The Best of John

The Best of John

by Daniel L. Herring completed in 2020

Introduction A study of the Gospel of John, in the fashion of “The Best of Romans,” pulling the special content to the surface for closer investigation. In my study, one may not always find a chapter and verse. I often treat multiple verses without numbering each one. The reader should, therefore, read my study in conjunction with his or her own study, keeping the Gospel of John close for handy reference. I have never been one for name dropping. You will not find an index at the end of this work. Neither will you find that I am writing about what previous authors have said. When I bring up references, it is usually from Wikipedia, a dictionary, encyclopedia, or online site of a current author.

The study, as it is presented here, is solely my own and is the product of collaboration between myself and the Holy Spirit. It is not my intention to teach anyone what either is or is not. The work, at its most basic level, represents my thoughts only. However, it is hoped that as the thoughts of others have both inspired and spurred me forward, my thoughts may be of some similar use in leading the reader to his or her own thoughts. It is with a great sense of personal satisfaction that I forward this work and, because of the sure assistance of the Holy Spirit in my endeavors, I suggest to anyone with an interest in the truth, never strike out on your own nor lean on your own understanding but allow the Holy Spirit to lead.

Chapter One. Verses one and two. The use of the word 'same' asks the reader to compare two beginnings, the beginning of the Word and the beginning of God. Each is an early, if not initial, point in time or process – one with the Word and one with God. Verses three through five. Christ, being equal to God, perhaps one and the same, created reality, but that reality, from the beginning, was in full association to man.

Verse nine. Christ, the true light according to John (perhaps in contrast to John the Baptist) is a vital part of every human that enters the world.

Verses ten and eleven. Darkness is explained as ignorance of Christ in the world and ignorance of Christ in man. As for Christ, mankind is his kind (his own).

Verses twelve and thirteen. Those who are not ignorant of Christ in the world and of Christ in man are only different from the rest of his own in that they are empowered to progress spiritually – being born of the spirit (the light) and the express will of God. Verses fourteen through eighteen. the Baptist's witness, an introduction to the savior, presents a problem. Verse fourteen seems to be the writer's opinion rather than John's witness, but the witness that follows that opinion, John's introduction to Christ, is couched in blatant specificity. Did the Baptist introduce the savior using Jesus' name or was that specificity the inclusion of the writer? It could have been either one, for all we know. The writer obviously knew Jesus by the title “Jesus Christ” but that in no way discounts the Baptist for he was Jesus' cousin. They may have grown up together.

Verses nineteen through twenty-six. John answered priests and Levites the “Jews” sent from Jerusalem. His answer to them, although vague on the surface, speaks of Jesus – that he stood among their ranks.

While Levites were considered to be high priests, priests were not necessarily levitical.

(Rabbinic Ordination (taken from Aish.com in regard to the Sanhedrin:) Every member of the Sanhedrin must be ordained, following a tradition from Moses. It is thus written, "Moses did as God commanded him. He took Joshua... and laid his hands on him, commanding him, as God spoke through Moses" (Numbers 27:22-23).

Moses also laid his hands on the other elders, ordaining them as members of the Sanhedrin. These, in turn, ordained others, generation after generation, in an unbroken line of ordination from Moses.

Although Moses ordained the first Sanhedrin with the actual laying on of hands, this was a special case, and was only done that one time. All subsequent ordinations were performed orally, granting the subject the title of "Rabbi" and declaring that he is "ordained with the right to judge cases involving fines.")

What did the writer mean when he said “the Jews”? He likely referred to the religious authority of the Sanhedrin.

New question. What clues or scriptures had alerted the authorities to grill John the baptist the way they did? They asked him “why” he baptized people if he was not 'that' Christ, or Elias, or 'that' prophet.

In John 1:21, who is ‘the (or that) prophet’? (taken from Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange, a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts.)

(Answer: NOT Jesus, and not Mohammed either.

At least, not as it relates to the hermeneutics of this text. Theologians can debate the ‘correct’ formulation of (Jewish or Christian or Moslem or Mormon) messianic expectation and assert who fulfills that hope within their system. But I understand

hermeneutics is about the meaning and function of words in a specific text; it is not a theological debate.

In this passage – in which there are no important critical problems of text or translation – ‘the prophet’ is simply a theological idea, the third component of a tripartite messianic expectation which the author ascribes to ‘the Jews’. As H.A.W. Meyers noted: “ὁ προφήτης is marked out by the article as the well-known promised prophet, and considering the previous question Ἠλίας εἶ σύ, can only be a nameless one.”)

Verses twenty-nine through thirty-eight. On the day following the Baptist's encounter with the priests and Levites, Jesus entered the camp at Bethabara where John was baptizing. It was a place described as 'beyond Jordan' – but, beyond from what reference point? Was it beyond Jordan from the wilderness that John inhabited? Was it beyond Jordan in relation to Jerusalem, or to Bethlehem?

“And I knew him not”, in verse thirty-one, is a reference to recognition of the deity of Christ. John was a close cousin to Jesus, as their mothers were close. The two likely grew up together. John said, “and I knew him not”, but that was not the end of the statement. He continued by saying, “but that he should be made manifest to Israel.” The statement as a whole indicates long conversations of deep import.

John said that he knew him not, not once but, twice. The second time, in verse thirtythree, is an indication of a previous vision – a vision in which he found his calling.

Someone in John's vision, either God or an angel of God, told him the identity of Christ.

He would know the one by seeing the spirit descend upon him. Both 'I knew him not' statements, taken as a whole, are presented in a single monologue. It was something that John said as he saw Jesus coming to him. He said all of it for the benefit of those around him. All of them nearby heard him name Jesus as the Lamb of God. What he said in that monologue was said prior to the baptism of Jesus.

Verse thirty-four is ambiguous. The person that bore witness in that verse is not necessarily the Baptist. True enough, it could have been a continuation of his monologue, bringing it to a conclusion. On the other hand, however, it could have been John, the author, who interjected with his own assertion. This verse is immediately followed by two of John's disciples leaving to follow Jesus. Was the author one of those disciples?

Verses thirty-five through thirty-nine. It was the day after Jesus entered the camp where John baptized. John had already introduced Jesus on the previous day. He had said, “Behold the Lamb of God.” He said the same thing the following morning. Jesus was leaving the camp at that time and the two disciples of John left John to follow Jesus. I assume that it was the morning because we are told in verse thirty-five, “after John stood, and his two disciples.” This wording suggests two things to me. First, I see in the wording that John only had two disciples present (at least at that time) and they left him

for Jesus. Second, is the information 'after John stood' which suggests that they had just awakened – therefore the time frame would have been around the first hour or 6AM. An alternate reason for the wording 'after John stood' might be the resumption of his ministry of baptism, where standing might indicate a more public aspect, as in standing before the people, perhaps in the water with his two disciples as aides in the process of baptism.

If Jesus had been baptized on the previous day and started early to return to the place where he then resided, we must consider that a long walk followed his first meeting with Andrew and John, the two disciples. I say a long walk because of the wording in verse thirty-nine. The reason the two disciples stayed there rather than go to their homes was precisely that it was late in the evening – around 4PM. It could have been the time of year when the daylight hours were shorter so that any further travel beyond the 4PM mark would have included walking at night. The reason John mentioned the tenth hour as the reason they stayed rather than moved on could have had a purely Jewish connotation. As Jews, the whole baptism thing would necessarily have to close up for the Sabbath. People would need to return to their homes.

Preparation for the Sabbath was required and needful. The Sabbath placed limitations on how far a person could legally walk. It also restricted even the work of cooking food to eat.

Caught out in the wilderness on a Sabbath would mean that the person could not eat, could not walk beyond the limit – and therefore might miss getting to the synagogue.

If Bethabara was way out in the boonies, then folks probably had a long way to go before they reached home. If Jesus began his ministry by calling fishermen to be his disciples, then the place where he stayed would have been somewhere on the coast of the Sea of Galilee. Perhaps Jesus walked to the southern end of the lake and caught a boat up to the northern end, where it is believed that Peter lived.

If Jesus began his return just after everyone woke up around 6AM and he reached his destination around 4PM, that would give us a travel time of ten hours. One can easily walk three miles in one hour so that we are looking at a mean distance of about ten to eleven miles walking casually from the baptism site. It would have been about that time duration and distance to walk to Tiberius or Magdala.

It should be considered that Andrew left the place where Jesus stayed to bring his brother quick news of Jesus. It seems more plausible that such might be more easily accomplished from a town on the lake than from a site further south.

Verses forty through fifty-one. It should be noted that these verses describe a string of events that occur from one disciple to the next, and then again, to the next in line. The line is contiguous from one disciple to the next as well as from one day to the next. The timeline is restricted and runs from the first day of Jesus at the camp of John the Baptist to the 'next day' when Jesus leaves the camp to the tenth hour of the same day. This line

continues unbroken with Andrew finding and returning with his brother before a new day is mentioned.

The author provides a current of events where each is listed immediately following the previous in an almost 'cause and effect' fashion. So this is where we are in the list of events: the two disciples are where Jesus resides, and it is in the early evening hours of the day. Andrew leaves. He takes off walking and walks only as far as he needs to reach his brother. There is enough time for both of them to return to the place of Jesus' residence.

If Andrew left at 4:30 PM and walked half an hour to reach Peter, then the round-trip would have seen them both with Jesus at approximately 5:30 PM. Had he walked an hour before returning, they would have returned around 6:30 PM. The next listed event in this straight line of occurrences is found in verse forty-three; it is listed in these words: “The day following.” This verse is also important in that it gives a general location where Jesus, Andrew, Peter and John are found. More precisely, this verse shows where they are not found. If as the verse states, “Jesus would go forth into Galilee,” then the place where they spent the night was not in Galilee.

Jesus walked from where he was staying to the area generally, or at the time, considered to be Galilee. In other words, Jesus crossed a border. The historical ebb and flow of borders only matters to us in an oblique manner. We do not require exact measurements.

Generally speaking, I think Jesus stayed somewhere near or on the sea of Galilee but not in the area of Galilee, as known in that day and age.

Jesus went forth into Galilee to find his fourth disciple, Philip, who was from the same city as Andrew and Peter: Bethsaida. That is not to say that Jesus went forth into Bethsaida, per se, but it is a good guess that Jesus had been staying in a house just over the border, and not far from the city where Andrew and Peter lived and worked as fishermen. That place across the border from Galilee was just a day's walk from the camp of the Baptist in Bethabara beyond Jordan.

Was the trek into Galilee another day-long trek? Philip was from the same city as Andrew and Peter but that is not to say he lived or worked there. The walk from the place where Jesus stayed into Galilee may have been short.

Why did Jesus go there?

A possibility is that Andrew and Peter invited him to stay with them. When they got to the residence of Andrew and Peter, somewhere close or along the way, Jesus acquired Philip, who went and found Nathanael.

My supposition is that Philip found Nathanael under a fig tree where he sat in the shade – signifying the warmer part of the day, say around noon. That would be less of a walk from the place where Jesus had been staying than the sojourn of the previous day. Were

fig trees visible from the road upon which they arrived in Bethsaida? Had Jesus spotted Nathanael on the way into town?

I wonder about fig trees there and then. Did they dot the countryside? Were they cultivated in earnest? Was there an orchard or did Nathanael live at or work for a major fig producer near the fishing village?

More notes on verses forty-nine through fifty-one. Special comments are made at the end of the first chapter of John. Nathanael recognized Jesus as the Son of God – but then, so did Peter. I think it would be relevant to collect and synthesize all such comments.

Jesus made a special comment to Nathanael alone. I think it would be relevant to collect the comments Jesus made specifically to each disciple.

Chapter Two. Verse one. There was a timeline in the first chapter in which we saw Jesus on the first day at John's camp, on the second day when he left with two disciples (who stayed with him that night), and on the following day when Jesus headed out for Galilee.

That timeline is picked up in verse one of chapter two and it should be considered as a part of that complete scenario. It was as if Jesus had been tying up loose ends in preparation for the beginning of his ministry. The final loose end was the wedding at Cana. This specific event is tagged as “The third day.”

It is interesting to note the symmetry – Jesus had three days at both his ministry's beginning and end which are pointedly brought to our attention. Counting back, the second day involved Nathanael, the first day involved the apostles Philip, John, and Peter where Jesus spent the night – and the day Jesus arrived at the camp of the Baptist is not listed as part of that. Why? Jesus, when he headed out for Galilee, may have specifically had the wedding at Cana as his goal – Nathanael was simply along the way. That invests a certain amount of importance in the Cana wedding. In other words, Jesus was not simply there; Jesus was deliberately and purposefully placing all his ducks in a row.

Notes on the Cana wedding. Here is something I found on GotQuestions?org that speaks of the family ties to said wedding.

“It seems that Jesus’ family had close connections to the event in Cana. The fact that

Jesus’ mother, Mary, is concerned with the lack of wine (John 2:3) suggests that she was involved in the planning and organization of the wedding. The fact that after the wedding Jesus’ brothers travel with Him to Capernaum (John 2:13) indicates that Jesus’ whole family was present for the wedding. Could the wedding have been that of a relative of Jesus or a family friend? It is quite possible. Such a connection would explain Jesus’ presence at the wedding . . .

One consideration is that of honor. In those days, family honor was of vital importance.

Weddings usually lasted for seven days, during which time food and wine supplied by the bride’s and groom’s families flowed freely. To run out of either implied a thoughtless or impoverished host. Running out of wine would bring dishonor upon the family name.

As a personal favor, Mary turned to her divine Son for help. Her family was about to be shamed in the community, and she knew her Son could do something about it.”

We see, in verse two, that both Jesus and his disciples were called to the wedding. I take the word 'called' to mean invited. Weddings of those days were protracted events. There was up to a year between the betrothal contract and the consummation and following feast (which could go on for days.) It is not likely that they were walking past the event and someone called them in off the road. The invitation was long-standing. It was a matter of entire families coming together.

From an article written by Glenn Kay – “The coming of the Bridegroom and the Wedding Begins.

Since the time of his arrival was a surprise - the bride and her bridal party were always to be ready - this is the background of Yeshua's parable (Mat. 25:1-13). It was customary for one of the grooms party to go ahead of the bridegroom, leading the way to the bride's house - and shout - "Behold, the bridegroom comes." This would be followed by the sounding of the shofar. At the sounding of the shofar the entire wedding processional would go through the streets of the city to the bride's house. The groomsmen would again set up the huppah: •Again the couple would say a blessing over the cup of wine.

•The ceremony finalized the promises and vows.

The pinnacle of this joyful celebration was the marriage supper: •It was much more than just a sit down dinner for all the guests.

•It included seven full days of food, music, dance and celebration - (Jn. 14:10-12).

•After the festivities the husband was free to bring his bride to their new home to live together as husband and wife in the full covenant of marriage.”

Verse four. Jesus' mother was a major wedding organizer. She brought the problem about wine to her son, who had, seemingly only arrived at the seven day feast. If they had run

out, the feast had been ongoing when Jesus arrived. The fact that Mary asked Jesus for a miracle suggests that it was not his first. If the wine from water was not the first miracle, his response, “mine hour is not yet come” may not refer to his ministry as the son of God. The response may have been more of a personal reference. It almost seems that Jesus was annoyed by his mother's request. (It is as if Jesus was saying, 'I have something else to do', or as if he just wanted to get through the event and move on.)

If he did not want to do another miracle for Mom – then why did he? Was it for the sake of people getting to drink wine? Was it to quiet his mother? Was it for the honor of the family?

Verses nine and ten. It appears that the family of the bridegroom was responsible for the wine, as it was the bridegroom that was questioned by the governor of the feast. Does that make the governor a family member on the side of the bride's family? Or, did the governor serve as the head steward of the bridegrooms family? In seven days of feasting, wine is not the most consumed product. How soon the bridegroom's store of wine runs out speaks of his ability to buy wine from the winemakers.

If the bridegroom was one of Jesus' brothers, and the family business was regular, they should have been able to purchase enough wine, even if it took two trips to the vineyards. Had they run out of money? Was the need for wine at that very moment so urgent that Mary asked a miracle from her son (whose ministry had not yet begun because he was still tying up loose ends?)

Who were the servants? Were they slaves? Were they hired workers? Mary seems an old hand at dispensing instructions. Are we actually looking at upper and lower classes within the society of that day?

A note on John two,verse eleven. “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” It appears that at least the author of the book believed Jesus' ministry had begun with the miracle of the wedding wine.

It is clear that Jesus did not. Return to verse four to see why – “mine hour is not yet come.” It appears that in Jesus' own words, he was not yet ready, he had not yet begun.

Again, however, I think his response to his mother's request was not related to miracles or his public ministry but was in regard to something personal. Here is the reasoning: his ability to perform a miracle was not dependent upon the commencement of his ministry.

That was already an established fact known between mother and son as evidenced by her request.

Verse eleven states, and it may be only the opinion of the author, that the disciples of

Jesus believed on him. Remember that the wedding occurred on the 'third day'. In other words, Peter, Philip, John, and Nathanael knew Jesus for three days or less. They were more like new acquaintances. That is, of course, if they did not already have, like Jesus' cousin, the Baptist, a history.

At the end of the festivities, the man took the new wife to their new home. In verse twelve, Jesus and his mother, with all his brothers (and possibly, sisters) and his new disciples, leave the wedding and travel to Capernaum. Why? Didn't his family live in Nazareth? The answer might be that the wife was being taken to her new home in Capernaum. From Cana, one travels through a valley toward Magdala before turning up

toward Capernaum. Jesus is traveling back the way he came, I think. It was about twelve miles to Magdala and another six to Capernaum. See the map.

Thoughts on verse twelve. So Jesus and his family went to Capernaum. All of them stayed there for a few days. The exact wording is “and they continued there not many days.” They stayed for a while but not overly long. Did they stay as long as a week? Did they stay because of the Sabbath which placed a legal limit on the miles they would be able to walk?

Was their lodging prearranged? All of them had a place to stay. Why was Jesus whole family visiting this unnamed place in Capernaum? Was it a family matter? I get the sense that this was the final end that Jesus was tying up before the beginning of his public ministry.

Thoughts on the public ministry of Jesus. I take this from verse thirteen. The Passover was at hand. Jesus had to walk all the way to Jerusalem from Capernaum. That was an eighty-five mile walk. The average person can walk about three miles in one hour. You are looking at a travel time of roughly twenty-eight hours. If Jesus headed out at dawn on Sunday, he would likely have reached Jerusalem around Thursday or Friday.

I made an earlier note about the three days at the beginning and end of Jesus' ministry. I

compared three to three. Here is another comparison, and one I think that works into the thought of Jesus tying up loose ends before beginning his public ministry. Jerusalem to Jerusalem is that comparison. It seems likely to me that Jesus would begin and end his ministry in that city.

I would also bring your attention to a comparison of comments. In John 2:4 Jesus said to his mother, in front of his disciples, “mine hour is not yet come.” In John 17:1 Jesus said in the hearing of his gathered disciples, “the hour is now come.” I voiced my opinion that Jesus' comment to his mother was in regard of something personal. I submit here that it was Jesus' personal relationship to Jerusalem that he referenced. What we must see is both the temple in Jerusalem and the temple that is Jesus. One of the first things Jesus said when he began his ministry in Jerusalem (verse nineteen) was, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Verse twenty-two clearly shows that the author of this book was writing after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Verse twenty-three shows us that by the time that the feast day rolled around, Jesus having been in Jerusalem from the onset of the Passover, he had performed miracles in Jerusalem which are not included in the writing. It is stated that through the miracles performed in Jerusalem before and on the feast day that many believed in his name.

Jesus was a common name. The name they believed in had to be another name. Was he promoting himself as the son of God, the Christ?

Notes on verses twenty-four and twenty-five. The wording in these two verses often passes under the radar. Jesus did not commit himself to the people, even though they believed. It was like a test run. What is the whole point of stating that Jesus did not commit himself unto the men because he knew all men? Was the author saying that Jesus later committed himself unto the men? Was it a commentary on the inherent evil in man? That Jesus did not need or want the testimony of others if it was only about a man is the part many do not catch onto in the remark.

Was Jesus, who knew what was in man, still dealing with his own manhood, mortality, man-nature, etc? Was he dealing with the issue of his public image? Perhaps he wanted to be seen as more than just a good man, or a Rabbi, or a prophet, or any of the commonalities that other men normally reduced to the nature of the average man. The answer may lie in the beginning verses of chapter three.

Chapter Three.

Verses one through twenty-one. It was on the night of the feast day, or a night shortly thereafter, that a fellow Rabbi came to Jesus and they had a long discussion, seemingly apart from the disciples. It is as if the first twenty-one verses wrap up the 'first segment' of the Jesus story. They seem more or less contiguous – presenting Jesus in a transition from his private life to his public life.

