar passages in the gospel of John has to do
with the various factions John is attempting to represent without parsing them
all with long-winded explanations. There were in Jerusalem at this and at all
times of festival 1) permanent residents, and 2) those who had come for the
festival. In both groups there were genuine seekers of the truth and also
hardened unbelievers, and the first group is further broken down between the
"rulers", their followers and assistants, and the ordinary population of
Jerusalem – and even among the rulers we know of various factions (e.g.,
scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, some of whom were members of the counsel, some
not). John perfectly captures through the Spirit the disparity of opinions and
reactions to our Lord's presentation of the truth, and also the voluble and
fickle nature of the admiration and "faith" of some (cf. the reaction of the
crowd after the fact to the miracle of His feeding of the ten thousand in
Jn.6:26ff.).
John 7:18-19 (NASB)
18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the
glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in
Him. 19 "Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the
Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?"
NIV SB: 7:18 is a man of truth. Or "is true." They should have recognized that
Jesus was not self-seeking. In this Gospel, no one is spoken of as being "true"
except God the Father (see 3:33 and note; 8:26) and Jesus (here). Once more John
ranks Jesus with God.
*Q: Do you agree that the notion of only God being spoken of as true in this
gospel and our Lord being called that too can be used as an argument for our
Lord's deity? I just wonder if it was the intention of John for us to see make
such interpretation. How are our Lord's words from verse 19 linked to what He
said in verse 18? Meyer comes up with a reasonable explanation:
John 7:19. There is no ground for supposing that some unrecorded words on the
part of the Jews (Kuinoel and many others), or some act (Olshausen), intervened
between John 7:18-19. The chain of thought is this: Jesus in John 7:16-18
completely answered the question of the Jews, John 7:15. But now He Himself
assumes the offensive, putting before them the real and malicious ground of all
their assaults and oppression, namely, their purpose to bring about His death;
and He shows them how utterly unjustifiable, on their part, this purpose is.
*A: It is part of the truth that may be deduced here, but the main point to be
made is that our Lord sought the Father's glory, not His own, just as He said,
and the main application is that we too ought to be out for our Lord's glory and
not our own. That is an obvious point but so obvious as to be easy to miss – yet
it is of the greatest importance. As to Meyer, I'm not sure I understand the
reasoning. I will say that verse 19 is an appropriate capstone to our Lord's
words here as I read things, because after telling the crowd the truth, He then
finishes by demonstrating their lack of response to it: they don't care about
the truth – if they did they would believe Moses (the Law) and that would have
led them to accept Him. Instead, for them this is all a show, and their true
desire is to kill Him in order to remove competition to their authority – the
only ones they are interested in glorifying, namely, themselves.
John 7:20-23 (NASB)
20 The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?" 21 Jesus
answered them, "I did one deed, and you all marvel. 22 For this reason Moses has
given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and
on the Sabbath you circumcise a man. 23 If a man receives circumcision on the
Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me
because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath?
*Q: a) Having read some commentaries on these verses, I think I understand the
main thrust of our Lord's argument here. What I'm unsure about is the
relationship between the circumcision and the healing. It seems our Lord here
means: "If a man can be circumcised on the Sabbath, how then can he not be fully
healed?" And so consequently circumcision tends be explained in terms of a
"lesser healing". Meyer describes the circumcision in the following way: "but
with reference to the purification and sanctification wrought upon the member by
the removal of the foreskin.[265] In this theocratic sense, a single member was
made whole by circumcision; but Christ, by healing the paralytic, had made an
entire man whole, i.e. the whole body of a man. The argument in justification,
accordingly, is one a minori ad majus; if it was right not to omit the lesser
work on the Sabbath, how much more the greater and more important!"
And so in his view the argument proceeds from lesser to greater. Bengel
expresses a different view - that an external act and so a symbol of true
healing - the circumcision is set against the actual and complete healing: "It
is not the whole body of the man, which is opposed to that part, which is
circumcised; for a consequence, in the case of an admission, does not proceed
from less to greater, in this way, It is lawful to circumcise a part, therefore
it is lawful to cure the whole body. But it is the whole man, body and soul, ch.
John 5:14,[185] whose healing is a benefit much greater, and, so much more
becoming the Sabbath and sanctioned by the law, than the external act of
circumcision regarded by itself, or even circumcision, even though it should be
regarded as a sacrament. For circumcision is a mean: healing of the soul is an
end."
Pulpit proposes also that the sanitary purpose of circumcision, believed by the
Jews, comes into equation here also: "Circumcision was the removal of an
offending portion of the human body, the sanitary purpose of which rite was
strenuously believed in, but it was a partial cleansing and actual excision of
one member of the body. To accomplish this purpose Moses, by his enactment,
regarded even the sabbatic law as subsidiary. Why, then are the Jews wrathful
with Jesus for making an entire man - a whole physical frame - healthful on the
sabbath?"
What is your take on this? It would seem that Bengel's take is reasonable, but
I'm not sure if the other two should be applied here also.
*A: I think rather that the point is that circumcision is "work" and that "work"
is banned on the Sabbath. That is the point of commonality since healing is also
"work". But our Lord points out that there were always exceptions – for
circumcision in this example – so that the absolutist understanding of the
Sabbath by the legalists is entirely wrong.
b) NIV SB: crowd. Probably the pilgrims who had come up to Jerusalem for the
festival-different from "the Jewish leaders" who were trying to kill Jesus (v.
1) and the Jerusalem mob that knew of the plot (see v. 25 and note).
*Q: Do you agree with the distinction presented by the NIV SB here between the
crowd, the Jewish leaders and the Jerusalem mob?
*A: John presents a composite picture; no doubt there were people in all of the
categories as discussed in previous Q/A above. One additional point to make,
however, is that just because certain people said to our Lord "You have a demon!
Who seeks to kill You?", does not mean that many of them who joined in with this
refusal hadn't heard the rumors to the effect that He was correct about what He
says here – or even didn't have sure and personal knowledge of that fact. It's a
mistake to think that people in the Bible who are not believers speaking in
circumstances of inspiration are always telling the truth.
*Q: c) NIV SB: 7:22 circumcision. The requirement of circumcision was included
in the law Moses gave (see Ex 12:44, 48 and note; Lev 12:3), yet it did not
originate with Moses but went back to Abraham (see Ge 17:10-12 and notes). The
Jews took such regulations as that in Lev 12:3 to mean that circumcision must be
performed on the eighth day even if it was the Sabbath. This exception is of
critical importance in understanding the controversy (v. 23). Jesus was not
saying that the Sabbath should not be observed or that the Jewish regulations
were too harsh. He was saying that his opponents did not understand what the
Sabbath meant. The command to circumcise showed not only that work might
sometimes be done on the Sabbath but that it must be done then. Deeds of mercy
are in this category (see notes on 5:10; Mk 3:2).
NIV SB doesn't seem to directly address the issue at hand.
*A: If I'm understanding the question here, our Lord attributes circumcision
first to Moses because the rules are codified in the Law and because even the
first instance of it with Abraham is only known because it is recorded in
Genesis written by Moses.
*Q: d) There are two more difficulties here. Firstly, Jesus says "For this
reason" - what is the reason?
*A: The Greek phrase dia touto, "because of this", harkens back to the giving of
the Law in John 7:19: circumcision is a sign of keeping the commandments of God
even before the Law but even more so afterwards (another reason for our Lord to
bring in Moses here), but keeping all the commandments of God is impossible –
which is why the Law leads us to grace, properly appreciated and understood
(Gal.3:24).
*Q: e) As for the reason why Jesus makes the reference to the patriarchs, do you
agree with the point that just as the Law had to give way to a ritual introduced
before the Law, so the Law of sabbath had to give way to a deed of mercy? That
seems to be an oft repeated interpretation.
*A: No; see previous answers. This sort of interpretation is a grasping at
straws that results from a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic meaning of
the text.
John 7:27-29 (NASB)
27 However, we know where this man is from; but whenever the Christ may come, no
one knows where He is from." 28 Then Jesus cried out in the temple, teaching and
saying, "You both know Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of
Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. 29 I know Him, because
I am from Him, and He sent Me."
*Q: a) Did the Jews believe that Christ's origins will be unknown? If so, then
why is that? Do you agree with Meyer's explanation of this?
*A: Anyone who reads the Bible and believes it knows certain things about the
Messiah, of the line of David and born in Bethlehem (Mic.5:2), e.g. But it
really wasn't the origin of the Messiah so much as the nature of the Messiah
that our Lord's contemporaries were confused about. They all wanted the
conquering Son of God, not the suffering Son of Man – and they doubted His deity
in any case. But for all who had hearts open to the truth, the truth of our
Lord's Messiahship was crystal clear to see:
John 1:41 NIV
*A: The way you have described it is correct. The people knew or thought they
knew about Jesus' earthly origins – although they were wrong about the town/land
of His birth (Jn.7:42) and most certainly didn't understand that He was
miraculously born. And to add to their self-induced confusion, they clearly also
didn't understand His response, because as unbelievers (for the most part) they
were certainly not willing to attribute to Him the divine origin that is His –
let alone the divine nature that is His.
John 7:37-38 (NASB)
37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out,
saying, "[a]If anyone is thirsty, [b]let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who
believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow
rivers of living water.'"
a. John 7:37 Vv 37-38 may also be read: If anyone is thirsty,...let him come...,
he who believes in me as...
b. John 7:37 Or let him keep coming to Me and let him keep drinking
*Q: Could you explain both footnotes?
*A: The second one has to do with the fact that there is only one way to
represent the present tense in Greek whereas we have three in English (simple:
"drink"; progressive: "be drinking"; emphatic: "do drink"). As to the first
note, it makes no sense to comma-splice the two sentences; but this may reflect
the difficulty with the meaning which the overall incorrect rendering produces.
In fact, there should be no comma after "believes in Me", because Jesus telling
us to "believe in Me as the scriptures tell you to do". So the note is based
upon a misunderstanding of the passage common to all versions I have been able
to check (i.e., the promise of the Spirit is not a quotation from the Old
Testament; rather, faith in Christ has always been the prerequisite for blessing
from God: Gen.15:6).
John 7:32-36 (NASB)
32 The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things about Him, and the chief
priests and the Pharisees sent officers to seize Him. 33 Therefore Jesus said,
"For a little while longer I am with you, then I go to Him who sent Me. 34 You
will seek Me, and will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come." 35 The
Jews then said to one another, "Where does this man intend to go that we will
not find Him? He is not intending to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks, and
teach the Greeks, is He? 36 What is this statement that He said, 'You will seek
Me, and will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come'?"
I) NIV SB: 7:33 then I am going. Jesus changed the topic from his miracles to
his death, to which he referred enigmatically (v. 34).
*Q: Do you agree that our Lord is here referring to His death?
II) If my understanding is correct, Meyer proposes that the words "then I go to
Him who sent me" have not been spoken by Jesus. Other commentators (e.g.
Expositor's Greek Testament) propose that this is not so and the people didn't
know who our Lord meant in any case.
III) As for the Jews seeking Jesus, Meyer proposes that it refers to them
searching for Him in the terror of Jerusalem being conquered.
IV) I'm not entirely clear about the words "and where I am, you cannot come" -
based on the above interpretation it would seem to mean that they won't be able
to come to heaven and leave the earthly abode. Not sure if that's correct.
*A: You are absolutely correct. Our Lord is referring to His departure for
heaven, His ascension, and none of His enemies would be able to follow Him
there. We have to remember that at this time death meant the departure of the
spirit for parts below (Paradise or Torments depending), but our Lord was about
to ascend into the presence of the Father in the third heaven (after which time
all departed believers are in heaven). So for all the more reason this statement
was absolutely appropriate.
John 7:38-39 (NASB)
38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will
flow rivers of living water.'" 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those
who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because
Jesus was not yet glorified.
*Q: I) According to Meyer, it is hard to establish the link between our Lord's
expression and the libations performed during the last day of the Feast of
Tabernacles. Other commentators, however, support this link. Do you think it's
possible for us to establish why Jesus used this particular expression here?
II) I know that you take the "living water" as referring to the word of God, so
would the words at the beginning of verse 39 - "But this He spoke of the
Spirit"- indicate that by the "living water" Jesus meant both the Spirit, here,
and the word of God, elsewhere?
III) Meyer adopts an interpretation opposite to yours when explaining the words
"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will
flow rivers of living water'" and takes it to be a free quotation, however, as
for the explanation of the passage, meaning that the inner change brought about
through the Spirit results in one sharing the message of salvation and bringing
others to it, it seems to make sense, your comment would be appreciated.
*A: See previous answer on verse 37: The problem is applying "as the Scripture
has said" forward with "out of his heart will flow rivers of living water" –
which is incorrect – instead of backward with "He who believes in Me" – which is
what it actually applies to: we are to believe in Christ "as the scriptures tell
us to do", and then we receive the Spirit (although this was a future promise at
the time our Lord made this statement).
John 7:41 (NASB)
41 Others were saying, "This is the Christ." Still others were saying, "Surely
the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?
NIV SB: 7:41 from Galilee. Typical irony by John. The crowd doubts that Jesus is
the Messiah because he comes from Galilee instead of Bethlehem. Apparently they
are not aware of his Bethlehem birth (see Mic 5:2; Mt 2:1; Lk 2:4 and notes).
*Q: Do you agree that it's irony by John? It just seems to be a statement
reflecting crowd's ignorance of our Lord's place of birth.
*A: I don't find John engaging in irony; it's not his style. The statement is
somewhat ironic, but it is an accurate report of what some in the crowd said in
their ignorance, not a deliberate literary device.
John 7:46 (NASB)
46 The officers answered, "Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks."
NIV SB: 7:46 guards. They knew they would be in trouble for failing to make the
arrest but did not mention the hostility of part of the crowd, which would have
given them something of an excuse before the Pharisees. They were favorably
impressed by the teaching of Jesus and were not inclined to cause him trouble.
*Q: Do you agree with this note? It seems that our Lord's truth has made an
impression on them.
*A: We can't conclude from John's abbreviated report that the guards said
nothing else, but it is true that our Lord's teaching seems to have impressed
them. Whether or not it did so to the extent of believing in Him, we cannot say.
But this is strong evidence that for all but the most hardened in their
religious ways, the power of the truth did make an impact. The amazing thing for
us who do believe is how unbelievers can even so push away that very truth that
brings life instead of death, even when it has touched their hearts.
John 7:49 (NASB)
49 But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed."
NIV SB: 7:49 this mob. The pilgrim crowd again (see note on v. 20). knows
nothing. The Pharisees exaggerated the people's ignorance of Scripture (cf. v.
42). But the average Jew paid little attention to the minutiae that mattered so
much to the Pharisees. The "tradition of the elders" (Mk 7:3) was too great a
burden for people who earned their living by hard physical work, and
consequently these regulations were widely disregarded.
*Q: I'm not clear about the point that "The Pharisees exaggerated the people's
ignorance of Scripture" if they show themselves to be equally ignorant shortly
after.
*A: It is always very dangerous to generalize in any case. I am sure that there
were plenty of individuals in Jerusalem listening to our Lord who were very
aware of scripture and many others who were not too concerned with it. Such is
the case even today, after all. But it is true that the Pharisees felt
themselves to be utterly superior, even though that confidence was baseless
because they did not understand – or care to understand (since spiritual
understanding comes by faith) – the scriptures they had learned.
John 7:50-51 (NASB)
50 Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) *said to them, 51
"Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he
is doing, does it?"
*Q: Did Nicodemus come to believe?
*A: Only God knows each heart, but I would say so:
John 7:50-51 NKJV
(39) And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a
mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. (40) Then they took the body
of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the
Jews is to bury.
John 19:39-40 NKJV
12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who
follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."
*Q: I) Do you agree with Meyer's comment on the transition from John 7:52 to
8:12, according to which the following discourse took place after the last day
of the feast?
*A: I see no justification, given the nature of the gospels and most
particularly the nature of John, for Meyer's statement: "we must look for some
connection with John 7:52". That is Classics thinking transposed to the Bible.
The gospel writers were recording Jesus' words and acts directed by the Spirit;
they were not creating literature according to human canons via human means.
*Q: II) How specifically should we understand the expression "Light of life"? Do
you agree with the NIV SB take on this: light of life. "God is light" (1Jn 1:5),
but Jesus is also the light from God that lights the way for life-as the pillar
of fire lit the way for the Israelites (see Ex 13:21 and note; Ne 9:12). Cf. Ro
13:11-14; Eph 5:8-14; 1Th 5:4-8; 1Jn 1:5-7; 2:9-11. Some commentators interpret
this expression by referring back to the Feast of the Tabernacles, but those
interpretations didn't seem convincing and perhaps a more general sense is meant
here. Meyer says it is not identical with salvation.
*A: I agree. The grammatical issue is what to do with the genitive. In English,
"of" covers a lot of ground, but the genitive in Greek (and comparable Hebrew
construct construction) are even more flexible and used in ways we don't really
employ in English. If I were to expand this phrase it would be as follows: "I am
the Light which has/gives Life", taking the genitive as essentially objective.
John 8:14 (NASB)
14 Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My
testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do
not know where I come from or where I am going.
*Q: How to reconcile our Lord's words from this verse - "Even if I testify about
Myself, My testimony is true" - with His words from John 5:31 (NASB): "If I
alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true." So if my understanding is
correct, Meyer sees these words as being spoken in our Lord's deity, or
referring back to His deity: "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is
true - for I existed as God from eternity past (John 1:1) , I came to the earth
having taken on my humanity and I will leave this earthly abode and come back to
heaven - because I am God. And because I am God, I can testify concerning
myself".
This does make sense, but please correct as appropriate. Following this lead we
could then conclude that John 5:31 is spoken from our Lord's humanity and it
does seem to make sense too, because our Lord doesn't support His testimony on
His own divinity, as He does in John 8:14, but rather on the Father's testimony:
31 "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. 32 There is
another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about
Me is true.
*A: Nicely done. I will note that "If I am testifying about Myself, my testimony
is not true" as a conditional – that is what it is, after all ("if"): our Lord
was in fact not testifying about Himself. The Spirit was the One doing the
testifying through miracles, signs and wonders, and by making the truth clear in
the hearts of the listeners. And the Father who authorized these things was
testifying too. But our Lord was not actually testifying or witnessing to
Himself.
John 8:15-16 (NASB)
15 You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone. 16 But even if I
do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father
who sent Me.
*Q: I'm not entirely clear about Meyer's distinction between the subjective and
objective norm. If my understanding of his notes is correct, Meyer reconciles
our Lord's words from verse 15 "I am not judging anyone" with the word from the
beginning of verse 16 "But even if I do judge" by saying that the main purpose
of our Lord's first advent was not to judge (John 12:47), but there would
inevitably occur situations when His opposition to sin and all that is evil
would have to be expressed. This sounds reasonable, but any remarks from you
would be appreciated, particularly as numerous explanations of this verse have
been offered and the reconciliation of verses 15 and 16 has clearly caused
difficulties. Do you agree with Meyer's rejection of all the attempts to
harmonize these two verses by adding a condition to verse 15, such as "I am not
judging anyone - as you do, according to the flesh"? This is also NIV SB
interpretation: 8:15 The judgment of the Pharisees was limited and worldly. In
the sense they meant, Jesus made it clear that he did not judge at all. In the
proper sense, of course, he did judge (v. 26).
*A: I think the solution is along the lines of the answer to the previous
question. This is conditional. That means we have to consider the "if" before we
factor in the "then". The fact is that the Lord was not – at that time –
rendering judgment. It is a blessing to us all that God did not and has not and
will not judge us for our sins because He judged them all in Jesus Christ –
otherwise no one could be saved. But the time for judgment will come . . . when
He returns. The Church will be judged for reward at the second advent (and the
millennial believers at the end of the Millennium); all unbelievers will be
judged at the Last Judgment – by Jesus Christ – for their lack of faith. But He
was not judging anyone then. Since He is the perfect Son of God, had He done so,
His judgment would have been "true" and just. With these words our Lord affirms
His credentials as the just Judge of all, all judgment having been committed to
Him by the Father (Jn.5:22).
John 8:19 (NASB)
19 So they were saying to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know
neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also."
*Q: Meyer takes the Pharisees' question as a mockery. Do you agree with that?
*A: As is often the case, I'm not sure that I understand Meyer entirely, but I
am sure that this was not a simple, innocuous question on their part but rather
one asked with disdain, meant to diminish our Lord and His testimony (whatever
the individual thought processes may have been).
John 8:21 (NASB)
21 Then He said again to them, "I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in
your sin; where I am going, you cannot come."
*Q: I) According to Meyer this verse introduces events of one of the following
days, something I wasn't aware of: John 8:21. A new scene here opens, as in John
8:12, and is therefore, after the analogy of John 8:12, to be placed in one of
the following days (so also Ewald; and in opposition to Origen and the common
supposition).
Do you agree that's the case?
*A: No, I see no evidence of that. Keep in mind that Meyer was heavily
influenced by the practitioners of "source criticism", of whom Ewald was one.
These individuals were constantly on the lookout for evidence of "composition
strata", indications that the text had been patched here or there by generations
of amalgamators instead of being written as single piece by John – which is the
actual case.
*Q: II) I was wondering why our Lord said "you will seek Me, and will die in
your sin"? It may seem unclear to me - why would the Jews seek Jesus if they
rejected Him? And if they sought Him, would they not have found Him? And if they
would have found Him, they wouldn't have died in their sins. Meyer says that by
seeking only deliverance from external afflictions is meant. This seems like a
reasonable explanation, similar to the one given in John 7:34.
*A: As Sinaiticus punctuates it so I would agree: these are all separate
sentences. Therefore they all have independent force. Since they are not linked
together with explanatory particles, we have nothing but juxtaposition to
suggest a relationship between them. There is a relationship: they all apply to
the Pharisees; but any explanation has to be one for one. Our Lord says they
will look for Him but not find Him. So they must have done (they were keen to
have the tomb guarded lest it be stolen and a resurrection claimed), and of
course they couldn't find Him. Our Lord says they will die in their sins; they
are unbelievers and, unless they were to repent, that is certainly true. And as
a result, they will not be able to come to heaven where our Lord is – and where
we will certainly follow Him on that day.
*Q: III) I also assumed that it is sin of unbelief that is meant, together with
its ultimate consequence - eternal death. Meyer, however, takes a different
stance here. Your comments would be appreciated.
*A: Technically speaking, only believers are redeemed. As unbelievers, these
individuals have not been redeemed – even though our Lord was about to and now
has paid the full redemption price for them – because they have rejected the
Redeemer. He was about to and now has died for all the sins of all people,
including these Pharisees, but the blessing of
redemption is given only to those
who accept it by grace through faith (see the link). So you are correct in your
theology, but our Lord is making a different point.
John 8:22 (NASB)
22 So the Jews were saying, "Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He
says,'Where I am going, you cannot come'?"
*Q: Meyer and many other commentators take the response of the Jewish as uttered
in mockery - would you agree?
*A: If the crowd had an absolutely unified response it would be the first time
in the history of the world. I think we can posit a range of impressions,
suppositions and negative motives to the people who foolishly thought and
uttered this or similar statements.
John 8:23 (NASB)
23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of
this world, I am not of this world.
*Q: I) I take it that by being "from below" Jesus here means being carnal, given
over to this world and without belief?
*A: These statements are as absolute as it gets in the contrast between One who
is of God and those who are not. Compare what Paul says about the resurrection
body:
1st Corinthians 15:48-49 NIV
*Q: The point that "things other than death divide people" doesn't seem very
clear to me.
*A: Doing my best to interpret the note, it may be an attempt to explain that
even though our Lord and these unbelievers were both physically alive at the
moment, the difference between them was absolute – as it is between us as
believers and all unbelievers. Every day we pray, "hallowed be Thy Name", and
holiness, sanctification, is the prime area of distinction. The world began with
holiness only; it will end in new heavens and new earth where likewise only
"righteousness dwells" (2Pet.3:13); but in between there is also sin and evil.
The world is divided – from the divine point of view – into those two camps: the
holy and the unholy. We who have believed will be with the Lord, worshiping Him
"in the splendor of His holiness" forever (Ps.29:2). But in the meantime, this
is war. Every believer thus must always keep in mind that we belong to the
forces of holiness, and take great care to have nothing to do with the forces of
evil.
2nd Peter 3:10-13
24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you
believe that [a]I am He, you will die in your sins."
a. John 8:24 Most authorities associate this with Ex 3:14, I AM WHO I AM
*Q: I) NIV SB: 8:24 believe. See note on 1:7. I am. Jesus echoes God's great
affirmation about himself (see v. 58; 6:35; Ex 3:14 and notes.
Do you agree that our Lord's words ego eimi in this verse refer to Exodus 3:14?
Commentators' opinions on this are divided. Some say that this is an analogy,
but is not equivalent to the words from Exodus 3:14.
*A: The content of what must be believed in order to be saved is "I am He". To
be saved, we have to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior – which means accepting
who He is, the God-man, and what He has done for us in dying for our sins. Both
aspects of our Lord as Savior of the world are present in this phrase which our
Lord used repeatedly to let anyone interested know that He was the Messiah, the
Son of God, God Himself who was also the sacrifice for our sins.
*Q: II) According to Meyer the reference is to the Messiah.
*A: Yes, it refers to our Lord as the Messiah, but what does that mean? It
means, rightly understood (as opposed to merely being culturally understood) the
Son of God, God become man as well as God, and come into the world to deliver
His people from their sins . . . by dying for them and being judged for them in
their place.