Question: did Jesus have a scribe who followed him, recording even his private talks?

So at the end of the first segment, Jesus converses with a fellow Rabbi who hails Jesus as a Rabbi. Their conversation seems relaxed, unhurried, and comfortably familiar.

Perhaps Nicodemus had been a mentor of sorts and was now paying a final call in that station before Jesus launched his career.

The questions, statements, and responses of Nicodemus can be viewed as those of a man testing rather than seeking knowledge. One last practice round, as it were.

It is important to look closely at the wording. Speaking not just for himself, Nicodemus said, “we know that thou art a teacher come from God,” siting irrefutable proof. Who was the “we” that Nicodemus referred to? Was it the other Rabbis, the Sanhedrin?

When Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” did he really mean to say, 'a man cannot truly know the kingdom of God until he is born again?'

Was Jesus really telling Nicodemus things he did not know, or was the meeting more sociable, cordial, and conversational?

Was Jesus a close associate who was striking out in an unexpected direction? Was the entire posture of the priesthood something like, “are you really going to take such a contradictory stand? After all we've done for you?!”

Were the things that Jesus said to Nicodemus, in a nutshell, a model of his coming ministry?

These are the points that Jesus raised in his conversation with Nicodemus: 1.to see the kingdom of God, a man must be born again (born of the spirit.)

Meaning: To start over or take a new direction; to graduate to or add a new level to one's learning, abilities, personality, and character. Add a new level, tier, orientation to one's experience.

Thoughts: I think Jesus was saying we must be like him. He was, in fact, both of the flesh and the spirit but his orientation proved the greater of the two to be the spirit.

2.Jesus clarified, or fine-tuned, his first statement by saying a man must be born both of water and of the spirit.

Meaning: As the water breaks in physical birth, so must the spirit break in spiritual birth.

Thoughts: In setting the physical birth of a man in contrast with his spiritual birth, a natural symbolism was referred to. In human understanding, water has to do with physical birth in only two regards: they are, namely, the nourishing water sack that carries us to that point and the fact that the human body is composed of roughly 70% water. Certain parallels must be employed when attempting to visualize spiritual birth – these would be a spiritual medium that carries us to the point of our spiritual birth and a concept of our spiritual constitution.

3.Jesus supplied a basis for his statement by adding what is born of the flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

Meaning: One life is comprised of two aspects that function in concert. Of the two aspects, only one may determine the overall quality and character of that life.

Thoughts: In speaking of physical and spiritual births, both of which the life of Jesus exemplified, this was said in Luke 1:35, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” 4.Jesus indicated the importance of spirit over water by explaining that the spiritually born have an unseen power that the level of Nicodemus' understanding (the worldly and legalistic religious mindset of the Sanhedrin) did not completely fathom.

Meaning: There is a truth about spirituality and the spiritually-born that may be explained but which has no empirical evidence.

Thoughts: Those who, like Jesus, are born of the Holy Ghost and power of the Highest may be explained as a wind – a wind goes where it goes and does what it does; a wind is not tied to the ground but is freer, higher, even while in connection to and being a part of the whole. The wind may be heard and felt but one cannot see it. There is no physical evidence one may point to. The truth of it is the same truth as that of the spoken words of a message. One may hear it and receive it and explain it but they will never be able to draw a picture of it or take a photograph of it. The only proof of the invisible spiritual power and presence of God is, itself invisible, spiritual, powerful.

5.Jesus stated that a Master of Israel should know these things.

Meaning: The message of the Law and Prophets, which the Masters of Israel based their authority in, explained everything that Jesus purported to be true.

Thoughts: If a learned Master of the Law and Prophets was smart enough to read the scriptures, his understanding was open enough to see all of it's truths. He was, therefore, without excuse. If he said he could see it all, yet turned a blind eye to certain parts of it, his seeing was incomplete, his sight was blindness.

6.Jesus stated that the things the Masters of Israel should know were only the basics. They were “earthly things” – a foundation of worldly knowledge prerequisite to the acceptance of spiritual knowledge.

Meaning: A composite being, both spiritual and worldly, may become a Master of spiritual truths that apply only to the composite state. These truths are the basic tenets upon which are built higher spiritual truths. One must master the basics before one may graduate to the higher levels.

Thoughts: What we know of spirit and spiritual truths is at the basic level. We know the things that apply to us mortals and our physical condition. What we know of these truths must be couched in parables, illustrations, parallels, examples, visual aids, etc. Until we can fully grasp these basic truths, the higher spiritual truths will remain out of reach. In other words, if the Masters of “A” cannot fully fathom, receive and embrace “A”, there is no hope they will ever level up to “B”.

7.Jesus informed Nicodemus that he was not the only one to espouse such doctrine when he said, “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.”

Meaning: The spiritual beliefs of Jesus were not limited to Jesus.

Thoughts: This verse may reference a faction to which Jesus aligned his thinking, or of which Jesus authored. He may have been speaking of other local or worldwide individuals. He may have been obliquely referencing other historical spiritual advocates, or he may have admitted that other spiritual leaders, like himself, walked the Earth.

8.Speaking on the points of the faction of Nicodemus believing that Jesus was a teacher who came from God, able to perform miracles, and of the basic tenets of the law which should have been fully understood and implemented by the religious leaders, Jesus explained to Nicodemus that, as one standing in the future and revealing the past, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came

down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” Meaning: Multiple items that express, in a nutshell, the purpose, truth, and mission of Jesus.

Thoughts: As Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, sitting physically before him, he was speaking from his position in Heaven. Jesus was there, is there, always has been and always will be at the right hand of God. That is the complete circuit of truth.

No man ever has or ever will ascend to Heaven (and that must include Enoch), but when a man is born again – that is, born of the spirit – then that spirit that is in him is Jesus, and it is Jesus who ascends to Heaven. The sole purpose and mission of Jesus coming into the world and of men being born anew is that God should not lose what is his. When Moses made and erected the brass serpent, it was in response to the many deaths throughout the whole people. The brass serpent was a focal point for faith in God and also for the individual's choice for God. As Jesus often said, 'your faith has made you whole'. Jesus one-upped what Moses did – he took it to a higher-level where the flesh was not saved but the spirit was. Jesus' sole purpose was to bring the faith that saves into the world. This 'light in a dark world' was both the person and message of Christ. Eternal life is for the spirit.

People are spinning in a vicious cycle that ends in both physical and spiritual death. The mission's aim is to set men on a new path whereby the spirit is saved.

Faith or spiritual rebirth is the point where men hitch a ride on a different cycle – one that does not end but goes round and round. Men are already on the wheel that ends in death – there is no need for judgment or condemnation – their choice of wheel is their condemnation. They know the light has been proffered – but they must make a deliberate choice for it or continue to perish. Instead, men seek validation of the choices they have already made. They wish not to be shown up or proven wrong, rather, they desire a pat on the back. They will not bring their choices up against the light because they are not only harmful to other individuals,

they are anti-spiritual, anti-Jesus, anti-God. A choice in favor of the light, of Jesus, of God – wipes clean the slate of wrong-doing and right deeds are chosen and practiced. These are spiritual deeds that do not validate the individual so much as Christ in the individual.

Verses twenty-two through thirty-six. These are important, though usually downplayed points. The first and most important point is that Jesus began his public ministry as a Baptist. For a while, Jesus and his disciples remained in the land of Judaea. Jesus tarried with 'them', and baptized those people who came to him.

The online Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say about the land of Judaea: Judaea, also spelled Judea, or Judah, Hebrew Yehudaḥ, the southernmost of the three traditional divisions of ancient Palestine; the other two were Galilee in the north and Samaria in the center. No clearly marked boundary divided Judaea from Samaria, but the town of Beersheba was traditionally the southernmost limit. The region presents a variety of geographic features, but the real core of Judaea was the upper hill country, known as Har Yehuda (“Hills of Judaea”), extending south from the region of Bethel (at present-day Ramallah) to Beersheba and including the area of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron.

The second most important point is that John was still baptizing when Jesus was baptizing. John baptized in Aenon, near Salim.

Bibleatlas.org/aenon.htm offers this about the location of Aenon: Now from John 3:22, 23, it appears that both Jesus and John were baptizing in Judea and their proximity to each other gave occasion to the remarks recorded in the 25th verse.

The third important point is that both John and Jesus baptizing in the same general location was an issue for some. More precisely, the question arose between John's disciples and the Jews – the Jews referencing religious leaders and doctors of the law.

This latter group may have included priests, Rabbis, and members of the Sanhedrin.

What is more important than the conversation that brought them to question John is the fact that, as with Jesus, this esteemed latter group addressed John by the title 'Rabbi'.

The issue that came up between the disciples of John and the Jews was that of 'purifying'. The Jews were a clean people. They were obsessed with ceremonial purification. This obsession went as far as how much water could be used in a Mikvah and what water source was permissible. This might explain, somewhat, why there were so many 'Jews' in attendance at the baptisms of John. The Jews who brought up the purification issue with the disciples of John were the same group found questioning John earlier, before Jesus was baptized.

Finally, the arguments and language used in the answers John gave is clear evidence that John and Jesus had been in communication about the core mission. They were both Rabbis and of the same faction. John was satisfied in the part he had played and was resigned that his part was coming to an end. Many of the same elements found in John's

answers to the ritual and ceremonial purification issue may be found in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, but there is one curious statement that stands out from the rest – it is “He that has the bride is the bridegroom.”

There is little doubt that people, in general, were turning to Jesus rather than John.

Fewer people were found in John's camp – possibly fewer disciples. John had to 'decrease' and Jesus had to 'increase'. John knew that Jesus was the son of God. In verse four, he said, “God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” This is possibly an oblique hint that all the rest of us have the same Spirit but by measure. To take the logic one step further, all non-believers who deliberately reject God and Jesus (the light), do so by rejecting the light of the son of God that has been placed in them by measure.

Chapter Four Verse one of chapter four must be read (if you wish to understand it) in a certain way.

This is how: first read John 3:25 and 26 then immediately follow by reading John 4:1. In this way, we may clearly see just the issue of the quarrelsome Pharisees (A.K.A. “the Jews”) finding out that Jesus baptized in the same area and how people were turning to him. In other words, people were leaving the Baptist, whom the Pharisees addressed as 'Rabbi', and were flocking to Jesus, whom the Pharisees addressed as 'Rabbi'.

Look closely at the important details. The author addressed Jesus as 'the Lord'. This tells of an author who has written his account after the fact – after an opinion has fully formed. Then, we see that Jesus got wind of the Pharisees. He knew that they knew. For the moment, I will lay aside whether he just knew by his Son of God powers or whether he was informed. Instead, I wish to think about his reason for leaving when he found out.

Jesus saw the approach of a storm. So, was he trying simply to avoid the hassle of dealing with combative and confrontational Pharisees? Did Jesus decide to leave in consideration of his cousin John? Here is another important detail. According to the author, Jesus did not baptize. His disciples baptized. We find that in verse two. In all likelihood, this was a critical time in the early training of his disciples. Jesus was teaching them, supervising their initial efforts. I think that when he knew the Pharisees were aware of his presence and actions, and he was certain they would come and interrupt the training of his disciples, he packed up the operation for that reason.

Things we must consider about the march are, one, the Jews had a longstanding bigotry against Samaria and Samaritans. It was a good bet that the Pharisees would not follow.

Two, the march from an area near Jerusalem, in Judaea, to Sychar, (Aschar) in Samaria,

was on the order of thirty or forty miles. The trip would have taken two or three days.

We find Jesus stopping to sit at Jacob's well at the sixth hour. There are, believe it or not, two interpretations of when the sixth hour could have been. It could have been 6 AM according to Roman time or noon according to Hebrew time. On the meeting between the woman and Jesus at Jacob's well, I will leave much unsaid. There are church sermons for that. There are, however, a few points I wish to touch on.

Jesus stopped to sit on the well. He was tired. His disciples had gone on to “the city to buy meat.” Two things occur to me in reading this. One is that the disciples had money which someone had to provide. Two is that the well seems more attached to a “city” than most scholars think. They suppose the well to have been approachable by way of extended suburbs.

A point is made in this narrative about Jesus being “a Jew.” I bring this up for a reason.

History of the area saw early Israelites transported to Babylon, being supplanted by Babylonian people, as was the custom of the time. Samaritans were a people of mixed race as well as mixed religion. They were easily identifiable as such by the pure bloods of the southern third of the nation. The upper third of the nation suffered the same fate and became a people of mixed race with a more lax take on religious practice than those of the south. As such, the Galileans were also easily identifiable.

Jesus was a Galilean. The exchange at the well shows me two things. A Samaritan woman identifies herself with the descendants of Jacob – in other words, she claims to be an Israelite, or Hebrew, by choice. Then, there is the fact that she calls an easily identifiable Galilean a Jew. At this point, I am reminded of the language of the author.

So far in the initial chapters of this gospel, the author uses the term “Jews” to reference the religious elite (Pharisees, etc.) of the southern third. Is the fact that Jesus is here called a Jew not a misidentification but rather a hint that he is identifiable as a Rabbi?

This woman also takes a wild guess that Jesus might be a prophet. Prophets and Rabbis were different creatures altogether. While prophets were singular individuals imbued with the power and knowledge of God through direct contact, Rabbis were associated with the religious governance of the nation by the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, Sadducees, and a whole slew of legalistic Doctors of the law.

The thing about Rabbis is that they dressed liked Rabbis. I pulled this conjecture from Christianity Stack Exchange: 'It seems from Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56 that Jesus may have worn the same kind of fringes or tassels (tzitziyot), similarly commanded in the Law, albeit presumably his were not as long as those of the Pharisees.'

Notes on John four, verses twenty through twenty-four. The woman tells Jesus “our

fathers worshiped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” This statement sets a limited contrast. She has already identified herself with the children of Israel and she has already identified Jesus as a “Jew” rather than a Galilean. Her statement here adds yet more support to both identifications.

More than this, the answer Jesus gives in verse twenty-one validates her identification with Jacob. Jesus, although he says in verse twenty-two, “Ye worship ye know not what,” nevertheless, asserts in verse twenty-one that she and her people worship the “Father.” He says to her, “believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.”

In that he told her, “Ye worship ye know not what,” I think he referenced a less articulate, less disciplined approach to worship.

When Jesus says, “we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews,” one's first impression might well be that of nationalistic pride issuing from the lips of the Lord. But notice two things: Jesus said “we” and “of the Jews.” Clearly, Jesus was a Galilean. Yet, it appears that he is, in fact, identifying with the Jews. His identification is not with the race of Jews, but rather, it is with the body of those who adhere to the law of God. Jesus is pretty much saying, 'Yes, I am one of those guys.'

Easily identified by anyone as “a Jew,” and called “Rabbi” by religious leaders – we should sit up and actually take notice; the language is plain. Jesus was no rogue teacher outside of the religious order, but one of the order's staunchest advocates of God's law. It is also plain that the complaint Jesus most often leveled against the body of governing religious leaders was that they did not take the law as seriously as they should.

Finally, Jesus explains the deal about God in verses twenty-three and twenty-four. “God is a spirit.” God is a spirit who seeks people who will worship him “in spirit.” Jesus tells this, not to an expert, but to a lay person. Did the woman understand what a spirit is? Do we? This particular point is important for it touches on the very nature of God, and in no less degree, the very nature of man. For a person to be able to worship in spirit, he or she must have spirit to work with. Jesus called God a spirit, but he also said we know (not 'who' but) what we worship. God is a what; God is a spirit. That 'what' must be a part of a person's total makeup and able to connect.

In order to worship God, we must call upon the same 'what' inside of ourselves – the same 'God' inside of ourselves. Jesus also said that we must worship God in 'truth.' Did not Jesus say, “I am the truth?” In a broader sense, however, what we are looking at is a contrast. It is a contrast within the nature of man.

On the one hand, there is spirit. On the other hand, there is truth. There is a certain

undeniable fact about the abilities of man – in other words, what we are able to do. We can achieve a thing only by the two routes that are available to us. We can think and/or communicate about something and we can actually perform the thought or communication. What it all comes down to is that a man has a mind (spirit) and a man has all that he can be and do (truth.)

Verses twenty-five through thirty-eight. There are two things of note in these verses. The first thing is the woman being convinced that Jesus was the Christ. The second thing is the truth that Jesus taught his returning disciples.

The disciples returned to find Jesus talking to a Samaritan woman. This raised red flags in their general predispositions toward those people, but they were not bold enough to say, 'Hey, what are you doing? She's a Samaritan.' The disciples returned just as Jesus told the woman he was the Christ. Maybe they caught it, maybe not, but someone remembered it and wrote it down.

When Jesus turned his attention to the returning disciples, the woman slipped away to run to town and tell her immediate peers about Jesus. On this point, I would like to draw the reader's attention to facts mostly overlooked. The woman was excited enough about meeting Jesus that she left her water pot to fetch her friends. Such items were not disposable as our items are today. They were hard-won and guarded.

There were, basically two conversations at play, one with the woman while the disciples went to town and another with the disciples while the woman went to town and return with townsfolk in tow. Judging the respective lengths of the two conversations should give us a fair idea as to the walking distance between town and well.

They had walked a long way to get to the well. Jesus was tired. The disciples begged him to rest and eat. He told them he was sustained by the doing of God's will and his own keen interest in finishing the work. He taught them a lesson, a truth, while the woman left and returned.

He told them not to have a limited view as in the harvest being a ways off, or a limited view as in only paying attention to the immediate field. He told them to take a broader view. Others had already labored and there were already other fields ready for harvest.

Let's take a reverse-order look at verses thirty-five through thirty-seven. Verse thirtyseven: “And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.” Does the word 'One' reference “him that sent me” from verse thirty-four? Verse thirty-six: “And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal; that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.” Does Jesus refer to himself and people like him as sowers and disciples as reapers?

The reaper gets two things out of reaping (and we are still thinking about the will and work of God;) the reaper gets wages and the reaper gets fruit. The fruit is 'unto' life eternal – it is directional as in a process. Fruit builds toward a goal. What are the wages?

Are they different from the goal? If the goal is in the future, are the wages for present maintenance?

Verse thirty-five: “Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, lift up your eyes, and look upon the fields; for they are white already to harvest.” Jesus challenges the notion that there is still time. The four months is a reference to spring wheat which is cut down before the season of autumn, around July. The point he makes is that other people have sown other fields – look up, they are everywhere.

The saying, “One soweth, and another reapeth,” must have been a common and localized saying as I could not find it in the Old Testament. As for the expression, “rejoice together,” I am mindful of Psalms 104:15, “And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.”

On that same note of rejoicing together, I am mindful of Matthew 26:29, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

Back to the Samaritan woman. She was a member of a society largely shunned by the Jews, yet, they also looked for the coming Messiah. They don't impress me as the kind of people who worshiped other gods or resorted to groves to sacrifice children on pagan alters – they, like the Jews, believed in the God of their fathers and awaited the coming Christ. The woman did not have to say much to the men in town to peak their interest, to get them all to run out to the well.

So the Samaritans believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They just ran out, listened a bit – and, Bam! – they believed. Why did the Jews and the Galileans have such a hard time believing? Jesus stayed in that town for two days, but the author failed to write anything said or done by him during his stay. Did he stay with the Samaritans who believed?

Where did he put up his disciples?

After his stay, Jesus and his disciples go to Cana, in Galilee, where the author reminds us that Jesus performed his first miracle. The author was counting miracles. He recounts the second miracle.

Two cities are mentioned in the story of the second miracle. Those cities are Cana and Capernaum. The distance between these two cities is roughly twenty-five miles. The nobleman who came to see Jesus, having wealth, would have traveled in a mode of ease.

Rather than walk, I think he would have ridden a mule or horse or gone in an animal drawn cart.

Here, I wish to consider the travel time between the two cities. Time is recorded.

Between the time of the meeting and the time where servants brought news of the son's recovery, about a day had passed. The nobleman, at the time of his conversation with his servants, counted the hours since Jesus told him his son was alright. That was on the previous day at the seventh hour. He, basically, began his return journey at the seventh hour.

Ellicott's commentary for English readers gives this, “These Jews, as all Jews, meant by the “seventh hour” the seventh from sunrise, what we should call one o’clock. After sunset the same evening they would have commenced a new day (comp. Excursus F.),and this seventh hour would be to them as one o’clock the day before, or the seventh hour yesterday. We have thus an interval of five or six hours between the words spoken by our Lord and their confirmation by the servants.”

It appears that the nobleman, most likely, met with Jesus at around 1 in the afternoon and met with his servants some five or six hours later.

Chapter Five.

Verse one. What is the unnamed feast in chapter five? The so-called experts are divided, some thinking it is Purim, some thinking it is the Passover. Trying to find clarity by turning to the internet is, to say the least, frustrating. I must put things together for myself.

Jesus had begun his ministry in Jerusalem, as I have noted earlier, on a Passover. I made the connection between his Passover beginning and his Passover ending. After this, after having his disciples baptize for a while near John's camp, then moving North until he reaches Cana in chapter four, no other feast is mentioned until the unnamed feast.

The author named the feast “a feast of the Jews.” We know by now what the author meant when he referenced “the Jews.” He meant the religious elite, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and such. If, therefore, the unnamed feast was a feast of the Jews, it was one the religious order was keen to observe.

Three Jewish holidays required a man to be in Jerusalem. They were Passover, Weeks, and Tabernacles. Was it Weeks? What was Weeks? It was the interim holiday between Passover, in the spring, and Tabernacles, in the fall. Weeks was a celebration of the

wheat harvest, and it took place exactly fifty weeks after the feast of the first fruits of the barley harvest at Passover. Another name for the feast of weeks is Pentecost, and it required Jewish males to travel to Jerusalem and present an offering of new grain to the Lord. It usually takes place in the last part of May or the first part of June. This information comes from https://www.gotquestions.org/Feast-of-Weeks.html.

As I have followed John in its initial chapters, I have seen that the author has taken a fairly linear approach to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. I have tried to show in these writings that one event leads almost directly into the next. I have addressed the days and hours in a numerical fashion, and I have addressed walking distances in miles and ETAs. The story line is solid and the gaps are minimal.

Chapter five contains the incident of the impotent waiting for the stirring of the water in the sheep market pool called Bethesda. Jesus healed an impotent man on one of the five porches of the pool. That miracle occurred on a Sabbath. The “Jews” took issue with the man carrying his bed on the Sabbath. The miracle had taken place in a crowd in such a manner that no other man took note and the healed man never got the name of his benefactor. However, the man later met Jesus in the temple. What Jesus said to the man should raise eyebrows.

In verse fourteen, Jesus said to the healed man, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” This surprising statement suggests two things.

First is that Jesus was just putting 'the fear of the Lord' into the man in a manner that speaks of the psychology Jesus used with certain people. Second is that the man had been impotent as a direct result of sin which warns all of us not to take our choices so lightly. There are real consequences.

Did that man sin further? In a sense, he betrayed Jesus when he went and told the “Jews” that it was, in fact, Jesus who healed him on a Sabbath. Because of that act, whatever the personal reasons might have been, the Jews sought to kill Jesus. Their labors toward that end were also on a Sabbath. There follows to the end of the chapter the exchange between Jesus and the Jews in which Jesus basically talks them down. No stones are thrown.

Chapter Six. When Jesus leaves Jerusalem in chapter six, he walks to the sea of Galilee, crosses it, and goes up into a mountain with his disciples. It is stated at that time that the Passover was near. It takes about three days to walk from Jerusalem to the sea of Galilee, and not very long to cross it. If there was no gap here, then the feast might have been Tabernacles in the fall. That would place a sizable gap in the storyline after the second

miracle at Cana.

These possible gaps in the storyline – either after the healing in Cana or after the unnamed feast – must be addressed. It is expected that, along the way, there would have been some downtime. For an example of downtime, I refer to the twelve disciples being sent out in pairs to heal and preach. Jesus did not go with his disciples on that occasion but stayed behind. I, like many others, have no clear concept of just how long the disciples were away in their task. What did Jesus do while they were gone?

We must recall that, after a two-day stay in the city near Jacob's well, Jesus went into Galilee, apparently avoiding his “own country”. We must recall that Jesus led his first two disciples, those who followed him from the camp of John, to the place where he was staying. It was in the general Galilee area and may have either been in or close to the city of Bethsaida. When Jesus went to get baptized, it appears he was no longer living in his home town of Nazareth, which was quite close to Cana, he had a place in Bethsaida.

Now, he was back in the general Galilee area, staying in Cana, where the wedding had been.

If the timeline gap is to be placed here, how do we interpret the downtime? The only event recorded here is the healing – after which, Jesus went to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. Had he given his disciples time to be with their families, to conduct their business? He had just come north from a spring Holy Day in Jerusalem. Was that the time of year the fishermen needed to fish? Did Jesus stay at Cana, and if so, why? Why at the place of the wedding? If Jesus was a bonafide card-carrying Rabbi, as I have asserted, was he the keeper of the Cana Synagogue? And remember, according to local laws and traditions, a Rabbi was required to be a married man. What does it tell us that after the wedding, he and his whole family went to Capernaum (if going by the main road) by way of Magdala?

If the timeline gap is to be placed after the unnamed feast, in chapter six, what are we to make of it? Chapter five, in its entirety, covers the unnamed feast of the Jews. In it, Jesus performs one miracle and makes one speech to his accusers. It is assumed that Jesus left after the feast and again returned to Galilee. It is in the early spring conditions that we find Jesus and his disciples had crossed the sea to reach a mountain. It is in these conditions that a multitude is fed, some five thousand strong, who began in Jerusalem to follow him. From the fact that the name of the sea (sea of Galilee) is clarified to introduce or include the name (sea of Tiberias,) I get the impression that they launched from around that city.

Were they immediately in the mountains or was there also some downtime to be considered here? Had they returned to Bethsaida where the fishermen lived and worked?

Was their time in the mountain meant as a final meeting before a break?

Now, as to the multitude of at least five thousand, let us consider the logistics. From John 6:2, we see that a multitude followed him. The reason given is that they had seen miracles performed, namely the healing of their sick. No such miracles are recorded in chapter five, only the healing of the man by the pool. Had Jesus and his disciples remained in Jerusalem healing the sick, if so, for how long? On the other hand, consider this scenario. Jesus parted company with his disciples and asked them to meet up later at the city of Tiberias. Either he lived in that area and healed the sick or he had gone back to Cana and there performed his miracles apart from any disciple who might have later remembered and recorded those miracles.

Perhaps the multitude coalesced from the general Galilee area and followed Jesus to Tiberias where he met with his disciples. The press was so dire in the city that they launched out from Tiberias going north along the coast. Had they crossed completely over, say to Bethsaida, the multitude would have had considerable difficulty following them – especially if they did not know the destination. They could, however, easily follow them along the coast if they could keep the ship in view. A crossing to the far north, around Bethsaida, would have given them a day or two to themselves before the crowd arrived – that is, if the crowd had been made aware of the destination. A mountaintop closer to the city of Tiberias, at least in my consideration, seems more likely. Mount Arbel might be a good candidate for the feeding of the five thousand.

Another scenario might be that they went to Bethsaida and wintered there. In the early spring, before the Passover, Jesus could have mounted a sea coast tour, traveling by ship to each city in turn, healing the sick, and by increments, gathering a following that grew and followed him along the coast until he reached the mountain upon which the five thousand were fed.

Verse five. When Jesus sees the five thousand in need of food, he turns to one of his disciples with a monetary question. 'Where shall we buy bread?' It stands to reason that, under such circumstances, Jesus would have turned to the person who managed the coin purse.

Certain details of the gospels lead most of us to assume that person was Judas Iscariot.

While Judas may have been that person toward the end of Jesus' ministry, that may not have always been the case. It may well have been that in the early parts of Jesus' ministry, he entrusted the coin purse to Philip.

So, he asked Philip a monetary question and Philip answered in a very knowing manner.

In other words, and in all likelihood, Philip's answer accounted for their entire net worth: two hundred pennies.

If, at that time, Philip was the go-to guy for money matters, what might have been the reasons he was so entrusted? According to Wikipedia, “he appears as a link to the Greek community. Philip bore a Greek name, may have spoken Greek, and may have been known to the Greek pilgrims in Jerusalem.”

It may have been also true that the coin purse changed hands from time to time. In the beginning, Philip might have been the natural choice as community liaison.

Now, the author claims that Jesus asked such a question to prove Philip because he already knew he was going to perform a miracle. If that was the case, then Jesus turned to a random disciple with a random question related to the group's financial ability. To prove a man, such as in this case, Philip, one must prove a certain quality of the person or at least prove the person right or wrong in their assumptions or conclusions.

Philip heard the question 'where can we go to buy enough bread to feed this many people?' He immediately assessed their current bank and came to the conclusion that even if they spent all they had on bread, (two hundred pennyworth) their effort would not be sufficient. Another disciple added that they might also include the fish and loaves a boy had brought with him – and it still would not be enough. If two disciples came to the same conclusion, why did Jesus, according to the author, seek only to prove one of them?

What was the point of the proving? Was it 'where there is a will, there is a way?' Was it 'make do with what you have at hand?' Was it ''save your money, I got this? Was it 'watch and learn?' Was it 'only believe?'

The feeding of the five thousand is a stirring moment in the gospels. People have an inclination toward being 'moved.' Our emotional predispositions can, sadly, turn a blind eye to many telling details. You will not hear a preacher stray far from the swelling flood of emotional rhetoric that keeps a church audience seated and tithing. No – details are no part of the main program.

Yet, who is there among us who is ready to consider the very wording of a passage important and telling? Will you take a closer look?

John 6:13 through 18: Let's count baskets. At first, our attention is drawn to one basket belonging to a boy among the followers. In dividing the bread and fish, Jesus would necessarily need other baskets to put the pieces in. Question – who had all the empty baskets; did the empty baskets belong to the twelve disciples? Jesus and his crew were on the road more often than not. Did they start their journeys with baskets filled with provisions – if that was the case and all their baskets were empty, they must have been on the road for a while?

Each disciple had a basket with pieces of bread and/or pieces of fish. If the fish was divided separately, each disciple walked among the five thousand with a basket in each hand. What are the logistics of this scenario?

Jesus had been in a mountain when he spied the five thousand. That is not to say the five thousand were in the mountain with him. There are levels between the top of the mountain and the shore of the sea. Jesus and his disciples may have been on a bluff, outcropping, or overlook with a view of a lower grassy level. We are informed by the author that there was much grass in that place. I am thinking of a more or less level plain with grass somewhere between sea-level and the overlook.

The Gospel of John does not specify how the men sat down. It only states that there was enough room for five thousand men. Since we know there was at least one boy present, we may assume there were women and children present though uncounted. Another source states that they were instructed to sit in companies, some one hundred, some fifty: Mark 6:39 and 40.

That is a lot of people, a lot of grassy space. Room was necessary for the disciples to walk between the companies. (Perhaps that is how baskets should be used in church services, to give rather than take.) Finally, twelve baskets were taken back with fragments still within. Bread fragments are mentioned, fish fragments are not.

Now, this large group of people had followed Jesus because of miracles and healings they had witnessed. Jesus went along the coast, from town to town, healing the sick. The number of people who followed him grew from town to town. When they saw the miracle of feeding, they came to a consensus. It was that Jesus was “that prophet.” They wanted him as king. Why, and why would they be willing to take him by force? They wanted to present a face to Rome that was more than helpless. They wanted to use Jesus as a weapon against their oppressors.

When Jesus perceived they would take him by force, he slipped away back into the higher climes of the mountain. For some reason, his perception of the threat comes across as a last-minute thing. Were the men making overtures? Were they speaking their mind loudly enough to notice? Was the crowd turning into a mob, getting out of control?

Why did Jesus not perceive this fact sooner?

Then again, had it been the case that Jesus knew from before the miracle, way back up the road when he began, he may not have changed a thing.

All of a sudden, Jesus was not there. The mob had to deal with the disciples. They may have wandered off in different directions, looking for Jesus. They may have become

distracted by need and the late hour of the day, deciding instead to turn for home.

The evening was upon them, Jesus was not with them, the disciples packed up and walked down the hill to a ship. Was that the ship by which they had arrived? I see no evidence in their rowing that the ship was hired. They were headed for Capernaum and evening had turned into night. This was, perhaps, the city from which the journey began – it was, after all, the home town of Peter, James, Andrew, John, and Matthew. Jesus, himself, lived in Capernaum.

The disciples had rowed for about three miles, I am assuming, against the wind. I imagine them following the coast and its landmarks. I don't see them out in deep water.

From the internet, we have this about the winds around that lake. “The sea's location makes it subject to sudden and violent storms as the wind comes over the eastern mountains and drops suddenly onto the sea. Storms are especially likely when an east wind blows cool air over the warm air that covers the sea. The cold air (being heavier) drops as the warm air rises. This sudden change can produce surprisingly furious storms in a short time, as it did in Jesus' day.”

Also, “From 1973–1976, research was performed around the Sea of Galilee, aimed at examining the wind regime in the area and whether the area develops a land-sea breeze despite its particular topographical location. During the summer mornings a lake breeze develops, blowing towards the shores of the lake. It ceases at the peak of its development when a westerly wind, originating in the development of a breeze along the Israeli Mediterranean coast, plunges towards the lake. Late at night, a wind flow develops from the land towards the lake, which combines with the katabatic winds that blow along the steep slopes surrounding the Kinneret.”

Notes on the remainder of chapter six: From our previous reading, we know that after Jesus departed, his disciples (the twelve) got into a ship and headed for Capernaum the evening of the miracle of the loaves and fish. They rowed toward Capernaum for approximately three miles; also, it was no longer evening but night. There was a storm at the same time which would have obscured the light of the moon and stars. At this point in our inquiry, I wish to ask these questions: by which visible landmarks had the disciples determined the distance of three miles? Did they make the assessment because of village lights seen from the ship?

Next comes an episode like something from the Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. The disciples see Jesus walking to them on the storm-driven sea. They were afraid but that is all that is said on the matter. It is not said, for example, that they thought they saw a ghost. There is no account of Peter trying to walk on the sea. The disciples, despite their fear, willingly receive Jesus into the ship. Here is the spooky part. No sooner had they gotten Jesus into the ship than they looked around and discovered they were docked at

their destination of Capernaum.

Let us consider the ship for a moment. Verses twenty-two through twenty-four tells us that on the following day, there were still people on the other side of the shore. They were still in the general area of the miracle. Some may have left the previous evening but many did not. This is the crowd that saw the disciples get into a ship and leave on the previous evening. This same crowd knew that Jesus had not gotten into the ship with them. Did they camp there overnight? Did they have tents? Did the storm affect them?

They had waited all night for Jesus to return. Were they still trying to take him by force?

So there they were on the shore of the Kinneret; they saw that of all the ships present, along with some which had come up from Tiberius, only the disciple's ship was gone.

This adds credence to the thought that Jesus employed his disciple's fishing ship from Capernaum to launch his shore-line town-to-town ministry that ended at the place of the miracle – a place between Tiberius and Capernaum.

Many of the people who attended the miracle also arrived by ship. Shortly, we will see something of the makeup of that crowd. When we read that the crowd wanted to take Jesus by force, we should be aware that the same area – from the upper Galilee to the lower Galilee – was a hotbed of Zealot activity and recruiting. So they say to themselves, 'Hey! Jesus is not here. Let's go look for him in Capernaum.' What does it say to us that they knew to look for him in that town? If some of them were fishermen, they well could have known the whereabouts of Jesus' disciples who were also fishermen. It could have been that Jesus was known to have solid ties to the town of Capernaum. As to the latter, let us take a clue from verse fifty-nine, “These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.”

It is a verse that opens possibilities to our 'Seeker Sensibilities.' It is possible, and likely, as I see it, that Jesus was the Rabbi of the Capernaum synagogue. I add to my argument, that when the crowd found him, they addressed him by the title of 'Rabbi'. In other words, Jesus was a Rabbi teaching in the synagogue of a town in which he was known to have solid ties. If Jesus was the ordained and regular Rabbi for the synagogue of Capernaum, that should tell us something more – namely that his shore-line ministry was approximately a week long, that he left expressly to be in Capernaum on the Sabbath, and that the miracle of the five-thousand occurred on a Friday.

The remainder of the chapter is the conversation Jesus had with the crowd that followed him to Capernaum. It is a give-and-take exchange between five separate parties. These include Jesus as he teaches in the synagogue, the Jews (which were the Pharisees and other church elders), Jesus' core twelve disciples, the general crowd (which may have included Zealots), and an eye-opening surprise element of the crowd which is rarely considered – by which I mean disciples of Jesus who were not the core twelve.

I wish to approach this exchange topically, so I will divide the elements as such: what the crowd says, what the Jews say, what the non-core disciples say, what the core twelve disciples say, and finally what Jesus says.

First of all, we have to know that the people who got in ships to chase Jesus could not have been the full five thousand. Neither could that many people stand talking with Jesus in the synagogue. The people from the towns and villages went back to them. They had laws that set the distance one could walk on the Sabbath, so they had to be home for the Sabbath.

The crowd that catches up to Jesus is a much-abridged representation of the multitude from the previous day. The dialogue in the synagogue seemed normal enough; there was no more indication of a mind to take Jesus by force, therefore, if there had been a Zealot component to the multitude, it was, at this point, negligible. This abridged crowd were people who knew Jesus well enough to, at least, know where he should be on a Sabbath.

As there were rules and traditions that restricted women in synagogue services, the general crowd, we may be sure, were only men. This crowd was composed of, as I see it, only the Pharisees and church elders who kept an eye on the ministry of Jesus, and from among that group, primarily, self-proclaimed disciples that Jesus had not specifically called.

What the general crowd says: “Rabbi, when did you get here? What must we do to do the works God requires? What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ Sir, always give us this bread.”

The people who chased Jesus seem surprised to find him in the Synagogue. Their surprise at actually finding him there was, I think, a matter of their belief that he had not gotten on the boat with his disciples, but that is where they find him; that is the setting in which the dialogue takes place. It was the Sabbath, after all, and the synagogue was, for men of that faith, the place to be. All of them had an interest in the issues their discourse followed, however, it seems that in their hearts, they stood at a distance, unwilling to commit without broad and sweeping assurances. They wanted to believe as long as the new truths justified their old predilections.

What the Jews said: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’? How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

As predilections go, you might say, that for 'the Jews', those biases were chiseled in

stone. It was all about the law. For them, the law was set; the law could not be rerendered. All their mental constructs adhered to well-worn, deeply entrenched patterns.

While they definitely looked for a messiah, that messiah could not be just another man.

If they could not even bring themselves to utter the name of God, you know their general predisposition would not permit a man to call himself the Son of God. That would be sacrilege. Besides which, reason dictated that flesh and blood could not come down from heaven, usurping the providence of God and angels, especially the flesh and blood of a local man whose father and mother were well known. Please also note that the manner in which they express their familiarity with the parents of Jesus gives no indication that Joseph was past tense.

What many disciples said before they quit Jesus: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Among those men who fit inside the synagogue, conversing with Jesus as he taught, there were a number of non-core disciples. These men had taken it upon themselves to follow Jesus, to be a part of his ministry. We may imagine they had many different reasons for attaching themselves to his movement. A prominent consideration would be the Zealot frame of mind. It was common. Even the priests desired to be free from the yoke of Rome. These non-core disciples might have included Zealots and Pharisees.

Something in their conversation disappointed them to the extent that they could not see their agendas being advanced by Jesus, therefore they quit him that day and no longer followed him as disciples.

What the core twelve said: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” The difference between the disciples that went away and the twelve that stayed is that Jesus personally called his twelve. They were the ones, minus one, who were taught of God, who were drawn by God, who had heard the Father and learned from him. They were very close. As Peter said, perhaps as the spokesmen, they had come to know the nature and character of Jesus; they were assured, they were convinced that Jesus was, indeed, the Holy One of God. What Jesus said: (Warning! These verses are not in order but have been rearranged topically and thematically.)

“Truly, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.”

Jesus is teaching in the Synagogue when a group of men burst in and seem surprised to

see that he had arrived before them. These men were all present just the day before when Jesus performed the miracle that fed five-thousand plus people. They had been looking for him and Jesus, who knew their motives, responded to their inquiries. He told them, flat out, that even though they followed him, had attached themselves to him as so-called disciples, they did not truly believe. In fact, the only thing that really worked for them was the free meal.

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

When they inquired about the work of God, what they must do, Jesus told them it was the very thing they did not have in them to do – to believe. He told them, many of them trained in the law, that he evinced God's seal of approval – the seal they should have known well and believed through the study of the law and prophets. He brought up a matter many of them were very keen to see, that is redemption. He brought up eternal life. He threw them a curveball for, whereas they longed for national salvation in a physical manner, Jesus spoke to them on a spiritual level. Jesus spoke of the individual who believed on the Son of God. In a legal sense, Jesus told them four times that the Son of God would raise said individual up on the last day. The witness of two or three legally settled a matter. He gave them four. The requirement for those who believed and who obtained eternal life was that they had to wait for the 'last day'. His claim was bold, it alarmed them. His claim was that he came down from heaven. He also explained that the people who came to him and believed on him as the Son of God who had come down from heaven were the people that God enabled to do so. His claim was also a challenge to their self-image.

“Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. Truly, the one who believes has eternal life. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ” Of course, they complained. The claim that Jesus made challenged everything they held dear, especially their positions within the religious hierarchy. Since some of them were

trained in the law, he told them something they should have known by heart – he quoted scripture to them. They probably could have stated chapter and verse, but again, Jesus was speaking on a spiritual level. He did not approach national concerns; he did not approach legalistic or doctrinal concerns. Jesus spoke of the individual whose spirit was led by the Father to the Son – the individual who through faith will obtain eternal life.

He presented eternal life as something that abolished neither death nor occupation.

“I am the bread of life. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. This bread is the giving of my flesh for the life of the world. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever. Truly, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.”

Jesus spoke of himself. He called himself the Son of Man but in a way that suggested the Son of Man was the Son of God. In response to the Jew's nationalistic and genealogical claim that the chosen of God had been given the sign of manna from heaven, as well as to their demand for a sign from Jesus, Jesus also called himself the bread. He used several applications, but in all, each is equal to the others. Jesus called himself the “bread of life”, not once but twice. He used the expression “bread of God” as being the very same thing as the bread of life. Referring to himself specifically, he twice said “this bread.” This bread to which he referred, was also “the bread that came down from heaven”, “the living bread that came down from heaven”, “the bread that comes down from heaven”, “the bread from heaven”, and “the true bread from heaven” – used to suggest the true manna. It is interesting to note that while the employment of the word “came” suggests a specific point in time, the employment of the word “comes” suggests a continuing process.

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Truly, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

Let us immediately zero in on the word “real.” Everyone did and still does understand the concept of physical flesh and blood as real. To deliberately delineate from the commonly held 'real' by using the same word suggests something above and beyond the common concept. The Jews balked at the thought of consuming human flesh or blood of any kind. The law forbade such things. Again, Jesus spoke of something spiritual rather than solid flesh. If one considers “the giving of my flesh for the life of the world” as the sacrifice Jesus made for the spirit within mankind, then one must understand faith in the work of Christ, the Son of God, as the consumption of the bread of life. One must absorb

the spirit of Christ into one's own spirit. Yes, and not only the flesh, as that would represent a holding back. One must accept the whole thing, for the flesh and the blood are parts of the same package. We must understand that when Jesus spoke of life, he spoke of the life of the spirit rather than the temporary existence of the flesh.

“Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”

This sentence is presented in halves, the second half being dependent upon the first half for its meaning. The second half, which presents the individual feeding on the flesh of Christ, suggests that, in like manner, Christ fed upon the flesh of God (who is a spirit.)

Christ once told them (John 4:34) that his meat, or flesh, or food, or substance was to do the will of the one who had sent him, to finish the work that the spirit had ordained for him. The life of the son of God was the internalized substance of God. The life of Christ was the spirit. In turn, the life within a believer is the internalized substance of Christ, which is the substance of the Father God, who is spirit rather than flesh. Turns out the more ethereal quality is actually the more substantial quality.

“Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! Will you also go away? Have I not chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?”

I wonder if Jesus was a little put out when he spoke these words. Perhaps he was angry.

The author, or perhaps the transcriber – no matter, it found its way into the sentence – thought it needful to place an exclamation mark at the end rather than simply adding a period. Sentences with exclamation marks strike us as being said with more force of emotion. To present himself to well-versed scripture readers as ascending to heaven in the power of God was not a thing that would have been taken casually. Since this was still relatively early in his ministry, Jesus' appellation of 'Son of Man' might be a little slippery to all but the most studied. To say the least, it was a definite tie-in to the prophet Ezekiel. The well-read among the Jews would have known that God called Ezekiel 'son of man' some ninety times. Ezekiel was born into a priestly line and his message was resisted and rejected by some listeners. More striking, in regard to going back up the way one came down, would be the reference to the vision of Daniel, who saw one like a son of man coming in the clouds.

Just a note, here, to investigate the ratio of one in twelve. There are, for example, twelve notes in an octave. One note among the twelve is a perfect fifth. The Biblical number 5 symbolizes God's grace, goodness, and favor toward humans and is mentioned 318 times in Scripture. The perfect fifth is the note of 'G' and is seven semitones above the note of 'C'. G is the first letter of God and C is the first letter of Christ. Christ chose a devil as a disciple. Why? This demands our attention. Was he giving him a chance? The

one he called a devil, here, he called 'friend' in Matthew 26:50.

“Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.”

This is the spirit in Jesus speaking. We know that the body of Jesus ate and drank; Jesus was a flesh and blood man, after all. We also know that Jesus was born of the spirit. The matter of spirituality singularly occupied his thinking and is prominent in many of his teachings. Jesus indicates a point in the development of the sons of men where the mind must make a clean break from the body, a point where the flesh is no longer the taskmaster of the spirit but the spirit knows freedom and may, with a sense of surety, move forward in its journey.

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you— they are Spirit and life.”

The promise of God to the faithful is eternal life. Eternal life is a matter of the spirit rather than the flesh. Flesh will always die. To one born of the spirit, to one spirituallyminded, the flesh counts for nothing. The merit of the flesh, in the bigger picture, is like a scorecard in a ball game where the card keeps falling off the scoreboard. The spirit, that is to say, the mind is the thing that remains and accrues. This is not something that any seeker makes up. In the very words of The Word, life and spirituality were defined as mentality when Jesus said “The words I have spoken to you—they are Spirit and life.”

Chapter Seven.

In chapter six, the Passover was at hand. In chapter seven, it is the feast of Tabernacles that approaches. Passover occurs in the month of Nisan (between March and May in the Christian calendar.) Pentacost occurs seven weeks and one day after Passover. The Feast of Booths or Tabernacles starts on the 15th day of the Hebrew month Tishrei (lateSeptember to mid-October on our modern calendar.) Much of this year goes unrecorded in the gospel of John. It is simply said that Jesus chose to remain in Galilee rather than walk in “Jewry.” That is an interesting coinage as it implies a division between Jesus and the Sanhedrin. It was a rift so dire that the Jews sought to have Jesus killed. We must be reminded, in this context, that Jesus was more than Galilean; Jesus was also a Jew. To say such a thing, especially in regard to the author, John, who referred to religious authorities as the Jews, is to say a thing of some import.

Beginning in verse three, we see possible reasons why things were as they were.

Reading the full verse, one is impressed with two possibilities. The first is that Jesus was entertaining a brief hiatus while he thought things through. He was hanging out with his family, perhaps helping them with the family business. While it is stated in verse five that his brethren were not followers or believers, most of that unrecorded year, no doubt, included conversations between Jesus and his siblings. He would have discussed with them his hopes and beliefs. He would have confided the hardships and frustrations of the path laid out before him. He may have become insufferable to his brothers, in so much that they offered the response found in verses three and four.

They told him, 'Stop wasting your time here with us. Go back to Judaea and show the world what you are talking about. Go find your disciples and prove yourself to them. If what you want is to show yourself openly, you will never get there by skulking around in Galilee. Just do it.'

The second possibility is that Jesus had disbanded his disciples and discontinued his work because the threat from the Jews was just that serious. Jesus may have suffered the temptations of doubt; he may have been having second thoughts.

At any rate, a festival approached – one of three that required men to be physically present in Jerusalem. Perhaps the disciples had already gone ahead. Perhaps his brothers were making ready to go themselves. They advised their brother to boldly approach the feast and prove himself. Jesus employed reasoning to the contrary. Let us examine his argument.

He answered, 'Everything I say and do shows them that they are evil. They hate me. It's not timely for me to make such a move. You could, however, it is always the right time for you to say what is right.'

To be precise, Jesus used the word 'world' rather than 'they.' The world hated him. Jesus made the remark that the world could not hate them as it hated him. What did that mean?

Did he mean to say that they were beneath the radar, too small for the religious elite to take notice of? In retrospect, we may see the bigger picture – that it was a local rather than a global event. Obviously, it was not everyone that rejected his words or sought to have him killed. He had many followers. It was just the 'Jews' that troubled him.

In a sense less precise, 'Jewry' was like the Mafia of the Hebrew world. They were powerful and had their hands in everything. They had spies and hitmen. My contention has been that Jesus was a bona fide part of that system. He was a Rabbi. Jesus was breaking free, taking a higher path. The things he said threatened to bring the house down. If, as I have put forward, Jesus was a part of that from around twelve years of age, it may well have been 'his world' that hated him.

If Jesus was alone and on his own, his brothers having departed for Jerusalem, his disciples temporarily scattered yet under the same law to attend the feast in Jerusalem, it

kind of makes sense that Jesus first says he would not go but then changes his mind – albeit, going incognito.

So he traveled to Jerusalem secretly. Does that mean he wore a disguise? Did he travel only by night? Where did he stay out of sight once he got there? Did he have friends that put him up? If I recall, Lazarus, his friend, lived just a short walk from Jerusalem.

Notes on verses eleven through thirteen: During the feast, two things were at play – and Jesus was central to both of them. A debate raged through the city. The common people were keenly interested in the topic of Jesus. As the Jesus controversy raged, some argued that Jesus was a charlatan while others maintained that Jesus was genuine and earnest.

Whatever their personal opinions, they kept it among themselves “for fear of the Jews.”

The religious elite were obviously a big part of the debate. Everyone knew that the Jews had it in for Jesus. They also knew an unguarded word could place them in the crosshairs with Jesus.

What does it say that the common folk feared to speak openly about Jesus? What was the common knowledge about Jesus and the Jews? There was obviously a serious contention between Jesus and the Jews. Many who heard Jesus speak publicly, remembered the things Jesus said against the Jews. To speak against the Jews was to speak against the law – as many thought.

The contention between Jesus and the Jews was a bigger deal than many now take it to be. To the common people, Jesus was no mere local with a loud mouth. He was one who rivaled the knowledge and authority of the Sanhedrin. The attention of the people was torn between two superpowers. Even the man on the street knew that the outcome of the religious power-struggle would greatly affect their status under the Roman occupation.

As for the Jews, they looked for Jesus to attend the feast. It was a requirement. They thought, if he was there, they had him – and if he failed his obligation under the law, they had him. Their search for him at the feast was an active search. I get the sense of a door-to-door search. They were up on their toes about Jesus. They saw this feast as their opportunity to prove themselves, to face him down, to accuse him under the law and seek his death. Perhaps their thoughts were political rather than religious. Perhaps they only sought to maintain the power they held. Whatever the case, we see the sense of urgency that drove them forward.

What is not seen is an elite angry at some mouthy commoner. Had Jesus been nothing more than a loud-mouthed yokel, they would have dealt with him early on – and in no uncertain terms. Yet, this is a point well past the early ministry of Jesus. The Jews had followed him around throughout his early ministry, they had stood among the crowds and listened, some even believed and followed him. They had allowed the Jesus movement to proceed – that was their fault. But, why did they hesitate to act? Why did they follow him around the country as he spoke openly and publicly? Why were they so lax as to question him rather than simply and quickly have him arrested for heresy? Why

did many of them become followers? Why did so many of them invite Jesus into their homes so graciously?

My developing argument is that Jesus was one of them.

Notes on verses fourteen and fifteen: Sometime after the beginning of the festivities, and likely at a time not associated with the singing and dancing of the multitude of celebrants, Jesus entered the Temple of Jerusalem to teach. Within this framework, certain aspects of the event must be referenced. To begin with, not all areas of the Temple were open to the public; certain areas of the Temple were reserved for the priests and Levites. The business area of the Temple was occupied with animal sacrifice and it is my understanding that the feast of Tabernacles actually saw more sacrifices performed than during the Passover.

One area of the Temple that was open to the public was the Court of Women, a sizable area with an upper balcony. If Jesus taught here, there were many people, including gentiles. Gaining the people's attention might have been an easy task, after all, Jesus was the main topic of conversation for many. I can imagine that he was immediately recognized, that people called to one another, “He's here! See! There's Jesus!”

The religious elders, no doubt, would also have been there in abundance. Remember, they were looking for him. Jesus just walked right in and started teaching. Nobody bothered to point a finger, much more to arrest him. He did not just begin to teach, he stood there and talked for a while. He had their attention. They listened to what he said.

Even the elders listened and understood. They heard from him such things they would have expected from themselves and it was obvious he knew as much or more than they did. They were impressed.

They asked, “How does this man know letters, having never learned?”

We must see this question from all angles. Were these not the same who followed Jesus in his early ministry? If these were the same, they had listened to him teach on countless occasions without raising an alarm. They never once asked such a question in his early ministry. My thought is that news of Jesus' every teaching was well-known by all the elders, even those who had not followed him around.

About the education of Jesus. My thought is that Jesus' level of understanding, when he was twelve years old, impressed the religious elite enough for them to take him under their wing. I think Jesus got a formal education, at least in part from them, and graduated as a Rabbi with honors. I think that is why many of them followed him around – he was supposed to represent them. Increasingly, however, Jesus had spoken out against their standards and practices and caused them to lose face.

It is possible that the ones who questioned Jesus' education did not avail themselves of his full history. Perhaps the missing years of Jesus were also missing to them. It is not necessarily the case that Jesus would have been trained in the law there at Jerusalem. He might have trained in Alexandria Egypt. It is also possible that what they meant by

“letters” was a degree of mastery usually reserved for the highest levels among their own ranks. It might be helpful to us if the teachings of that day had been recorded. At least we might determine if it was something they had not heard from him before.

Notes on verse sixteen: “My doctrine.” What is a doctrine? Merriam-Webster states it is 'a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief'. For synonyms, I want to focus on the words 'principle' and 'ideology'. But first, we must know that a doctrine, as in 'doctrine of law', and here with regard to the laws of God, was a principle or ideology that was taught by a 'Doctor' or religious scholar – in other words the most learned of the learned.

Jesus, that day, taught principles and ideologies impressively. He sounded very much like a Doctor of the law of God. He spoke like a religious scholar. He impressed even the most learned.

Notes on verses seventeen through twenty-seven: Anyone who actually knew the law of God, and thus was compelled to actually 'do' the will of God, would have known if Jesus was making this stuff up off the top of his head or speaking from the law and will of God. There was a degree of amazement and consternation among the Jews that looks quite like what some of us experience in our modern age. When we are utterly amazed, we say, “ I don't believe it!” Basically, that is what the Jews were saying.

A man who is making it up as he goes is seeking a spotlight for himself and is not a true messenger of the one who sent him. On the other hand, if he is seeking to spotlight the one who sent the message, he is a true messenger and has done nothing amiss. This statement is presented in a matter-of-fact manner that says, 'you guys should know as much.'

Jesus publicly calls out the Jews present and accuses them of plotting to have him killed.

Of course, they object. Jesus then names the offense – the healing of the man at the pool during Pentecost of the previous year. He explains their reasoning, also, and all for the public to hear. Jesus maintains that he had done no more than any of them would have done in performing a circumcision on the Sabbath. Why would they do such a thing?

They performed circumcisions on Sabbath days in order to keep the law of circumcision as passed down to them by Moses. Jesus explained that circumcision was nothing more than a standard of their forefathers; circumcision was not a matter that originated from God but simply a practice already in use that God made use of.

Still, the Jews kept the law of circumcision religiously as if it was from on high. Jesus, in healing the man by the pool, maintained that he had made the man completely whole (as something of more value than circumcision) and, thus, did something on the Sabbath that was more worthy of praise and acceptance. It should not have been a matter that anyone in their right mind would have sought the death of another for. It was a sham, a pretense.

In their objection in verse twenty, the Jews used the expression, “Thou hast a devil.”

Was this a common expression? Today, we would say something like, “You're mad!” We might begin an objection by saying, “you're insane!” Was that what they meant? They may have thought there was no evidence but Jesus stayed in Galilee for one of two reasons. Either Jesus imagined there was a conspiracy afoot or there was an actual threat. Here, we must recall that those who engaged in the Jesus controversy did so on the sly for fear of the Jews who were looking for Jesus. Even the little man saw the evidence.

In verses twenty-three and twenty-four, Jesus points to the hypocrisy of the Jews. In the ears of all present, Jesus makes it clear with a single question. “If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?”

This question is not left to hang, it is followed immediately by a standard that everyone hearing him would have understood. “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” I have mentioned the public within earshot of Jesus for a reason – the next two verses say as much, that the public heard, understood, and agreed. Jesus had said the right thing at the right time and place.

In verses twenty-five and twenty-six, the people of Jerusalem make their assessment of the argument between Jesus and the Jews. “Then said some of them of Jerusalem, is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?” The Christ-hood of Jesus was a big part of the Jesus controversy. If those who knew the religious rulers wanted to kill the one they believed or suspected might be the Christ, why did they idly stand by?

Was their fear of the rulers that great? Were they waiting for the Christ to turn things around? They were peasants and workers. They stood in awe but they would not have known what to do even if they thought they should do something.

At any rate, their reasoning trailed away to nattering points of no concern – that is, they talked themselves out of taking any kind of action. Verse twenty-seven records their copout. “Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.” These were people from Jerusalem that were not members of the religious ruling elite. They made the claim that they knew where Jesus came from, not so much that having a family in Galilee was a hindrance, but more that their thinking followed a common perception that placed all that was Christ and God in a faraway place that was beyond all that was common or local. Even to this day, people have an inclination to place such matters in a faraway heaven up in the sky or as a footnote of history or an expectation of the far-flung future.

In the following verses, Jesus will answer these people of Jerusalem. I imagine them as curious individuals who worked their way up close to the action. They wanted good spots where they could hear all that was going on. Perhaps they were more arrogant than

the common crowd, less fearful of the rulers, or perhaps more affected by the rulers.

They presumed to know him and he agreed that they did.

Notes on verses twenty-eight through fifty-three: What does the author mean when he says “some of them of Jerusalem?” The feast in question, one of three, demanded that all men, far and near, be present. Was the author making a distinction? On the one hand, all people present in Jerusalem might be called people of Jerusalem. On the other hand, if a distinction was being made, were these 'people of Jerusalem' those who served as functionaries of the ceremonies? Could they have been lesser levels within the religious mega-structure of Jerusalem?

They spoke as they stood near Jesus, near the religious elite, near the officers employed by the Sanhedrin. What they said, Jesus heard. He turned, looked them in the eye, and answered directly, 'Of course you know me. You know where I live. That is nothing more than common knowledge. But here is something you must keep in mind. I have not come in the name of a local man, neither have I shown the power or evidence of a man. I have come from God, whom you insist on ignoring. I do not dismiss our God, for he has sent me with evidence and power. I have come to you from him.'

It is said that Jesus “cried.” That is to say that he cried out above the general murmur. He spoke loudly, commanding the attention of a crowd. Possibly, Jesus stood on a platform or a step as he taught in the crowded plaza. To speak with him directly, the religious elite, the officers, the functionaries would have moved closer to Jesus physically. He would not have had to shout in their faces to be heard by them but shout he did. Either he was aggravated or he wished the common crowd to be his witness.

Upon his answer, “they,” in verse thirty, sought to take him. Who were 'they?' It was not the common crowd, you can be sure. So, then, was it the full array of the religious elite, officers, and functionaries (who felt assured of their purported knowledge of Jesus?)

Functionaries have no authority to act. All they could do was run off at the mouth.

Officers would not act without orders, so, that leaves the identity of “they” for one group – the religious elite. In that they sought to take Jesus at that point in time, I think it was less an action than a decision. They could not sully their positions with such actions but they might have ordered officers to apprehend Jesus. Yet, Jesus stood there; nothing happened.

What should we get from this part of the story? Either it is mentioned because someone could see it in their faces how badly they wanted to act or, else, they did not have the level of authority to order the officers to act on such a public matter. They would have to go to the higher-ups and convince them it was time to act. That is totally within the scope of this story as Jesus began teaching in the midst of the feast but, by the end of the chapter, had reached the “great day of the feast,” the last day of the feast on which no water was carried up the steps.

This next bit comes from Bible History Online:

On the Eighth day, the last day, called "the great day of the feast" the priests made no procession and poured no water onto the pavement and this too was very significant, because it symbolized the fact that God had fulfilled the promise to their fathers, He had now brought them into this land that was well watered, flowing with milk and honey, they no longer needed the miraculous supply out of the Rock.

It was on this day the last day that Jesus stood and cried out: "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

It is interesting to note that it was on this day that they sang the marvelous “hallel psalms” of praise, which conclude with this passage Ps. 118:22 “.. and You have become my salvation, the Stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone .. and blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”

The historical background sheds much light on the meaning. Jesus, their promised Messiah was standing in their midst as they were performing the ceremony and WAS fulfilling the Scripture and the promise spoken through Isaiah that the Lord would become their salvation (incarnate) and the water was always used as a symbol in Judaism as that which “comes from above” and is identified with Messiah “the coming One” (Heb. Haba”) throughout.