John 8:25 (NASB)
25 So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "[a]What have
I been saying to you from the beginning?
a. John 8:25 Or That which I have been saying to you from the beginning
*Q: Do you agree with Meyer's interpretation of this verse? I read the whole
section and it seems that the second sentence spoken by our Lord has really
exercised the commentators - numerous renderings and interpretations have been
proposed. What is the best translation in your view? Do you agree that we have
an interrogation here?
*A: This Q and A serves to reinforce the fact that those who were not willing to
believe in our Lord were further unable – because of being unwilling – to accept
the truth of who He was and is, the Savior of the world. For this reason our
Lord spoke in parables and indirectly to the hard of heart, and rightly so: so
that they might hear but not understand and thus be confirmed in their hardness
from their own choice.
John 8:26 (NASB)
26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me
is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
*Q: Here both Meyer's view on the verse and the one which he presents in his
note, by Lucke and De Wette, seem to have some value to them. I would appreciate
your comment here.
*A: See previous discussion. Honestly, it seems pretty clear to me, even in the
English versions. Our Lord did not come to enter into immediate judgment with
unbelievers such as these but to present Himself as the Son of God, the Savior
of the world, the One who divides the world between those who humbly accept the
Father's Gift of grace and those who arrogantly reject it, between the holy by
position in Him and the unholy through rejection of Him, between the righteous
by faith and the unrighteous by choice. The time for judgment will come:
Jude 1:14b-15 NKJV
27 They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
*Q: Most commentators propose that this inability by those who spoke with our
Lord to recognise that He spoke to them about the Father does not contradict the
content of the discourse from verses preceding John 8:21, as there was a gap
between the two and a new event is described from John 8:21 onwards. Do you
agree with that?
*A: I don't believe it is necessary to go to those lengths. It is difficult to
underestimate the level of blindness that
hardness of heart produces (see the
link). The soldiers who arrested Jesus in the garden were blown backwards and
all fell down when He said "I am He" (Jn.18:6), but they immediately arrested
Him and turned Him over for execution anyway. Even the disciples who had just
witnessed our Lord feed the ten thousand were amazed that He was able to calm
the storm, because their hearts were not yet ready to let in the entire truth
(Mk.6:52), and we find this with the believers on the road to Emmaus as well
(Lk.24:25). If this is true of believers, how much more so of those who had no
intention of accepting our Lord or the Father?
John 8:28 (NASB)
28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that [a]I
am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the
Father taught Me.
a. John 8:28 Lit I AM (v 24 note)
*Q: a) As for the events through which the Jews would recognise our Lord's
Messiahship, Meyer lists "the outpouring of the Spirit; miraculous works of the
apostles; building up of the Church; punishment of the Jews; second coming to
judgment". Do you agree with this list? Could the second coming also be in view
here, rather than only the events immediately following the resurrection?
*A: The "lifting up" refers to the cross and all of the events associated with
it – including significantly the resurrection – which demonstrate our Lord's
deity and the fact that He is the Messiah. Everything in M's list follows as a
matter of course – except for "punishment of the Jews" which I utterly fail to
understand; it strikes me as antisemitic.
*Q: b) Is this another reference to Exodus 3:14?
*A: Yes. It cannot be otherwise because this is the thing which will be
understood, namely, that Christ is the Messiah, "God with us", Emmanuel.
*Q: c) As for the words "and I do nothing on my own initiative", according to
Meyer they are a continuation of what has been said, but others take them as a
new statement. As for Expositor's explanation of the words "and I do nothing on
My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me" as being a
proof of our Lord's Messiahship, I'm not clear about it. What is your take on
this? The interpretation according to which the point made here is the union of
Jesus with the Father seems most convincing to me, but I may be wrong.
*A: For me, this is a distinction without a difference. In any case, the fact
that John, who often does not connect statements connects here with the Greek
"and" (kai) indicates that the connection is very close whether the statement is
"new" or not. It should be understood in the same way in any case as both a
statement in its own right and part of the truth that will eventually be
recognized "when every knee shall bow" to Him.
John 8:30 (NASB)
30 As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.
*Q: Another difficult verse. As evident from my questions above, Jesus' words in
this chapter and His train of thought are often difficult to follow. Maybe the
Jews did understand what He meant in all that He said, but it's still hard for
me to comprehend how they would believe in Him following such complex soliloquy
and yet often fail to believe following a miracle. Given the responses of those
to whom our Lord was speaking which follow immediately after this verse, it is
hard to see whether genuine, saving faith is meant here, or not and opinions of
commentators are divided on this. Which view is better here and why? Perhaps the
view according to which the word of our Lord divide men and cause more
resistance from those whose hearts are hardened against the truth and cause
others to believe Him could be a good explanation.
*A: That is part of the answer. Not all who believe persevere in faith. Like the
seed which falls on shallow ground, they receive the Word with joy, but quickly
fall away at the least provocation. This was certainly true of many of the
"disciples" of our Lord (cf. Jn.6:60ff. for a notable example of this
phenomenon). It also has to factored in here that John is, naturally enough,
chronicling responses which are true for some of the crowd, even "many" as here,
but not for all. As to following the Lord's discourse, keep in mind that all of
chapter eight should be considered in regard to the belief mentioned here (not
vv.1-11 which are not part of the Bible, of course); also, John is not telling
us absolutely everything that our Lord said – as we know from comparison to the
other gospels and John's own testimony (Jn.21:25). What we know for certain is
that this verse is true. The Spirit can take the smallest part of the "good
news" and bring a willing person to salvation (cf. Acts 10:40-44).
John 8:31-33 (NASB)
31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in
My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth,
and the truth will make you free." 33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham's
descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say,
'You will become free'?"
*Q: How is it that John refers to the Jews to whom our Lord was speaking as
those "who had believed Him" and yet Jesus shortly after says that His word "has
no place" in them:
37 I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because
My word has no place in you. 38 I speak the things which I have seen with My
Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father."
*A: Again, we have to do with 1) a mixed group – our Lord addresses His comments
to "those Jews who had believed", but that does not mean that there were not
others in the crowd who had not; there clearly were; 2) some who "believed"
later took offense and turned away (as at Jn.6:66); the legalistic mindset and
the superiority of their race over all others based on a special relationship
with God which alone provided salvation to all by means of birth (in their
erroneous thinking) was a deeply held and intimately cherished belief, erroneous
as it was. Exploding it, as our Lord does in this context, had the effect of
separating the true wheat from the true chaff – and those of temporary from
those of lasting faith (cf. Lk.8:13).
NIV SB: 8:32 truth. Closely connected with Jesus (see v. 36; 14:6 and note), it
is not philosophical truth but the truth that leads to salvation. free. Freedom
from sin, not from ignorance (see v. 36).
*Q: What is meant by "freedom of sin, not of ignorance" here?
*A: SB means to say (I assume in giving them the benefit of the doubt) that our
Lord was talking about salvation (being redeemed from sin through faith in His
Person and work), rather than being made "free" from lack of knowledge through
"knowing" the truth. Clearly, our Lord meant "free from sin and death"; His
audience seems to have ignored that entire issue and assumed it meant "free from
being slaves", literally, and they found that whole idea offensive. So I
wouldn't agree with the second half of SB's proposition.
NIV SB: 8:33 have never been slaves. Appears to be an amazing disregard of their
Roman overlords-and their Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Syrian
overlords as well. Perhaps they meant that they have always viewed themselves as
the descendants of Abraham and heirs of the promises God made to him and so have
never accepted servitude to others as their proper status.
*Q: Do you agree with this explanation of Jews' words? It seems almost difficult
to believe how they could just ignore such long-lasting portions of their
history.
*A: While it is clear that our Lord's audience did not think of this
freedom/slavery issue in a spiritual sense it is equally clear that this is
precisely how He meant it (see previous Q/A): everyone born is born in slavery
to sin and that requires God's redemption from the bondage of sin to remedy.
Such redemption could only be accomplished by the sacrifice of a Substitute as
every aspect of the Law teaches and demonstrates. The fact that our Lord's
listeners completely overlooked this essential truth demonstrates that they felt
that by being Jewish and "keeping the Law" they were righteous and redeemed –
when in fact the Law cannot be kept and physical birth does not result in
salvation (Paul's argument in Romans is directed precisely towards these same
misapprehensions).
John 8:35-36 (NASB)
35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain
forever.36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
*Q: There are various interpretations of these verses and different opinions of
commentators as to who is meant by the first "son", but it seems that the most
natural way to take these verses would be: "The slave of sin will does not
remain in the Kingdom of God, but Christ - God's son - does remain forever. And
if it is He who makes you free, then you will truly be free". Let me know what
you think.
*A: This part of the translation in NASB, "the son does remain forever", is not
part of the text. It is absent in Sinaiticus and some other witnesses (notably
W). One can see how it was added – to contrast with "the slave". But as your
question makes clear, trying to figure out what it might mean or why it is here
is problematic, and that is further proof that it is not actually part of the
Word.
John 8:37 (NASB)
37 I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because
My word has no place in you.
*Q: Meyer, together with other commentators, explains here why the belief
expressed in verse 31 was only transitory. So he interprets that true faith was
meant in verse 31, but it was very feeble, as Christ's word made no progress in
them.
*A: Again, it's the combination of a mixed audience and seed fallen on rocky
ground.
John 8:41 (NASB)
41 You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born
of fornication; we have one Father: God."
NIV SB: 8:41 illegitimate. May have been a slander aimed at Jesus.
*Q: Do you agree that this could have been a slander aimed at Jesus? According
to cambridge Bible such a slander on our Lord did not come about until the
second century.
*A: The point is that our Lord's respondents missed the point completely:
Abraham's true descendants consist of those who are of the faith of Abraham
(Rom.4:16), not those who are merely his offspring in a physical sense.
John 8:42 (NASB)
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I
proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own
initiative, but He sent Me.
*Q: Why does Jesus say "for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He
sent Me"?
*A: The Greek conjunction gar ("for") tells us that this is an explanation or
proof that God is not their Father – for if He were, their attitude towards our
Lord would have been one of love and acceptance rather than bitter resistance to
the truth He was speaking.
John 8:44 (NASB)
44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your
father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth
because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his
own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
*Q: What is John referring to by saying "He was a murderer from the beginning"?
Do you agree with Meyer that man's fall is meant here? Is it possible that
Satan's fall is alluded to here by our Lord?
*A: I wouldn't want to rule out the fall, nor Cain's murder of Abel, nor Satan's
revolt: All three result in the death of others through willful action that has
total disregard for the death caused: 1) the fallen angels are irrevocably
doomed to the lake of fire; 2) mankind is doomed to physical death at the end of
life because of spiritual death and thus resultant second death – absent
salvation by grace through faith; 3) Abel's physical life was taken away from
him – with Cain's actions undoubtedly being egged on by the evil one. This is
the devil's pattern from the beginning (and all three of these actions were in
the distant past from the point when our Lord made this remark and so are part
of the "beginning" of all created things). I don't think it is necessary (or
helpful) to choose. Anyone giving serious consideration to our Lord's words at
the time would probably have thought of all three.
John 8:45-46 (NASB)
45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which one of you
convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
*Q: Why does our Lord ask the Jews "Which one of you convicts Me of sin?"
following His words from verse 45? Is it to show that all that He has is
entirely credible?
*A: Given that our Lord is entirely sinless, this is a fair question to ask.
Those who opposed Him no doubt felt – or least postured – as if He were wrong in
some way. But that would have made Him fallible . . . and sinful. But if a
person cannot be demonstrated to have ever committed a single sin, then how
would His words possibly be anything but the truth? So He must be telling the
truth – otherwise they would be able to find some error in Him (and they were
certainly trying hard to do so). So yes, you are correct: this is all about
verifying that He IS the truth – and yet they refused to believe Him even so.
John 8:49 (NASB)
49 Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you
dishonor Me.
*Q: Some commentators suggest that we should understand the words "and you
dishonour Me" as also implying the dishonouring of the Father, so the meaning
would be: "I do not have a demon; but I honour my Father and you dishonour Me -
and you, by dishonouring Me, dishonour Him also, as I have come from Him and am
in perfect union with Him (as the whole discourse also shows)". What do you
think?
*A: Since our Lord tells us elsewhere, "I and my Father are one" (Jn.10:30),
that is certainly logically correct. However, the statement here seems
straightforward enough. Our Lord was "doing what He should do / giving honor
where honor was due", but His adversaries were not, for they were not honoring
Him, although He is the Savior of the world and due every bit of honor we can
summon up.
John 8:50 (NASB)
50 But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges.
*Q: Should we understand our Lord's words here as meaning: "Although you
dishonour me (verse 49), I do not seek My glory - so I will not argue with you
about this. However, my Father does seek His glory and He does judge"?
*A: Again, it seems pretty straightforward to me that our Lord is presenting
Himself as the Vessel of the Father's Will, not looking to advance His own
interests or agenda but having completely subordinated Himself to the Father's
plan of salvation, coming into the world as the Substitute for our sins – on
which the entire plan depends absolutely. NIV has "seeks it" here and that is
correct. There is no "it" in the Greek but in Greek the direct object is often
left out if it is obvious from the context as is the case here. Our Lord was
doing what He calls us to do, namely, to put aside our own interests and trust
the Father that by doing His Will we are advancing our own reward as well as benefitting the Church of Jesus Christ. The Father is the One who will glorify
us as He has glorified our Lord in His humanity; He is the Judge of all things
and has committed that judgment in our case to the Son. If we seek the Son's
glory, ours will be forthcoming; if we trust Him to do the judging, we will
receive a much better judgment when we stand before Him on that great day to
come.
John 8:51 (NASB)
51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."
*Q: Commentators don't seem to discuss the link between this verse and the
previous one, except some speculations on the connection with verse 31. I
thought that what Jesus could have meant here is that whoever keeps His word
will never see death and so will be able to gain God's acceptance in the
judgment described in verse 50 - do you think that is possible? That would make
our Lord's point resulting directly from what He has just said.
*A: Our Lord is the truth; He is the Word. Holding onto Him – faith in Him, His
Person and His work – is the only way to avoid the second death.
John 8:56 (NASB)
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced [a]to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
a. John 8:56 Lit in order that he might see
*Q: Which reading is correct here? Should we understand that our Lord here
refers to time in the past when Abraham was looking forward to His appearance?
Do you agree with Meyer here who explains that Abraham understood the messianic
character of God's promises to Abraham?
*A: The footnote translation may be more "literal" but it obscures the true
meaning which NASB brings out: the purpose clause (in form) expresses the
intention or the object of the joy.
*Q: How should we understand the words "Abraham rejoiced to see My day"? Was
Abraham aware that Messiah was coming? Regarding this you wrote:
Abraham is only "dead" from the point of view of limited human beings. He is in
the third heaven with all of the other departed elect, and he is observing
events as they all are. He rejoiced as all in heaven did to see the coming of
the Son of Man. Jesus uses this point to refute the whole incorrect mind-set of
His accusers who do not actually believe in God and who consider Abraham "dead"
-- but he is very much alive. But in
your email response
regarding the interim state you wrote:
*A: It's a good point. I do think the biblical evidence suggests that now
believers are observing as witnesses the events that transpire on the earth. Was
that the case before they were transferred to the third heaven at our Lord's
ascension? This seems less likely. But that does not mean that they were not
provided with some information about events beyond paradise. After all, there
were new believers arriving there every day. Still, our Lord is very particular
about the fact that Abraham actually "saw" our Lord's day, and I do not wish to
diminish in any way this very clear statement here. I cannot say for certain
whether this means that he was made aware of it by report, or that believers in
paradise were allowed to see earthly events as is the case in the third heaven
today, or that Abraham was given a special dispensation / ability / opportunity
to see the coming of the Messiah into the world – but the last eventuality seems
to me the most likely. In any case, Abraham did "see" the coming of the Messiah.
John 8:57 (NASB)
57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen
Abraham?"
NIV SB: 8:57 not yet fifty years old. A generous allowance for Jesus' maximum
possible age. Jesus was "about" 30 when he began his ministry (see Lk 3:23 and
note).
*Q: Why did the Jews say that Jesus was not fifty, if He was much younger than
that?
*A: I wouldn't get too excited about why unbelievers said what they said. This
is what they said and it has nothing to do with God or godliness. The most we
can say is that this age may have represented to the unbelievers who said it the
average age of themselves and their contemporaries who were presently in power,
men who were offended by the truth coming forth from this "young upstart".
John 8:59 (NASB)
59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and
went out of the temple.
*Q: There is no agreement between the commentators whether our Lord hid Himself
or was hidden miraculously or not, but the majority seem to be inclined towards
the latter. What is your view?
*A: Despite the NASB translation, while in Classical Greek the middle and
passive of krypto are sometimes used as statives rather than true passives,
whenever krypto is passive in the New Testament it always has a passive sense.
So there is no justification here for the translation "hid Himself"; the text
says "He was hidden", i.e., supernaturally veiled from the sight of His
assailants so that He could leave without being harmed.
John 9:2 (NASB)
2 And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that
he would be born blind?"
NIV SB: 9:2 who sinned …? The rabbis had developed the principle that "there is
no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity" (cf.
Introduction to Job:Theological Theme and Message). They were even capable of
thinking that a child could sin in the womb or that its soul might have sinned
in a preexistent state. They also held that terrible punishments came on certain
people because of the sin of their parents. As the next verse shows, Jesus
plainly contradicted these beliefs.
*Q: Do you agree that the rabbis developed such views? If so, then on what basis
were they founded?
*A: I don't think we have any way of knowing so as to be able to state with
authority anything about rabbinical teaching at this time beyond what is clearly
obvious from the Bible. It is a common human reaction when we see bad things
happening to people, however, to assume that they are receiving divine
discipline, and there is a biblical basis for assuming that the punishment for
the parents' sins is continuing down to their children (the so-called four
generational curse; cf. Ex.34:7); but that curse assumes that the children
repeat the sins of the parents so that cycle of spiritual devolution continues
until the sinful stock is eliminated. This was clearly not the case here. Just
as Job's false friends assumed the worst in his case, but in fact his suffering
was meant for the glory of God, so in this case as well.
John 9:4 (NASB)
4 We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is
coming when no one can work.
NIV SB: 9:4 we. Not Jesus only; his disciples share with him the responsibility
of doing what God wants done. Night is coming. When Jesus, "the light of the
world" (v. 5), will be taken away in death.
*Q: Do you agree that this is what is meant by "night is coming" - that our Lord
would depart? This view seems to be contradicted by what the end of the verse
says about the night, that it is a time "when no one can work", which cannot be
a reference to the Church Age. Many commentators suggest that literal life and
death are in view here.
*A: Christ is the One sent and He is the One "doing the work of Him who sent
Me"; He is the one to restore sight and He is the One who will be leaving. So
the "we" is incorrect here (corrected in Sinaiticus to to "I"). As to "night is
coming", I take this as a reference to the Great Tribulation, the period which
directly precedes His second advent return. The synoptic view of all future
history was a commonplace from the Old Testament viewpoint – and the Church Age
was still at the point of the event a mystery which had not yet been revealed to
the disciples. This is all explained in detail in
the first part of the Coming
Tribulation series (link).
John 9:6-7 (NASB)
6 When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle,
and applied the clay to his eyes, 7 and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of
Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back
seeing.
*Q: Do we know why our Lord performed this miracle in this particular way,
instead of, for example, simply telling the man for his eyes to be opened?
*A: By accomplishing the miracle in this way, both our Lord and the man healed
did visible "work" on the Sabbath – to make the point that doing good on the
Sabbath day was not a violation of the Law in fact as the dead interpretation of
the Pharisees saw things. If our Lord had not make the clay and if the man had
not been required to wash, the issue would not have been made so crystal clear.
*Q: Should we see "Siloam" here as being purposefully chosen for its name, that
the man was "sent" by our Lord?
*A: Our Lord is the "One Sent" and the water of the truth that comes from the
One sent by the Father is what removes spiritual blindness and leads to eternal
life.
*Q: On John 9:6, most versions read "his eyes", but shouldn't autou be applied
to the clay?
*A: It is impossible to get into the minds of the translators, but it should be
pointed out that the definite article in Greek is generally used in lieu of a
possessive pronoun in cases where something near and dear to the person in
question is involved, body parts in particular. So even if we had no autou here,
I would translate "his eyes" instead of "the eyes". Assuming this is what the
translators have done, then the question becomes "what to do with the autou?"
From its position in the text, it does indeed seem to go with "the mud",
however, translating "his mud" or "His mud" – depending upon whom we think the
"his" is, makes for confusing and misleading English. If we wanted to bring the
word into our translation, it seems to me that we should have to say something
like "the mud He had just made" or "the mud made for him" in order to do so. But
"his eyes" is correct in any case.
John 9:13-14 (NASB)
13 They *brought to the Pharisees the man who was formerly blind. 14 Now it was
a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.
*Q: Do you agree that the man was brought in front of the Pharisees because the
healing took place on the Sabbath?
*A: Indeed, this is precisely why the Lord conducted the healing in the manner
that He did, so that there would be demonstrable "work" according to the false
definition of the Pharisees. As to the reaction, it is telling that the people
of "this generation" felt justified in finding fault with an exceptional miracle
which could only be done by God and in taking action to "sort it out", whereas
they had no interest in the truth or the One who is the Truth.
John 9:17 (NASB)
17 So they *said to the blind man again, "What do you say about Him, since He
opened your eyes?" And he said, "He is a prophet."
NIV SB: 9:17 What have you to say about him? It is curious that they put such a
question to such a person; their doing so reflected their perplexity. prophet.
Probably the highest designation the man could think of. He progressed in his
thinking about Jesus: from a man (v. 11) to a prophet (v. 17), who might be
followed by disciples (v. 27), to one "from God" (v. 33) to one who was properly
to be worshiped (v. 38).
*Q: Do you agree that Pharisees' question resulted from perplexity? It seems a
plausible explanation - they later discredit his testimony and yet clearly they
don't know how to understand what is happening.
*A: It seems clear from the context that asking this man his opinion was a
"settle the bet" type of question: since they did not agree, they requested an
opinion from him, and, given their reaction to the response, it may very well be
that the skeptics did not expect this answer.
*Q: What do you think about "the prophet" being the highest designation that man
could think of? Would you agree that the way he refers to Jesus shows
progression in his thinking? Or is it more about recognizing Jesus power early,
but not stating it explicitly from the start?
*A: Jesus was a prophet; He also was and is the Prophet. We find out later that
the man did not yet know that He was the Messiah. But given what He had done for
him, it was clear to this individual that He was at least a prophet – because
only a man sent from God and given exceptional powers could possibly do such a
thing.
John 9:24 (NASB)
24 So a second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him,
"Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner."
*Q: There seems to be a general consensus among the commentators that the words
"Give glory to God" signify an oath that the man should only speak the truth.
Would you agree with that?
*A: I don't see any indication of an oath here, but the parallel of Joshua 7:19
did occur to me as well: the rulers are styling themselves as being in Joshua's
place with this man and Christ being in Achan's place – whereas the reverse was
true.
John 9:27 (NASB)
27 He answered them, "I told you already and you did not listen; why do you want
to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?"
NIV SB: 9:27 his disciples too. The man already counted himself a disciple.
*Q: Do you agree that the way the man phrases the question indicates that he
considered himself a disciple of Jesus? It doesn't seem to be directly implied
and although Pharisees say of him that he was one in the next verse, he doesn't
make such a claim.
*A: The translation is in error. The "also" goes with the word "want" not with
the word "disciples", meaning, "are you asking me all these questions because
you really also want to be His disciples?" It is a bit of a sarcastic and edgy
response, and shows an amazing amount of confidence and no tolerance for
nonsense in this young man. His courage in the face of pressure from the
authorities of that time, men with the power to imprison and damage and do all
manner of things (remember that his parents were deathly afraid of them), tells
us much about his character, being unwilling even to the smallest degree to be
ungrateful or untruthful about the One who had delivered him from blindness.
Most people do not have that degree of courage or gratitude – and so we are not
at all surprised when he puts his faith in Christ after being thrown out of this
meeting.
John 9:29 (NASB)
29 We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know
where He is from."
*Q: How exactly should we understand the words "where He is from" and how should
we reconcile them with John 7:27 (NASB):
27 However, we know where this man is from; but whenever the Christ may come, no
one knows where He is from."
Pulpit commentary takes these words as referring back to John 8:14:
But as for this Man, we know not whence he is. It is remarkable that, in John
7:27, they had been equally explicit in declaring, "We know whence he is." Then
they thought to discredit iris Messianic claim by drawing a distinction between
the well-known parentage and home of Jesus, and the coming of Messiah from some
undiscoverable source, some hidden place, where God retained him before his
revelation to Israel (see notes, John 7:27, 28). While, however, Christ (John
8:14) allowed the validity of their superficial knowledge on that occasion, he
declared that he alone knew whence he came and whither he was going (see notes,
John 8:14). It is, perhaps, in reference to this last expression that they echo
his own words. The supernatural source of his being and teaching seemed to their
minds, throughout that discourse and controversy, to vacillate between the
Divine and the demonic. The contrast between Moses and Jesus in this bitter
speech runs along the same low level. "We know not whence" he derives his
prophetic character, or his right to legislate for the people of God.
Others suggest that these words are not a reference to our Lord's earthly
origin, but rather to the lack of diving commission of which they accuse Him,
for example Matthew Poole on this:
this fellow; and say, they know not whence he was; that is, they know of no
Divine authority that he had. They were blinded through malice and prejudice.