In verses thirty-one and thirty-two, mention is made of two types of people. The first are the people of the common crowd to whom Jesus taught and made his last answer loudly enough for them to be witness to the conversation he had with those who assumed they knew who he was by where he hailed from. Verse thirty-one follows immediately on the heels of that conversation, and it is said that 'many of the people believed on him'. In other words, having been witness to the conversation, they sided with Jesus, deciding he had won that round.

However, the issue of the coming Messiah was still very much up in the air even among those who believed. It may well be that many of the people in the common crowd had followed Jesus through the countryside during the earlier times of his ministry and had seen with their own eyes the miracles he had performed. People in the crowd spoke among themselves. They believed Jesus was a great man, that he had, in fact, performed miracles. Either they had seen them with their own eyes or they had heard many corroborating accounts from those who had actually witnessed the miracles. Yet, the issue of the Christ was an unsettled matter among them.

Their basic question was, when the Christ actually and finally did step onto the stage, would he work more miracles than the present miracle-worker? This conversation was an irritation and a cause for concern to the second type of people mentioned. Until verse thirty-two we only assumed who they were. The author had, until then, only referred to them as the Jews. Now, he names them as the Pharisees and the chief elders. Were they

actually present or had they only gotten word from lesser clerics? Were the officers already present or did they have to be sent for?

The fact that the common people compared Jesus to the coming Messiah worried the religious elite. Such talk shook the foundations of their authority. A thought that just occurred to me is the sheer number of Pharisees, Sadducees, Rabbis, elders, chief elders, and doctors of the law there were in the land of Israel. The Sanhedrin convened with no more than seventy individuals and there well may have been a system of rotation as with the priests who served in the temple. The Pharisee or priest on the street, as it were, may have gotten word to the Sanhedrin who, then, ordered their officers to approach Jesus.

In verse thirty-three, Jesus says to “them,” perhaps an indication of the officers who acted to remove him, 'I'm only going to be here a little while longer, and then I will head back.' Simple enough reasoning but why did it persuade the officers not to act? Was it perhaps a case where they were ordered by their employers to arrest another of their employers? Is it a reflection on their level of training or policeman-ship? The statement that stopped them was something akin to a riddle – as when Samson would say, 'riddle me this.' It stopped them all; the Jews were there with the officers – maybe not the Sanhedrin Jews but at least the Jews on the street. It appears they felt compelled to figure out what he was saying before they proceeded. Where was it he could possibly go that they could not?

The thing that Jesus said caused a big stir among those present. They were confounded.

Argumentation ran rampant. He said loudly enough for all to hear something all would understand – as it was central to the ongoing ceremonies. The priests brought no water on the last day of the feast. It symbolized that the people had reached the promised land and no longer needed the water that had come from the rock. So, Jesus cried out, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”

What he said was well-known. It was in the scripture they heard on Sabbath days. It was in the songs they sang that very day. In that very crowd, on that very day, some people believed Jesus was the Christ – and they argued the point. Some other people argued that they did not think That Jesus was the Christ, however, they would agree that Jesus was 'that prophet.' Still, some others argued niggling points, perhaps these were the Jews, the studied doctors of the law, points concerning the pedigree and lineage of Jesus. Scripture was known to demand an exact lineage of the Christ through the house of David and from the town of Bethlehem.

What does it tell us that these well-studied men did not know that Jesus was of the line of David and born in Bethlehem? Either they did not know him as well as they claimed, their research, if any, falling short, or the information had been withheld by Jesus' parents, possibly at Mary's insistence, even from the siblings of Jesus. The crowd had been turned on its head. Even among those who would have taken Jesus, the will to act against him had been overwhelmed.

Then the officers returned to the Pharisees and chief priests in verse forty-five. It is from this verse that I have made such conclusions as the officers had to be sent with specific orders, that those who wanted to take Jesus were the Jews in the street who had to send word first to the Sanhedrin. There were many 'Jews' present in the crowd but not necessarily those with the authority to act.

Those with the authority to act were perplexed that the officers had not apprehended Jesus. They had not deigned to attend, they had only sent the officers. The officers who had been charged with the detention of Jesus seem as though they were poorly trained but they were deeply affected by the words and manner of Jesus. They had been a part of the arguing crowd (was Jesus the prophet, was he the Christ?). When questioned about their failure to carry out a simple order, their response was that of one of the crowd.

They had been awed and overwhelmed by the words of Jesus.

The leaders of the Pharisees and the leaders other than the Pharisees were shocked. They were exasperated. They answered in anger, 'none of us believe this guy! Are you as gullible as these cursed ignorant commoners?' The word cursed is pretty severe. I don't know about you, but if I knew any of my leaders felt that way about me, they would no longer be my leaders. That one word shows much about the men who ruled religiously – the Jews.

Yet not all of those convened felt that way. Nicodemus questioned their approach to the issue. He counseled that they should not condemn Jesus without first hearing him.

Mocking Nicodemus, they asked if he was also of Galilee? They railed on him in their argument. Their whole point and mindset revolved around a single determination – they knew Jesus to be from Galilee but the scriptures stated that the Christ would come from Bethlehem. Even in the condescension that Jesus might be a prophet, their research assured them that no prophet ever came from Galilee.

The last day of the feast was a day of argument. The Sanhedrin argued and, no doubt, the debate still raged among the people. In the end, the only thing that got done was the thing that Jesus did. At the end of the day, every man went to his own house.

Chapter Eight.

Verses one through eight: the day after the feast. In verse one, Jesus left for the day, going, as it is written, to the Mount of Olives. On the western slope of the mountain was the garden known as Gethsemane. On the eastern slope of the mountain was the village known as Bethany, where the friends of Jesus, Lazarus, Mary, and Martha lived. At the summit of the mountain was the altar of the red heifer and a cemetery that was central to

Jewish culture dating back some 3000 years. Many important Jewish dignitaries have been buried there.

Many important events center around the Mount of Olives and Jesus seems closely associated with that particular location. While I am not wholly sold on theories of Chakras and Ley Lines, I offer this interesting aside on the electrical aspect of the Mount of Olives. I draw this from “The Chakras of the Earth and Ley Lines by Tanaaz.”

“Just like we have veins that flow in and out of the heart, Mother Earth has Ley Lines,

which are lines of energy that coil around the earth in a similar fashion as a strand of DNA. In fact, where the Ley Lines intersect are believed to be high points of energy or high concentrations of electrical charge.

These intersecting points along the Ley Lines are also coincidentally home to some of the most sacred temples and monuments in the world including the Egyptian Pyramids, Machu Picchu, Stonehenge and Angkor Wat. The throat chakra of Mother Earth includes the area of the Great Pyramid, Mt Sinai and the Mount of Olives which is located in Jerusalem. The throat chakra is one of the largest energy centers of Mother Earth, which indicates its importance at this particular time in our history. It is also the only energy center that is not connected to the Male or Female Great Dragon Ley Line.”

As the festival which just concluded was an autumn festival, cooler temperatures prevailed. One would naturally rethink sleeping out, if, indeed, one chose to sleep in the garden. My thought, here, is that Jesus visited his friends and stayed the night. Having taught in the women's court, Jesus would have exited through the eastern gate and returned the same way on the following day.

It is not indicated how many Jesus taught in the temple on the day after the feast, yet, one does get the impression that the women's court was a place the common people resorted to for social interaction. It might be considered as the 'business portal' of the temple. Over its eastern gate hung the outer curtain of the temple, a curtain some eightytwo feet high, twenty-four feet thick, and weighing around thirty tons – that according to Josephus. There were the steps that led up to the temple, there were the balconies along the walls, and there was an open dirt court. Jesus stooped and wrote in that dirt, so, my impression is of loose dry dirt verging on a sandy quality. Scripture plainly states that he 'wrote' as opposed to 'drew' or 'doodled'.

It would be interesting to know what he wrote. Did he write scriptures? Were they lecture notes? Was he marking his place as a means of remembering something? His manner seemed casual and aloof. Was he simply annoying the Pharisees or is this a fair depiction of his manner and speed in general? While waiting on them to make up their minds, Jesus stooped down a second time and continued to write on the ground. Was the ground his whiteboard?

Notes on verses nine through twenty: When Jesus continues teaching the crowd, we see that the Pharisees are still there. It is as if they only retreated a short distance to regroup.

We see that these Doctors of the law swarm Jesus at every opportunity. I have to ask, why were they not teaching the crowds? Seems they were traditionalists. In other words, they waited for the people to come to them, to the synagogue on the Sabbath. On the other hand, Jesus was like a Doctor of the law who made house calls.

As he taught, and we find out that his teaching was in the treasury, Jesus made the claim that he was the light of the world. He further explained that any who followed him would not walk in darkness but have for themselves the light of life. It follows, then, that life is the light of the world – yet, obviously, not the life that ends in death. The word, 'follow', has many applications. I would like to explore a few of them.

One may follow a path. One may follow a lead or a clue. One may follow the news or a specific interest. One may follow the crowd or one may follow tradition, submitting to peer pressure, laws, and the authorities. Then again, one may follow an example. I believe what Jesus meant here was exactly that: “Follow my example; be like me.” Here is how that plays out – if Jesus is the light of the world, because, as he said in John 11:25, he was the life, and if someone should follow that example, to be like Jesus, and if, because of that, that person should obtain within himself the same life, then, the end result is that the follower becomes, also, the light of the world.

The Jews then accused Jesus of lying, of making things up off the top of his head, as an old Southern expression puts it. His answer to their accusation included these points for all to hear. The law considered the testimony of two persons to be a matter of truth. Not only did Jesus testify of himself but the Father also testified of him – these would be things written in the law and prophets.

They asked, where is your Father? Jesus answered that they neither knew him or his Father and he phrases that answer in a noteworthy manner. He said, if you had known me, you would have known my Father. Such a statement leads me to the thought that the Jews did have an intimate knowledge of Jesus, as in a long-standing relationship between fellow Rabbis. His statement also says, in not so many words, that based on such familiarity, the Jews would have to know that Jesus was all about the Father, all about the work he had been charged to accomplish. I am given to think that through the preceding years, they had ample opportunities to hash out all the details through numerous discussions. What Jesus is saying with “If you had known me” is you knew me well enough to figure out the rest, or, you never could figure me out although you had every opportunity, or simply, you ignored the obvious truth.

The condemnation of the Jews is that they judged after the flesh. They knew Jesus well, they just refused to see him as anything other than a man like themselves. They saw mankind as low and the Father as unobtainable. They saw the justification of any man only in the traditional and customary adherence to the laws of Moses.

Let me return for a moment to the treasury, where Jesus taught. This next bit comes from Ritmeyer Archaeological Design, an online resource. They say this about the treasury: “The Treasury was a court that was located to the east of the Temple itself, just below the Nicanor Gate. This court is also called the Court of the Women, as that is as far as women were allowed to enter the Temple courts.”

Notes on verses twenty-one through twenty-five: Still in the treasury, Jesus continues addressing the Jews. This is the name given by the author for the religious elite, that is, for the Pharisees, Sadducees, priests, lawyers, Rabbis, and all such Doctors of the law.

Jesus spoke to those men who felt threatened and/or offended by his teachings. They sought a way to remove him from the public eye. It was as if they were engaged in a car race with him and since his car was faster and his driving skills greater they resorted to running him off the road.

Jesus still addressed them and all the people present in the treasury heard how well he presented his case. These particular Jews were not the big dogs, as it were, but lesser functionaries sent to keep an eye on him. The big dogs were in the Sanhedrin meeting place and would not deign to venture out themselves. The lesser functionaries had already sent to the big dogs who, in turn, sent officers to arrest Jesus who, in turn, failed to accomplish that as his word had confounded them.

Directly addressing the Jews, Jesus added to his argument the following points. I go my way and where I go you cannot follow. This sounds like something one would say to familiar peers. You will seek me but you will die in your sins. You Jews are from beneath; you are of the world. I am not of the world; I am from above. The reason I said you will die in your sins is because you will not believe that I am who I told you I was.

The Jews had reasoned, after a worldly fashion, on where Jesus might go that they could not, coming to the conclusion that he might commit suicide. These are the thoughts of those who had come up with him, learning as he learned, rising through the ranks together. They figured they could not follow him in death as suicide had dire spiritual consequences.

The following comes from myjewishlearning.com – While there is no explicit biblical prohibition on suicide, later rabbinic authorities derived a prohibition from the verse in Genesis 9:5, “And surely your blood of your lives, will I require.” Rashi and other early rabbinic authorities understood the verse as a prohibition against taking one’s own life.

Contemporary rulings from all three major religious streams have upheld the view that suicide is fundamentally incompatible with Jewish law and values.

Here is where it gets interesting. In response to Jesus saying, “if ye believe not that I am he,” the Jews demanded a clear assertion of who he claimed to be. The Jews were too familiar with Jesus to be genuinely confused about his identity. They already believed they knew that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary. Their query was actually a test,

wordplay to trip him up in public so they might have legal grounds against him and witnesses. And yet, it is not like he had not already discussed the issue with them.

His answer: “Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.” Please pay special attention to the wording. He had made a claim 'from the beginning' and it was something he had said to the Jews. Jesus had been telling them all along. What many people fail to see is the long history, the close history Jesus had with the Jews. My contention is that Jesus had trained with them as a Rabbi. Jesus, himself, had been called a Jew – he was recognized by those not ordained as a Rabbi.

To which 'beginning' did Jesus refer? His beginning in Rabbinical training? His time among them at age twelve? What was said of him in the law and prophets? Any of those might apply but my argument is that Jesus had a close personal history with “the Jews.”

In all of his three years of ministry, Jesus never just went out and preached to the common people. The Jews followed him everywhere. They questioned and tested him constantly. Jesus regularly taught in synagogues and especially in the town he lived in.

In many places, Jesus was received into the homes of Pharisees, Rabbis, and priests.

When Jesus spoke to the Jews, he was speaking to people he knew.

Notes on verses twenty-six through thirty-two: There was a rift among the Rabbis, a schism among fellow students of the law. There was division within the ranks. Some, whom Jesus championed, had freer thoughts and aspirations than some others who seemed trapped and imprisoned in dogma. They were the new generation of spiritual leaders in the making but there was dissension among them.

Consider the things that Jesus said to them within the context of long familiarity. How many hours had been whiled away in heated discussion? How many lamps had burned low as they spoke into the late night? How often had Jesus indicated the true path that he followed? How had he yearned to convince his peers that there was only one way to be right with God? There were levels in their long-standing relationship and that comes through in the things that Jesus said specifically to the Jews. Personal levels are set against higher levels in verse twenty-six. He said specifically to the Jews, “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true, and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.” The many things to say and judge, to me, sounds exactly like a personal level, the level of a close and long-standing relationship. The remainder of his statement smacks of an indictment against friends – that they had failed to communicate the same truth.

Still speaking specifically to the Jews, Jesus said, in verses twenty-eight and twentynine, “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” I feel that Jesus is, here, referring to things brought up in previous

discussions. What tips me off is 'then shall ye know.' Such an expression speaks of all the things he had told them before, all of his past arguments would be seen to come true when a certain point had been passed when a certain action had been taken. At that time and place, they would realize that he had been right all along.

That time, that place, that action? When they had lifted him up. Now, the usual take on this expression is of Jesus being lifted up on the cross, of the betrayal of his peers. In that context, they could have been convinced by the darkness on the face of the whole earth, they could have been convinced by the earthquake, or how such a solid piece of material as the veil had been rent in what seemed like a supernatural manner. And too, their conscience could have kicked in. They might also have been impressed with the superhuman comportment of the man on the cross. But, I want you to know that there is another way to interpret being 'lifted up.'

That other interpretation is internal rather than external. It is the lifting up of Jesus in their estimation. Yes, all the events surrounding his death impressed them, and as a result of that, their stands reversed, the opinions changed, they considered Jesus, then, to be exactly who he told them he was from the beginning. Now obviously, these things were said to the Jews that took a stand against him, for he immediately turned his attention to the Jews that did believe he was who he had said he was and addressed them in verses thirty-one and thirty-two.

There was a power struggle in the organized religion of Jesus' day. Among the new generation of the religious elite, there was a row that centered around the radical divergence of interpretation that Jesus put forth. Among the new generation of the 'Jews', a word used by the author to include all priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, Rabbis, and everyone else in religious power, there were plenty who disagreed with Jesus but also many who thought he was right.

To those who believed on him, among his peers, Jesus said, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Now, these were not the common people that Jesus addressed, these were his fellow Rabbis. What would the keepers of the law of God need to be set free from? Well, perhaps free from keeping the law of Moses so they could start keeping the law of God. The religious infrastructure of that day and age, of that particular culture, had become stagnant. They thought that the law of Moses and the law of God were one and the same.

Jesus came along and told them there was a difference, that there was room for improvement.

Notes on verses thirty-three through fifty-nine: Next came the 'son's of Abraham' argument. That was the stock assertion of all Hebrews; that was the Hebrew national identity. As group identities go, this one lifted an entire people. It set them apart in their hearts and minds from all other peoples. It placed them in a separate place that defied the woes of war, the plain path of peace, and the odious ordeal of occupation. The Hebrew mindset, indeed, the mindset of the 'Jew' who found his entire worth and

justification in being a son of Abraham and having the law of Moses was a mindset of unadulterated freedom. What Jesus said to them flew in the face of more than a thousand years of custom and tradition.

Jesus countered an argument of the flesh with an argument of the spirit. It did not matter who they thought they were, a sinner would always be the servant of sin. As servants go, at the end of the day, they get locked out of the house and must spend the dark night in their tents and shanties. Name dropping did them no good in the end. The owner and heir of the house remained, however – sin in the house of sin and righteousness in the house of righteousness – the son remained. The son of righteousness could hire from the shanties of sin, and since no man can serve two masters, the servants of sin would be set free from sin.

Jesus accused their lineage. They thought being a son of Abraham was all that but Jesus put them in their proper place as servants of sin. Fact was a son of Abraham would not want to kill the heir to the God they said they served. The proof was in the pudding.

Their actions spoke volumes above their claims. They were too much like their true father for the 'son of Abraham' claim to be valid.

The son serves the father, the servant serves the son. The word of the father moves the son, the word of the son moves those who serve him. If the Jews were the sons of Abraham, the word of the father and, therefore of the son also, would have been instilled in them through Abraham and through Moses. However, that was not the case with the Jews. Their action proved whose word was actually in them. The word of the devil, their true father, was in them. It was the word of his lusts, his lies, his murderous intent.

In the evolution of their argument, the Jews thought they meant to say that by being the sons of Abraham, they were the sons of God. Jesus countered that in the first place, a son of Abraham would not seek to kill him because Abraham would not, and in the second place, if they were sons of God, they would love him rather than hate him; they would realize that he came not from himself but from God. The argument of the Jews that they were not sons of fornication but sons of God is very telling. It tells us they were able to reason spiritually with Jesus, that they understood what he was saying. It does not come across in a revelatory manner but seems to be an answer used not for the first time. It seems like an answer dredged up from previous conversations.

This proves true also in the response of Jesus when he asks them, why aren't the things I am saying getting through to you? He answered his own question and said, even because my word, the word of the heir of God, is not in you. They reasoned with him on a spiritual level and gave themselves away. Jesus proved to them that they knew exactly what they were choosing as far as which spiritual camp they resided in. Their spirit was just like the spirit of their spiritual father, the devil. Like him, their lies were their own constructs, for the devil was a liar from the beginning, the father of lies and lying. When the father of lies, and by extension, the son of lies, tell a lie, that lie originates from them. That is their spirit – the spirit of lies and murder.

In contrast to their own devilish spirits, Jesus told them that the truth within himself was not self-made, it was truth because it came from God, the father of truth. Had he told them lies, they would have believed him. Since it was truth that he told them, the exact opposite of their own spirits, they could not receive his words – the simple matter was they were firmly in the opposing spiritual camp, they were the servants and sons of all that ran counter to the truth that came from God. Take special note of the wording used by Jesus. Jesus told the Jews in verse forty, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has done nothing more than tell you the truth which I have heard from God. On the surface, they over-reacted – he was just telling the truth.

On a more spiritual level, only those who were the enemies of truth would so react. But, what I wish the reader to see is what Jesus thought of himself. Yes, he thought of himself as the son of God, as the heir of God, but he called himself a man.

In verses forty-six and forty-seven, Jesus basically told them that he and they were like water and oil. They were so different, they could not possibly mix. He was water and they were oil. None of them were able to convince him that he was anything like them.

Their spirits were complete opposites. He concludes his argument on a matter-of-fact note. He concludes if I am the truth and speak the truth, why do you think it is that you do not believe me? It was kind of a rhetorical question. He had told them from the beginning; they need not feign ignorance, he would state the obvious – again.

Jesus answered his own question with a truth so plain and open that none could possibly miss the point. If you are of God, if you are of the truth, you will receive the truth of God. They would not receive the truth of God for the simple reason that they were not of God. In verse forty-eight, the Jews employ an argument they had employed previously, possibly on more than one other occasion. The reason I assert, here, that they had used this argument before is found in their choice of wording. They had already called Jesus a Samaritan. This clues us in on the angle of the schism. The Jews were proud with nationalistic tendencies that bordered on racism. They had already said that Jesus had a devil. He was quite obviously a very painful thorn in their collective flesh. They desperately wanted to win an argument with him and they despised him for the fact that they never had been able to do so.

The wording that tells me they had been at that point of argument before is this: “Say we not well.” That is like saying, 'we were right when we said you had a devil.' They had said it all before. It had been an ongoing argument among the ranks of the Rabbis. Jesus had said it all before. Consider his reaction to the claim. Was it a new reaction? No. It did not have the sharp edge of a new reaction. Rather, it had the worn and blunted edge of a reaction that found nothing new in their words. His reply lacks, wholly, the quality of anger appropriate for such an affront.

Rather than an angry reply, Jesus' reply seemed tired and sad. He said, simply, “I have not a devil, but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.” Picture it in your mind. It is a public argument between Rabbis. There are witnesses. The complaints directed at Jesus by the Jews are on a personal level as of old hurts dredged up. Their arguments are filled with bile. I must ask, at what level does Jesus counter with “ye do dishonour me?”

It is not on a spiritual level for he and they are in opposing camps. The enemy can hurl jibes all day and it will be chalked up to the nature of animosity. There is neither honor nor dishonor but, rather, brazenness. I think the level of response on the part of Jesus is part personal and part professional. As a man, as a Jew, as a Rabbi, Jesus stood on sound legs. The word of God had a place in him and he stood by that to the max. His contemporaries failed him and themselves in that regard.

Neither do I seek my own glory, continued Jesus. God alone seeks and judges whether a man is worthy or not. I have told you the truth, if a man keep my saying he will rise above death. He had said it before. His saying was his Father's saying in actuality. Jesus was just saying there is a way. He offered and repeated the offer. There is a way to be right with God and the reward is life. Contrary to the unassuming message, the Jews took it that a common man made claims beyond his station and ability.

They shot back at Jesus, “Now we know that thou hast a devil.” They felt sure and justified in their stand against Jesus. A common man who lived and died could simply not make such a claim. Even their national father, Abraham, a man who lived and died, was long dead – and not only Abraham but all of the prophets were long dead. How could this man claim that choosing him above the prophets or Abraham could provide immortality?

They asked Jesus, publicly, with witnesses looking on, how can you claim to be greater than the prophets which are dead, even Abraham which is also dead? Jesus answered that he, in no way, shape, or form, was attempting to say that he was greater than Abraham. He was not honoring himself at all. If there was honor due, it came from God – the very same God that the Jews claimed as their own. Jesus went a step further and made the claim that they did not know God in the least; they said they knew God but their claim was a bald-faced lie. Jesus accused them of being liars before many witnesses and then he made the counterclaim that he, Jesus, actually did know God. If he was to say that he did not know God, he would be as much a liar as all of them who claimed to know God but did not.

His point was something on the order of 'I know, recognize, and affirm God by keeping his saying' (meaning God's command, God's truth.)

Then Jesus made a statement that wounded and shamed the Jews. He said, your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day (a day in Abraham's future, the advent of Christ) and upon seeing it was glad. What he meant was Abraham the father of the people, not the father of the Jews for he had just told them their father was the devil.

This argument was engaged at a spiritual level. It was also on a spiritual level that the Jews responded for it was not at this point and for these words that the Jews tried to stone Jesus. Something very important is going on in this exchange, something often overlooked and quite frankly, hard to pin down. Their response was this: you are not yet fifty years old. We should take a long hard look at their choice of words. They were looking right at the man, they knew all the normal facts about him, his region of birth, his parents, etc. They knew Jesus was a man in his thirties. So, why didn't they say that Jesus was not yet forty?

Is all our accumulated information about the historical Jesus inaccurate? Was he, in fact, older than we think he was? What exactly is the deal about being fifty? Is there some religious or ceremonial significance to that age? Is it a special age or a 'marker' age for Rabbis and priests?

I tried to do some digging into that subject on various sites on the internet. I poured over accounts and interpretations without any particular success. I came away with no clear answer – yet, there were hints. I got this from Wikipedia: Numbers play an important role in Judaic ritual practices and are believed to be a means for understanding the divine. A Mishnaic textual source, Pirkei Avot 3:23, makes clear that the use of gematria is dated to at least the Tannaic period. This marriage between the symbolic and the physical found its pinnacle in the creation of the Tabernacle. The Hebrew word for symbol is ot, which, in early Judaism, denoted not only a sign, but also a visible religious token of the relation between God and man. It is largely held by Jewish leadership that the numerical dimensions of the temple are a "microcosm of creation ... that God used to create the Olamot-Universes."

I got this from Biblestudy.org: Fifty can be found 154 times in the Bible. Its meaning is directly related to the coming of God's Holy Spirit.

After Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene on Sunday morning, April 9 in 30 A.D., he ascended to the Father in heaven (John 20:17). His ascension, as a type of firstfruit from the dead (Revelation 1:5), occurred on the day God told the Israelites they were to wave a sheaf composed of the firstfruits of their harvest (Leviticus 23:9 - 11). It is on this day that the count of 50 days to the Feast of Pentecost begins.

In the New Testament the word Pentecost comes from the Greek word for fiftieth (Strong's Concordance #G4005). Also known as the Feast of Weeks or Firstfruits, it was on this special Holy Day that God first poured his Holy Spirit upon about 120 believers who had gathered to keep the day (Acts 1:15, 2). They became the firstfruits of God's spiritual harvest of humans.

Jesus, as mankind's new High Priest in heaven, had to first offer the blood of his sacrifice (30 symbolizes this sacrifice) to God upon the heavenly atonement altar (which

20 represents) before the Holy Spirit could be available to all. The number 30 plus 20 equals 50, which points directly to the Feast of Pentecost.

I cannot quite fathom why the Jews brought up this particular age. Would they have more readily listened to Jesus if he was fifty years old? Did that age mean something in the hierarchy of priests and Rabbis in training? Is there a deeper, more spiritual significance to that age that has been lost through the years?

So, what is left to this chapter of John? Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am. It was at that point the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus with. This area was the same in which Jesus stooped down to write in the dirt or sand. It was a broad flat area built to accommodate many people. It was a courtyard. Why were there also rocks and stones there? Was there a stockpile in a corner for convenient stonings?

Here is the really cool part. Jesus hid himself and left the temple through the midst of those who were trying to stone him. Let's give this some thought. The women's court was an enclosed area. I got this from Bible History Online: Entering through the Susan Gate you would come to a large court called "the Court of the Women" not because there were only women there but because women could not go beyond it. There were smaller courts with columns in the four corners of the court.

According to the Mishnah (Middoth 2,5) the Women's Court was was just over 200 feet square between bounding lines. Each court on the outside was 60 feet square.

So, imagine the picture: many “Jews” with stones to hurl at Jesus, many more common people who were there to hear Jesus or to attend treasury business, and Jesus – the central figure in our mental image. He hides himself and passes unseen through them and out of the temple.

How did he pull it off?

Did he just throw his hood up over his head and disappear from sight? Did he suddenly look like someone else? He did that elsewhere in scripture. Did the crowd of people participate in his egress? They could have suddenly swarmed or fanned out, providing cover for his exit. My own opinion is that he walked calmly from the temple, possibly looking each of them in the eye without them knowing it was him. Surely once the Jews picked up stones, there would have been a stir among the people. There would have been excited calls and shouting. People would have moved away from the 'line of fire.' It is possible Jesus took advantage of these facts to make his exit in a purely natural manner.

I guess I'm just an old-fashioned hold-out for the miraculous.

Chapter Nine.

I begin in chapter nine, seeing that most of chapter eight took place on the 'eighth day' or 'the Joy of the Torah' which was an additional holiday following the seven-day feast of Tabernacles. It was on this eighth day that the Jews sought to stone Jesus. It was on this eighth day that Jesus hid himself and left the temple, as the scripture states, “and so passed by.”

Chapter nine is the continuation of the story found at the end of chapter eight. Verse one of chapter nine states, “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.” The facts we find here are these: Jesus was still passing by, his disciples were with him, and it was the Sabbath day. It was on this Sabbath following the feast of Tabernacles that Jesus healed a blind man, sending him to wash in the pool of Siloam. I found the following information about the pool of Siloam in Wikipedia: The pool was rediscovered during an excavation work for a sewer in the autumn of 2004, by Ir David Foundation workers, following a request and directions given by archaeologists Eli Shukron accompanied by Ori Orbach from the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. Archaeologists Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich (working with the Israel Antiquities Authority) uncovered stone steps, and it became obvious that these steps were likely to have been part of the Second Temple period pool. Excavations commenced and confirmed the initial supposition; the find was formally announced on August 9, 2005, and received substantial international media attention. The excavations also revealed that the pool was 225 feet wide, and that steps existed on at least three sides of the pool. A portion of this pool remains unexcavated, as the land above it is owned by a nearby Greek Orthodox church and is occupied by an orchard known as the King's Garden (compare Nehemiah 3:15). The pool is not perfectly rectangular, but a soft trapezoid. There are three sets of five steps, two leading to a platform, before the bottom is reached, and it has been suggested that the steps were designed to accommodate various water levels. The pool is stone-lined, but underneath, there is evidence of an earlier version that was merely plastered (to help it retain water). Coins from the reign of Alexander Jannaeus were found embedded in the plaster lining of the pool, and therefore provide a secure earliest date for the pool's (re-)construction.

At this point, Jesus and his disciples have just walked away from a stoning attempt.

They encounter a blind man. Jesus anoints the man's eyes with spittle mud and sends him to the pool of Siloam. If we can determine which exit he took from the women's court, and if we can determine the location of the pool, we should come away with a better mental picture of the movements of Jesus and his disciples.

There were several gates through which Jesus might have made his get-away. Each exit from the women's court led immediately into the court of the gentiles, which surrounded the whole temple. On the last day of the feast, when all men went to their own houses, Jesus was seen going to the Mount of Olives, which is east of the city. He might have opted for the eastern-most gate.

A blind man would depend on charity and donations for a living. He might have chosen a spot in the court of gentiles to ask for alms. From the temple mount, a long street led down through the city southward toward the pool of Siloam. I think it was likely that Jesus encountered the blind man there. Another thought is that Jesus might have had his disciples busy or waiting in that court. It seems unlikely that Jesus and his entire group of disciples could have, in terms of passing by unseen, walked out of the women's court unnoticed.

It seems evident, from the answer Jesus gave his disciples in regard to who sinned, that the blind man was deliberately placed in that time and on hold for the day Jesus would pass by and heal him. This answers at least two of our own unasked questions. We have an opportunity, here, to learn – to spiritually one-up. We may, first of all, learn the common take on sin back in the day of Jesus. The thought was, if someone's life was so grievously smitten, someone somewhere had sinned. In other words, the thought was that such as the blindness of that man was brought on by the actions of people – something akin to instant karma.

Secondly, we may learn an important point in regard to the nature of God's relationship with man. We would all like to think that God has our best interests at heart, that we matter on a personal level. It should be an eye-opener that God doomed this man to a lifetime of misery, shame, and poverty just so Jesus could pass by and heal him one day.

Many bitter complaints are leveled against God because we suffer in some way or the other. We blame God. Here is the point we should learn: God is not our personal servant; God has his own agenda. God is not some genie let loose from a bottle that he should be concerned with our daily wishes. Life is hard for no particular reason. That is the nature of existence. We suffer and no one is to blame. Life comes as a package deal – the good and the bad together.

I want us to look at verses four and five, two statements made by Jesus. While even the men hand-picked and personally tutored by the son of God misunderstood both the nature of sin and the providence of God, while we see that a man was singled out to suffer a lifetime of bitter want, Jesus, within that context, made two statements that at once seem so far above the common muddle of life and, yet, deeply immersed and wholly applicable to that muddle and the nature of man.

Let me approach them in reverse order. In verse five, Jesus said, “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Who actually said that? Was it Jesus the man or was it God within? This is my interpretation of the matter but I will make my case with Jesus' own words. Jesus had previously said in chapter eight verse twenty-six, “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of (from) him.” He had also told the Jews in verses fifteen and sixteen of the same chapter, “I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” My take is that when he said “I” he referenced the spirit of the Father within.

Had Jesus only referred to himself, his light would have been taken from the world at his death on the cross. In this regard, it is important to note some words he left with his disciples. In chapter fifteen and verse twenty-six Jesus said, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father . . . ” Since Jesus is truly named 'the Truth' and since the Spirit of 'Truth' (the Holy Ghost) comes from God the Father, the common denominator of “I and my Father are one” is the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from the Father. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of Jesus is the light of the world.

Jesus was a man inhabited by the Spirit of God, inhabited by the Spirit of Truth. Jesus said in verse four, “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day . . . ” In other words, while the light of the world was in the world. Remember, that after Jesus rose from the dead, he was back in the world, speaking what he heard from God and just generally being the light of the world. In that case, the light was only missing from the world for three days. When Christ ascended, He sent the Comforter. We may not think that the light of the world was once again missing until Pentecost. While there was a major display at that time, the disciples already had the Spirit of truth. Recall this from chapter twenty and verse twenty-two, “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost . . . ” Thomas was not there for that and since Judas was dead, there were ten disciples within whom lived the light of the world.

I have only recorded, so far, the first half of Jesus' statement in verse four. The second half goes like this, “The night cometh, when no man can work.” Jesus returned from the grave and worked. So, to what might he have referred? As a possible candidate, I submit Revelation 8:1 “And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.” I submit that for there to be light in the world worked through men, that light must be communicated from a heavenly source. If that communication is withheld, no man can work. If the light of the world is quiet, or absent, it is night.

Finally, in regard to John 9:4, and on a personal level, The Spirit that proceeds from God was denied to Jesus for three days. Jesus had a job to do and he had to fly solo for a while. His victory over death and hell, his defeat of Satan – Jesus did that on his own.

Witness Matthew 27:46 “ . . . My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Notes on the remainder of chapter Nine: So, Jesus 'passed by' going right through the 'midst' of those who sought to stone him in the treasury. Then, with his disciples in tow, Jesus sent the blind beggar to wash the mud from his eyes in the pool of Siloam. The man came back seeing and what ensues is somewhat of a trial. The man is hauled up in front of the Jews, possibly, he was drawn as deep into that mire as the Sanhedrin. Pretty much the rest of chapter nine is devoted to that one event. Even the parents of the beggar were called to testify. It seems as though the Jews assumed it was Jesus even as they sought the identity of the one who healed the man. He had been healed on a Sabbath day and that would have been an issue for the Jews.

All their efforts and inquiries ended in failure and, in their consternation, they sent away both the parents and the healed man.

The Jews were on a rampage. We might be tempted to think that Jesus might have left the area altogether but that is not the case. We ask, what happened to the Jews who sought to stone Jesus? Were they still holding rocks in their hands? Were they sweeping the area in search of him? Had they disbanded or were they the ones who interrogated the healed man? How far away had Jesus distanced himself from them? It may be that he hid in plain sight.

After the trial, Jesus found the man he had healed and revealed himself to him. It is at this point in the flow of events, just there at the end of the chapter, that we make a startling discovery. Jesus proclaimed that his purpose on the earth was to pass judgment – to decide sight for the blind and blindness for the sighted. In response, the Jews that were in his company asked if that also applied to them. It did but notice the composition of his company.

Jesus fled from the Jews who wanted to stone him. Yet, aside from the disciples, Jews still accompanied him. These Jews were Pharisees. Were these also disciples? Was the split among the Jews that pronounced? For that matter, had these particular Jews aided Jesus in his passing by?

Finally, I would like to take a moment to consider the statement Jesus made to the Jews in his company. He said to them that if they were blind, they would have no sin. Did that apply to the formerly blind beggar? If it did, it was a physical truth. If that truth was a physical truth, did it mean the formerly blind beggar now had sin? The former beggar worshiped the Son of God and that was accepted. So, perhaps, what Jesus referred to was the spirit or mindset. To 'see' is a concept commonly associated with knowing, knowledge, and presumed wisdom.

This theme of reversal is something I have noticed frequently in the teachings of Jesus.

The things which men laud the most are the things which God disdains. Consider Isaiah 64:6, “ . . . and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags . . . ” The mindset of the Jews was that they knew all there was to know. They were not humble in their approach to God but, rather, they were proud in their sense of accomplishment. For that, they were judged to be blind.

Chapter Ten. As we pick up the narrative in chapter ten, we find Jesus speaking. However, it is not immediately clear to whom Jesus is speaking. It might be easy for us to assume that the dialog is continued from the previous chapter where Jesus is speaking to his disciples

and the Pharisees who are with him. In that instance, at the end of chapter nine, Jesus was in Jerusalem for the feast of the Tabernacles. The entirety of chapter nine took place on the eighth day or 'The Joy of the Torah', an additional holiday following the feast of Tabernacles.

It was on that day that Jesus mysteriously escaped being stoned. It was on that day that Jesus healed the blind man. It is all recorded at length, the pool of Siloam, the hearing in which the newly sighted man is questioned, and not only himself but his parents as well.

At the end of all that, the man was approached by Jesus. Jesus identified himself to the man and the man worshiped him. We see no objection to this worship – and I mention this because Jesus traveled not only in the company of his disciples but there were certain of the Jews traveling with him as well.

It is at the end of the chapter, when Jesus contrasts being sighted and being blind that the Pharisees in his company ask him if they too are blind. The dialogue beginning in verse one of chapter ten seems to jump from blindness to the matter of who is the true leader of the sheep – the shepherd or the hirelings.

To bring clarity to this issue, I point to verse twenty-two, “And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.” Some two months later, we find Jesus speaking on a specific topic. Two months are missing from the account but we find Jesus in Jerusalem among people who want him dead. I ask, therefore, had Jesus gone back home to Galilee for a while? Did Jesus return to Jerusalem because of the holiday? I am inclined to think so. I have hinted at the possibility that Jesus was the Rabbi at a synagogue in Capernaum. Many of his disciples, also, lived and worked in that area.

So, Jesus is in Jerusalem and it is the winter. Is that only mentioned because of the feast?

Many people would have known that the dedication feast was in the winter. The gospel of John is not specifically written for the gentiles – so, why make a point of the winter?

He is in a city during cold weather. There is at least a possibility that the dialogue found at the beginning of chapter ten is, to a certain degree, an indoors account. No disciples are mentioned, no milling multitudes here, just Jesus talking to 'the Jews.'

Now, we already know and are well aware that when the author of this gospel uses the word 'Jews,' he is speaking of religious authorities. He is speaking of the elders of the synagogues, the Pharisees and Sadducees, of Priests and Rabbis and Doctors of the law.

Many of these same people would have had their turn in the Sanhedrin.

Jesus spoke to the Jews, as it is my assertion that he was one of them. The evidence is plain. Jesus seemed always to be in their company, often invited into their homes, often addressed as a Rabbi, and regularly taught in synagogues, more specifically, in the synagogue of Capernaum. I will not go much into the content of his words, here, except to point out that the matters he broached were specific to the Jews rather than to the masses. When he spoke of sheep, he spoke about the masses. When he spoke of shepherds and hirelings, he spoke of those who managed the masses. When he spoke of

thieves and robbers, he spoke of those who used the masses for personal advantage and gain.

Part of the conversation between Jesus and the Jews occurred on Solomon's Porch which was the architectural feature that partially enclosed the inner walls of the temple in the location of the Women's Court. It was in this general location, once before, that Jesus was nearly stoned.

That is the general picture at this point in chapter ten. Jesus is explaining to his peers the power and authority God has given to him. He is explaining to what and to whom that commandment applies. Jesus plainly states that he has been given power the Jews do not possess. He has been given the power to lay down his life. Well before his crucifixion, the Jews were made aware that Jesus walked toward his own death and of his own volition. It was not in their power to take his life but, rather, it was a matter that Jesus orchestrated with precise deliberation.

Jesus also explained that he was empowered to resume his life again after death. Well before his resurrection, the Jews were made aware that Jesus would rise from the dead.

They were made aware that his plan for death and resurrection was enacted for the people whom he asserted were much maligned by the present authorities. Jesus asserted that the people, his sheep, had been abused by those in charge – who used the people for personal advantage, like thieves and robbers and who, like hirelings, fled before the enemy.

Consider for a moment the type and degree of managerial truths that Jesus imparted, truths that were specific to those who filled positions of leadership. Jesus had been in this situation before – trying to bring around his peers to a more nearly personal sense of responsibility. We know that in some of those other situations, the Jews argued with him, railed on him, called him names, sought his death. We know that not all of the Jews were against him. Some followed him and believed what he said. There had been divisions among the Jews before and we find here, in chapter ten and verse nineteen, this very telling statement: “There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.”