Indeed they did know whence he was as to his human nature, for they often made
that the cause of their stumbling at him; that he was of Galilee, that his
father was a carpenter, and his mother called Mary: but they knew of no Divine
mission or authority that he had: this they might have known also, for he did
those things which no man ever did, nor could be effected by any thing less than
a Divine power; but their eyes were blinded, and their hearts were judicially
hardened; they studied to shut out the light by which they should have seen, and
would not know whence he was.
*A: I don't think it's necessary to choose between one or the other. The
statement is clearly meant to put the burden of proof of any divine authority or
truth onto this man and onto Christ – most ironic seeing as how opening the eyes
of a man blind at birth could only have been done by God (as this man points out
in the next verse).
John 9:32 (NASB)
32 [a]Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the
eyes of a person born blind.
a. John 9:32 Lit From the age it was not heard
*Q: Is it really he first case such miracle has been performed?
*A: While our Lord is said to have restored the sight of numerous persons, no
one else in scripture is specifically said to have done so (Lk.7:21; cf.
Is.42:7; Matt.11:5; 12:22, etc.). Matthew 10:1 does say that the twelve were
given authority to heal "every sickness and disease" – that may or may not have
included restoration of sight, but we are not told of any such instance. The
fact that physical blindness can represent spiritual blindness, something that
is only cured by turning to Christ, would seem to be part of the reason.
John 9:39 (NASB)
39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do
not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."
I) NIV SB: 9:39 It is unlikely that the conversation of vv. 35-38 took place in
the presence of the Pharisees. The incident of vv. 39-41, therefore, probably
occurred a little later. For judgment. In a sense Jesus did not come for
judgment (see 3:17; 12:47 and note), but his coming divides people, and this
always brings a type of judgment. Those who reject his gift end up "blind.
*Q: This is an interesting observation - would you agree that the incident of
verses 39-41 probably occurred a little later?
*A: No, I think this all happened at the same time. There were always people
following our Lord around, some with good intentions, some with evil intent,
many wavering between two opinions.
John 9:41 (NASB)
41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you
say, 'We see,' your sin remains.
*Q: Meyer provides what seems a reasonable explanation of why by blindness our
Lord here means "consciousness of being destitute of true knowledge" rather than
the lack of capability to perceive.
*A: Meyer's distinction may make sense academically, but not scripturally. It's
important to remember that hardness of heart, spiritual blindness, is not
something that happens by accident. It is a conscious choice. Giving oneself
over to sin, to arrogance, to selfishness, to an anti-God way of thinking,
results in the natural ability all human beings are given at birth to perceive
the reality of God and the divine – the "eternity in the heart" of Ecclesiastes
3:11 – diminishing and eventually disappearing. God allows such hardness in
order for those who reject Him and any desire to have a relationship with Him to
be able to live their lives as if He did not exist – and that is also the case
with those who, like the Pharisees, were invoking Him only by name but actually
did not "know Him" in any way and were certainly not "known by Him" because they
were unbelievers who had rejected Him. So while the physical blindness of the
man born blind was not spiritually culpable in any way (as Jesus made clear to
the disciples when they asked Him about that very issue: Jn.9:2-3), spiritual
blindness is completely culpable because it involves rejecting the truth which
God has written in broad and undeniable terms throughout His creation – that He
exists, that He is good and righteous, and that the only deliverance from death
comes in seeking Him – and then rejecting any thought or desire of responding to
the truth that has been made known, spurning any inclination "that they should
seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He
is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:27 NKJV). These men had rejected the
truth that every child can see, had rejected the testimony of the Holy Spirit
about salvation written on every page of the scriptures they claimed to honor,
had rejected the Messiah Himself in spite of being given to see more miracles at
His hand than any generation had been privileged to observe since the Israelites
were delivered from Egypt. And perhaps the most arrogant thing, to pretend
"vision" and to teach others the wrong way (Matt.23:15) – how would their sin
not remain?
John 10:1-5 (NASB)
10 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold
of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. 2 But he
who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper
opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and
leads them out. 4 When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the
sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 A stranger they simply will not
follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of
strangers."
*Q: Does by the one "who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep,
but climbs up some other way" Jesus means false teachers and leaders of Israel?
*A: Yes.
*Q: Who is meant by the doorkeeper who opens the door to the good shepherd?
*A: Primarily this refers to anyone giving the gospel or teaching the truth when
they do so in the Spirit to the glory of Christ. By application, we also
individually open the door of our hearts to the Lord to accept Him and after
salvation to accept His truth when we respond to the truth itself and true
teachers while rejecting false ones (cf. Rev.3:20).
*Q: Since in verse 3 the sheep hear the shepherd's voice and follow him, should
we take these to represent believers and those who would go after Jesus? Such
reading also seems to me to be suggested in verse 5, as we know that Israel has
often followed the voice of strangers.
*A: Yes. That is what distinguishes between the sheep of His Hand and other
sheep, namely, responding to the voice, the truth, of the true Shepherd.
*Q: What does Jesus mean by "when he puts forth all his own" in verse 4?
*A: NKJV has "And when he brings out his own sheep"; that is the idea, namely,
the Shepherd (Ps.23:1) leading His sheep to water and to pasture (Ps.23:2), then
leading them in the right way, the path of righteousness (Ps.23:3), and
protecting them from every danger (Ps.23:4).
John 10:7 (NASB)
7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the
sheep.
*Q: According to Meyer, access to the sheep is meant here, as based on John
10:1. How should we interpret this verse?
*A: It seems pretty straightforward to me. In addition to being the Good
Shepherd, Jesus is also the Door to the safe harbor of the sheepfold where the
sheep are protected. He will not allow wolves or robbers or plunderers to enter,
nor will He allow those who are (deliberately) not His sheep to come in. He
protects the sheep and keeps them safe – salvation by entering in through the
Door (cf. v.9) – and provides for the sheep (cf. v.10). The comments in Meyer
demonstrate why I generally stay away from commentaries.
John 10:8 (NASB)
8 All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear
them.
NIV SB: 10:8 All … before me. "False shepherds" like the Pharisees and the chief
priests, not the true OT prophets (see note on vv. 1-30; cf. Zec 11:5, 8 and
notes).
*Q: Do you agree that our Lord has got Pharisees and chief priests in mind here,
or are false leaders and evil kings of the past meant here also?
*A: The statement is not limited. This is a case of "if the shoe fits, . . ." –
and it certainly fits the religious leaders of the day.
*Q: Again, our Lord says that "the sheep did not hear them", does it mean that
the true believers are in view here, which can be contrasted with the goats from
Matthew 25:32-33?
*A: The followers of the false teachers and the unbelieving religious leaders
are not the ones who hear their Master's voice; believers hear Him – and then
follow Him (cf. Lk.6:46).
John 10:9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in
and out and find pasture.
*Q: Here also Meyer stands by his interpretation that it's the shepherd who is
the subject, but that makes his explanation of "he will be saved" seem somewhat
less reasonable.
What is your take on this? In verses 7 through to 10 should we take only the
shepherds as the subjects?
*A: Of course, every pastor in this life needs to be saved and every pastor has
as his Chief Shepherd the Lord Jesus Christ (1Pet.5:4; cf. Heb.13:20). But in
our Lord's parable the sheep are the ones who come and go and "find pasture" –
it's not talking about shepherds in verse nine, true or false.
John 10:10 (NASB)
10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have
life, and [a]have it abundantly.
a. John 10:10 Or have abundance
*Q: Could you comment on the rendering given in the footnote? Does the NASB
rendering reflects what our Lord meant here? I'm not sure what specifically our
Lord means here by abundance and the commentaries haven't clarified it.
*A: The Greek words related to perissos mean to have a superfluity of something,
an "over and above", and a "more than one could want" amount of whatever it is.
So we might translate, "and have it (i.e., life) to a superabundant degree". Our
Lord is talking about eternal life, not merely the means of life here and now –
pasture (for sheep) and protection (from wolves, et al.), but the blessings of
life eternal enjoyed forever in resurrection in the New Jerusalem. That is
quantitatively and qualitatively better than "merely" feeding and protecting the
flock here and now.
John 10:12-13 (NASB)
12 He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the
sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf
snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and is
not concerned about the sheep.
*Q: Does Jesus have anyone specific in mind when describing the shepherd who is
"not concerned about the sheep"?
*A: This applies to anyone who is an erstwhile leader or teacher or pastor, but
who in fact is only in it for the money (or other material benefits). This is
true of the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' generation, it has been true of
many clergy in religious denominations since the beginning of the Church, and it
is true of anyone who takes to a pulpit (literally or figuratively) from false
motives instead of out of a genuine desire to edify the Church of Jesus Christ
through sound and substantive teaching of the Word of God.
John 10:16 (NASB)
16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and
they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
NIV SB: 10:16 other sheep. These already belonged to Christ, though they had not
yet been brought to him. not of this sheep pen. Those outside Judaism. Here is a
glimpse of the future worldwide scope of the church. one flock. All God's people
have the same Shepherd (see 17:20-23).
*Q: What does the NIV SB mean by "These already belonged to Christ, though they
had not yet been brought to him"?
*A: I believe they are trying to explain the phrase "I have other sheep". It is
unnecessary to do so. Of course God knows what is going to happen before it
happens: nothing could happen in this world unless He had decreed it.
John 10:23 (NASB)
23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.
NIV SB: 10:23 Solomon's Colonnade. See Ac 3:11 and note; 5:12. It was a roofed
structure-somewhat similar to a Greek stoa-commonly but erroneously thought to
date back to Solomon's time.
*Q: Do you agree that dating this portico back to Solomon's time was erroneous?
It seems that commentators' opinions on this are divided, with some proposing
that a part of the original edifice built by Solomon could have remained. Or
even if none remained John could still simply have used the name used to
describe that part of the temple.
*A: This was what it was called. So this is what John called it. What else would
he call it since this is what it was called? Questions of historicity may be
interesting but have nothing to do with the interpretation of the passage or of
its meaning.
John 10:25 (NASB)
25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do
in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
NIV SB: 10:25 I did tell you. Jesus had not specifically affirmed his
Messiahship except to the Samaritan woman (see 4:26 and note). He may have meant
here that the general thrust of his teaching made his claim clear or that such
statements as that in 8:58 (see note there) were sufficient. Or he may have been
referring to the evidence of his whole manner of life (including the miracles)
-all he had done in the Father's name (for the name, see note on 2:23).
*Q: How should we understand Jesus' words "I told you"? Some commentators
propose that the reason our Lord wouldn't directly answer such questions by
saying "I am the Messiah" is that the concept of Messiah was so mistaken by the
Jews at that time (who didn't understand and accept the need for the Suffering
Servant to come first) that He wanted to avoid using this description. Do you
think there is any merit in such an explanation? I agree with your take on these
things that often Jesus would not make direct statements in order to leave the
room for their free will, but I'm wondering whether the explanation offered by
some of the commentators has any weight to it.
*A: On more than one occasion our Lord says "I AM". So His statement is true.
The fact that He did not go out of His way to put the matter into the terms
asked for by His adversaries who had no interest in the truth does not change
that fact. For those interested in the truth, Peter's conclusion from what our
Lord said and did was easy enough: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living
God" (Matt.16:15).
John 10:26 (NASB)
26 But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
NIV SB: 10:26 not my sheep. Their failure to believe arose from what they were.
*Q: Perhaps the logic of the two is best considered reciprocal, but should it
not be stated the other way round - "What they are arose from their failure to
believe"?
*A: Absolutely! A strange remark. A hyper-Calvinistic remark. Clearly, we have
free will. Just because God knows ahead of time how we will use it doesn't
change that fact. The Bible is – and good Bible teaching should be – protreptic
(i.e., seeking to turn everyone towards the truth), not fatalistic.
John 10:28 (NASB)
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will
snatch them out of My hand.
NIV SB: 10:28 eternal life. Christ's gift (see note on 3:15). never perish. The
Greek construction here is a strong denial that the sheep will ever perish. The
sheep's security is in the power of the shepherd, who will let no one take them
from him (see 3:16).
*Q: What Greek construction is meant here? The double negative ou and mee?
*A: That is correct. Peter uses this emphatic construction also at John 13:8
(cf. also Matt.24:2; Mk.13:2; Lk.6:37; 1Cor.8:13). So this is a strong assurance
from the Lord that if we stay faithful to Him, He will never forsake us (cf.
Deut.31:6, 8; Jos.1:5; Heb.13:5).
John 10:29 (NASB)
29 [a]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is
able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
a. John 10:29 One early ms reads What My Father has given Me is greater than all
*Q: Could you comment on the footnote - what is the correct reading of this
verse?
*A: Vaticanus (B) reads omicron (meizon) instead of omega (meizOn) here, but
that makes a mishmash of the meaning and is opposed by more ancient witnesses.
Also, by the time of writing, there was little or no distinction between the two
letters in the way they were pronounced (so this is a very common "sound
error"). The word "greater" refers to the Father.
John 10:30 (NASB)
30 I and the Father are [a]one."
a. John 10:30 Or a unity; or one essence
NIV SB: 10:30 one. The Greek is neuter-"one thing," not "one person." The two
are one in essence or nature, will and purpose, but they are not identical
persons. This great truth is what warrants Jesus' "I am" declarations (see 6:35;
8:24, 58; 17:21-22 and notes).
*Q: The point made about the Greek neuter used here seems to make sense - would
you agree with it?
*A: Yes, a very good point; cf. the same exact idiom used by Paul of himself and
Apollos: 1Cor.3:8 – "one [thing]" meaning that they are two equals united in one
purpose. In terms of His comparing Himself to the Father, this would of
necessity include deity on the part of Christ.
John 10:32 (NASB)
32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which
of them are you stoning Me?"
*Q: Jesus must have known why the Jews picked up stones and yet asks them the
question - why is that?
*A: To drive home the point to them that they were virulently opposing the truth
– and also for our benefit and the benefit of all believers who were watching
and listening at the time.
John 10:34-36 (NASB)
34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are
gods'? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the
Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified
and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of
God'?
NIV SB: OT. you are "gods." The words Jesus quotes from Ps 82:6 (see note on
82:1) refer to the judges (or other leaders or rulers), whose tasks were
divinely appointed (see Ex 22:28 and NIV text note; Dt 1:17; 16:18; 2Ch 19:6).
*Q: 'El is a "Mighty One" and can mean God or god; 'Elohiyim is the plural and
functions sometimes as a true plural (as in the case of pagan gods but also in
the case of the Trinity in Genesis chapter one notably), and also as a plural of
majesty (i.e., true "God" in bold as distinct from a false god). I'm unclear
about why our Lord here refers to a scripture which uses the word Elohim in a
different meaning than applies to Himself. Elohim from Psalm 82:6 is a
reference, as you wrote, to those who have the image of God - free will, but our
Lord is God with the Father. So it may seem as if Jesus here quotes a scripture
which diminishes the meaning of Elohim that applies to Himself. Could you
clarify why Jesus uses Psalm 82:6 as a reference here? Do you agree that judges
or leaders are meant by "gods" here?
*A: Our Lord's words come in response to the crowd's words: "For a good work we
do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself
out to be God" (Jn.10:33 NASB). But our Lord was and is God as well as a man.
Rather than confront them on a point they have just proclaimed themselves
unwilling to accept, He refutes them by citing the passage mentioned, one which
shows that all who truly act in God's stead are 'elohiyim. Rather than being an
issue of what the word means precisely (the word is better transliterated than
rendered as "judges" in the context, but only for those familiar with what
'elohiyim means in Hebrew), the point is that Jesus was AT LEAST acting for God
the Father; and if that were the case as it had been demonstrated to be through
many miracles (the previous proof He had used), then these people certainly had
no cause to stone God's legitimate representative – especially since He was and
is God's Son indeed.
*Q: Why does Jesus in verse 36 say "'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am
the Son of God'", if the Jews picked up stones after He said that "I and the
Father are one" in verse 30?
*A: This delineates how He and the Father are One: as members of the Trinity,
Father and Son.
John 10:38 (NASB)
38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that
you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
*Q Could you clarify why Jesus phrases things the way He does? Since faith in
Him is needed to be saved, why does He say "though you do not believe Me,
believe the works"?
*A: If a person believes that the works our Lord did were done in the power of
God, then this leads inexorably to believing that the One doing them in the
Father's Name is speaking the Father's truth. In other words, by denying Him,
they were also denying the miracles they saw with their own eyes; but if they
would allow in the truth that these were truly of God, then that would lead them
to believe that Jesus was and is truly God's Son.
NIV SB: 10:38 works. Miracles were only a part of Jesus' works. It was Jesus'
quality of life, not people's inability to explain his marvels, that he
primarily spoke of here (see note on v. 32).
*Q: What is meant here by "It was Jesus' quality of life, not people's inability
to explain his marvels, that he primarily spoke of here "?
*A: While there is no denying that our Lord's life itself was miraculous in
every way, our Lord is referring to His miracles for they are what undeniably
manifested the power of God which these hard-hearted people were rejecting.
Matthew 12:28 NIV
39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.
NIV SB: 10:39 they tried to seize him. It is not clear whether this was to
arrest him for trial or to take him out for stoning. he escaped. John does not
say why they failed, but he often makes it clear that Jesus could not be killed
before the appointed time (see note on 2:4; see also Lk 4:30 and note).
*Q: Is this an instance of a divine help given to Jesus to complete His
ministry? Commentators' opinions on this are divided.
*A: I don't know why they should be. This was clearly a supernatural help of the
type we have seen before. Nothing anyone could do was going to prevent our Lord
from fulfilling His mission perfectly. The same is true of all believers as
well, of course – but our Lord fully understood this and acted accordingly in
the perfect way. We should follow His example and do likewise, trusting the Lord
to deliver us in every case regardless of what our eyes and ears and emotions
may be telling us. He will continue to use us in the plan just as long as we are
willing to be used.
John 10:41 (NASB)
41 Many came to Him and were saying, "While John performed no sign, yet
everything John said about this man was true."
*Q: Should we understand this verse as saying: "Although John's testimony has
not been attested by miracles, now we can see that what he said was true"?
*A: I think rather that this verse affirms the superiority of the Messiah: He
fulfills everything John said (validation) and does miracles the likes of which
John did not do (superiority).
John 3:30
John 11:1 (NASB)
11 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her
sister Martha.
*Q: Together with most other commentators, Meyer doesn't seem to take the Mary
from this verse to be Mary Magdelene - what is your take on this?
*A: This was Mary Magdalene indeed. This is explained
at the link.
John 11:2 (NASB)
2 It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with
her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.
*Q: Is John here referring to the event described in John 12:3?
*A: Yes indeed.
John 11:4 (NASB)
4 But when Jesus heard this, He said, "This sickness is not to end in death, but
for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it."
NIV SB: 11:4 Cf. 9:3 and note on 9:2. This sickness will not end in death. Thus
predicting the raising of Lazarus (v. 44), since Jesus already knew of his death
(v. 14). In fact, Lazarus must have died shortly after the messengers left
Bethany, accounting for the "four days" of vv. 17, 39:one day for the journey of
the messengers, the two days when Jesus remained where he was (see v. 6 and
note) and a day for Jesus' journey to Bethany. But see note on v. 17. glory. See
notes on 7:39; 12:41; 13:31. Here God's Son would be glorified through what
happened to Lazarus, partly because the miracle displays the glory of God (who
alone can raise the dead; see 5:21 and note) in Jesus (v. 40) and partly because
it would help initiate events leading to the cross (vv. 46-53).
*Q: Do you agree with the explanation of the chronology of this event and the
four days in verse 17?
*A: Lazarus was on his "fourth day" in grave when the Lord raised him
(Jn.11:39); our Lord stayed two more days after the news was reported and then
departed for Bethany. But because of inclusive counting in the ancient world,
the note's conclusion is unnecessary (and in fact wrong, because our Lord speaks
of Lazarus as still being alive when the message arrives: Jn.11:4).
*Q: What is your take on the point that these events resulted in glory through
Lazarus' resurrection and by initiating events leading to the cross? I always
thought only of the former.
*A: Of course glory redounded to our Lord for everything He did. We can say in
this case that the resuscitation (not resurrection) of Lazarus did gain
particular public prominence (cf. Jn.12:9-10; 12:17).
John 11:6 (NASB)
6 So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place
where He was.
*Q: Why did Jesus stay "two days longer in the place where He was" having heard
that Lazarus was sick? The "so" at the beginning of the verse seems to suggest
that He stayed longer exactly because He heard that Lazarus was sick, whereas we
would expect a different reaction. I read commentators' views on this and it
seems a hard verse to explain.
*A: If our Lord had gone immediately, He may have found Lazarus still alive, and
of course would have healed him, but the purpose of the illness was "for the
glory of God" (Jn.11:4). If our Lord had come before three days were over, it
would have been "before decay" and the miracle of his revival would have been
less in the eyes of some. But revival to life after being "long dead" was a
miracle no one had ever seen before, and proved beyond all argument that Jesus
was the Christ.
John 11:8-10 (NASB)
8 The disciples *said to Him, "Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone
You, and are You going there again?" 9 Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve
hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he
sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles,
because the light is not in him."
I) NIV SB: 11:9 twelve hours. Enough time for what must be done, but no time for
waste.
*Q: This note seems quite general, I'm not sure how it should be interpreted.
*A: Sometimes commentators say things just to have something to say. I suppose
it's better than completely misinterpreting a passage (an even more common
occurrence). Our Lord is telling the disciples here that we cannot let fear or
opposition or anything else in this world get in the way of doing what we are
supposed to be doing for the Lord day by day. We are only given one day at a
time and no one knows whether or not each day will be his/her last. So we need
to see each one as a precious opportunity to "redeem the time" for the Lord,
building on the eternal reward He has given us the chance to earn as part of the
spoils we are due as soldiers in His cause (Eph.5:16; Col.4:5).
John 11:16 (NASB)
16 Therefore Thomas, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, "Let
us also go, so that we may die with Him."
NIV SB: 11:16 Thomas … Didymus. The Aramaic word from which we get "Thomas" and
the Greek word Didymus both mean "twin." Usually remembered for his doubting
(see 20:24-25), he was also capable of devotion and courage, as here.
*Q: Regarding Thomas' words you wrote that they express "a lack of faith", but
both the NIV SB and Meyer have a completely different take on Thomas' words, one
which I actually find harder to accept. NIV SB sees "devotion and courage" in
his words.
*A: Thomas had a particular bent of character and personality which is obvious
here and also when he refused to believe that Christ had risen because he had
not yet seen Him with his own eyes. That is not exceptional faith. That is what
today we would probably call extreme pessimism. For an unbeliever, this is
realistic (i.e., life is grim and bad things do happen all the time); for a
believer this manifests a lack of faith that in spite of the bleak appearance of
things, God has it all in hand. Our Lord was not going to die before His time –
and none of the disciples were not going to die at this time, even after the
crucifixion (except for the betrayer who died at his own hand). Thomas' words
speak to me of a bitterness of skepticism rather than a zeal for God. The best
that can be said for him here is that at least he wasn't a coward – but he was
not acting like a hero of faith either.
John 11:17 (NASB)
17 So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days.
*Q: These four days are differently counted. Which is more likely to be correct
in your view?
*A: See on John 11:4 above. The "problem" is generated by lack of understanding
of inclusive counting and also when days begin and end. Simply put, their method
of reckoning where 1) a partial day counts as a full day – on either end (so,
for example, Friday afternoon until Sunday morning early equals "three days").
The one thing we can say for certain is that the accounts here in the gospel of
John are not inconsistent with each other; that being the case, I see no reason
to become exercised over details that are not provided.
John 11:22-24 (NASB)
22 Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You." 23 Jesus
*said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha *said to Him, "I know
that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day."
I) NIV SB: 11:22 whatever you ask. This comment seems to mean that Martha hoped
for an immediate resurrection, in spite of the fact that Lazarus's body had
already begun to decay. Nothing is too difficult for God to do (see Ge 18:14;
Jer 32:17, 27 and notes).
*Q: Do you agree that Martha hoped for immediate resurrection?
*A: Not at all. She expresses faith that the Lord can do anything – and this
must have included the fact that He could bring back the dead to life for He had
done so previously and Martha must surely have been aware of that. She is within
her rights not to have imagined that our Lord was going to do so in Lazarus'
case since 1) He had not come immediately (so perhaps it was her brother's
time), and 2) all previous instances had involved near immediate resuscitation –
but Lazarus was on his "fourth day" at the point. Finally, our Lord tells Martha
that Lazarus "will arise", and the way this is said in Greek does (usually)
refer to the resurrection, the eternal "rising" which no one had yet
experienced. But the distinction we make today based upon our further knowledge
of these matters made clear through the progressive revelation contained in the
epistles was not one that could be expected to be understood at the time: being
brought back from the dead was rare enough, after all, even if all such cases
before our Lord's resurrection were not permanent involving the transformation
of the present body into something entirely new.
*Q: Commentators opinions on her and our Lord's words are divided. Our Lord
often spoke of those risen as living, so when He says that "he will rise again",
it would seem possible that He could have meant immediate resuscitation? What do
you think?
*A: Our Lord was gently letting Martha know without actually saying so – because
that would have been inappropriate before the miracle itself – that He was about
to do something unexpected. In replying to her, He used the opportunity to teach
her and us all a very important truth, namely, that "life and death" as we see
them are not truly important and are only fraught with ultimate significance
because of the superficial way in which we see things with fleshly eyes in this
temporary world. In fact, no one ever "dies" in the sense of going out of
existence, and even "the dead" if they are "in Christ" are alive now and forever
– it is just that we cannot see them at present. So while Martha was grieving –
and we all grieve the loss of those we love – the fact was and is that Lazarus
was fine . . . more than fine. He was "alive to God" and that is the only "life"
that really matters. Bringing her brother back to physical life was a great
miracle and a cause for rejoicing at the time, but the eternal life Lazarus
had/has and was already beginning to experience was in fact far more important
and more blessed than his temporary resuscitation. Even if a person could be
brought back to physical life many times, what good would that be if the person
were not saved? And if saved, what would the need of such a thing be? So I've
always felt a little bit sorry for Lazarus because I think I can say with a
measure of confidence that given the choice he would much rather have stayed in
heaven because that is "better by far" (Phil.1:23).
John 11:25-26 (NASB)
25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me
will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will
never die. Do you believe this?"
I) NIV SB: 11:25 I am. See note on 6:35. life. See note on 1:4. Jesus was saying
more than that he gives resurrection and life. In some way these are identified
with him, and his nature is such that final death is impossible for him. He is
life (see 14:6 and note; Ac 3:15; Heb 7:16 and note). The one who believes in me
will live. See note on 1:7. Jesus not only is life, but he also conveys life to
believers so that death will never triumph over them (cf. 1Co 15:57 and note).
*Q: What does the NIV SB mean here by saying "Jesus was saying more than that he
gives resurrection and life"?
*A: Being the resurrection and the life means that He is God and also God's
solution to death and damnation as the One about to die for the sins of the
world. I'm not sure that is what SB means but that is what our Lord's statement
means.
John 11:27 (NASB)
27 She *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are [a]the Christ, the
Son of God, even [b]He who comes into the world."
a. John 11:27 I.e. the Messiah
b. John 11:27 The Coming One was the Messianic title
*Q: The footnote says that "The Coming One" was a Messianic title - has it got
any specific scriptural origins, or was it just based on the fact that Jews
believed that Messiah was to come?
*A: The same phraseology is used in the LXX in its translation of Psalm 118:26a:
"Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!" (quoted by the crowd on palm
Sunday: Matt.21:9; cf. Hab.2:3; Mal.3:1; Dan.7:13). John the baptist also refers
to the Lord in this way (Jn.1:15; 1:27); n.b., the same phrasing is used of the
Messiah also in Jn.6:14, so it seems to have been a common contemporary way to
describe Him (cf. also Matt.11:3; Lk.7:19-20).
*Q: A lot has been written about Martha's understanding of who Messiah was and
many claim that she was not fully aware of the import of her confession - what
do you think? In any case her faith seems genuine, even if there could have been
truths that she was yet to fully comprehend.
*A: I'm not sure what is ambiguous about "Lord, I believe that You are the
Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world". We can't get "into the
heads" or the hearts even of people today with whom we converse; we can only go
by their words and whether or not their character gives us confidence to believe
their words. I'm not sure what more Martha could have said or done to convince
the skeptical.
John 11:28 (NASB)
28 When she had said this, she went away and called Mary her sister, saying
secretly, "The Teacher is here and is calling for you."
NIV SB: 11:28 The Teacher. A significant description to be given by a woman. The
rabbis would not teach women (see 4:27 and note), but Jesus taught them
frequently (see, e. g., Lk 10:38-42).
*Q: Do you agree that Martha's calling our Lord "Teacher" was significant?
*A: This just shows that Martha has been paying attention:
John 13:13 NIV
30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where
Martha met Him.
*Q: Many commentators, including Meyer, propose that our Lord stayed where He
met with Martha so as to avoid publicity, also when speaking with Mary. I'm not
sure what you think of that and it's not stated in the text, although this
conjecture seems probable given the way our Lord did things.
*A: I agree. Our Lord was ministering first and foremost to those who responded
to His ministry – and that meant Mary and Martha, with whom He wished to speak
privately before He accomplished Lazarus' resuscitation.
John 11:33 (NASB)
33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also
weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled,
*Q: Meyer provides a lengthy explanation why enebrimesato should be taken as an
expression of anger on our Lord's part, rather than sorrow, as many suggest.
What is your take on this? Some commentators have a similar view, others oppose
it.
*A: Etymologically the word means "snort" and generally refers to the expression
of indignation about a particular person or circumstance. From the secular Greek
point of view, orge, "anger", is the fundamental emotion. From the biblical
point of view, anger and fear constitute the two emotional poles representing
respectively emotion that wants to reach out versus emotion that wishes to pull
back (cf. "greed and fear" which are an often opposed to each other in
contemporary analysis). Our Lord's reaction is clearly of the former type, but
that does not mean that He was "angry" – clearly not. But He was emotionally
moved and motivated to reach out and "do something". Unlike us, however, our
Lord was always fully in control of His emotions and never did anything that was
incorrect. He gives us the perfect example of absolutely correct interpretation
and use of the emotions – something we can only approach through considerable
spiritual growth and consistent application of the truth in ruling ourselves
correctly.
John 11:35 (NASB)
35 Jesus wept.
*Q: Jesus knows better than anyone else that Lazarus is about to be resuscitated
and yet weeps - why? Most commentators explain it as an expression of deep
emotion on our Lord's part, but the remark regarding the "misery of human race"
at the end of Meyer's note is interesting.
*A: We have all lost loved ones. We probably have all lost loved ones who were
believers. We know that they are happy – beyond measure with the Lord. We know
that we will be with them in His presence forever. We know – through faith and
trusting the Lord – that it is all being worked out for the good. And we know
that these wonders are close, merely the blink of an eye away. And yet we cry.
Why? Does it mean that we lack faith? In many cases not at all. Death, the loss
of a loved one, occasions grief, and grief brings tears. Our Lord shows in this
reaction that He is every bit as human as we are – while also being God. That is
a marvelous affirmation of the goodness and grace of God, and we should not seek
to complicate it by trying to make it something other than what it is. He
endured what we endure – only perfectly so. He is, in His humanity, as we are –
and what He now is in resurrection, so we too shall be . . . without tears for
ever more (Rev.7:17; 21:4).
John 11:41-42 (NASB)
41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, "Father, I
thank You that You have heard Me. 42 I knew that You always hear Me; but because
of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent
Me."
*Q: Which words does our Lord refer to when He says "but because of the people
standing around I said it"? Is the thanksgiving to the Father from the previous
verse meant here?
*A: Greek very often leaves out obvious objects, both direct and indirect, in
places where in English we would need at least a pronoun as a place-holder. Here
the best English place-holder would be "this", not "it", because "this" is more
immediate and would make it clear that our Lord is referring to everything He
has just said.
John 11:45-46 (NASB)
45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done,
believed in Him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the
things which Jesus had done.
*Q: Meyer makes an interesting point that the Jews who went to Pharisees
believed also, I assumed they went there with an evil intent. Others, however,
consider the other option as possible too.
*A: I agree with your initial idea. Verse 46 states only that "some" went and
"told". I.e., "many" believed, but only "some" went and told. There is nothing
in the Greek here to necessitate that we understand "some" as being a subset of
the "many"; rather, they are deliberately separated by scripture: "of them"
refers the entire group as a whole.
John 11:47-48 (NASB)
47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were
saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 If we let
Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and
take away both our place and our nation."
*Q: Meyer makes an interesting point when commenting on these two verses that
the Pharisees were also egoistically concerned about losing their own position
of power in the nation - would you agree that could be one of their motives
here?
*A: That is what "our place" means.
John 11:49-50 (NASB)
49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You
know nothing at all,50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you
that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish."
NIV SB: 11:49 Caiaphas. High priest c. AD 18-36. He was the son- in- law of
Annas (see 18:13; Mt 26:3; Lk 3:2 and notes), who had been deposed from the high
priesthood by the Romans in AD 15. high priest that year. Probably means simply
that he was high priest at that time. You know nothing at all! A remark typical
of Sadducean rudeness (Caiaphas, as high priest, was a Sadducee). Josephus says
that Sadducees "in their dealings with their peers are as rude as to
foreigners." For Sadducees, see note on Mt 3:7.
*Q: Do you agree that these words stem from Sadducean rudeness? Could they not
be taken as being a result of God's anger aimed at Caiaphas' listeners hardness
of heart, since he prophesied?
*A: We only know what is in a person's heart – to the extent that we know
anything about that at all – from what they say and do. Clearly, Caiaphas was
not only an unbeliever but an arrogant man. That comes through in all the
biblical information given about him. The prophecy in the second sentence is
made, obviously, in spite of himself.
NIV SB: 11:50 better. Caiaphas was concerned with political expediency, not with
guilt and innocence. He believed that one man, no matter how innocent, should
perish rather than that the nation be put in jeopardy. Ironically in AD 70 the
nation still perished.
*Q: Was Caiaphas really concerned only with political expediency? This is also
how Expositor interprets these words:
Caiaphas enounced an unquestionably sound principle (see Wetstein's examples);
but nothing could surpass the cold-blooded craft of his application of it. He
saw that an opportunity was given them of at once getting rid of an awkward
factor in their community, a person dangerous to their influence, and of
currying favour with Rome, by putting to death one who was claiming to be king
of the Jews. "Why!" he says, "do you not see that this man with His eclát and
popular following, instead of endangering us and bringing suspicion on our
loyalty, is exactly the person we may use to exhibit our fidelity to the empire?
Sacrifice Jesus, and you will not only rid yourselves of a troublesome person,
but will show a watchful zeal for the supremacy of Rome, which will ingratiate
you with the imperial authorities."
So the meaning would be that God made into a prophecy his selfish and corrupt
proclamation. Is that correct?
*A: Your conclusion is absolutely correct. What people think may be expedient is
often the reverse, since no one is omniscient and thus can only have a foggy
idea of how present actions will affect future events – the future being
entirely in God's hands, after all. Those who trust God don't worry about such
things. Those who function as if there were no God worry about them all the
time. A good principle for any Christian to keep in mind whenever contemplating
getting upset over politics – or worse yet getting involved in "social action".
John 11:51-52 (NASB)
51 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that
year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for
the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the
children of God who are scattered abroad.
*Q: I find this event difficult to understand. Caiaphas later contributed to our
Lord's death on the cross, proving that he was an unbeliever. And yet God has
spoken through him - could you explain this?
*A: God uses all manner of means to proclaim His truth. He uses the natural
phenomena of the heavens He created (Ps.19:1ff.); He used an ass to correct
Balaam (Num.22:28ff.; 2Pet.2:16); and he used an ass (of another sort) to give
this prophecy in full irony of the ignorance of the one who made it.
Psalm 76:10a KJV
55 Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and many went up to Jerusalem out of
the country before the Passover to purify themselves. 56 So they were seeking
for Jesus, and were saying to one another as they stood in the temple, "What do
you think; that He will not come to the feast at all?"
*Q: The "so" at the beginning of verse 56 seems to suggest that what is about to
be said results from the previous verse, but I'm not clear how this is the case
in this instance.
*A: As Abbott-Smith points out (s.v. ουν), use of this conjunction for
"continuing a narrative or resuming it after a digression . . . [is] very
frequent in [John's] Gospel". To translate that, beginning verse 56 with oun
brings the focus from the parenthetical information given in verse 55 back to
the main flow – what all this has to do with our Lord. Therefore the "so"
doesn't mean that they were looking for our Lord because of the information in
verse 55; rather, the totality of the circumstances described earlier is summed
up with oun and introduces what comes next: "The fact that our Lord was no
longer walking openly on account of the plots led many to wonder – once they had
gotten to Jerusalem and began to discuss these matters – whether or not He was
going to show up at the festival".
John 12:1-12
*Q: In his note to verse 17 Meyer points the apparent difficulty in reconciling
the synoptic account of our Lord's entry to Jerusalem and the one given in John.
Luke describes our Lord's stay with Zaccheus before He enters Jerusalem, but
according to John He entered Jerusalem the day after His stay at Bethany (John
12:12). Perhaps it could seem that events described in John 12:1-11 were not
described in detail by the synoptics, who only mention Jesus' approaching to
Bethany, for example in Luke 19:29. What is your take on this?
*A: Rightly understood, they sync perfectly. This is all reconciled at the link
in BB 4A: "The
Last Passover".
John 12:7 (NASB)
7 Therefore Jesus said, "Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of
My burial.
*Q: This verse has exercised commentators. Firstly, there is a difference of
opinions as to what our Lord means by "the day of My burial" - does he mean his
actual coming burial, for which the remainder of the perfume was to be kept, or
does He mean this day when Mary anointed Him, as a day foreshadowing His death?
*A: While our Lord was not placed in the tomb until after the crucifixion,
clearly, Mary's act symbolizes that burial. The important thing therefore is
that Mary is the only one who realized that His death was imminent, and wanted
to act on that knowledge out of her deep love for the Lord – so she did so.
*Q: Another difficulty is how to reconcile our Lord's words from this verse with
Matthew 26:12, where Jesus says (NASB):
*A: The two verses express the same thing. The perfume is not kept (none of it
is); it is all expended in order to symbolize the coming death of our Lord which
Mary alone had understood – by listening to our Lord's words and actually taking
them to heart. This is why the event is to be remembered as part of the gospel
forever (and why she is to be "left alone" to do what she is doing / had done
without being troubled for her good witness).
John 12:13 (NASB)
13 took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to
shout, "Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King
of Israel."
NIV SB: 12:13 palm branches. See note on Mk 11:8. They were used in celebration
of victory and were symbols of Jewish nationalism. John saw a multitude with
palm branches in heaven (Rev 7:9). Hosanna! See NIV text note; see also note on
Mt 21:9. name. See note on 2:23. Blessed is the king of Israel! The people's
addition to the words of the psalm, which John alone records. It reflects his
special interest in Jesus' royalty, which he brings out throughout the passion
narrative.
*Q: Was using palm branches as symbols of victory a biblically based tradition?
How did it come about that they've become symbols of Jewish nationalism?
*A: The symbolism has to do with the feast of booths, the festival symbolizing
the Millennium which the returning Messiah ushers in. The quote, "Hosanna!" is
from Psalm 118:25; the branches also occur in this context at Psalm 118:27,
where 'abhath can mean both ropes = 1st advent; or boughs = 2nd advent. The
people were focused on the 1st and oblivious to the 2nd, wanting the crown but
without the cross – which is impossible.
John 12:16 (NASB)
16 These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus
was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and
that they had done these things to Him.
*Q: Does by "and that they had done these things to Him" John mean the things
done to Jesus during crucifixion?
*A: No, this is referring specifically to the events of the triumphal entry. The
dative may equally be translated "done these things for Him" (i.e., our of
respect and anticipation, although short-lived on the part of most of the fickle
people).
John 12:19 (NASB)
19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are not doing any
good; look, the world has gone after Him."
*Q: When the Pharisees say "You see that you are not doing any good", do they
mean it in the sense of not doing enough to seize him?
*A: This remark sums up all of the prior efforts of those in power to refute,
deflect, disparage, suppress, and stop the Lord's ministry. The only thing left
to do (these words imply) is to murder Him.
John 12:20 (NASB)
20 Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the
feast;
NIV SB: 12:20 Greeks. Probably "God-fearers," people attracted to Judaism by its
monotheism and morality, but repelled by its nationalism and requirements such
as circumcision. They worshiped in the synagogues but did not become converts to
Judaism (cf. note on Ac 16:14).
*Q: This is an interesting point - do you agree with the note? Were those Greeks
worshiping true God without becoming converts to Judaism? Were they true
believers?
*A: There is no basis for the note's assumption that these are not Jewish
proselytes. While it is not impossible that they were merely tourists (for want
of a better word), generally speaking only those interested in celebrating the
Passover as converts would be in Jerusalem to do so. There were proselytes from
many gentile backgrounds; these individuals happened to be Greek. The text says
they went to worship, so I would consider them converts.
John 12:21 (NASB)
21 these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to
ask him, saying, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus."
*Q: Why did Jewish disciples have Greek names?
*A: In multi-cultural, multi-lingual societies, it is not uncommon for people to
have names for each culture/language. The best contemporary example I know of is
the phenomenon of many Chinese-Americans who are first generation immigrants
having both a "Chinese name" and an "American name" – since it is too difficult
for most Americans to pronounce, spell or even remember the Chinese name.
John 12:23-26 (NASB)
23 And Jesus *answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be
glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the
earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 He who
loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to
life eternal. 26 If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there
My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.
*Q: Please let me know if my interpretation of these verses is correct:
John 12:23: The hour has come for Jesus to be glorified, both among the Jews and
Greeks.
John 12:24: Jesus will be glorified through His death on the cross and
resurrection. His death is necessary to redeem the sin and resurrection to prove
that He is the Messiah and that all the sin has been paid for. This is the
central act of Christian faith which will be proclaimed through the whole world
and so bear the fruit.
John 12:25-26: Just as I need to die to bear this fruit, so must everyone who
follows me - a true follower needs to hold this current world in contempt and if
he hates his life in this world, he will keep it for life eternal. And if anyone
serves me, He will follow me and so obtain salvation and eternal life in the New
Jerusalem, where I will be also.
*A: I don't see anything to disagree with here. Our Lord was clearly using this
incident and this request to demonstrate that His death would be for all and
that it was necessary for all to be saved.
*Q: There seems to be no agreement among the commentators who our Lord directs
His words from verse 23 to - whether it's Andrew and Philip, or whether the
Greeks followed them and were stood nearby to hear the answer.
*A: In light of the above, just as His death is for all, so His answer is for
all and applies to all: salvation is made available to all by the death of
Christ to sin – His spiritual death on the cross – and all must respond to Him
in accepting the Gift in order to obtain it. He is our pattern, and to please
Him we need to follow Him in His example of putting the will of God in front of
our own will, both in responding to Him in the first place, and also in
following Him after salvation so as to grow, progress and produce for Him,
putting Him and His truth before the world and before ourselves.
John 12:27 (NASB)
27 "Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from
this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour.
Meyer: The hour of suffering is regarded as present, as though He were already
at that hour. To take the words interrogatively:shall I say: save me? etc. (so
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jansen, Grotius, Lampe, and many others, including
Lachmann, Tholuck, Kling, Schweizer, Maier, Lange, Ewald, Godet) yields the
result of an actual prayer interwoven into a reflective monologue, and is
therefore less suitable to a frame of mind so deeply moved.
*Q: If my understanding is correct, Meyer doesn't seem to take our Lord's words
interrogatively here, but isn't this the most natural way to translate the text,
in which a deliberative subjunctive introduces a hypothetical prayer?
*A: You are a better man than I if you can understand this gibberish. It
exemplifies everything I dislike about commentaries. The Bible's words are very
clear whether in English or in the Greek. They are clearly said for our benefit
(as in the case of Matt.26:39; Mk.14:36; Lk.22:42), to help us understand that
our Lord knew very well what was coming but was willing to undergo the most
intense suffering to get to the cross – and then to be judged in the fiery
darkness for all our sins – that we might be saved. These words show His
absolute courage.
John 12:30-34 (NASB)
30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your
sakes. 31 Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be
cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to
Myself." 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was
to die. 34 The crowd then answered Him, "We have heard out of the Law that the
Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted
up'? Who is this Son of Man?"
I) NIV SB: 12:31 judgment on this world. The cross was God's judgment on the
world. prince of this world. Satan (see 16:11). The cross would seem to be his
triumph; in fact, it was his defeat. Out of it would flow the greatest good ever
to come to the world.
*Q: How much did Satan know about what was to happen on the cross? Was it the
case that until the last moment he thought that it was going to be his victory?
*A: I wouldn't be surprised. The devil spent eons in the presence of the Lord
Himself and in the most privileged position of all. If anyone should have been
under no illusions about the folly of fighting the Lord it was him. But
arrogance is a great blinder and hardener of the heart. It is an awesome thing
to consider that God had to arrange things in precisely that way so that the
true free will choice of us all might come to the fore.
*Q: There is a debate among the commentators as to how the words "if I am lifted
up from the earth" were to be understood. Meyer, if my understanding of His
explanation is correct, takes it to refer to exaltation through the crucifixion.
*A: This refers to the cross (as the next verse unequivocally states); for the
cross is the focal point of all history. Cf.:
John 3:14-15 NKJV
John 12:30: This voice has not come for me, but for you, so that you may
believe. You have another divine attestation to the truth of my testimony.
John 12:31: And it is important that you make this free will decision to believe
in me now, because it is now that the judgment of this world will take place -
the judgment of condemnation of those who don't believe in me (John 3:17-19).
Now the devil will be cast out - although His final condemnation is still
future, the cross will be the point when his power is broken.
John 12:32: And when I have ascended to heaven having been crucified, I will
draw everyone to myself (I'm not exactly sure how to understand "draw all men"
here).
Also, I wonder if it is possible to take "the judgment" not in the sense of
condemnation, but rather the division between believers and unbelievers.
*A: Apart from the ascension being added, I am fine with this. "Drawing" refers
to the offer of the Gift of life eternal which will be proclaimed around the
world to everyone (cf. Mk.13:10):
John 6:44 NIV
He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the
Father has enabled them."
Jn.6:65 NIV
*Q: I'm not sure how to understand "all men". Meyer takes it as literally
referring to everyone, not just the elect.
*A: As our Lord says at Matthew 22:14, "many are called, but few chosen" (NKJV).
The truth is available to all – through natural revelation and also through an
ever-widening presentation of the gospel itself; but not all respond.
John 12:35-36 (NASB)
35 So Jesus said to them, "For a little while longer the Light is among you.
Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who
walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. 36 While you have the Light,
believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light." These things Jesus
spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them.
*Q: There seems to be an agreement among the commentators that our Lord doesn't
respond to crowd's question, but rather redirects their attention to what really
matters - walking in the light of His truth, which they can now witness. This
appears to me a reasonable explanation.
*A: It is a direct response – for those willing to receive it. They are doubting
that He is the Christ on the grounds that He has told them that He is departing
– and more important from their point of view not setting up the millennial
Kingdom immediately (out with the Romans, in with the milk and honey, is what
they want). Our Lord lets them know that they should take advantage of the truth
He is giving them while He is still present with them – and believe. Because
while physical life in the Millennium will be blessed indeed, eternal life in
the New Jerusalem is better by far, especially if the former is not combined
with faith so as to result in the latter.
John 12:38 (NASB)
38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "Lord, who
has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
*Q: Commentators don't seem to be taking "the arm of the Lord" as referring to
our Lord, but rather His power?
*A: There is no accounting for commentators. Just as the Spirit of the Lord is
the Holy Spirit, the Arm of the Lord is the One who carries out the Father's
plan (as arms do work), namely, the Son of Go. Also from Isaiah:
O arm of the LORD!
Awake as in the ancient days,
In the generations of old.
Are You not the arm that cut Rahab apart,
And wounded the serpent?
Isaiah 51:9 NKJV
John 12:39-40 (NASB)
39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 "He has
blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with
their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them."
*Q: Why does John say "they could not believe"? Since God doesn't deprive us of
free will, I'm not sure why John expresses things in such a way.
*A: They had so hardened their hearts that this has become impossible. It is
possible to use one's free will to put oneself in a position where options are
foreclosed. It is possible to indulge in drugs or alcohol to such a deleterious
degree that certain physical or mental functions are no longer possible – at
least at that moment. It may be possible to recover if a person completely turns
themself around. So with hardened hearts, nothing is impossible for the Lord.
But apart from recovering first, their hearts were past the point of – at least
at that moment – letting the truth in. In spite of being contrary to the
principle of free will inherent in the image of God, this ability to harden
oneself is absolutely necessary to the plan of God and the preservation of the
free will principle. That is because otherwise the genuine desire of the person
in question might not come to the fore (in this case, to blot out the knowledge
of God so as to be a god to oneself and live life accordingly). When unbelievers
see the Son of God in His glory at the last judgment, unbelief will be
impossible – and faith thus no longer an issue. These individuals had no desire
to accept the Lord, but without being able to harden their hearts the brilliance
of His witness and the amazing nature of His miracles would have left them no
choice but to believe. As with the case of Pharaoh – who had to be allowed to
harden his heart even beyond normal human parameters, so great was the divine
pressure leveled upon him – so in this case the object is to allow choice. The
choice these individuals made / were making is indisputably the worst possible
one, but without being able to harden themselves past the point of
receptibility, how could anyone observe our Lord's miracles and hear His words
of truth and see His perfect personal witness and not believe? That was only
possible by them being allowed to harden themselves past the point of belief.
John 12:41 (NASB)
41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.
I) NIV SB: 12:41 saw Jesus' glory. Isaiah spoke primarily of the glory of God
(Isa 6:3; see notes on Eze 1:28; 43:2). John spoke of the glory of Jesus and
made no basic distinction between the two, attesting Jesus' oneness with God
(cf. Heb 1:6, 10 and notes). The thought of glory here is complex. There is the
idea of majesty, and there is also the idea (which meant so much to John) that
Jesus' death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection and exaltation show
his real glory. Isaiah foresaw the rejection of Christ, as the passages quoted
(Isa 53:1; 6:10) show. He spoke of the Messiah both in the words about blind
eyes and hard hearts, on the one hand, and about healing, on the other. This is
the cross and this is glory, for the cross, resurrection and exaltation portray
both suffering and healing, rejection and triumph, humiliation and glory.
*Q: I know that you understand that John here spoke of our Lord as being
described in Isaiah 6, but according to the NIV SB Isaiah "spoke primarily of
the glory of God"? What is your take on this note?
*A: Qualifications can change everything: "You have eternal life – maybe". But
there is no qualification, no "primarily" present in the biblical text here
which in fact puts the matter as starkly as straightforwardly as it is possible
to put it: "because He saw [Christ's] glory and spoke of Him." We might add that
even if "primarily" were a correct interpretation, it would still mean that
Christ is being spoken of, so why the hedging – except as a result of an
unwillingness to accept the clear biblical testimony and its implications (that
is always a big mistake). And by the way, all who believe in Him have eternal
life (no "maybes").