At this point, we might expect to see the Jews up to their old tricks. Did they argue, did they rail on him, call him names as they had before? No. At this point in the relationship between Jesus and the Jews, we see a different response altogether. We see a more cohesive and fraternal response. We see something in verses twenty through twentythree that looks very much like a meeting among the Jews as they argue among themselves. Some say that Jesus is mad, that he has a devil. Some maintain that opening the eyes of the blind is not something that devils do. They refer to the incident just two months prior when Jesus sent the blind man to the pool of Siloam.

What we see is a closed-door meeting of the minds while Jesus waits just outside on the Porch of Solomon. “Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.” Was he by

himself? Did he pace? The waiting came to an end. The Jews surrounded Jesus as he stood in Solomon's porch and this was their response. 'If you are the Christ, tell us so in plain words. How long will you keep us in suspense, making us wonder and doubt?'

How long indeed? He had given his testimony on multiple occasions – that is to say, he had been among his peers on multiple occasions telling them, the Jews, the same things again and again. On all occasions, there was a number of the religious elite that refused to believe what he said. All they saw was a man like themselves but a man they felt had lifted himself above acceptable expectations, a man who had become too big for his britches. The answer they got was that he had told them already; he had told them and they refused to believe. They had refused to believe because they were not his sheep and did not hear his voice. In his response, the Jews could only hear a common man making himself out to be God. According to the law, as they maintained it, that was blasphemy.

They took up stones again to stone him. Among those polished blocks and slabs of stone, among those colonnades, I have to ask, where could they find stones? Was the women's court unfinished and rocky?

So, there they stood, stones in hand but they did not act. Was it just so much posturing?

Were people ever stoned inside the temple compound? Without flinching, Jesus asked them for which of his good deeds they wanted to see him die. In other words, Jesus had proved himself to them often with works from God like healings and driving out demons, things the Jews did not and could not do. In answering his question, the Jews proved the point they could not get their heads around – that a man could claim to be equal to God. That was just too much for them.

They did not try to stone him but they did try to apprehend him. That particular stretch of wall in the temple contained the eastern gate. Jesus avoided capture and left Jerusalem. How did that happen? Did he dart out through the gate and blend immediately with the crowd? Were his disciples waiting to whisk him away? Whatever transpired, Jesus traveled to the area where he had been baptized by his cousin John. He stayed there for a time and many believers resorted to him there.

The distance from Jerusalem to the accepted site where John baptized Jesus is roughly seventy-one and a half miles. I once walked that approximate distance and it took me three nights and two days. There would have been lodging nearby in the city of Beit She'an, which was one of ten cities in the Decapolis. There were also Pella and Bethabara on the eastern side of the Jordan.

At the baptism, Jesus was asked where he stayed. He answered, come and see. Here may have been friends and supporters who took him in both then and again when he returned in chapter ten. The residents of the area well remembered John. They also accepted the fame of Jesus, as they said in verse 10:41, “John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.” Obviously, John had said more about Jesus than is recorded. The pivotal point of their belief was the fact that Jesus had performed miraculous things. The crowds gathered.

Did Jesus camp out with his disciples or did he reside in one of the nearby towns?

Remember, it was winter. This information comes from www.giltravel.com: Winter (Decearly Mar) Israels winter weather fluctuates. Some winters are mild and sunny, while some are severe and overcast. There’s often heavy rain. In January and February, it may even snow in parts of the country. Temperatures range in the 50-60F (10-15C) in most places, but in the 40’s (5C) in Jerusalem and the Galilee hills – where it can be very cold at night.

Chapter Eleven.

It seems likely that Jesus resided, at least some of the time, in one or more of the nearby towns. How long did he stay? Did he perform any miracles during his time there? Did he teach in their Synagogues? It was during his residence in this area that Jesus received word from Martha and Mary, the sisters of his friend, Lazarus. We find this in the beginning verses of chapter eleven. I get the impression that servants were sent with the message. Jesus gave a response that was likely conveyed back to the sisters. The distance was approximately sixty miles, so, the travel time for the message bearers would have been nearly a week if on foot. After receiving the message, Jesus and his disciples remained where they were for two more days. Lazarus was in a bad way at the first step of the messenger's journey. It was about six or seven days after that when Jesus began his two to three-day journey to Bethany.

The disciples were concerned about the safety of Jesus. Perhaps their efforts in the near stoning of their master seemed threatened by his return to Judaea. They might have been thinking, 'we just barely got you out the last time. And now you want to go again?' Jesus first alluded to the death of Lazarus, then told his disciples plainly. They just couldn't get the gist of things. Who knew what he meant when he said something? Jesus was still in the process of getting them to 'believe.' By that, I don't mean believe as the multitudes believed but, rather, in a way or to the degree required to serve the will of God. When Jesus was near to Bethany, Lazarus had been dead for four days. He had died at the beginning of Jesus' journey or during the first leg of his journey. It is also mentioned that Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem – it was barely more than a mile away. This was said to bring in the fact that many of the Jews had gone to mourn the death of Lazarus. They were still present four days after the fact attempting to comfort the sisters. What does it say that many of the Jews were there? Was Lazarus a prominent or wealthy landowner, an important businessman? Did he have close ties to the religious elite? Was he one of the Jews who had become a follower of Jesus?

It was pointed out that Jesus not only loved Lazarus but Martha and Mary, as well. Jesus' feelings for others are not often mentioned. When it is, I think we should sit up and pay

attention. Before his return to Bethany, Jesus was staying with someone else, likely in a home he had stayed at before. How did he feel about those people? We may never know.

However, the author thought that Jesus' love for the Lazarus family was important enough to mention. He also mentioned that the sister of Lazarus, Mary, was the same woman that anointed his feet with expensive ointment.

If this particular Mary, out of many, was important enough to write about, why was she not present at the crucifixion? The most plausible location for the crucifixion is now considered by some to be on the Mount of Olives on which also was the third altar of the temple 'outside the camp.' There was a large cemetery there and Bethany rested on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. This particular Mary was certainly close enough but is not mentioned as present at the crucifixion. Three Marys were listed. They were Jesus' mother, her sister, and Mary Magdalene.

Historically, Magdalene has been thought of only as the one who was possessed with seven demons or as a prostitute and, by some, as the woman caught in adultery. There were many Marys, it was a common name. There were only a few Marys who were important in Jesus' life. Magdalene is mentioned as one of Jesus' financial supporters from the beginning of his ministry. If she had access to resources, she might also have had access to expensive ointment. It is said that he loved her but the connection is only made by a few.

The whole family believed in Jesus. When Jesus was a short way from their home, possibly on the Mount of Olives, both sisters came to him in the same spirit of belief.

Martha came first, Mary came second. Now, pay attention, this is important. When Martha went back home, Mary was sitting. She did not know that Jesus was almost there. Mary sat among the Jews. They were trying to comfort her. We can imagine their attempts were the usual pronouncements and scripture quotes that simply did not reach the core of grief the sisters felt. Possibly under a ruse, Martha separates Mary from the Jews. She has a secret.

Secrets are not normally a part of the Jesus story. If, as some people believe, the gospels were edited by the church toward political ends, this may be a part the editors overlooked. Check out verse twenty-eight, “and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, the Master is come, and calleth for thee.” Look closely at the wording. The family considered Jesus their Master, as did his twelve disciples. When Jesus said to his twelve, let's go to Bethany, he hailed Lazarus as “our friend.” The link is there for all to see. It was not easy to be a follower or supporter of Jesus with the Jews so eager to bring him down. We have already seen that even the common people when speaking of Jesus, kept a closed mouth around the Jews for fear of the fallout.

So, Martha came to Jesus without being called but Jesus specifically asked to see Mary.

Martha set her sister apart from the Jews and whispered into her ear that Jesus wanted to see her. At the news, Mary became excited. She practically flew out of the house. That caught the eye of the Jews who thought she ran to the grave in her agony. They followed

close on her heels only to find that they had been led to Jesus. Mary pretty much said the same thing as her sister but since Martha's visit, Jesus remained in the same spot, unmoved.

Maybe Jesus wanted to see Mary alone, the Jews put the Kibosh on that. Maybe Jesus had special words for Mary's ear alone but it all played out another way because the Jews were also there. Both sisters wept and mourned bitterly the loss of their brother, even after so many days. That might be expected from women but the Jews also wept for Lazarus, even after so many days. I think that fact hints at the social prominence of the man. Jesus also wept for Lazarus but notice when, notice where, and especially notice why. It was not recorded that Jesus wept for Lazarus before his journey to Bethany. It was not recorded that Jesus wept as he spoke to Martha. It was when he saw Mary weeping that he wept. This may indicate, along with the fact that he had called specifically to see Mary, that there was a greater bond between the two of them than between himself and Martha. Moreover, it was when he saw the Jews weeping for Lazarus that Jesus was moved. He groaned in his spirit, he wept. This may indicate a bond with Lazarus that both Jesus and the Jews shared in common.

Notes about the raising of Lazarus: Mary wept, the Jews wept, Jesus wept. The meeting between Mary and Jesus, which, though initiated in secrecy, failed to be a secret meeting. The Jews were present. I assert that these were the chief priests and Rabbis and other church leaders that the author of this book always identified as “the Jews.” One might be tempted to think, due to cultural standards of that day, that the people trying to comfort the sisters were female Jewish mourners. It was a common practice to have women brought in for that purpose. Neither women nor mourners are specifically mentioned at this event four days after the death of Lazarus. Only the Jews are mentioned.

Word had gone ahead of Jesus' arrival and Martha received it. Martha left immediately upon hearing the news but no one followed her as they did Mary. Perhaps the message to Martha was also secretive. Perhaps the Jews remained with Mary because she remained.

Maybe Mary was beside herself. However, when Mary raced from the house, Martha may have followed after her and since neither of the women were in the house, that was why the Jews followed.

What I find interesting is that, when Jesus asked, where have you laid him? It was not so much Mary who answered. Verse thirty-four informs us that the Jews answered, “They said unto him, Lord, come and see.” If these were chief priests and Rabbis and such, some of whom later went to snitch on him, their use of the title, 'Lord' is significant. If these were the chief priests that later blabbed to the Pharisees, then Jesus was a Rabbi of no mean rank.

At the gravesite, the grave is described as a cave with a rock on top. Wikipedia says this about the area, The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives, including the Silwan

necropolis, is the most ancient and most important Jewish cemetery in Jerusalem. Burial on the Mount of Olives started some 3,000 years ago in the days of the First Temple, and continues to this day. The cemetery contains anywhere between 70,000 and 150,000 tombs from various periods, including the tombs of famous figures in Jewish history.

During the First and Second Temple Periods the Jews of Jerusalem were buried in burial caves scattered on the slopes of the Mount.

The gravesite was near the home of Martha and Mary. What does it mean that the stone was removed from the grave? When Jesus asked to have the stone removed, that would have been a job for men. Neither Martha nor Mary would have done it. Neither would have any female mourners done such a thing. If Jesus did not do it himself, that would leave us with only two choices for the ones who did the work. Did the Jews remove the stone? If Jesus was so highly ranked that chief priests called him Lord, then perhaps they were duty-bound to obey. Yet, there was a legal restriction for the Jews when it came to death. They were not allowed to touch dead people. It may well be that the thinking extended to objects in contact with dead bodies. The covering stone may have been considered such an object. If it was not the Jews, then who?

It is possible that the Lazarus family was prominent enough and influential enough to have servants. It seems more likely that such a job would have fallen to servants. Were they present on the road with Jesus, Mary, and the Jews, or were they called from the Lazarus home after Jesus asked to have the stone removed? A small crowd may be seen to have gathered. There were Jesus and his followers, there were the sisters of Lazarus, there were the Jews, and there were the servants. There may have been twenty to thirty people present at the raising of Lazarus.

Perhaps Jesus stood near the grave. I imagine others would have stepped back and held their collective breath. Before Jesus raised the dead, he prayed loudly. It is important to note that Jesus wanted those standing near to believe that God had actually sent him – that the work, the will, the power came from God. His main audience was not so much the disciples or the believing sisters but the Jews. When they saw a man come out of a grave, still tightly bound in burial cloth, having been dead four days, many of those chief priests and Rabbis gladly believed. Some, however, were not persuaded. Another matter weighed on their hearts – the Roman occupation.

When the meeting was called, in verse forty-seven of chapter eleven, that was the topic.

What to do about this Rabbi who can raise the dead? We should wonder which of the Jews were responsible for the information from the meeting. There was a mole in the ranks of the Jews, a double agent who leaked the information of a closed-door session. It was a purely political meeting, a purely political topic of discussion. There was a balance of power under the occupation which the Jews hoped to maintain while they sought an answer to their dilemma. The mindset of that day longed for the revelation of a messiah who would free their nation from the yoke of Roman occupation. Rather than seeming to be the answer to their problem, Jesus, and perhaps for the very fact of his

miracle-making power, seemed to them the very opposite. Jesus was a force to be reckoned with but to the Romans, force would always be a thing they sought to crush. If the Romans perceived the power of Jesus as a Jewish threat, not only the existence of 'the Jews' was imperiled but the existence of the Jewish nation.

From that day forth, the Pharisees and the chief priests made a pact to destroy Jesus as a means of national preservation. A key player in this pact was Caiaphas, that year's High Priest. As such, he was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. Having just taken the reigns, he may have had a chip on his shoulder, a pet peeve he sought to address, or a self-image of authority he wished to justify.

The prophecy of the High Priest and mention of the lost ten tribes of Israel are seen in verses fifty-one and fifty-two. The author ascribes to the words of Caiaphas an air of prophecy that Caiaphas was unaware of. It was the case of his being used by God, as a tool is used. It was a case of the High Priest's heart being hardened as was Pharoah's heart in the old testament. In this regard, the author added the addendum that it was not only for the nation of gathered Israel but also for those scattered among the gentiles.

This is a theme that comes up from time to time in new testament writings. It is a theme of scattered or lost tribes. As for Caiaphas, what he thought he was saying was more on the lines of, 'Oh, yes, Jesus will die; I will make sure of it.'

Verse forty-five is a telling verse. It is said that the Jews present on that day went there for “Mary.” It is not said they sought to comfort Martha. This may be the author's way of expressing the bond that existed between those particular Jews and Jesus. Was Mary more special to them because she was special to Jesus? We have seen that there were already factions among the Jews.

After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus went into hiding. A particular area is mentioned in verse fifty-four. It was a country near the wilderness and, specifically, a city called Ephraim. He stayed there with his main disciples until the next Passover. The time frame, here, is obvious. Jesus had left Jerusalem after the Feast of Dedication in the winter and moved to the cities near the spot where he was baptized by John. Then he traveled to Bethany and from Bethany to Ephraim, where he stayed put until the next Passover. It was approximately four months between the feast of Dedication in the winter and the Passover feast in March or April.

Where exactly is Ephraim and why does the author specify that it was near the wilderness? Wikipedia says this about the place – Ephraim was located in the wild, uncultivated hill-country thirteen miles to the northeast of Jerusalem, "perched on a conspicuous eminence and with an extensive view" between the central towns and the Jordan valley. It is probably the same place as Ophrah (Joshua 18:23), Ephron (2 Chronicles 13:19) and the modern Palestinian-Christian city of Taybeh.

It was high country. You could see someone coming. For those months the disciples were away from their homes on the sea of Galilee. They were not fishing and were,

perhaps, apart from their families. Nothing is recorded of Jesus' stay in Ephraim. There are no miracles, no sermons, no teaching in synagogues, no connection to any of the Jews, believing or otherwise. There is no mention of the Lazarus family or Mary Magdalene. It is all a big blank. All we know is that the bad guys are waiting for Jesus to show up at the Passover.

Chapter Twelve.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus returned to Bethany. It is important to keep in mind that the author thought it was important to precisely log the day of Jesus return. Our senses should be alerted to a definite timeline, a definite series of events leading up to the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. The events of that sixth day run from verse one to verse eleven. There was a meal in which Lazarus sat at the table with Jesus. Martha served the meal and Mary is not mentioned here. The disciples are present in the house but only Judas Iscariot is mentioned. As the author is believed to be the young John, we may assume the references to Judas' intentions come as much from the actual experience of the event as they do from hindsight. This leads us to the ointment episode.

Mary had been absent while Martha served Jesus and Lazarus the meal. It is as if Mary went somewhere. She returned with a pound of expensive spikenard ointment. She had it saved back. Altogether, Jesus was anointed four times in the four gospels. He was twice anointed on the head and twice anointed on the feet. Ointment and perfume seem to be interchangeable. In all four accounts, it was a woman who anointed Jesus. There is debate about the location and event as some consider there to be two separate anointings. Some think the first occurred up north around Nain and Capernaum with either a leper named Simon or a Pharisee named Simon. The other location is Bethany with either a leper or Pharisee named Simon or Lazarus. The woman is variously named as the sister of Lazarus, a sinful woman, an unnamed woman, and Mary Magdalene (although, the Magdalene ascription is more of an assumption than a written name.)

Wikipedia says this about spikenard: Spikenard, also called nard, nardin, and muskroot, is a class of aromatic amber-colored essential oil derived from Nardostachys jatamansi, a flowering plant of the valerian family which grows in the Himalayas of Nepal, China, and India. The oil has been used for centuries as a perfume, a traditional medicine, or in religious ceremonies across a wide territory from India to Europe.

We all have heard the complaint that it is expensive and could have been sold to help the poor. But, for a moment, I would like for us to consider the most likely people to possess such a rare and costly essential oil. I would like for us to think in broad terms and not dismiss things out of hand. A poor nameless woman and a sinful woman are less likely candidates than a Mary Magdalene or a sister of Lazarus. The fact that so many Jews

were attempting to comfort the Lazarus sisters should be seen as a clue to the prominence of the Lazarus family. Were they a merchant family with connections in the Himalayan spice trade? The gospels purport that Magdalene was a supporter of the Jesus movement from the beginning of his ministry. This should be seen as a clue that Magdalene was a woman of considerable resources.

Finally, and the point I am getting to is that Jesus, himself, is considered, in some schools of thought, to have studied in India, as it is said that his teachings show an influence that points in that direction. Although such thoughts are not supported by scripture, the possibility of the missing years having a connection to that locale suggests the further possibility that Jesus could have brought back spikenard from the area and placed it in someone's care. Deposits of alabaster are found in many countries of the world such as England, Belgium, India, Turkey, Cyprus, United States of America, Italy, and Spain.

Let us consider for a moment that Jesus brought back an alabaster box of spikenard from India and placed it in the care of the Lazarus family, more specifically, in the care of Mary. This could make sense of the response Jesus gave to Judas in verse seven, “Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.” Take special note of the word “kept.” Mary had been hanging onto the ointment for a while. Moreover, she had been keeping it with a particular purpose in mind. We do not find such a purpose mentioned in other gospels. Even though it was said of the other three women that it was for a preparation and that they would be remembered and memorialized each time the story was told, what of the women? They just ran out and either bought or stole an expensive perfume?

On the other hand, the John version gives me a sense of authenticity. Mary had been guarding this ointment with the purpose of bringing it out at a given time. Also, I want to add that the detail of wiping feet with her hair is an extremely personal detail. Cloth fabrics abounded. People wore clothing and there were textiles kept for the very purpose of being used as towels. When Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, he grabbed a towel. And, by the way, washing and anointing the feet was more of a thing than washing and anointing the head.

And what about Judas? Let us consider the fact that Judas was with Jesus and the other disciples in the town of Ephraim for all those many weeks leading up to his return. Did Jesus fail to teach his disciples while he was there with them? I think not. What did he speak of? Was it new material or an elaboration on matters already covered? I think it was the latter. Jesus spoke on topics he had already opened. Those would have been topics such as the capture and death of Jesus. He predicted his death three times in the gospel of Mark. In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus "began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed …" From Matthew 20: seventeen through nineteen: “Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, We are

going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day, he will be raised to life!”Judas was always a part of those conversations.

Lastly, many of the locals, having heard of the return of Jesus, traveled to and gathered around the home of the Lazarus family. They not only wanted to see Jesus but Lazarus, the man who had been raised from the dead. It is clear that the chief priests and Pharisees were aware of his return also. At that time, they did not make an open move.

Rather, they gathered to plot the death of Jesus and even the death of Lazarus, whose resurrection was perceived as a threat.

Five days before the Passover, we find Jesus still on the Mount of Olives and, possibly, departing from the town of Bethany where his friend Lazarus lived. We read that many of the people who had come to the feast and had heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, gathered palm branches. Let's stop here and think things through. Was this a second in-gathering of people? Recall that on the day before, people had gathered. Are we to think, then, that these people went all the way back to Jerusalem to spread the news and then came back? Likely, some did just that. It is also likely that most of the people who came first also stayed put.