*Q: I would appreciate if you could explain what Meyer means here, because I'm
not clear about it.
*A: Meyer is deft at "quarreling about words" (1Tim.6:4; 2Tim.2:14), especially
when the point is of little moment. The best I can tell is that he means the
same thing the SB means (which is incorrect as just demonstrated).
John 12:42-43 (NASB)
42 Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the
Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of
the synagogue; 43 for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of
God.
*Q: Was it genuine belief if they were not confessing Jesus?
*A: One either believes in Christ or not. Peter believed in Christ, yet he
denied Him three times. The judgment to come will reveal who believed and who
did not. Some believe only for a time and then fall away (Lk.8:13); the text
says they did believe, but the behavior indicated here does not give me
confidence that they endured and persevered in their faith (opposition on
account of the Word is one reason expressly stated for losing faith:
(Matt.13:20-21; Mk.14:16-17).
John 12:44 (NASB)
44 And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me
but in Him who sent Me.
NIV SB: 12:44 cried out. The words are given special emphasis by being spoken in
a loud voice. believes in me. John ends his story of the public ministry of
Jesus with an appeal for belief (see notes on 1:7; 20:31; see also
Introduction:Purpose and Emphases). He does not say when Jesus spoke these words
(they may have been uttered earlier), but they are a fitting close to this part
of his account. the one who sent me. Jesus' mission, as well as the
inseparability of the Father and the Son, are stressed throughout this Gospel
(see note on 4:34).
*Q: Were these words not spoken at the same time as they are put in the gospel?
*A: The text clearly indicates that they were spoken at this point in the
sequence.
John 12:47-50 (NASB)
47 If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I
did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me and
does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what
will judge him at the last day. 49 For I did not speak on My own initiative, but
the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and
what to speak. 50 I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the
things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."
*Q: Why does Jesus say "I do not judge him" if eventually all judgment will be
His, as indicated, for example, in John 5:22-29 and other passages also? Should
this be taken as "I do not judge him now", as some commentators propose?
*A: Jesus says that He is "not judging them" during this His first advent when
the purpose is to provide salvation; the second advent and its preliminaries
will begin the time of judgment.
c) NIV SB: 12:47 to judge. Not the purpose of Jesus' coming (3:17-18), but
judgment is the other side of salvation. It is not the purpose of the sun's
shining to cast shadows, but when the sun shines, shadows are inevitable.
*Q: What do you think of the sun comparison?
*A: It is unfortunate since in scripture shadows refer to the pre-cross
representations of the Savior, not to post-cross revelation of Him (cf.
Col.2:17; Heb.8:5; 10:1).
*Q: Could you clarify the whole verse 48? Jesus says that He doesn't judge, but
His word does - how is it that it doesn't amount to the same thing? Meyer takes
the word here as being "the determining rule of the last judgment", Expositor
says that "nothing personal enters into the judgment: the man will be judged by
what he has heard".
*A: The judgment of the Word is one that is taking place in the hearts of the
hearers as the Spirit "convicts" them of the truth they then accept or, in all
too many cases, reject. The final judgment will occur for unbelievers at the end
of time – based on how they responded to the Spirit and the Word convicting them
of the truth in their hearts.
*Q: Many commentators link the beginning of verse 49 with verse 48 - "the word I
spoke is what will judge him at the last day, because I didn't speak of my own,
but the commandment given by my Father which is divine". This seems logical.
*A: The conjunction hoti at the beginning of verse 49 explains the statement in
verse 48.
*Q: Meyer with some other commentators distinguish between the content and form
in the words "as to what to say and what to speak", but I'm not sure if there is
any substance to this conclusion.
*A: I'm not even sure what it means. If it means anything, it is a distinction
without a difference.
John 13:1-17:26
13:1-17:26 John has by far the longest account of the upper room, though
curiously he says nothing about the institution of the Lord's Supper. Still we
owe to him most of our information about what our Lord said to his disciples on
that fateful night. One feature of the farewell discourses is Jesus' emphasis on
love. The Greek noun agape ("love") and the verb agapao ("love") occur only 8
times in chs. 1-12 but 31 times in chs. 13-17. Chs. 13-14 take place at the Last
Supper, while the discourses in chs. 15-16 are probably uttered on the way to
Gethsemane (note "let us leave" in 14:31 [see note there]).
*Q: That's an interesting point - why do you think John says nothing about
Lord's supper? Is it because he thought that this has been covered in other
accounts (assuming that his comes last, which I'm not sure about)?
*A: John's gospel was most definitely the last gospel, and, yes indeed, there
are many things that the Spirit does not guide him to write, no doubt at least
in part because of prior coverage in the synoptic gospels. This allows John time
and space to give us new information and insights in this precious book we
wouldn't otherwise have. The Bible is the perfect size with just enough of
everything we need. If it included comprehensive treatments and footnote type
explanations and caveats and cross-references to the degree that some folks
would have preferred, it would be as large as the Encyclopedia Britannica, cost
more than most could afford and be portable by no one – and actually be less
easy to understand.
John 13:8 (NASB)
8 Peter *said to Him, "Never shall You wash my feet!" Jesus answered him, "If I
do not wash you, you have no part with Me."
I) NIV SB: 13:8 Characteristically, Peter objected, though apparently no one
else did. His actions reflect a mixture of humility (he did not want Jesus to
perform this lowly service for him) and pride (he tried to dictate to Jesus; see
also Mt 16:21-23). Unless I wash you. Jesus' reply looks beyond the incident to
what it symbolizes: Peter needed a spiritual cleansing. The external washing was
a picture of cleansing from sin.
I take it that, as you explained it, it is the washing from the sin which
inevitably we become guilty of in our Christian walk that is symbolized here
rather than the spiritual cleansing which comes at the moment we become
believers? Such an interpretation seems further confirmed in verse 10:
10 Jesus *said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is
completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you."
II) Similarly Meyer here doesn't provide a very clear explanation and it is hard
to agree that the cleansing "From the sinful nature still adhering" to Peter
here is what is meant:
Hence the thought of Jesus divested of this symbolical wrapping is: If I shall
not have purified thee, just as I now would wash thy feet, from the sinful
nature still adhering to thee, thou hast no share with me (in the eternal
possession of salvation). When Hengstenberg here takes the washing as the symbol
of the forgiveness of sins(according to Psalm 51:4), this is opposed to John
13:12 ff.
*A: The note is problematic. I stand by my interpretation: the bath is
salvation; the footwashing is repentance / confession, aided by the ministry of
the apostles (and all believers) who help each other get back "in the game" when
tripped up:
Galatians 6:1 NKJV
But others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment
defiled by the flesh.
Jude 1:23 NKJV
14 If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash
one another's feet.15 For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did
to you.
I) NIV SB: 13:14-15 Some Christians believe that Christ intended to institute a
foot-washing ordinance to be practiced regularly. Most Christians, however,
interpret Christ's action here as providing an example of humble service. Cf.
1Ti 5:10 and note.
Do you think that Jesus did have instituting this practice in mind? It seems
there are two meanings to what our Lord is doing:
1. His taking away of our sins which we commit daily, so that we walk with Him
and have our part with Him.
2. His humble service, so that while being the Lord, he washed the disciples
feet.
I assumed that verses 14 and 15 apply only to this second point, particularly as
the first one is beyond our power and a prerogative of God only. But this is not
so according to Meyer, who applies both:
This moral essence, however, consists not in lowly and ministering love
generally, in which Jesus, by washing the feet of His disciples, desired to give
them an example, but, as John 13:10 proves, in the ministering love which, in
all self-denial and humility, is active for the moral purification and cleansing
of others. As Jesus had just set forth this ministering love by His own example,
when He, although their Lord and Master, performed on the persons of His
disciples the servile duty of washing their feet,-as an emblem, however, of the
efficacy of His love to purify them spiritually,-so ought they to wash one
another's feet; i.e. with the same self-denying love to be reciprocally
serviceable to one another with a view to moral purification.
*A: Our Lord's rebuke of Peter and His explanation make it clear that you are
correct, and that this has to do with spiritual recovery, not salvation: leaders
in the Church, apostles and nowadays pastor-teachers, are responsible to help
bring the lost sheep back, correct misguided approaches, lead into truth and out
of mistaken or false teaching, and generally restore through patience, reproof
and sound teaching those who need their feet washed (2Tim.2:15; 4:2). Our Lord
put up with the twelve to a degree that defines the word "patience" for
precisely this reason, ever repeating and explaining the truth. We who have been
entrusted with the truth need to do likewise.
John 13:18 (NASB)
18 I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that
the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel
against Me.'
I) NIV SB: 13:18 not referring to all of you. Jesus was leading up to his
prediction of the betrayal (see v. 21 and note). shared my bread. To eat bread
together was a mark of close fellowship (see note on Ps 41:9). turned against.
Lit. "lifted up his heel against." The idiom may be derived from a horse's
preparing to kick, or perhaps something like shaking off the dust from one's
feet (see Lk 9:5 and note).
*Q: What is the origin of this phrase in your view?
*A: This phrase from Psalm 41:9 only occurs there and in our passage. The Hebrew
actually says "made great his heel against me". One can only speculate, but
because the verb 'aqabh to which this noun is related often has to do with
deception, the phrase here most likely means "acted in an outrageously deceptive
way against me". If it does come from association with the verb (as I believe it
does), then any derivation of imagery would be secondary.
John 13:19-20 (NASB)
19 From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does
occur, you may believe that I am He. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who
receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who
sent Me."
NIV SB: 13:19 so that … you will believe. See note on 12:44. Jesus' concern was
for the disciples, not himself. I am who I am. An emphatic form of speech, such
as that in 8:58 (see note there). Cf. Ex 3:14-15 and notes.
*Q: NASB renders ego eimi as "I am He", but NIV SB says "I am who I am" - which
one is better in your view?
*A: The former is more literal; the latter is "out there on the edge" in terms
of translation, but it does reflect the fact that ego eimi, "I am", is a Greek
translation of the tetragrammaton which our Lord is deliberately using to
establish His deity.
*Q: In the monologue preceding verse 20 Jesus explains what the washing of the
feet meant and makes the point about Judas betraying Him, but in verse 20 there
seems to be a shift in the subject - could you clarify this? Commentators
struggle to provide a good link and perhaps the best explanation I have come
across is that it's an encouragement for them to keep their eyes on their
mission, so that they are not broken by the just announced treachery originating
from their midst.
*A: Commentators have a tendency to find and create problems where they do not
exist. Perhaps that is because they have very little true understanding of the
Bible beyond superficialities and are groping for something to talk about. I
don't see any problem that requires comment. Our Lord was instructing the
disciples about what to do when He was separated from them after the ascension,
so to me it seems quite natural that He would then focus on the fact that one of
them was not really a believer but rather a traitor, and, connected to that,
preparing them for what was going to happen immediately. The sequence makes
perfect sense. If our Lord had told them about Judas first, they would have had
zero concentration on the lesson about helping others recover through ministry –
which is why He gave it to them first.
John 13:21 (NASB)
21 When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and
said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me."
*Q: Should we take Jesus' grief as a sign of His humanity?
*A: Absolutely. It shows that normal emotions are very human, even for someone
who did not have a sin nature, and it shows that our Lord was human in all the
ways we are "yet without sin" (Heb.4:15)
John 13:22 (NASB)
22 The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He
was speaking.
NIV SB: 13:22 at a loss. The disciples' astonishment shows that Judas had
concealed his contacts with the high priests. No one suspected him (see v. 28),
but all seem to have thought that the betrayal would be involuntary (see Mk
14:19).
*Q: I've not looked at this issue in the way presented in the NIV SB - do you
think that disciples could have perceived the coming betrayal as involuntary?
*A: This is yet another indication of the relative spiritual immaturity of the
eleven – even though they had been with the Lord for all this time (Mk.6:52;
8:17). It makes us realize the tremendous advantage we have in being gifted with
the Holy Spirit, just as our Lord predicted (Jn.16:7). They certainly ought to
have had enough faith and trust in Him and enough understanding of the truth to
recognize that they – each of them individually – was not the traitor. I think
this is sufficient to explain their reaction without resorting to a bizarre
theory of assumed involuntary treachery.
John 13:23 (NASB)
23 There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
NIV SB: 13:23 the disciple whom Jesus loved. Usually thought to be John, the
author of this Gospel (see Introduction:Author). The expression does not, of
course, mean that Jesus did not love the others but that he had a special bond
with this man. reclining. At a dinner, guests reclined on couches, leaning on
the left elbow with the head toward the table (cf. note on Mk 14:18).
*Q: Would you agree that Jesus had a special relationship with John? Could not
be that calling himself "a disciple whom Jesus loved" is a sign of humbly
concealing one's identity?
*A: Yes to both: I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. This is a very
important point, also. I don't believe we can say that John was "greater than
Peter". It's not for us to rank them, and John's contribution to the Bible in
the end is much more voluminous than Peter's, but Peter does seem to be much
more of the leader for all of his life we are given to read about in scripture.
So this tells us that it is normal, natural, and very human to prefer one person
to another, even as we strive to treat them the same in terms of fairness and
Christian love. We just naturally get along better with some people than with
others and enjoy the company of some more than that of others. Our Lord has this
same human tendency – but without any sinfulness connected to it at all. He was
ever completely fair. So it is good for us to recognize that we too have this
proclivity, precisely so that we may AVOID being partial in the way we behave
towards others. We can like brother A more than brother B, but if we favor B
over A in any meaningful way as a result (i.e., appointing B to some post in the
church when A would objectively be better at doing it), then we are allowing our
innocent proclivity to become evil partiality.
John 13:24-25 (NASB)
24 So Simon Peter *gestured to him, and *said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom
He is speaking."25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus' bosom, *said to Him, "Lord,
who is it?"
*Q: I'm not sure what the correct rendering of verse 24 should be. Most versions
have that Peter both gestured and said, and then the quotation starts with "tell
us", but there are no two verbs here for speaking and telling (i.e., "gestured
and said" and then starting the words with "tell us"), but only the infinitive.
Would a translation that doesn't quote Peter be better here? Why doesn't Peter,
who has shown himself as not lacking the courage to speak, ask the question
himself, but tells John to do so?
*A: It is not a direct but an indirect question in the Greek (so NKJV's "Simon
Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke" is more
accurate). Perhaps Peter felt that it would be rude or out of place for Him to
be so blunt in this formal social situation (but we do note that he is not
willing to let the matter go and that is why he gestures / nods to John to prod
him to get the answer).
John 13:26-27 (NASB)
26 Jesus then *answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and
give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He *took and *gave it to
Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 After the morsel, Satan then entered into
him. Therefore Jesus *said to him, "What you do, do quickly."
*Q: Many commentators take this gesture as a final act of our Lord's love, even
towards Judas. Do you agree with that? Is it not possible that it's only an act
to show who the traitor was? It's hard for me to know if our Lord really loved
Judas or not. NIV SB, takes it as a "final appeal":
*A: This act makes it clear to Judas that our Lord was well aware of his
treachery. For anyone who took that to heart, it definitely should have caused a
reappraisal. On the other hand, all human beings are aware of God's existence,
His righteous character, and the terror of death absent reconciliation with Him
(Rom.1:18-20) – and yet most choose to harden their hearts and ignore these
fundamental truths. Judas is thus an archetype of all unbelievers, ignoring the
truth and persevering in behavior contrary to it out of selfish motives and out
of an unwillingness to acknowledge and submit to God in Jesus Christ.
NIV SB: 13:27 As soon as Judas took the bread. Evidently the critical moment. If
the giving of the bread to Judas was a mark of honor, it also seems to have been
a final appeal-which Judas did not accept. Satan. The name is used only here in
John (cf. v. 2; see notes on Job 1:6; Zec 3:1; Rev 12:9-10). do quickly. Jesus'
words once more indicate his control. He would die as he directed, not as his
opponents determined.
*Q: Do you agree with Meyer that after the Morsel Judas was "given up" by
Christ, which explains the possession taking place?
*A: After Judas receives the sop, Satan is said to enter into him. That was not
the first time (cf. Lk.22:3). No one can be possessed by the devil or one of his
demons without allowing it to happen in the first place, and even after someone
has allowed this horrible possession, it does not eradicate free will entirely.
The Gadarene demoniac was able to throw himself at the feet of Christ in a
desperate plea for deliverance, even though a legion of demons monopolized his
powers of speech; his response resulted in his salvation and his deliverance
from possession. So blaming this on Christ (in effect) is wrong-headed in the
extreme.
John 13:29 (NASB)
29 For some were supposing, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus was
saying to him, "Buy the things we have need of for the feast"; or else, that he
should give something to the poor.
*Q: Meyer uses this verse as another piece of evidence for his view that this
was not the Passover meal, otherwise the disciples wouldn't have said that our
Lord could have asked Judas to buy something needed for the feast.
*A: Well, they were entirely wrong about their assumption on the one hand, and
had seen enough from our Lord not to question actions which were non-traditional
on the other, so this would seem to be a very slender reed to use to support
that flimsy hypothesis. And what did our Lord say?
Luke 22:15 NKJV
30 So after receiving the morsel he went out immediately; and it was night.
NIV SB: 13:30 night. In light of John's emphasis on the conflict between light
and darkness, this may have been more than a time note-picturing also the
darkness of Judas's soul (cf. notes on 1:4; 8:12; Isa 60:2).
*Q: Would you agree that night also has a symbolic meaning here rather than just
being a description of the time of the events?
*A: It is more than symbolic:
Luke 22:53 NKJV
31 Therefore when he had gone out, Jesus *said, "Now is the Son of Man
glorified, and God is glorified in Him;
Meyer: "It is the glory of His death, the splendour of His tetelstai which He
contemplates, feels, declares as already begun."
*Q: Do you agree with the explanation by Meyer?
*A: The glorification of our Lord begins after He is resurrected, ascends to
heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, but it is completed at
the second advent when He takes up His rule. We can see from the next verse that
this is the sense – and incipient future – in which our Lord says these words.
This phrasing makes it clear to us that 1) for the Lord everything ordained is
absolutely certain, even if it hasn't happened yet, and even if it doesn't look
that way to human eyes, and 2) while we see temporal matters from the human
point of view, things yet future (over two thousand years in the future at the
time our Lord said this) are seen and felt as immediate by God – because they
are absolutely certain. Our Lord had completed His ministry, and His victory at
the cross was likewise in no doubt (as massive and majestic as it would be), but
to the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years as but a day
(Ps.90:4; 2Pet.3:8).
John 13:32 (NASB)
32 [a]if God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will
glorify Him immediately.
a. John 13:32 Most early mss do not contain this phrase
*Q: Is it the phrase "if God is glorified in Him" that is not included in early
manuscripts? Should it be a part of the scripture? I'm not sure who is meant by
Him in "if God is glorified in Him" - whether it refers to Christ, which I
thought before, or to God Himself, as Meyer explains.
*A: This is definitely a late addition and not part of the Bible.
John 13:33 (NASB)
33 Little children, I am with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and
as I said to the Jews, now I also say to you, 'Where I am going, you cannot
come.'
*Q: Does by the place where the disciples "cannot come" our Lord mean the cross?
Or does He mean the third heaven, as verse 36 could suggest, where Jesus says
that Peter "will follow later"?
*A: While it is true that neither the disciples nor any other human being was
capable of going into the darkness on Calvary and expiating our sins – only
Christ was capable of doing so and only He was worthy to do so – I take this
reference to mean to be going to be with the Father.
John 13:34 (NASB)
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have
loved you, that you also love one another.
I) NIV SB: 13:34 A new command. In a sense it was an old one (see Lev 19:18 and
note), but for Christ's disciples it was new, because it was the mark of their
special bond, created by Christ's great love for them (cf. Mt 22:37, 39; Mk
12:31; Lk 10:27 and notes). As I have loved you. Our standard is Christ's love
for us.
*Q: How should it in your view be explained that Jesus says it's a "new
command", what is the key difference from the old one, contained in the Law?
There seems to be a general consensus among the commentators, that the
commandment is new because it is based on Christ's love, which sets the
standard.
*A: In light of, e.g., Matthew 22:36-40, this commandment is "new" in the sense
that it clarifies all believer behavior into one single decree: we are to love
each other (once we come to love God by putting our faith in His Son). There is
of course no difference in underlying truth between the Old and New Covenants.
They, along with all of God's words, point to the same thing: obedience to Him
in entering His family (faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ through
whom we are saved) and in how we behave in His family thereafter (the Law was
all about that in terms of regulations, but love encapsulates them all, rightly
understood).
John 14:1 (NASB)
Jesus Comforts His Disciples
14 "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.
a. John 14:1 Or you believe in God
*Q: Meyer makes a good case for taking both these verbs as imperatives.
*A: I disagree with NASB and Meyer. The eleven disciples already were believers
and did have faith in God; but they were as yet not solid in their faith in
Christ, their trust in Him (cf. Mk.6:52; 8:17). So the command is appropriate in
the second case but not in the first (this is born out by the context which is
all about reassuring the disciples with the truth):
John 14:1
2 In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have
told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.
*Q: What specifically does our Lord mean by "prepare a place for you"? Should we
understand it as opening the access to God?
*A: Yes indeed, and the "place" has to do with the place we have in New
Jerusalem and the status and rewards that are part and parcel of that "place"
based upon our response to the Lord here and now.
John 14:3 (NASB)
3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to
Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.
NIV SB: 14:3 I will come back. Jesus comes in several ways, but the primary
reference here is to his second advent (cf. Rev 22:7, 12, 20).
*Q: It seems a correct conclusion here that Second Advent is in view.
*A: Yes (and not a pre-Trib "rapture").
John 14:4-6 (NASB)
4 And you know the way where I am going." 5 Thomas *said to Him, "Lord, we do
not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" 6 Jesus *said to him, "I
am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through
Me.
*Q: Meyer's note on our Lord's words in verse 4 doesn't clarify them to me and
other commentaries didn't help either. Your input here would be appreciated. I'm
not clear about the way in which our Lord's answers Thomas. In verse 4 Jesus
says that the disciples know the way where He is going and, if I understand it
correctly, it doesn't seem that He here means Himself which would amount to
saying "You know the way where I am going - I am the way where I am going". And
yet when Thomas says "how do we know the way", Jesus says that He is the Way.
*A: On the contrary, Peter had said to Him:
John 6:68-69 NKJV
John 14:7 (NASB)
7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know
Him, and have seen Him."
*Q: Why does Jesus say "from now on"?
*A: Because this is the point (the cross, the resurrection, the temporary
infusion of the Spirit, and the gift of the Spirit soon hereafter) where the
disciples are about to come to understand fully who Jesus is – and therefore who
the Father is.
John 14:12 (NASB)
12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he
will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the
Father.
I) NIV SB: 14:12 Very truly I tell you. See note on Mk 3:28. greater things.
These depended on Jesus' going to the Father, because they are works done in the
strength of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus would send from the Father (see vv.
16-17; 15:26 and notes). Cf. Col 1:6 and note.
*Q: Could you clarify this whole verse? What does our Lord here mean by "greater
works" Why is His going to the Father given as a reason for it? NIV SB gives the
imparting of the Holy Spirit which follows our Lord's ascension as a reason, but
I'm not sure if this is the correct explanation - our Lord was given Spirit
without measure (John 3:34), so it's hard for me to understand how the disciples
perform greater works than Jesus, even with the help of the Spirit. Meyer here
proposes that what is meant is the expansion of the apostolic teaching, going
into the entire world and beyond the scope of our Lord's, which took place in
Israel. I'm not sure what you think of such an interpretation.
*A: A previously posted response to this question:
13 Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be
glorified in the Son.
NIV SB: 14:13 in my name. Not simply prayer that mentions Jesus' name but prayer
in accordance with all that the person who bears the name is (see note on 2:23).
It is prayer aimed at carrying forward the work Jesus did-prayer that he himself
will answer (see also v. 14).
*Q: What is meant by "prayer in accordance with all that the person who bears
the name is"? I'm not sure what specifically is referred to here and how it can
be applied in prayer.
*A: I'm not sure I'm able to get into the heads of the folks who wrote this. It
seems to me pretty clear what "in My Name" means, but it is perhaps hard to
explain to those who don't find it clear. This particular explanation, however,
makes things very much less clear. Obviously, we can't expect special response
to our prayer just because we are intoning the words "In Jesus' Name"; but if we
mean from the heart that we are basing our confidence in coming before the
throne of grace on our relationship with Him, these words do indicate that we
understand and accept His authority before the Father as He has expressed it
here – very clearly, in my book.
John 14:14-15 (NASB)
14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
*Q: I'm aware that the words of verse 15 are always applicable, but I'm still
unsure about why they are spoken in this particular place and what is their link
to what has just been said?
*A: From the beginning of the chapter, the topic has been faith, and
particularly the need for the disciples to "step up their game" in terms of
believing the truth. Prayer is both more effective for those who believe that
they will receive not doubting (e.g., Jas.1:5-8), and our Lord's words here to
the effect that calling upon Him will receive a positive reply is an
encouragement to believe and to pray.
John 14:16-17 (NASB)
16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be
with you forever;17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,
because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with
you and will be in you.
*Q: According to Meyer we should translate "Advocate" rather than "Comforter" -
you agree with the linguistic analysis he presents?
*A: The word parakletes is difficult to render into English by a single word. It
does mean Comforter, also Advocate, also Counselor. We know from scripture that
the Spirit does all three things, so what we have here is a deficit in English
(or German), but we should not seek to try and restrain the truth because our
language does not have identical vocabulary. When translating, obviously we have
to make a choice – but when teaching we can explain our choice and also the fact
that the Spirit comforts and encourages us (2Cor.1:3-6), advocates and
intercedes for us (Rom.8:26-27), counsels and helps us (context) – as well as
performing so many other blessed ministries on our behalf.
*Q: Since the Spirit was not yet given to the apostles on the Pentecost, why
does Jesus say that "He abides with you"?
*A: The Spirit has always been omnipresent and has always been the One who makes
the truth perceptible to our human spirits. Having Him on our inside, however,
is a most blessed advantage, never to be underestimated.
NIV SB: The world. Which takes no notice of the Spirit of God (see notes on 1:9;
1Co 2:14). But the Spirit was "with" Jesus' disciples and would be "in" them.
Many believe the latter relationship (indwelling) specifically anticipates the
coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (see Ac 1:2; 2:4, 17, 38 and
notes; cf. Ro 8:9 and note).
*Q: I take it that the "in" is a reference to Pentecost?
*A: Yes, that first Pentecost after the resurrection was the point at which the
Spirit was initially "poured out" so that believers began to be indwelt by Him –
and in very short order all believers would have the Spirit, with new believers
being indwelt from the point of salvation (e.g., Rom.8:9).
John 14:18 (NASB)
18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
*Q: Meyer, together with most other commentators, takes this verse as referring
to our Lord coming to the disciples through the Advocate the Holy Spirit, rather
than it being a reference to His post-resurrection appearances. Do you also
subscribe to this interpretation, or could the resurrection be meant here?
*A: Not the gift of the Spirit alone, but also the indwelling of the Lord we are
blessed to enjoy (as seen a few verses later):
John 14:23 NKJV
To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this
mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Colossians 1:27 NKJV
19 After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me;
because I live, you will live also.
*Q: I have read commentaries on this verse, but it remains unclear. I would
appreciate your input as to what specifically our Lord here means by "you will
see me", which I assumed to be a reference to post-resurrection appearances, but
often is taken to Jesus' spiritual presence through the Spirit. The end of the
verse - "because I live, you will live also" has been punctuated and interpreted
in a number of ways too.
*A: NASB punctuation is an accurate reflection of the Greek. These words are
true on every level: the disciples would physically and literally see the Lord
after His resurrection; and they would see Him spiritually through the help of
the Spirit thereafter. They have eternal life in principle / positionally,
something only possible because our Lord came into the world; and they will live
eternally with Him because of His death and resurrection:
John 14:20 (NASB)
20 In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in
you.
*Q: You stated about this: "Because it will only be with the coming of the
Spirit that the disciples are brought to understand any of the new and important
spiritual realities (compare Peter in Acts chapter one versus Peter in Acts
chapter two)." It is true that in verses 16-17 our Lord refers to the coming of
the Spirit, but are not His post-resurrection appearances meant in verses 18 and
19, which could mean that "on that day" refers to Jesus being seen by His
disciples after His resurrection?
*A: That is true, but His "coming to us" is not fulfilled entirely until the
second advent, and "not leaving us as orphans" has to do with the gift of the
Spirit, not His temporary post-resurrection sojourn with the disciples. It is
very clear to see, from chapter two in the book of Acts onward, that the
"spiritual I.Q." of the disciples increased dramatically immediately after the
Spirit fell upon them.
John 14:21 (NASB)
21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who
loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose
Myself to him."
*Q: What does Jesus mean by "disclose Myself to him"?
*A: As we grow in the truth we grow closer to the Lord through believing His
Word and we end up walking closer to Him day by day, seeing Him ever more
clearly with the eyes of faith. That is how He discloses Himself to us: through
spiritual growth.
John 14:22-24 (NASB)
22 Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are
going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?" 23 Jesus answered and
said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love
him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24 He who does not
love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the
Father's who sent Me.
I) Meyer: John 14:22. Judas expects a bodily appearance of Christ in Messianic
glory, has in this view misunderstood Jesus, and is therefore surprised that He
has spoken of this as having reference only to the man who loves Him, and not
also to the world of the unbelieving, on whom the Messiah when He appeared was
in truth to execute judgment.
*Q: Do you agree that it's our Lord's spiritual presence in the disciples
through the Spirit, which is Meyer's interpretation of the whole passage, that
is meant here, rather than post-resurrection appearances?
*A: I'm not sure that is what Meyer means but that is what I believe: we enjoy
ever closer fellowship with the Father and the Son as we draw closer to them
through the truth, listening to it, believing it, applying it:
James 4:8a NKJV
27 Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I
give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
NIV SB: 14:27 Peace … my peace. A common Hebrew greeting (see 20:19, 21, 26 and
note on 20:19), which Jesus uses here in an unusual way. The term speaks, in
effect, of the salvation that Christ's redemptive work will achieve for his
disciples-total well-being and inner rest of spirit, in fellowship with God. All
true peace is his gift, which the repetition emphasizes. I do not give … as the
world gives. In its greetings of peace the world can only express a longing or
wish. But Jesus' peace is real and present (see 16:33 and note). troubled. See
note on v. 1.
*Q: Do you agree with the points made about peace here?
*A: I don't find the note wrong but I also don't find it helpful. Having a sense
of warmth and security, absence of mental or spiritual disruption through
confidence in the Lord, "peace" by any measure, is indeed a gift given by the
Lord, and one of the most important ones we are given. We cannot always be
expressively joyful (when under pressure or grief or pain), but we can always
have the "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding", and which will,
even in times of trouble, "guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus"
(Phil.4:7 NKJV). This peace is only fully appropriated by mature believers who
are aggressively applying and engaging the truth placed in their hearts through
spiritual growth by means of the Holy Spirit when they endeavor to grow.
John 14:28 (NASB)
28 You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you
loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is
greater than I.
*Q: Could you explain why our Lord here uses such conditional sentence? Does by
"if you loved Me" he mean that they don't love Him?
*A: This is a reproach, but one given in love to help the disciples cope with
the prospect of being soon bereft of Him: "If you were really loving Me as you
should, you would be happy for Me". So the actual scriptural emphasis is on the
fact that being with the Father is better, not on the fact that the disciples
haven't fully appreciated this.
*Q: Meyer takes the Father to be greater than Logos in John 1:1-3, so I'm not
clear what he means by "the absolute monotheism of Jesus". I read other
commentaries and the notion of our Lord's subordination to the Father, also as a
member of the Godhead, seems quite widely accepted.
*A: The subtle distinctions of theologians often make simple things complicated
when they are really simple, and complicated things simple when they really need
some explanation. The Father is God; so is the Son. The titles Father and Son
express a relationship which we all understand because the family is a divine
invention for our benefit. In His humanity, the Son has come into the world to
carry out the divine mandate of salvation, and that is by definition a willing
acceptance of subordination to do so, one that does not compromise Christ's
coequal divinity:
Philippians 2:6-8
30 I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming,
and he has nothing in Me;31 but so that the world may know that I love the
Father, [a]I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here.
*Q: Could you clarify why our Lord specifies here that Satan has got nothing in
Him and provides it as a reason why He will not speak much more with the
disciples?
*A: That He does so is significant. Principle: there is no point in trying to
convince unbelievers who have hardened their hearts or explain things to the
rulers of this cosmos, seen or unseen. The truth is the precious province of
those who have chosen to respond to the One who is the very truth.
*Q: Since our Lord says "Get up, let us go from here", does it mean that from
chapter 15 onwards the discourse is continued in the garden of Gethsemane? Meyer
proposes a different solution:
After the summons, we are to think of the company at table as having risen. But
Jesus, so full of that which, in view of the separation ever drawing nearer, He
desired to impress on the heart of the disciples, and enchained by His love for
them, takes up the word anew, and standing, continues to address chap. 15 and 16
to the risen disciples, and then follows the prayer of chap, 17, after which the
actual departure, John 18:1, ensues.
*A: John 18:1 clearly shows that chapters fifteen through seventeen were not
spoken in the garden. I take John 14:31 as an anticipatory command, one which is
not fulfilled until our Lord is finished speaking, but one that brings home to
the disciples the critical nature of what is said next. N.b., this seems more
jarring to English readers because of the chapter break between our chapters
fourteen and fifteen. But there is no such break in the original Greek (chapter
divisions are an invention for convenience which only date back to the mid-17th
century). In the best and oldest Greek ms., Sinaiticus, John 14:31 is followed
by a colon mark, which in Greek merely indicates a full stop.
John 15:7-8 (NASB)
8 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it
will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit,
and so prove to be My disciples.
*Q: I have so far assumed that the meaning of this verse is that God the Father
is glorified by the disciples bearing fruit, but Meyer, together with other
commentators, propose that the reference here is not to what follows, but to
what precedes.
*A: When John says "in this", typical of his writing the antecedent is not
altogether delineated the way we might prefer, but there is a reason for
everything. Taking the "in this" with what precedes only would be as wrong as
taking it only with what follows. The Father is clearly glorified by the entire
process that our Lord outlines here: our obedience which results in answered
prayer and also in our proper production and Christian life. It would be wrong
to try and disaggregate these things and would only result in sophistic
confusion about these important words in a way only scholars might appreciate
(and that is intellectual gnosis only and not the faith-based epignosis which
results in precisely the growth that glorifies God spoken of in these verses).
John 15:15 (NASB)
15 No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master
is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from
My Father I have made known to you.
*Q: There seems to be no agreement between the commentators as to what our Lord
refers to when He says "for all things that I have heard from My Father I have
made known to you".
*A: Modern people, especially "scholars", have trouble with the word and the
concept "all". But we are hypocritical in thinking we have a "higher standard"
regarding absolutes when in reality ours is just different from the way they
expressed themselves in the ancient world. Our Lord is saying that unlike
slaves, He treats the disciples as intimate associates so that He is not hiding
anything from them – as He was in need of speaking in parables to those who did
not accept the truth. Absolutely everything that it was the Father's will to be
shared with these men at this time was shared with them. That is a privilege
which only intimate associates receive – and, God be praised, we too now have
that blessing as members of the Body of Christ being instructed by the Holy
Spirit.
John 15:16 (NASB)
16 You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go
and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of
the Father in My name He may give to you.
NIV SB: 15:16 I chose you … bear fruit … ask. Disciples normally chose the
particular rabbi to whom they wanted to be attached, but it was not so with
Jesus' disciples. He chose them, and for a purpose-the bearing of fruit (see v.
2 and note). We usually desire a strong prayer life in order that we may be
fruitful, but here it is the other way around. Jesus enables us to bear fruit,
and then the Father will hear our prayers. in my name. See notes on 2:23; 14:13.
*Q: I have not come across this point before and I'm not entirely clear about it
- do you agree that bearing fruit precedes prayer? Should we understand the
relationship as reciprocal?
*A: The conjunction hina, "so that", is most likely an addition. As a result, it
is better to understand "Whatever you ask" as standing on its own. Even if we
were to prefer the change penciled in in Sinaiticus, we should take the clause
to be dependent not on the later part of the sentence, i.e., "fruit-bearing",
but on the appointment of the apostles. For we know that our Lord hears all
prayers offered by those who belong to Him. It is true, of course, the that
closer we walk to Him, the more effective our prayers are.
John 15:22 (NASB)
22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they
have no excuse for their sin.
I) NIV SB: 15:22 no excuse. Privilege and responsibility go together. The Jews
had had the great privilege of having the Son of God among them-in addition to
having received God's special revelation in the OT. Those who rejected him were
totally guilty and without excuse. If he had not come to them, they would still
have been sinners, but they would not have been guilty of rejecting him directly
(see v. 24).
*Q: Do you agree with the NIV SB take on this issue? Why does our Lord say that
"they would not have sin" if He had not come and spoken, if the hardness of
heart would still have been there, only if wouldn't have been expressed in
rejecting our Lord directly, but rather, for example, in persevering in
unbelief? The same could be asked of verse 24.
*A: The "sin" in context is that of rejecting our Lord and His message
personally, and thus rejecting those who are His as a result.
John 15:25-27 (NASB)
25 But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law,
'They hated Me without a cause.' 26 "When the [a]Helper comes, whom I will send
to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the
Father, He will testify about Me, 27 [b]and you will testify also, because you
have been with Me from the beginning.
a. John 15:26 Gr Paracletos, one called alongside to help; or Comforter,
Advocate, Intercessor
b. John 15:27 Or (imperative) and bear witness
*Q: What OT verse is our Lord quoting in verse 25? According to NIV SB there is
some ambiguity regarding this: [hate me without reason. See 69:4. It is not
known which of these passages is referred to in Jn 15:25. Both psalms reflect
circumstances applicable also to Jesus' experience (but see introduction to Ps
69).]
*A: Our Lord is referring to all of the places in Psalms in particular where the
psalmist as a type of Christ is said to be the object of antipathy "without
cause" (Heb. chinam; Gk. dorean).
*Q: It seems the change of subject from verse 25 to verse 26 is quite sudden -
could you clarify the link between the two?
*A: The back half of chapter fifteen is all about the opposition believers face
through belonging to Jesus Christ. It was blessedly appropriate for our Lord to
end this section by encouraging us with the reminder that we have the Holy
Spirit to help us through whatever troubles and opposition we may face in
service to our Lord.
NIV SB: goes out from the Father. Probably refers to the Spirit's being sent to
do the Father's work on earth rather than to his eternal relationship with the
Father. testify. See note on 1:7.
*Q: Do you agree with this point?
*A: The point of "from the Father" is that the Spirit can only be given in the
special way that we have Him indwelling us after our Lord's victory on the cross
and ascension into the Father's presence. While of course the Spirit is
omnipresent and was certainly instrumental in the spiritual success of every
godly individual before the cross, nevertheless He was not indwelling them
except in exceptional cases such as the non-permanent anointing of Saul
initially and of David for most of his life (cf.
His "stepping out of the way"
during the Tribulation: 2Thes.2:6-7; see the link).
*Q: Would you say that indicative or imperative mood is more suitable for the
beginning of verse 27?
*A: Well, it's present tense, but this statement is effectively a prediction of
what would happen in the course of the apostles doing what the Lord led them to
do in the future (so the mood is indicative – i.e., a statement and not a
command).
John 16:4 (NASB)
4 But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may
remember that I told you of them. These things I did not say to you at the
beginning, because I was with you.
*Q: There seems to be no agreement between the commentators with regard to how
this verse should be reconciled with verses such as Matthew 5:10ff., Luke
6:22ff., Matthew 10:16ff. And others. What is your take on this?
*A: If commentators all agree then it is usually a case of 1) something so
obvious that there is no need to comment in the first place, or 2) a case of
them ALL being wrong. In the first two passages, our Lord pronounces "blessed"
in the beatitudes those who are persecuted. Believers have always been
persecuted, so that is not special information that occasions the quote here in
John chapter 16. Matthew 10:16ff. has to do with sending forth the twelve, and
it is true that the 12 and also the 72 sent out are types of the 144,000 who
will be subject to persecution, and also that our Lord did warn prophetically of
that later, tribulational persecution in giving these two groups their marching
orders. But such persecution as recorded as prophetic therein did not happen to
the 12 or the 72. When our Lord says these words to the disciples in John
chapter 16, they are still unclear about the cross, about the first vs. the
second advent, about the fact that they will be left to continue in the world
and manage the transition from the age of Israel to the age of the Church, and
that in the process they will indeed undergo great opposition and persecution.
This was information they were not prepared to receive before, and indeed even
now they do not understand it – but they soon will, when the Spirit comes after
our Lord's ascension and session. So there is no conflict between this and
similar passages, and all three categories of passages in the gospels are
important and necessary. For the disciples here to be given a "heads up" as to
what is about to occur was very necessary and a loving thing for our Lord to do
for them, even though it was but dimly received. Later, it would be remembered,
and that would be an encouragement in the difficult times ahead. We should
remember that we too can all look back and see that we were slow on the uptake
about different truths of the Word which we found difficult to understand or
accept. But they were necessary, every one of them, and when they did "fit" our
circumstances, we can smile and remember our Lord's words here, "See, I have
told you beforehand" (Matthew 24:25).
John 16:5 (NASB)
5 "But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, 'Where are
You going?'
*Q: Why does Jesus say that none of the apostles asks Him where He is going if
Peter seems to have done just that?
John 13:36 (NASB)
36 Simon Peter *said to Him, "Lord, where are You going?" Jesus answered, "Where
I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later."
Similarly, could Thomas' question from John 14:5 also not be taken in this
sense?
4 And you know the way where I am going." 5 Thomas *said to Him, "Lord, we do
not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"
John 16:7 (NASB)
7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do
not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to
you.
NIV SB: 16:7 Unless I go away. Jesus did not say why the Spirit would not come
until he went away but clearly taught that his saving work on the cross was
necessary before the sending of the Spirit.
*Q: Do we know the answer to this question - why the Spirit would not come until
Jesus went away?
*A: God is absolutely just and righteous, and for that reason, even though the
cross was inevitable and foreordained, certain things had to await the actual
propitiation of the justice of God by the blood of Christ, our Lord's spiritual
death for our sins (cf. Rom.3:25). The gift of the Spirit is one of these cases.
There can be no dividing of the spoils taken from the enemy until the victory is
actually accomplished. It was accomplished on the cross (Col.2:15). It was at
the cross that the Lord won His Bride for Himself (Eph.5:23-32; cf.
1Cor.6:19-20), and it is through the baptism of the Spirit that we become one
with Him. All this, therefore, had to follow His glorification.
John 7:39 NIV
8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness
and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
*Q: You translated this verse, together with an explanation: (9) regarding sin,
because they do not believe in Me[, the only One who can forgive their sins].
I'm wondering if the explanation offered by Meyer could also be considered
correct here: The sense would be this: in reference to sin He will convince them
that unbelief is the true essence of sin. It seems that both interpretations are
akin, but you take the meaning of our Lord's words a step further - "regarding
sin, because they do not believe in Me - and this is the essence of all sin -
and through this they are not forgiven". Another way, similar to both of the
above, I would try to put it would be "He will convict the world concerning sin,
because they do not believe in Me - and being in this unbelief they are not
forgiven by God and the Spirit will show them this lack of forgiveness and
fellowship with God which can only be attained to by belief in Me". So the
Spirit would convict the unbeliever of His sin, because by not believing in
Christ, He has God's wrath abiding on him.
*A: The gospel is the point of this three fold conviction by the Spirit. For an
unbeliever to understand his/her predicament with clarity, he/she must be led to
understand that he/she is imperfect (therefore liable to be judged), that God is
perfect (therefore intolerant of imperfection), and that future judgment is
certain (given that even the devil has already been judged) – and the result of
that coming future judgment is also not in doubt because of our imperfection and
God's perfection. So the dilemma is a perfect one with no way out whatsoever . .
. except through obedience to the gospel. The Spirit's ministry of conviction,
therefore, takes away all excuses and destroys all wishful thinking regarding
the possibility of avoiding eternal judgment absent faith in Jesus Christ.
John 16:10 (NASB)
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer
see Me;
*Q: There is no agreement among the commentators with regard to this verse. I
would appreciate if you could just briefly comment on some of the key ideas
here. One idea that I found quite reasonable here is that our Lord is here
referring to His resurrection and ascension, which would furnish the proof of
His righteousness, despite all the false convictions of the hostile unbelievers
during His ministry. But that would in a sense be the opposite to what you
wrote:
*A: While the Lord was on earth, He was the standard of righteous, clear to see
for all who listened to Him and saw Him. The Spirit witnesses to Him and His
sacrifice now that He has ascended to heaven to await the time when all His
enemies will be made His footstool. God has never left Himself without a witness
(e.g., Acts 14:17; cf. Matt.5:45), but those who rejected the Son Himself, and
those who reject the powerful witness to the Son, the Spirit of God Himself,
have even less excuse for not responding to the perfect righteousness which
makes our imperfection stand out in such stark clarity. Our spiritual death to
which our sins witness leads to inevitable physical death, an inevitable outcome
which all the world can see but which so many put their heads in the sand to
avoid contemplating. And on the other side of physical death lies the judgment,
eternal death, the second death . . . for all those who do not respond to this
conviction of the Spirit so as to accept the Gift, Jesus Christ, so as to be
saved.
John 16:11 (NASB)
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
*Q: Your input would be greatly appreciated here also. I understand and agree
with your explanation here: 11) regarding judgment, because the ruler of this
world has been convicted [already, demonstrating that all who do not believe are
destined for judgment]." The point being that just as the Spirit convicts an
unbeliever of sin and just as He vindicates Christ's righteousness, so also He
shows that there is a judgment and the devil is judged. But the question is what
judgment specifically is our Lord referring here to? Many commentators say that
this is reference to our Lord's victory at the cross. If this interpretation be
correct, my question here would be why our Lord speaks of Satan's judgment as
accomplished here, if he won't be thrown into the lake of fire until much later?
*A: The judgment is the last judgment, the result of our sinfulness in the face
of God's perfection, and our lack (in the case of all before salvation) of
righteousness in the face of God's perfect righteousness. Many people try to
console themselves with the idea that somehow this judgment won't happen – maybe
God will forgive all, regardless of their attitude towards Christ; maybe all
will be saved; maybe some good works will suffice; maybe the fact that "some
haven't heard the gospel" or some other argument will suffice to prevent
condemnation; maybe "I'm not perfect but not as bad as person X and therefore
won't be condemned". But the Lord assures us here that judgment is already a
reality. The devil has already been condemned. Just as he is enjoying a stay of
execution, so also unbelievers alive on this earth have a stay of execution
until such time as death arrives and the final judgment comes thereafter. The
Spirit's ministry of conviction takes away these false defenses and "happy lies"
in the heart of hearts of the unbeliever. Of course, unbelievers can reject the
truth the Spirit makes clear to them – that is what most people do with most
truth. But is a measure of the grace and the goodness and mercy and the love of
God that He goes to such lengths to provide a chance even for those who have no
intention of bending their will to His. At the last judgment, I am sure that
each such unbeliever will be reminded of when and where the lies they are at
that point vainly depending on to save them were completely refuted by the Holy
Spirit Himself (Jude 1:15).
John 16:12 (NASB)
12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
*Q: Does Jesus say these words because the Spirit has not yet come upon the
apostles?
*A: His statement is true and it is also true that they will be able to
understand and accept everything the Lord has for them after the Spirit is
given. Theoretically, that would have been possible had they responded to the
truth better at the time, since the Spirit was "with them" though not "in them"
– how blessed we are to have Him indwelling us today!
John 16:13 (NASB)
13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the
truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He
will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
NIV SB: 16:13 Spirit of truth. See note on 14:17. only what he hears. We are not
told whether he hears from the Father or the Son, but it obviously does not
matter, for the verse stresses the close relationship among the three. what is
yet to come. Probably means the whole Christian way or revelation (presented and
preserved in the apostolic writings), still future at the time Jesus spoke.
*Q: How should we understand "what is yet to come"?
*A: Everything (neuter) coming in the future. This refers to eschatology,
primarily, information about the end times, but does not exclude information
about the Church Age which the apostles, the agents of the transition between
the Age of Israel and the new age, would need to know.
John 16:16 (NASB)
16 "A little while, and you will no longer see Me; and again a little while, and
you will see Me."
*Q: There seems to be no agreement among the commentators what our Lord is here
referring to by saying "and again a little while, and you will see Me" - whether
His resurrection is in view, or the Pentecost, which in Meyer's view refers to
the "spiritual vision of Christ in the ministry of the Paraclete, which they
experience, and that without any double meaning".
*A: To me it seems beyond obvious that the resurrection is meant.
John 16:20-22 (NASB)
20 Truly, truly, I say to you, that you will weep and lament, but the world will
rejoice; you will grieve, but your grief will be turned into joy. 21 Whenever a
woman is in labor she has pain, because her hour has come; but when she gives
birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy that
a child has been born into the world.22 Therefore you too have grief now; but I
will see you again, and your heart will rejoice, and no one will take your joy
away from you.
*Q: What is your take on this issue? Should we only understand the comparison to
a woman giving birth as depicting the sorrow and joy of the disciples, or is
there a reference to death too?
*A: This is referring to the resurrection and the grief of the apostles destined
to be turned into joy when they see the resurrected Lord face to face again. It
certainly also applies to the "blessed hope" we all have of the resurrection and
victory over death for ourselves and our loved ones.
John 16:23 (NASB)
23 In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to
you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.
*Q: What does Jesus mean about apostles not questioning Him? And could you
briefly comment on NIV SB note on this verse: 16:23 you will no longer ask me
anything. Seems to mean asking for information (rather than asking in prayer),
which would not be necessary after the resurrection. Jesus then moved on to the
subject of prayer. However, Jesus may have been saying that though his disciples
previously had been praying to him, after his death and resurrection they were
to go directly to the Father and pray in his (Christ's) name (see vv. 24, 26-27
and notes). name. See notes on 2:23; 14:13.
*A: Our Lord means that when they see Him in resurrection, they will not need to
ask Him about these issues which now they do not understand and which presently
cause them grief, for they will see Him alive and, while not yet glorified, in
His eternal body (the discussion about prayer which follows should be taken as
separate from this idea).
John 16:25 (NASB)
25 "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming
when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you
plainly of the Father.
*Q What does our Lord refer to by "these things"? Commentators' opinions seem to
be divided. Meyer takes it as a reference to John 16:17-18, but many others
apply these words to greater portions of the discourse. Do you agree with Meyer
that the coming hour when our Lord would no longer speak to the disciples
figuratively is the coming of the Spirit?
*A: It refers to everything our Lord said indirectly in the past. I do mainly
agree with Meyer here, but would not cut out the portion of time our Lord spent
with the disciples before the ascension (cf. Jn.20:22).
John 16:26 (NASB)
26 In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will
request of the Father on your behalf;
*Q: I'm not clear how to reconcile this passage with Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25
and 1 John 2:1, which speak of intercession. What is your take on this?
*A: Our Lord intercedes for us and is our Advocate. That is true whether or not
we are praying. We also as believer priests have the right of access to the
Father (Eph.2:18; 3:12; Heb.4:16), and of course may also offer prayer to the
Son (Jn.14:13-14), and the Spirit intercedes for us too (Rom.8:26). None of
these things is somehow restrictive. All of these things represent rather
blessings that fall to the lot of the believer in Christ.
John 16:31-32 (NASB)
31 Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe? 32 Behold, an hour is coming, and
has already come, for you to be scattered, each to his own home, and to leave Me
alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me.
*Q: Does you agree that the point here is that their faith, although genuine, is
not strong enough to stand with Him in the hour of trial, as NIV SB suggests:
16:32 you will be scattered. The disciples had faith, but not enough to stand
firm in the face of disaster. Jesus knew they would fail (see Mt 26:31 and note;
cf. Zec 13:7 and note); however, his church is not built on people's strength
but on God's ability to use people even after they have failed.
*A: Our Lord is here expressing relief (a bit ironically) that finally after so
long a time the disciples are willing to accept the truth. His mention of the
trials to come is an important caveat alerting them to the dangers of assuming
that this compliment means they have now somehow crossed the finish line – when
instead things were about to become even more difficult.
John 17:9 (NASB)
9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom
You have given Me; for they are Yours;
*Q: In this verse our Lord says that He doesn't ask on behalf of the world, but
couldn't verse 21 be interpreted as Jesus' prayer for the world to believe:
21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that
they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
John 17:11 (NASB)
11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I
come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given
Me, that they may be one even as We are.
*Q: In what sense does our Lord prays that the disciples are "one"? Do you agree
with the NIV SB interpretation: that they may be one. The latter part of the
prayer strongly emphasizes unity. Here the unity is already given, not something
to be achieved. The meaning is "that they continually be one" rather than "that
they become one." The unity is to be like that between the Father and the Son.
It is much more than unity of organization, but the church's present divisions
are the result of the failures of Christians.
*A: An unfortunate note. This is a purpose clause, not a result clause. It
hadn't happened as the language in English or Greek makes clear. Also, we pray
for things that have not yet happened, even if we are, as the Lord is,
completely confident that they will happen (as we should be too). Now it is true
that in Christ we are "one". But as with many things which relate to believers,
there are three perspectives: 1) positional, 2) experiential, and 3) ultimate.
That is to say, we have and are certain things now as believers by virtue of our
position in Christ, and we will be and have and enjoy those things in every way
in eternity; but while we are here on earth, we should be growing in our
appreciation, exploitation and application of these things. So for example, we
are sanctified, made perfectly holy, in Christ in terms of our position; and in
eternity we will be without any spot or blemish forevermore. But here in the
world, we need to confess our sins whenever we commit them, and we ought to be
improving in our walk, being more sanctified in our behavior day by day, as we
grow closer to Jesus through the truth. Similarly, true Christian unity is based
on the truth. Ideally, the entire Church "militant" (i.e., fighting the fight
here on earth), should be growing closer one to another every day as we all
continually learn and believe and apply the truth (and toss out traditions and
grounds for separation which are not based on the truth). In practice, however,
only believers who have committed to the truth and who are exploiting the means
the Lord has given us to learn and believe it, have the potential of drawing
closer to each other the way the Lord wants. A unified "church visible" that
gets that way by saying truth is unimportant and/or adopting things that are not
true is the opposite of the "experiential unity" we should all be pursuing in
accordance with our Lord's prayer.
John 17:13 (NASB)
13 But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may
have My joy made full in themselves.
*Q: Which things specifically is our Lord referring here to that the disciples
may have His joy made full?
*A: I wouldn't wish to pare it down. He is speaking about everything He has just
said, but by application to everything He has ever said – and to all of the
truth in the Bible. Learning, believing and applying all of God's truth is the
only path to true joy and peace and hope in this world.
John 17:15 (NASB)
15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them [a]from
[b]the evil one.
a. John 17:15 Or out of the power of
b. John 17:15 Or evil
*Q: Should it be "evil" or "evil one" here?
*A: The definite article here indicates this is "the evil one" (similarly:
Matt.6:13; Lk.11:4).
John 17:18-19 (NASB)
18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 For
their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in
truth.
*Q: Do you think it is possible that by "I sanctify Myself" our Lord here means
His sacrifice on the cross? Meyer, together with a number of other commentators,
interprets in this way.
*A: That is my understanding too.
*Q: Your explanation of the second clause - " that they themselves also may be
sanctified in truth" would also be appreciated.
*A: Believers are sanctified at salvation when we are "born from above/again".
But that is positional. We are also finally and ultimately sanctified at the
resurrection. But that is still future. This is referring to "experiential
sanctification", that is to say, striving day by day (through learning and
applying the truth) to live an ever more genuinely holy life. What our Lord says
here is critical: such holiness in practice is all about "the truth". The truth,
that is, spiritual growth through the truth and the application of the truth we
have believed in the power of the Holy Spirit, is the way be become more holy
and live in a more holy, sanctified way, abstaining from everything evil and
sinful, yes, but also doing the things the Lord would have us to do in this
world: becoming His perfect ambassadors, whatever the gifts and ministries we
have been given.
John 17:20-21 (NASB)
20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me
through their word;21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me
and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may [a]believe that
You sent Me.
a. John 17:21 Gr tense indicates continually believe
*Q: Does Jesus mean in verse 21 that the unity of believers will contribute to
world believing in Christ? I'm not clear about the points made: I) "that they
may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You" - is it an appeal
for the unity of believers, in accordance with the unity between the Father and
Son? II) "that they also may be in Us" - is this a result of believers being in
unity (previous point), or is that another request, not linked to the one just
made? III) "so that the world may believe that You sent Me" - as in the previous
question, I'm not sure if the "so that" refers back to the last request made
("that they also may be in us") or all that has previously been said? IV) I'm
also not sure in what way specifically the unity of believers results in belief
that Christ was sent by God the Father.
*A: As with the previous Q/A, unity is at once real now, complete in the future,
and something we need to work at here in the world. But the meaning of our
"oneness" is again not to be overlooked. It has to do not with superficial
community but with genuinely "thinking the same things" (e.g., Rom.12:16;
1Cor.1:10; Phil.2:2; 4:2) – because we all have received the truth, believed it,
and our doing our best to live our lives by it. In other words, true Christian
unity is essentially opposed to what passes for ecumenical unity in the
church-visible today. In this true unity, the Trinity is indeed the model – for
there is not a sliver of "different thinking" between them, nor could there ever
be: God IS truth. Greater unity with each other in the truth leads to our
collectively being closer to God (again, it is the experiential unity and
closeness to God that is being referred to here by our Lord). This unity of
believers, presenting a united front in the truth, what we believe and how we
all act perfectly in love (ideally) is the best witness the Church can give to
the world at large, and a proof that Christ is who He says He is – because such
a witness can only be achieved supernaturally (as any fair observer would
conclude; cf. 1Cor.14:24-25).
*Q: Could you clarify the footnote? Do you agree that this is the meaning here?
*A: While the Greek verb here is likely in the present stem and not the aorist
stem (it's difficult to tell because the good ms. witnesses are equally
divided), this question of verbal "aspect" outside of the indicative mood is
generally more one of style than precise meaning. It is somewhat typical of
contemporary NT exegesis to make much of such distinctions – while ignoring much
meatier ones. Regardless of how we come down on the textual issue, the purpose
our Lord is praying for is for the world "to believe", and that, after all, is
the point: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son . . ."
(Jn.3:16 NKJV).
John 17:22 (NASB)
22 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one,
just as We are one;
*Q: What specifically does Jesus here mean by glory? Pulpit provides a short
summary of the existing views: Verse 22. - Our Lord now proceeds to record how
he has already contributed to produce this result. I also - very emphatic - have
given to them - that is, to my disciples - the glory which thou gavest me.
Numerous interpretations of this "glory" have been suggested, as e.g., the glory
into which he is about to enter in his glorified body; but the emphatic perfect
in connection with the glory, viz.: "I have given and am now and still giving,"
renders this improbable. Meyer, who does not accept Baumgarten-Crusius's view
that "give" here means "to destine," yet comes very much to the same thought,
and regards it as the heavenly glory of which he had eternal experience, and
would ultimately share with his people. But the view variously set forth by
Oldhausen, Hengstenberg, Maldonatus, Bengel, Tholuck, Moulton, and Godet appears
to be in full harmony with the context, viz. the glory of the supernatural life
of Divine Sonship and self-sacrificing love as of the very essence of God. This
glory that he should taste death for every man, this glory of nature and
character as the incarnate Head of a new humanity, I have given to them, in
order that they may be one, living in and for each other, even as we are one.
The contrast between his own relation to the Father and theirs is most
wonderfully maintained. The union between the Father and Son is once more made
the type, in his own unique consciousness, of the union among men who have
received as his gift the eternal life and glory of a supernatural love. This is
more evident from what follows (Jn.17:24).
*A: This refers to the Holy Spirit. That is evident because this particular
measure of "glory" is what makes our unity in this world possible – something
unthinkable without the Spirit's ministry. As the Son of God, Christ has glory
as part of His essence. Only as a human being was He "given glory", and
specifically, the means of illuminated God's glory in the world – through the
Holy Spirit. It is true that at this moment the disciples seem to have only
haltingly taken advantage of our Lord's assurance of the Spirit for those who
asked (cf. Lk.11:13), but He is anticipating Pentecost and the gift of the
Spirit (and of course He also made arrangements for them to have a special
unction of the Spirit in the time in between: Jn.20:22).
John 17:23 (NASB)
23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the
world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
*Q: Could you clarify the point made here by the NIV SB - why is it that the
indwelling of the Father in the Son enables the indwelling of the Son in
believers?
NIV SB: 17:23 I in them and you in me. There are two indwellings here: that of
the Son in believers and that of the Father in the Son. It is because the latter
is a reality that the former can take place.
*A: The note makes little sense – unless what it's trying to say is that Christ
had to come into the world for believers to receive the indwelling of the Son .
. . which is in turn facilitated by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who
sanctifies the temple of our bodies and makes this all possible.
John 17:26 (NASB)
26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the
love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."
*Q: What does Jesus mean by "I have made Your name known to them, and will make
it known"?
*A: This refers to the continual and continuing ministry our Lord will provide
to believers through the Spirit and the truth throughout the Church Age (cf.
"[The Spirit] will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it
to you"; Jn.16:14 NKJV).
John 18:1 (NASB)
18 When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the
[a]ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His
disciples.
a. John 18:1 Lit winter-torrent
*Q: Could you clarify the expression "winter torrent"?
*A: The word, translated nicely as "brook" in NKJV, is the Greek word
cheimarros
(χειμαρρος); it is derived from the Greek word
cheimon (χειμων), which means
"winter" or "storm" (since winter is a time of storms). Storms, prevalent in
winter, produce gullies, ravines, and the brooks that run through them.
John 18:4-6 (NASB)
4 So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and
*said to them, "Whom do you seek?" 5 They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He
*said to them, "I am He." And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing
with them. 6 So when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back and fell to the
ground.
*Q: Do you agree with Meyer and other commentators that the falling to the
ground was a supernatural act? His explanation does seem acceptable and the last
point also makes a lot of sense - that making known His miraculous power also
helps to emphasise the voluntariness of His surrender. I've not come across this
observation before.
*A: Of course it was supernatural. They were knocked off their feet by the
invisible power of God as soon as our Lord proclaimed that He was YHVH: "I am
He" (ἐγω εἰμι / ego eimi in the Greek being the equivalent to the Name).
John 18:9 (NASB)
9 to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given Me I lost
not one."
NIV SB: 18:9 would be fulfilled. Words normally used in quoting Scripture, and
Jesus' words are on the same level (see 6:39; 17:12 and notes).
*Q: Do you agree that these words are a fulfilment of John 17:12? It's quite an
interesting remark.
*A: Also of John 6:39 (as the note suggests).
John 18:14 (NASB)
14 Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for
one man to die on behalf of the people.
NIV SB: 18:14 Caiaphas … had advised the Jewish leaders. A reference to 11:49-50
(see notes there). For John it was this unconscious prophecy that mattered most
about Caiaphas. John may also have been hinting that a fair trial could not be
expected from a man who had already said that putting Jesus to death was
expedient.
*Q: Could you clarify the point made in the footnote? Do you agree that Caiaphas
words were meant to indicate that a fair trial could not be expected?
*A: It's a valid deduction, but the point of the passage is the fulfillment of
the prophecy.
John 18:15 (NASB)
15 Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that
disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of
the high priest,
*Q: Does John mean himself by "another disciple"? Can we surmise from this verse
that he was an eye witness of this process?
*A: Yes, and I believe so.
John 18:19-21 (NASB)
19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His
teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I always
taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I
spoke nothing in secret. 21 Why do you question Me? Question those who have
heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said."
*Q: Pulpit summarises the two key interpretations of the "high priest" in verse
19:
We must choose between two difficulties:
(1) Caiaphas is first spoken of as "high priest," who, as we know from the
synoptists, conducted the examination-in-chief, and then that Annas, as
conducting a preliminary examination, is also styled "high priest" without any
explanation;
(2) or we must admit the supposition that after Caiaphas had asked these
incriminating questions, Annas (who was not high priest), sent Jesus bound to
Caiaphas the high priest.
*A: Annas had been high priest so he is called that in the same way
ex-Presidents of the USA continue to be called "President" after leaving office;
the analogy was close, because the high priesthood had become a political office
and was, essential, the primary magistracy – although at this time beholden to
the Romans and the Herodians (because of how the Romans settled things in the
east under Pompey).
NIV SB: 18:20 I have spoken openly. It should not have been difficult to find
witnesses (v. 21). nothing in secret. Not a denial that he taught the disciples
privately, but a denial that he had secretly taught them subversive teaching
different from his public message.
*Q: Were Jesus' first words a reference to finding witnesses? Do you agree with
the second point made in the NIV SB?
*A: I think our Lord's statements speak very plainly for themselves. He is being
put on trial as if He were some sort of conspirator – but conspiracies are
hatched in secret while our Lord ministered openly and taught exhaustively in
Jerusalem itself.
John 18:22 (NASB)
22 When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus,
saying, "Is that the way You answer the high priest?"
*Q: Meyer provides a citation of Luther here: "This thou shouldest therefore
understand, that there is a great difference between these two; to turn the
cheek to the one, and with words to punish him who strikes us. Christ must
suffer, but nevertheless the word is put in His mouth, that He should speak and
punish what is wrong. Therefore, I should separate the mouth and the hand from
one another."
What is your take on this? It seems there is some merit in His remark. Could
this be interpreted that although we accept the offence, we also have the right
to speak, so that whatever it is that we are suffering can be known by others to
be unfair, and so that we can still testify to the truth?
*A: I read this in scripture:
Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.
Matthew 12:19 NKJV
1st Peter 2:21-23 NKJV
John 18:25 (NASB)
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, "You
are not also one of His disciples, are you?" He denied it, and said, "I am not."
NIV SB: 18:25 they asked him. Some find a difficulty in that Mt 26:71 says
another girl asked this question, whereas Mk 14:69 says it was the same girl and
Lk 22:58 that it was a man. But with a group of servants talking around a fire,
several would doubtless take up and repeat such a question, which could be the
meaning of John's "they." As on the first occasion (v. 17) the question
anticipated the answer "No." The servants probably did not really expect to find
a follower of Jesus in the high priest's courtyard, but the question seemed
worth asking.
*Q: Do you agree with how the NIV SB reconciles the account regarding the
questioning of Peter?
*A: Somewhat. I would say rather that the descriptions of the interlocutors are
not actually in conflict. Our Lord emphasized the number of times that Peter
would deny Him, not those to whom he would be speaking. Even if we are
describing a somewhat complicated series of events, we might choose to focus in
our retelling of it the comments of one person but not of another. The fact that
someone else who was there might choose different facts to relate in order to
give the gist would not mean that either of us was being untruthful or
inaccurate.
John 18:28-29 (NASB)
Jesus before Pilate
28 Then they *led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and
they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be
defiled, but might eat the Passover.29 Therefore Pilate went out to them and
*said, "What accusation do you bring against this Man?"
*Q: How could the Jews lead Jesus into the Praetorium and yet not enter it?
*A: The distinction would be between the entrance to the Praetorium and the
Praetorium itself. Normally, the preposition pros would be used for direction
towards but not into, but John is making the point that they went right up to
the gate.
NIV SB: to eat the Passover. This appears to contradict the Synoptic Gospels,
which have Jesus eating the Passover meal the night before. Here are two
possible solutions:(1) Some say different Jewish groups ate the Passover meal at
different times. (2) The term "Passover" may be used here to refer to the whole
festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread, which lasted seven days and included
a number of meals.
*Q: How do you understand this apparent contradiction?
*A: There is no contradiction. The Lord and the disciples obviously ate the
Passover the night before, but the locals in Jerusalem ate it the following
night. Calculating the date of the Passover is not a spiritual matter and there
apparently was, as this shows, a difference in calculation between Galilee and
Judea on the exact date. It was appropriate for our Lord to celebrate this
ritual – which proclaims His spiritual death – with His disciples, something He
obviously could not do after the crucifixion. So this discrepancy is used by God
to work everything out for good and fulfill all righteousness.
John 18:31-32 (NASB)
31 So Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your
law." The Jews said to him, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death," 32 to
fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He
was about to die.
*Q: Why are the words "We are not permitted to put anyone to death" a fulfilment
of the prophecy regarding our Lord's type of death?
*A: It leads to that through crucifixion as our Lord was prophesied not to have
a single one of His bones broken (Ps.34:20; Jn.19:36), but the standard Jewish
means of capital punishment was stoning which no doubt breaks many bones before
death occurs.
NIV SB: no right to execute anyone. They were looking for an execution, not a
fair trial. The restriction was important, for otherwise Rome's supporters could
be quietly removed by local legal executions. Sometimes the Romans seem to have
tolerated local executions (e. g., of Stephen, Ac 7), but normally they retained
the right to inflict the death penalty.
*Q: Could you clarify what is meant by "The restriction was important, for
otherwise Rome's supporters could be quietly removed by local legal executions"?
*A: We would have to ask the SB folks. Keeping the most important legal decision
– capital punishment – in their own hands supported Roman control in a variety
of ways. It was just one more element of power retained to further the Roman
administration's position.
John 18:33 (NASB)
33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and
said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"
*Q: Meyer makes good points about this question: taking a sufficiently
inconsistent course, instead of simply persisting in his refusal on account of
the want of a definite ground of accusation, and waiting first for some further
step on the part of the Jews. Pilate could have simply waited for the Jews to
come up with anything substantial, so this inconsistency of not persisting in
the refusal is a valid observation.
*A: On the one hand, our Lord is and always was, THE King; on the other hand,
during the first advent, He never pushed forward any such claim to temporal
rule, and always obeyed legal authority. So the accusation is groundless,
because it is only actually an accusation if one assumes that the person in
question personally "claims to be king" and is doing so with the purpose of
supplanting the present Roman authority.
John 18:34 (NASB)
34 Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others
tell you about Me?"
*Q: It seems unlikely that Pilate was acquainted with the different ideas of
Messiahship and on the other hand it would seem that this question does demand a
clear response from Pilate and may even be understood as exposing his weakness
in yielding to the Jewish demand. Commentators' opinions as to the character of
the question vary considerably - some take it as being asked in surprise, others
in contempt, etc. What do you think is most likely?
*A: As with all His teaching, our Lord is here guiding Pilate to look at the
truth. While you or I would no doubt begin making our defense, this is the
farthest thing from our Lord's mind. He wants all to be saved, and since He is
in a position to speak with Pilate, He guides him towards the truth (something
of course which Pilate eventually demeans: Jn.18:38). Our Lord's question forces
Pilate to deal with the question of whether or not our Lord is LORD – rather
than his initial stance of approaching this as a judicial process.
John 18:37 (NASB)
37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say
correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come
into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My
voice."
*Q: Could you explain why Jesus moves from kingship into the truth?
*A: Our Lord always "pivoted" to what was truly important. Establishing and
explaining His kingship was less important to Him than was giving Pilate a clear
opportunity to be saved – by accepting the true message of Him who is the very
Truth.
John 18:38 (NASB)
38 Pilate *said to Him, "What is truth?"
And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and *said to them, "I
find no guilt in Him.
NIV SB: 18:38 What is truth? Pilate may have been jesting and meant "What does
truth matter?" Or he may have been serious and meant "It is not easy to find
truth. What is it?" Either way, it was clear to him that Jesus was no rebel.
*Q: I think that Meyer's explanation is better here than the NIV SB: Pilate, now
fully convinced that he has before him an innocent and harmless enthusiast,
asks, with that air of contemptuous deprecation which is peculiar to the
material understanding in regard to the abstract and supersensual sphere, What
is truth?
*A: Agreed. Pilate was no doubt well-versed in Greek philosophy and contemporary
skepticism, and here dismisses out of hand the narrow way which could have
delivered him from damnation. Face to face with Him who is the very Truth, that
is no small irony – and a reminder that everyone who fails to receive salvation
has made a similarly bad choice. By essentially stating that truth is
indeterminate, Pilate and all like him have convinced themselves that there is
no coming Great White Throne judgment where all of their lies will be swept away
by the unapproachable light of the Son of God.
NIV SB: 18:40 Barabbas. A rebel and a murderer (see Lk 23:19 and note on 23:18).
The name is Aramaic and means "son of Abba," i. e., "son of the father" in place
of this man, the "Son of the Father" died (see note on Mt 27:16).
*Q: Do you agree with the meaning of the name Barabbas given here? Was a
comparison between these names really meant by God at this point?
*A: It is an interesting observation. "Barabbas", however, was actually the
man's name.
*Q: Do you agree with Meyer on the picture of Pilate's reasoning here - that he
is trying to satisfy the Jews with his treatment of our Lord to prevent capital
punishment, which He knew Jesus didn't deserve?
*A: Pilate was an intelligent man and wise in the ways of the world. He
recognized our Lord's innocence very clearly, and he also very clearly attempted
to see that justice was done as a result. But he was also a political creature,
and when he was unable to convince the agitators that genuine innocence should
result in acquittal, he acquiesced to our Lord's judicial murder for his own
benefit and protection – and that is the antithesis of justice.
John 19:12 NIV
5 Jesus then came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe.
Pilate*said to them, "Behold, the Man!"
*Q: Do you agree with Meyer that these words are "gently and compassionately"
spoken? It seems possible that Pilate was well aware that what he was doing
wasn't right, but I'm not sure if he would go as far as to speak with a tone of
compassion.
*A: Rather, I think this was highly theatrical. Pilate was hoping that
presenting our Lord in this ridiculous way would calm the cries for His
crucifixion.
John 19:7-8 (NASB)
7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because
He made Himself out to be the Son of God.” 8 Therefore when Pilate heard this
statement, he was even more afraid;
NIV SB: 19:8 even more afraid. Pilate was evidently superstitious, and this
charge frightened him.
*Q: Do you agree that Pilate's fear comes from superstition?
*A: Rather, I think the deportment of our Lord and our Lord's testimony made
clear not only His innocence but also that He was no ordinary human being. No
doubt when he heard this statement, Pilate realized that it was true – but like
so many unbelievers was reluctant to accept it. Nevertheless, the fact of our
Lord's undeniable uniqueness and the fact that this "charge" was the truth on a
supernatural level ought to have frightened anyone involved in His judicial
murder.
John 19:9 (NASB)
9 and he entered into the Praetorium again and *said to Jesus, "Where are You
from?" But Jesus gave him no answer.
NIV SB: 19:9 Jesus gave him no answer. The reason is not clear since Jesus had
answered other questions readily. Perhaps Pilate would not have understood the
answer or would not have believed it.
*Q: That's an interesting observation - why did our Lord give no answer there?
*A: Our Lord's prior answers were not meant to exonerate Himself – He was ready
to die for the sins of the world. Rather, He was witnessing the truth to Pilate
(cf. 1Tim.6:13), desiring him to be saved as He desires all to be saved, for He
died for all. However, once Pilate rejected our Lord's testimony by calling
truth itself into question, there was no more purpose in any further dialogue
(Matt.7:6).
John 19:11-12 (NASB)
11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been
given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater
sin." 12 As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews
cried out saying, "If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar;
everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar."
NIV SB: 19:11 Jesus' last words to Pilate. from above. All earthly authority
comes ultimately from God (cf. Ro 13:14 and note). greater sin. That of Caiaphas
(not Judas, who was only a means). But "greater" implies that there was a lesser
sin, so Pilate's sin was also real.
*Q: That's an interesting point - I always thought that it's Judas who our Lord
means here, but NIV SB, together with most other commentators says it's Caiaphas
- what do you think?
*A: This refers to Judas. The Greek says "betrayed" (paradidous), the word
always used where Judas' betrayal of our Lord is in view (cf. Mk.14:41-44).
*Q: I'm not entirely clear about the second part of the 11th verse, where our
Lord says "for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin".
*A: Judas' sin is greater because he was one of the twelve with no reason
whatsoever to repay our Lord's benefits to him with his horrible betrayal. That
is demonstrably worse than judicial malfeasance on the part of a conflicted
foreigner.
*Q: Why is it that as a result of these particular words of our Lord did Pilate
seek to release Him? Is it to do with him realising that he will be responsible
for the murder? It doesn't seem Pilate took any real steps to free our Lord.
*A: Our Lord's courage in replying in the face of death, and His intimation of
responsibility and judgment as a result, increased Pilate's fear – as well it
should in the case of anyone who had seen even a glimmer of the truth. In the
end, however, he fears the crowd and the displeasure of Rome more than God. A
most foolish bargain.
John 19:14 (NASB)
14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth
hour. And he *said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!"
*Q: How should we understand the preparation for the Passover? It is another
point greatly discussed by the commentators.
*A: Passover – in Judea – began at sundown. The north celebrated the festival
the previous day (explaining our Lord and His disciples doing so the night
before).
*Q: In the commentaries I read there seems to be no clear reconciliation
presented between this verse and Mark 15:25 (NASB): "It was the third hour when
they crucified Him." What is the correct interpretation? This issue has clearly
caused a lot of difficulty to the commentators.
*A: Mark 15:25 is correct. Actually, Sinaiticus has "third hour" here as a
correction. In this case, the (contemporaneous?) corrector is right.
*Q: There is also no agreement among the commentators as to the character of the
proclamation "Behold, your King". With what intent was it said in your view?
*A: The intent is the same as in "behold the man!", but now Pilate attempts to
appeal to Jewish nationalism. Given the response, "we have no king but Caesar",
it is also possible that Pilate was shrewdly trying to make the best of a bad
situation by forcing the crowd to change their attitude or else acknowledge
Rome's hegemony.
John 19:21-22 (NASB)
21 So the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The
King of the Jews'; but that He said, 'I am King of the Jews.'" 22 Pilate
answered, "What I have written I have written."
*Q: Why does Pilate here insist on the writing remaining what it was? Was he
trying to get some false sense of victory over the Jews in his frustration,
despite effectively yielding to them?
*A: So it seems. But whatever his motivation, God used it to declare the truth
about who Jesus really was.
John 19:27 (NASB)
27 Then He *said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the
disciple took her into his own household.
NIV SB: 19:27 took her into his home. And so took responsibility for her. It may
be that Jesus' brothers still did not believe in him (see 7:5).
*Q: This is an interesting point - it seems it would have been logical for our
Lord's brothers to take responsibility for their mother, yet this is entrusted
to John - would you agree it could be to do with their unbelief? Meyer is
skeptical.
*A: That is indeed the reason, and it demonstrates that to our Lord spiritual
kinship is more important than blood kinship. So should it be to us. We love our
families and we do have a responsibility to them, but our brothers and sisters
in Christ are our eternal family, and we owe them our complete love in obedience
to our Lord's commands (Jn.13:34; cf. 1Jn.2:7-11).
John 19:28 (NASB)
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to
fulfill the Scripture, *said, "I am thirsty."
NIV SB: 19:28 I am thirsty. May refer to Ps 69:21 (see note there; cf. Ps
22:15).
*Q: Do you agree?
*A: No, that had been fulfilled before our Lord died for the sins of the world
(Matt.27:34; Mk.15:23). This is a fulfillment of Psalm 110:7, the refreshment of
the victorious Messiah (and also foreshadowing the refreshment of His victorious
troops at Armageddon; see the link:
BB 4: Christology, section I.5.L.2.3, "Our
Lord's Final Statements of Completion").
John 19:30 (NASB)
30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!"
And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.
*Q: Since all the history comes down to Jesus payment for the sins, why doesn't
John record the three hours of darkness?
*A: John is given to omit many things the synoptics record (all of which are
important) and to record many things which the synoptics omit (all of which are
important). Even the synoptics do not delineate the judgment our Lord endured
during that time, but scripture is sufficiently clear on that point – for all
who are willing to look into it (2Cor.5:21; 1Pet.2:24; cf. Is.53:1ff.). As with
many things in the Bible, the deeper truths are revealed only to those who are
willing to seek them out.
Mark 4:11 NIV
(a) Before the darkness -
(1) "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).
(2) "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).
(3) "Woman, behold thy son:... behold thy mother!" (John 19:26).
(b) During the darkness -
(4) "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).
(c) After the darkness -
(5) "I thirst" (John 19:28).
(6) "It is finished!" (John 19:30).
(7) "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46).
*A: There are some problems with this. For example, as you note, (1) is not part
of the Bible; (4) happens afterwards, not during the darkness. I strongly
recommend reading the entire section in BB 4: Christology, section I.5.L, "The
Crucifixion". All of these issues are covered in detail therein.
John 19:34 (NASB)
34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood
and water came out.
*Q: This verse has exercised commentators a lot and opinions are divided whether
the coming out of water is to be taken as a natural phenomenon, for example
coming as a result of piercing the heart, or rather miraculous. What is your
take?
*A: First, this actually happened. Second, it proves that our Lord was a genuine
human being with an actual human body such as we all possess (except without a
sin nature on account of His virgin conception and birth and later sinless
life). Third, John is given to record this as he does to demonstrate points one
and two as a refutation of Gnostic heresy which denied the humanity of Christ.
This may seem odd to us today since most heresy nowadays wants to deny the deity
of Christ, but the devil attacks on all fronts whenever opportunity offers.
John 19:35 (NASB)
35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows
that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.
NIV SB: 19:35 The man who saw it. Either John himself or someone he regarded as
reliable. Obviously he considered the incident important and comments that it
was well attested. testifies … believe. See note on 1:7.
*Q: I always thought that John speaks of himself here - could it be that he had
a reliable witness in mind?
*A: Of course this is John. SB has been unduly influenced by skeptical schools
of scholarship which make it a point of honor not to believe anything or to take
anything obvious at face value.
John 19:39 (NASB)
39 Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture
of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.
*Q: Was Nicodemus a believer?
*A: This tells me that indeed that our Lord's extensive time of witnessing to
him was not in vain. He did put his faith in Christ (when and where we are not
told, but we see another indication of this at Jn.7:51); this act is one of
faith and is accomplished in company with Joseph of Arimathea, another believer.
b) NIV SB: 19:39 Nicodemus. John alone tells us that he joined Joseph in the
burial. seventy- five pounds. A very large amount, such as was used in royal
burials (cf. 2Ch 16:14).
*Q: According to NASB it was a hundred pounds, but according to NIV - seventy
five?
*A: The Greek says 100 litras, which is the Greek for libra, the Roman pound
(from which the English abbreviation lb.). So the question is how much a Roman
pound weighed at this time. The Roman pound consisted of 12 ounces (not 16), so
"75 pounds" seems a fair estimate. NIV is converting to modern equivalents; NASB
is translating literally without worrying about the fact that the Roman pound
was lighter.
John 20:1 (NASB)
20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb,
while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
NIV SB: 20:1 while it was still dark. Mark says it was "just after sunrise" (Mk
16:2). Perhaps the women came in groups, with Mary Magdalene coming very early.
Or John may refer to the time of leaving home, Mark to that of arrival at the
tomb. Mary Magdalene. See note on 19:25; cf. Mk 16:9.
*Q: What is the best way in your view to reconcile these accounts?
*A: All four gospels emphasize different aspects of the events on resurrection
Sunday. Our Lord appeared to Mary Magdalene first, then to the other women, then
to Peter (this is all written up in detail at the link in
BB 4A: "The Chronology
of the Resurrection").
John 20:8 (NASB)
8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he
saw and believed.
*Q: What does John mean by "believed" here? I take it he was a believer before
this day? According to the NIV SB and several other commentators belief in
resurrection is meant here:
20:8 He saw and believed. Cf. v. 29. John did not say what he believed, but it
must have been that Jesus was resurrected.
*A: Before the resurrection, it does seem that the disciples did not understand
either the need for the cross nor the certainty of the resurrection – which
means that their understanding of who Jesus was was somewhat "foggy". It does
seem that they were "believers", but before the cross and resurrection and
before the gift of the Spirit, they were at the very least weak in their faith –
certainly compared to what they would display afterwards. Belief has always been
the same, but seeing Jesus as He is and particularly after the resurrection is a
great blessing, since He is the object of our faith. Therefore people living
after these events have that much less excuse for not embracing Him for who He
is, the Savior of the world.
John 20:11 (NASB)
11 But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she
stooped and looked into the tomb;
NIV SB: 20:11 Mary. Perhaps Jesus appeared first to Mary because she needed him
most at that time. crying. As in 11:33 (see note there), it means "wailing," a
loud expression of grief.
*Q: Do you agree with the note? Is it not to do with the measure of her faith?
*A: To be the very first person addressed by our Lord after His victory on the
cross and resurrection is a great honor indeed. Mary was worthy of this since
her faith in Him, listening to Him and understanding about His coming death (she
anointed Him with myrrh), and listening to Him and believing about the
resurrection (she was first to come to the tomb), puts her head and shoulders
above the others.
John 20:12(NASB)
12 and she *saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the
feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying.
NIV SB: 20:12 two angels. Matthew has one angel (Mt 28:2), Mark a young man (Mk
16:5) and Luke two men who were angels (Lk 24:4, 23). See note on Lk 24:4.
*Q: Again, what is the best way to reconcile these accounts?
*A: The "young man" was an angel. If there were two angels (and there were),
then there was one angel (it doesn't say "only one"). One angel rolls away the
stone and addresses the women; the two are seated within the tomb. The women
collectively see the "young man"; Mary alone sees the two. The gospels give
different details, and here different parts of the chronology (see
prior link).
John 20:16 (NASB)
16 Jesus *said to her, "Mary!" She turned and *said to Him in [a]Hebrew,
"Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).
NIV SB: Rabboni. A strengthened form of Rabbi, and in the NT found elsewhere
only in Mk 10:51 (in the Greek). Although the word means " (my) teacher," there
are few if any examples of its use in ancient Judaism as a form of address other
than in calling on God in prayer. However, John's explanation casts doubt on any
thought that Mary intended to address Jesus as God here.
a. John 20:16 I.e. Jewish Aramaic
*Q: How do we know that Mary spoke in Jewish Aramaic? Could you relate to this
note? Why did Mary use this particular title to address our Lord?
*A: This word is often taken to be Aramaic. In fact, there is nothing preventing
our understanding of it being a heightened or familiar form of rabbi (which the
disciples often used of our Lord). Since they and no doubt Mary too had used
this term to address our Lord many times, we glean from this that Mary is
realizing that it really is Jesus who is addressing her. It is ridiculous to
draw conclusions as the SB does here from that. We know from the fact that Mary
was the first to come that her faith in our Lord and understanding about Him was
greater than the rest.
John 20:11-18
*Q: Why do the angels and our Lord appear to Mary after the disciples have gone,
but not beforehand, so that Peter and John could see them too?
*A: Throughout, Mary receive special treatment – both because she merited it but
also to let us know the value of true faith.
John 20:17 (NASB)
17 Jesus *said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the
Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your
Father, and My God and your God.'"
I) NIV SB: 20:17 I have not yet ascended. See 13:3. The meaning appears to be
that the ascension was still some time off. Mary would have opportunity to see
Jesus again, so she need not cling to him. Alternatively, Jesus may be reminding
Mary that after his crucifixion she cannot have him with her except through the
Holy Spirit (see 16:5-16). my brothers. Probably the disciples (see v. 18; Mk
3:35 and note). The members of his family did not believe in him (see 7:5 and
note on 7:4), though they became disciples not long after this (see Ac 1:14 and
note). my Father and your Father. God is Father both of Christ and of believers,
but in different senses (see 1:12, 14, 18, 34; 3:16 and note).
*Q: I read numerous interpretations as to why our Lord explains that Mary should
stop clinging to Him, since He has not yet ascended to the Father - how should
we understand it?
*A: The alternative interpretation given by SB is essentially correct: it would
be unfair for our Lord to give Mary the impression – in the naturally emotional
state she was in – that He is going to be with her and the disciples as He was
in the past. However, telling her that He has not yet ascended is meant to
remind her / inform her that He will not be with them for very long, only until
the ascension.
*Q: Some commentators offered an interesting observation that Jesus says "My
Father and your Father" and "My God and your God" rather than using the pronoun
"our" since His relationship to God the Father was unique and different than
ours. This seems a valid point - what do you think?
*A: While of course true since Jesus is God, this way of putting it has the
effect of emphasizing that the Father is our Father too just as He is Jesus'
Father.
John 20:20 (NASB)
20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The
disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
*Q: Why does our Lord show His hands and side to the disciples - is it in order
for them to see the piercings?
*A: Yes. Throughout the resurrection appearances, while or Lord is recognizable
as the Lord, there is clearly something different in His appearance than was the
case before (cf. Jn.21:7). So this confirmation – that He was who He appeared to
be and was not a spirit but a resurrected human being – was important.
John 20:23 (NASB)
23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins [a]have been forgiven them; if you
retain the sins of any, they have been retained."
a. John 20:23 I.e. have previously been forgiven
*Q: Could you explain the footnote? Do you agree with the NIV SB take on this
verse:
20:23 Lit. "If you forgive anyone their sins, they have (already) been forgiven;
if you do not forgive, they have not been forgiven." The intent of this word of
Jesus has been much debated, but it seems right to say that God does not forgive
people's sins because the apostles (or we) do so, nor does he withhold
forgiveness because the apostles (or we) do. However, through the Holy Spirit
(v. 22) the apostles and all believers do participate in Christ's saving
mission, which has as one of its crucial effects God's forgiveness of the sins
of all who repent and believe in Jesus as God's Son and the Savior of the world
(cf. Mt 16:19 and note; 18:18 and NIV text note).
*A: The two conclusion verbs are in the perfect tense in Greek, "have been";
that means that the sins are abiding in a status quo of being forgiven or
retained. This is just a way of being emphatic about the authority given to the
disciples.
*Q: As I understand it from our correspondence, our Lord here gives the apostles
declarative power. Since they were preaching the gospel for salvation, through
the belief in which one's sins are forgiven, apostles could proclaim the sins of
those who believed as forgiven and the sins of those who rejected the gospel as
retained.
*A: I agree that this is entirely about the gospel. Our Lord possessed "the keys
to the kingdom", and here He gives them to the disciples (Matt.16:19): by faith
in the gospel we are saved from our sins and brought safe "into the kingdom of
God's beloved Son" (Col.1:13).
*Q: One new observation which came through reading the commentaries on this
verse (and, as you can imagine, there is no agreement on the meaning of this
verse) is that there may be a close relationship between the Spirit being
imparted on the apostles and their power to declare the sins as forgiven or
retained. Could it be that they were given the Spirit here straight away so that
they could exercise this declarative power with accuracy and guided by the
Spirit could discern who really believed and who didn't?
*A: This provision of the Spirit is a temporary bridge-blessing designed to get
the disciples to the day of Pentecost. There is no evangelizing recorded in
scripture between this time and that point (a matter of a few weeks only). So it
is best to take the statement of verse 23 as applying to the Church Age which
was about to begin when the Spirit was given to all.
John 20:26 (NASB)
26 [a]After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them.
Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said,
"Peace be with you."
a. John 20:26 Or A week later
*Q: Why is it that alternative rendering of "after eight days" is given as "a
week later"?
*A: Luke uses inclusive counting so "after eight days" would be exactly one week
later. NASB's policy is to go with a literal translation even when it is
possible to make things more clear as it would have been in this case.
John 20:29 (NASB)
29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are
they who did not see, and yet believed."
NIV SB: 20:29 those who have not seen and yet have believed. Would have been
very few at this time (see v. 8 and note). All whom John mentions had seen in
some sense. The words, of course, apply to future believers as well.
*Q: This is an interesting note - who is our Lord referring here to? According
to Meyer we should take it as a general explanation.
*A: Both "see" and "believe" are participles. They are aorist (which usually
means antecedent action), but the time anchor is always the main verb to which
the participles correspond. Here, our Lord is definitely pronouncing blessed any
and all who will fall into this category in the future. Aorists in this sense
function roughly like English future perfects (though on my side of the pond,
the future perfect is practically extinct). Based on the above, I would
translate this part of the verse: "Blessed are those who believe without having
seen".
John 20:30-31 (NASB)
30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the
disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so
that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that
believing you may have life in His name.
Meyer:
John 20:30-31. Conclusion of the entire book (not merely of the main portion of
it, as Hengstenberg maintains); for chap, 21 is a supplement.
*Q: Do you agree with this note by Meyer?
*A: It is absurd. It is, however, a good example of scholastic attempts to
rewrite scripture based upon arrogant theories of composition which have no
basis in fact.
John 21:2 (NASB)
2 Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and
the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together.
*Q: Nathanael appears also at the beginning of John's gospel - was he also one
of the disciples, but not of the 12?
*A: Yes he is one of the twelve; he is apparently one and the same as
Bartholomew. From "Mark Questions":
A: Yes, this is Matthew. It seems that all of the disciples had two names, most
likely a name given at birth, and another one given to them by the Lord. So not
only Levi/Matthew, but also Simon/Peter, Saul/Paul, John and brother James /
"Thunderers", Thaddeus/Judas son of James, Bartholomew/Nathaniel,
Thomas/Didymus, Simon/Cananeus (zealot). It is true that we do not have
alternative names for Andrew or Philip or Judas Iscariot. The last mentioned
will be because of the fact that he was never a believer with a "new life"
requiring a new name. The other two are simply not recorded for us but we can
assume that they probably had them.
4 But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples
did not know that it was Jesus.
*Q: Why did the disciples not recognize Jesus?
*A: As mentioned above, the resurrection body is different, enough so that even
though there is an unmistakable resemblance, yet there is also a clear enough
difference to produce this sort of reaction, especially at a distance as we have
here. Then too, our Lord deliberately withheld recognition on at least one
occasion (Lk.24:16).
John 21:7 (NASB)
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved *said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So
when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he
was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.
NIV SB: 21:7 disciple whom Jesus loved. See note on 13:23. his outer garment. It
is curious that he put on this garment (the word appears only here in the NT)
preparatory to jumping into the water. But Jews regarded a greeting as a
religious act that could be done only when one was clothed. Peter may have been
preparing himself to greet the Lord.
*Q: Do you agree that this was the reason why Peter wore the garment?
*A: This exemplifies the cultural differences between the ancient and modern
worlds. In antiquity, outdoor work, especially done by fishermen, sailors and
athletes, was usually done naked. Whereas being finished with such work resulted
in donning clothing. So Peter's actions make perfect sense in his time without
resorting to some such explanation. Swimming, it will also be noted, was not a
widespread leisure activity with its own customs and costumes as is the case in
the modern world. It was done mostly only for practical reasons and hence
usually while clothed (as in having to jump off a sinking ship).
John 21:9 (NASB)
9 So when they got out on the land, they *saw a charcoal fire already laid and
fish placed on it, and bread.
NIV SB: 21:9 burning coals. Lit. "charcoal," as in 18:18 ("fire" see note on
18:26). Thus the charcoal "fire" is present at both Peter's denials and his
restoration.
*Q: Do you agree there is a meaning to the fact that charcoal is present in
these two situations?
*A: I don't find any significance in this, especially since the purpose of this
fire was to cook whereas the purpose of the other was for warming.
John 21:11 (NASB)
11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred
and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.
Pulpit Commentary: The remark of Baumgarten-Crusius, that the number is simply
an index of the authenticity of the narrative, and of the fact that the fishes
were counted on the occasion, is eminently sensible (so Godet and Meyer). The
fact that it is not a round number adds to the probability of this statement,
and enters a caveat against allegorical interpretation. And for all they were so
many, the net was not rent. This is obviously a point of contrast with the first
miraculous draught of fishes, when the nets brake and the boats began to sink.
This does form a probable allegory of the success with which the final
ingathering of souls shall be effected.
*Q: This seems a reasonable explanation, as opposed to some wild allegories
proposed.
*A: I essentially agree. But see
the link.
John 21:14 (NASB)
14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after
He was raised from the dead.
*Q: Meyer again struggles to reconcile accounts here. What is your take on this
issue?
*A: This is technically correct when the import of the words "to the [multiple]
disciples [meaning the eleven]" is reckoned in (the first two being John
20:19-25 and John 20:26-31). For more details see the link in
BB 4A: "The
Chronology of the Resurrection".
John 21:15-17 (NASB)
15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son
of John, do you love Me more than these?" He *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know
that I love You." He *said to him, "Tend My lambs." 16 He *said to him again a
second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He *said to Him, "Yes, Lord;
You know that I love You." He *said to him, "Shepherd My sheep." 17 He *said to
him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved
because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him,
"Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend
My sheep.
NIV SB: 21:15-17 love. The Greek word for "love" in Jesus' first two questions
is different from that in his third question and in all Peter's answers. It is
uncertain whether a distinction in meaning is intended since John often used
synonyms for stylistic reasons (e. g., "Feed my lambs" [v. 15], "Take care of my
sheep" [v. 16] and "Feed my sheep" [v. 17]). Also, no distinction is made
between these two words elsewhere in this Gospel. The more important point is
that Peter's threefold denial of Jesus (18:16-18, 25-27) is now reversed with
Peter's threefold affirmation of his love for Jesus.
*Q: Do you agree that there is no difference in meaning between agapao and
phileo? Commentators' views on this are divided, with some drawing conclusions
in their interpretations based on the somewhat distinct shades of meaning of
these two words, others doing the opposite. The same could be asked of the words
that our Lord uses to describe feeding of the flock, which are different each
time - should we draw any conclusions based on this? For example, Cambridge
Bible for Schools and Colleges: Tending implies more of guidance and government
than feeding does. The lambs, which can go no distance, scarcely require
guidance, their chief need is food. The sheep require both.
*A: The critical point for interpretation here is when John writes, "He said to
him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?' " and "Peter was
grieved because He said to him the third time, 'Do you love Me?' " (Jn.21:27).
This makes it clear that to the writer the whole point was the threefold
repetition so that the varied vocabulary for love is not significant here (e.g.,
in the verse just cited, John writes, phileis, whereas in fact the first two
times our Lord had actually said agapas). From this we can also conclude that
trying to find variations in the mandate is also a mistake. In fact feeding and
shepherding are the same thing; and that is doubly true for believers who are
shepherded by the provision of spiritual food (and not by a shepherd's personal
interference in their lives so as to violate the free will choices they are
required to make for themselves).
NIV SB: 21:15 more than these. May mean "more than you love these men" or "more
than these men love me" or "more than you love these things" (i. e., the fishing
gear). Perhaps the second is best, for Peter had claimed a devotion above that
of the others (Mt 26:33; Mk 14:29; cf. Jn 13:37). Peter did not take up the
comparison, and Jesus did not explain it. Feed my lambs. Cf. "Take care of my
sheep" (v. 16) and "Feed my sheep" (v. 17); cf. 1Pe 5:1-4; and notes.
*Q: This is an important point - which one of the three does our Lord mean -
"more than you love these men" or "more than these men love me" or "more than
you love these things"? So far I have always assumed that the second meaning is
correct.
*A: You are obviously correct as the other two make little sense when exposed to
even marginal scrutiny. If Peter were going to be the leader of the remaining
disciples, his love for the Lord would have to surpass theirs.
*Q: An interesting point is made by Cambridge Bible for School and Colleges:
Jesus recalls this boast by asking him whether he now professes to have more
loyalty and devotion than the rest. Do you think that could be the intention of
our Lord's here?
*A: This is a wrong way to look at our Lord and His ministry. He is on our side.
He is not a legalistic fault-finder. His question to Peter was meant to help
Peter going forward, not to reproach Him in having him look backward.
*Q: Several commentaries point that our Lord asks Peter the question three times
because of his threefold rejection. What do you think?
*A: I would reject the "because of". This is possibly more than a coincidence,
but the common point I would see would be rather that Peter, being who he was,
needed to hear and do things more than once to "get it" and "commit to it"
respectively. Our Lord was aware of this in both instances and dealt with him
perfectly in each case a result. It's a good thing for us to remember. Our Lord
always goes the extra mile to help us and to help us "get it right". So we
should not be reluctant to "get it" or to see the warnings we graciously given;
and as teachers, we should never apologize about repeating ourselves when it
comes to the truth – as Peter also saw (2Pet.1:12-15).
John 21:18 (NASB)
18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself
and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your
hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to
go."
NIV SB: 21:18 Very truly I tell you. See note on Mk 3:28. stretch out your
hands. The early church understood this as a prophecy of crucifixion.
*Q: Do you agree that crucifixion is in view here?
*A: Since Peter later asks about John and our Lord couches His response in terms
of John potentially abiding on earth longer than Peter, we are right to see this
as a prophecy of Peter's death. I don't think we can read "crucifixion" into the
picture from the text here. But it is true that this was the standard method of
Roman capital punishment for non-citizens.
John 21:24 (NASB)
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these
things, and we know that his testimony is true.
I) NIV SB: We know. Evidently written by contemporaries in a position to know
the truth.
*Q: Could you clarify this note? Do you agree with Meyer here with regard to the
reason why John used the plural here: "but John, as he has avoided throughout in
the Gospel, in accordance with his delicate peculiarity, the self-designation by
I, here speaks out of the consciousness of fellowship with his readers at that
time."
*A: The SB note seems to be the result of a mistaken belief that this was not
written by John. It was written by John and by "we" he means "I". Grammatically
this is called a plural of modesty. This is essentially what Meyer is trying to
say.
John 21:25 (NASB)
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were
written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the
books that *would be written.
*Q: Meyer takes this verse to be a gloss by a later hand and appartently it's
missing from Sinaiticus - what is your take on the textual issue here?
*A: The verse is indeed present in Sinaiticus. It is sometimes taken to be added
by a corrector, but to me it looks like it was done by the original hand. It is
part of the Bible.