How did any of them hear the news? Did servants of the Lazarus household leak the news? Did the disciples leak the news? Was it a deliberate campaign on the part of Jesus? At any rate, five days before the Passover, Jesus steps out of the house to head for Jerusalem. There is a crowd there who have camped out overnight. They have gathered palm branches. Imagine a small crowd of people with each of them brandishing one or more palm branches. There were obviously a lot of palm trees. The importance of the date palm cannot be dismissed and was likely cultivated in the area for dates, wine, baskets, and wood for construction.

There was a handy foal of a donkey for Jesus to ride. Many people knew the significance of that. Daily life was steeped in anticipation of the coming Messiah. There was a lot of talk going around. It is not that one day, out of the blue, the crowds jump up with their palm leaves waving. It had been in the works for a while and this event was the culmination of plans and hopes. People had been thinking about it and talking about it for a long long time.

Verse sixteen brings up the disciples and their ignorance of what was going on. Yet, it was, supposedly, one of the disciples that wrote the gospel. So, was it all hindsight, or could it have been the opinion of certain disciples that certain other disciples just didn't get it? The crowd, accredited as bearing record to the miraculous raising of Lazarus from the dead, are shown to be more in the know than Jesus' own disciples. That is unless you consider that the author included himself among those who were with Jesus for that miracle. We recall those who attended that event. Jesus was there with his disciples, the

Jews were there, the sisters were there, the servants were there. There was no mention of the general public or local residents being in attendance.

The general public waved palm branches and hailed Jesus as the King of Israel. For the people to come to such a consensus, what must have occurred? Was it just the Lazarus miracle? Had an active campaign been launched from the city of Ephraim? How does one, without predication, arrive at the point where he hails another as king? Does that not come from much thought and conversation? One must first hear that Jesus is king, then one must discuss the concept, then one must be in concert with others on the matter.

While all of this was coming to a head in the thoughts of the people, the Jews, on the other hand, had been coming to other conclusions. Now, they felt certain and justified in their thoughts. The whole world seemed to be running after Jesus and nothing they had done was of any effect. They felt threatened. Rome would certainly conclude that they were ineffectual and as a result of Jesus' popularity and the acclaim of the people, the Jews feared they would be put out of their place. They feared that the nation they shepherded would not survive.

Philip and the Greeks: Verse twenty states, “And there were certain Greeks among them.” Who were they 'among' and at what point in the trip to Jerusalem? Were they part of the march from Bethany to Jerusalem or were they present only after Jerusalem had been reached? Were they just Greeks? If they came all the way to Jerusalem from Greece to worship at the Passover – well, they must have been of the same religion and or ethnicity.

I take this from Wikipedia: Philip the Apostle was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus.

Later Christian traditions describe Philip as the apostle who preached in Greece, Syria, and Phrygia. He appears as a link to the Greek community. Philip bore a Greek name, may have spoken Greek, and may have been known to the Greek pilgrims in Jerusalem.

It is here that the timeline breaks down. When we began this twelfth chapter of John, the Passover was a full six days away. When Jesus made his triumphal entry, there were still five full days until the feast. Philip, and then Andrew, with the Greeks in tow, came to Jesus and Jesus began to speak. There is an exchange that includes Jesus, his disciples, the people who came with him from Bethany, the people who stood by, and the people who responded to his words. This may still have been on the 'next day.' It is uncertain, however, since there appear to be four missing days between the triumphal entry and the night of the last supper. One thought is that the last supper was not eaten during the Passover but in the week before it began.

Thunder: It was right after Philip and Andrew brought the Greeks to Jesus that the voice from heaven, which some thought to be thunder, was heard. Here is a question. The fact that Philip went to Andrew rather than directly to Jesus – does that indicate a hierarchy among the apostles? Was Andrew acting as a bodyguard to hold back the crowd? While some people thought what they heard was thunder, and while others thought they heard

the voice but attributed it to an Angel, it is important to recognize that Jesus called it a voice. In verse thirty, Jesus said, “This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.”

Is it at all important at what point in Jesus' monologue that the voice from heaven comes up? The voice, in response to the words, “Father, glorify thy name,” answered, “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” But, what had Jesus been saying just prior to this? Between the time that Andrew came to Jesus with Philip and the Greeks and the time that people standing near thought they heard thunder, Jesus spoke these words in verses twenty-three through twenty-seven, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me. Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.” (NIV) Jesus was telling them that the point of it all was that he must die. He told them why he must die. He told them that he and his servants had to be on the same page. On another level, being where Jesus is includes both his death in the world and his life in heaven.

The belief/unbelief of the people is bodied forth. The believers who had hailed Jesus as King of Israel only believed in a Messiah born of their hope to be free from Rome. They could not believe in a Messiah that did not “abideth for ever.” In their minds, they sort of connected the concept of Christ with the Son of man concept but the added element of being “lifted up” confused them and troubled their faith in Christ. Was he or was he not the one they wanted? On the other hand, it is mentioned that many of the chief rulers who also believed in him as a Messiah drew the line at public confession. They feared losing their place in the synagogue.

It was the author's opinion that the chief rulers, who were not Pharisees per se but feared the Pharisees, loved the advantages of their positions. The Pharisees are shown to have power and authority over the chief rulers. Who were the chief rulers exactly? The Sadducees were just as powerful and influential as the Pharisees. They had little reason to fear the Pharisees. The Essenes were basically outsiders. Out of disgust with the other two powers, the Essenes moved away from Jerusalem to live a monastic and communal lifestyle in the wilderness. That pretty much leaves the lower levels of religious authority, that is to say, the Rabbis and rulers of the synagogues.

From verse forty-four to fifty, Jesus is seen to make a public address. “Jesus cried and said . . . ” What this means is that Jesus spoke loudly so that many people could hear his words. This monologue indicates a public setting so large that Jesus had to raise his voice. Again, this occurrence may have been just after his triumphal entry or it could have been on a following day. There are gaps in the story of Jesus – his so-called

missing years, his month in the city of Ephraim. It is no stretch to believe that the author simply jumped to the following week and the Passover feast. Yet, realizing that the Pharisees sought to protect their leadership in an orderly image before the scrutiny of the Romans, I have no difficulty in seeing their actions take place in the four days just prior to the feast.

Chapter Thirteen.

We jump to chapter thirteen and find these words in verse one: “Now before the feast of the Passover.” This is a definite declaration that the supper meal, being finished in verse two, is in actuality not a part of the Passover celebration. In case you are tempted to think this refers to the end of the Passover week, this is what Wikipedia says about the celebration: In Israel, Passover is the seven-day holiday of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the first and last days celebrated as legal holidays and as holy days involving holiday meals.

There is a feast of the Passover on both the first and last day of the Passover. If verse one refers to the last day of Passover, it is a faulty statement in that it came “before.”

Otherwise, the author might have said that it was before the last day of the celebration. If what the author is referring to comes before the feast of the Passover, it may well come before the first feast of the Passover rather than the final feast of the Passover. This definite possibility is foremost in my thinking when I study the last days of Jesus.

John does not at all go into the last meal. It is simply over. Last meal details are elaborated in the other three gospels. It is as if the author did not think this meal was worthy of mention. What he feels is important enough to jump to is the identification of the betrayer. What follows, through verse thirty, is either a flashback from the meal or else it is that the “sop” followed the supper meal. Could it have been an after-dinner treat? Was it just leftover food? Let us consider the actions as recorded.

In verse four, Jesus “riseth from supper.” Adding this to the statement in verse two, we can say, supper was over and Jesus got up. He undressed in front of his disciples. He was all but naked when he wrapped a towel around his waist. He carried a bowl of water from disciple to disciple. He knelt before each of them. At this point, I wish the reader to understand that Jesus washed the feet of all twelve disciples. That included the feet of Judas Iscariot. As he dressed, he spoke. As he spoke, he returned to his seat. One must consider that the last pair of feet that Jesus washed would either be those of John, who leaned against him, or those of Judas, who was within reach.

The seating arrangement was nothing more than pillows on the floor. There was a low table and the arrangement of both the pillows and the table were either a semicircle or U-shape with an inner-table space for serving. According to local customs in that day and age, the host or honored guest sat at the left end of the U. My thoughts for the

seating are that Peter sat directly across from Jesus, John sat beside Jesus, and Judas sat either beside John or Peter. Let us consider the orchestration of a last meal.

It was on the fifth day before the beginning of the Passover that Jesus made his Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem going from Bethany on the Mount of Olives which was on the eastern side of the city. He entered the Eastern Gate also known as the Gate of Mercy. It was on that day or a following day that Jesus spoke to the multitudes. There were approximately four days left until the first feast during Passover. There are two possible options for the last meal as found in the book of John. One was that he ate the meal in Jerusalem where his enemies sought him and the other is that he went back to Bethany and ate the meal with his disciples at his friend's house.

The basic components of the last meal are a room in which to eat it and an eating arrangement. The latter of those two demands certain details. There must be food, a table to put the food on, and pillows around the table. There must be water and towels. At this point, we want to consider the possibility of Jesus and his disciples eating the last meal in Jerusalem. They would have to rent a room in a city crowded with people who had come from as far away as Greece. The city was literally teaming with all the Jews who were required by law to attend. Then, you must think that some men brought their sons, their wives, and daughters, even servants. Local inns were standing room only. Where some might find a place with friends or relatives, they would be in overcrowded homes that might certainly turn away strangers.

Next, you would have to go out to the vendors and buy food, somehow get it cooked and served. Did the disciples rent a furnished room? Did they have to provide their own cushions? Did they have to hire someone to cook their food? Did they serve themselves or did they acquire servants during the Holy Festival season? Think about things like this. If they had managed to do all that, the enemies of Jesus would have known where he was and found him convenient for an easy arrest.

On the other hand, Jesus was already staying in Bethany with his friend Lazarus. A room was already available. The logistics of getting food cooked and served would have been a simpler matter. Martha would have fussed over them and made sure all was well. The Jews who wanted to know just where Jesus was on the Mount would have been more in need of a guide than in the city. A stroll to the Garden in Gethsemane would have been more conveniently achieved. And of course, it is quite possible that the Passover had yet to commence in its official capacity.

It is possible that Jesus was arrested in the days prior to the Passover and that, contrary to how the gospel narratives seem to speed everything along, there might have been actual days that Jesus had to wait in custody before being presented to Pilot. If the release of Barabbas was an event that had to wait for the official opening of Passover procedures, then two possibilities come to mind. Either Jesus was tried and crucified before the Passover or he had to wait in custody until the Friday before the second Sabbath of the festival.

In verse thirty, Jesus gives a sop to Judas. What is a sop? A sop is a piece of bread dipped in gravy, soup, or sauce. Being from the south, I envision biscuits and gravy. The sop that Judas received came well after the meal had been completed. Here, I think of a scrap of leftover bread and Jesus using it to clean up the sauce that stuck to the inside of the sauce bowl. Narrative does not indicate that Jesus took any for himself but it is possible that Jesus nibbled while he spoke. What was left in his hand was passed to Judas. Did Jesus get up from his seat to pass the bread to Judas? Did he reach around John?

In the other three gospels, the last supper involves the breaking of bread and the distribution of wine. Take, eat, this is my body, etc. In the gospel of John, this is not the case. It is not necessarily true that the bread was dipped in a gravy or a sauce. It is possible that there was a sip of wine remaining in a cup. Perhaps the sop was bread dipped in wine. If that was the case, Judas was the only disciple in the gospel of John to receive the body and the blood of Jesus.

When Judas got up and left, Jesus spoke to the others. In the wording of the author, we find this expressed in a certain fashion. “Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said . . . ” I stress the word 'therefore.' We might view the word 'therefore' as we view the word 'because.' We absorb three facts from the departure of Judas. First is that Judas went immediately out. When John asked, “Lord, who is it?” Judas, who was nearby, within easy reach, in fact, heard John ask the question. He had also heard when Jesus told all of them that one of them would betray him. Now, the disciples may have just sat there with their mouths open or they may have turned to one another in concerned conversation. When Peter beckoned to John, he was visible to all the other disciples.

When Jesus answered who should betray him, he did not whisper in anyone's ear. Each of his disciples heard him speak.

The second fact is that it was night. The author thought it was important to clarify that it was no longer evening but that it was getting late. They had a long supper; Jesus washed everyone's feet. In the process, time had gotten away from them. All of a sudden, it was dark outside. It was spring and the days were getting longer, so this whole last supper event might have started later than usual. If Judas walked from Bethany to Jerusalem then back again, he would have arrived back in the early morning hours. Jerusalem was only a mile and a half away. It was a casual thirty-minute stroll. But when you take into account the twists and turns of well-used pathways and the late hour of the night, it might be more like a two-hour round trip. Still, we must also add the time it takes to gain an audience with the Jews, talk through plans, and gather guards. I'm thinking Judas got back after midnight.

Finally, I get back to the fact of the sop. Was that only a sign through which eleven disciples are to identify one? They seemed to remain confused. Might it not also be a sign to the one? Jesus gave a sop to Judas and Judas got up and immediately left. That sort of seems like a sign for Judas. Jesus also gave Judas a final instruction along with

the sign of the sop. He said, do what you do quickly. I have to ask, why would Jesus say anything? Jesus knew that Judas would be the one. Was Judas in on it? There is an ancient text that suggests such a scenario – that Jesus had it all planned out. Every T was crossed and every I was dotted. We know from Jesus' own admission that his march to the cross was deliberate. So, there it was, late at night and Jesus gives what may be a predetermined signal to Judas and also tells him to do it quickly.

Jesus had a little more to say to the eleven but he had to wait for Judas to begin the final detail of the plan. When Judas walked out into the night, Jesus said, “Now is the son of man glorified.” I stress the word 'now.' Jesus used the particular title 'son of man' rather than 'Son of God' to identify himself with mankind for whom he laid down his life. Yet, his 'glorification' had to wait for the last detail to be set in motion. What does it mean to be glorified? Two synonyms for the word are 'magnify' and 'elevate.' If Jesus identified with mankind, his glorification must also identify with mankind. As he said in John 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth,” that is if I am glorified I, “will draw all men unto me.” The glorification that Jesus describes is a complex issue involving his connection with God, and mankind's subsequent connection to God through Jesus.

It goes like this: Jesus is magnified and God, in Jesus, is also magnified by the magnification of Jesus. If God is thus magnified, he will also magnify the 'Son of Man' within himself and will do so immediately.

Next, Jesus tells the eleven, like he told the Jews, that where he was going, they could not yet follow. We all get the point about the cock crowing and Jesus being denied by Peter but I wish to make another point in closing. Jesus addressed the eleven as “Little children.” It is a popular view that disciples such as Peter were older men. That has been played out in many of the movies made to portray the life of Jesus. Yet, Jesus called them little children. Jesus was supposedly a man in his thirties. Age is an issue we should pay more attention to. Peter was a married man. He had a wife and a mother-inlaw but no children are mentioned that I am aware of. What if Jesus, in his thirties, was the oldest man among them. What if Peter was a married man in his twenties. We often consider the apostle John to be the youngest, possibly in his teens.

Did Jesus hug John as he used the expression 'Little children?' Was that a popular or common expression? Jesus used the expression to address his disciples only once. Paul used the expression “My little children” only once. John, on the other hand, the youngest disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, who leaned on Jesus' breast, used the expression a total of nine times.

Chapter Fourteen.

Chapter fourteen is a very important chapter for me. In Jesus' own words, we are

allowed to see truths that reach out to the human nature. Here, I address verses one through six. The things that I am about to write are things I derive from the words spoken by the Son of God. It is important for the reader to bear in mind that Jesus, as the Son of God, addressed himself as the son of man. He did so because he identified with mankind's condition and also because he wanted mankind to identify with his condition as the Son of God. In verse one we find two identifications and a call for an identical faith in both. The first identification is God. God is a spirit. God has no body, yet, as a spirit, God indwells a body. Jesus is the second identification but by extension, all of mankind must be identified with Jesus. I say this because Jesus is a man with the spirit of God indwelling.

It is the case also with all men and women. The spirit of God indwells. Jesus did not come into the world as a solitary and unique case of God in man but, rather, as an example of God in all men.

My evolving main discovery from all of my studies is that the spirit and the mind are one and the same. To say that God is spirit is to say that God is mind. In the case of each and every man and woman who has ever lived, God has taken a portion of himself and placed it within the respective body. Every man's and every woman's mind is in actuality a small portion of God, a mental connection to the one and only mind. When God, in the Biblical creation story breathed life into the original man, it is not written that God fanned around the air that existed. What is written is that God placed his breath, a portion of himself, inside the physical body of man. Since God is spirit, his breath is spirit. Man is a hybrid creation. For man to be alive, he not only requires the vehicle of a body but the spirit that drives it. When God combined a portion of his very being with the body of Adam – Adam was then, and only then, called a living soul.

In most academic circles, the concepts of spirit and life are swapped back and forth with equal certainty. It can be equally said, for example, that God breathed life into Adam and, also, that God breathed spirit into Adam. It is often called the breath of life but it is accepted to mean the spirit of God. That is how Jesus can assert such a thing as “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” in verse six. Jesus is an example to all of us – an example of what we can be when we accept that God lives within each of us.

After the two initial identifications in verse one, there was a call to accept the truth, a call to believe, a call for faith. Jesus said, “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” That is like saying, you believe in the spirit, believe also in the spirit-filled man. It was never that Jesus presented himself as out of reach for the human nature, as too high up or far removed, as inaccessible but, rather, Jesus presented himself as the very human nature itself – in its unabridged manifestation. The spirit of God resides in all men and that is the truth. That is how Jesus can claim to be the “truth.” It is my opinion that the human brain is a God-engine. We can either accept that or deny that. If we let God take the wheel, he can be like a Mario Andretti in a Lamborghini. With the requisite faith, that is,

acceptance of the truth, we can each be like Jesus. Otherwise, we can tool around on our own, running afoul of the odd obstacle and deceptive detour.

Verse two may be, in a nutshell, all that I am trying to express in these notes. To say, “In my father's house are many mansions,” is like saying, within the parameters of the spirit, there are many smaller divisions. Now, you can call them mansions or houses or temples or minds. Each division is a place that is set apart from all other divisions and, yet, each separate division is filled with the same spirit. Since Jesus was speaking, in this general area, about his sacrifice on the cross, since the betrayal had been set up and his arrest and crucifixion were now assured, it is reasonable to assume that his words reflected those facts. When he told his disciples that he was going to “go” as a preparation for their incorporation, that word might better be seen in the sense of finalizing the present work rather than in the sense of traveling somewhere, after the present work, to perform another work. In other words, 'I go to the cross to make it possible that you can be like me.'

These are not mere stabs in the dark by an overactive imagination. My thoughts, here, seem to receive further validation from what Jesus says in verse three. He said, “I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” If Jesus used the word 'go' to reference his death on the cross, to what did he refer when he said 'come again?' Did he only mean the resurrection which, after about forty days he was gone again? Did he mean the end of days after the disciples had been dead for centuries? It may be seen in further study that 'come again' has a strong link to verse seventeen.

Jesus said that the purpose of him coming again rested in the fact of him and his disciples being 'on the same page.' In other words where I am, there you may also be. I want to point out, here, that Jesus did not say, I will come again . . . that where I 'will be' but, rather, where I 'am.' Even after the fact, it was still present tense. Jesus said to them, I will receive you unto myself. This was in regard to the fore-mentioned preparations in the spirit. This speaks of incorporation into a larger identity. What is the identity of Jesus? He called himself both man and son of man because he, as the Son of God, identified with the whole nature of man. Might it not be, then, that the two expressions – son of man and Son of God – are two smaller ways to say the same big thing?

In verses six through nine, Jesus responded to the doubts expressed by two of his disciples. The first doubter was doubting Thomas who said in verse five, 'we don't know where you're going so how can we know the way?' The second doubter was doubting Philip who said in verse eight, 'Show us the Father and it will suffice us.' Jesus had just told all of them, after the departure of Judas Iscariot, 'you know where I'm going and you know the way.' In his response to Thomas, in verse six, Jesus said, 'I am the way. No man comes to the Father, but by me.' That is like saying, the only way that man can attain God is by being me. In response to Philip saying show us God, Jesus said in verse

nine, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

What a statement! This is how I read the words of Jesus in his response to both Thomas and Philip. 'I am the way. The only way for man to reach the Spirit is through the spiritfilled man. When you look at me, a spirit-filled man, you see the Spirit. How can you possibly miss that?' What Jesus said in this chapter is amazing – but only if you stop and think it through. God has never been out of reach. Every believer's march toward God begins with that bit of God that God placed inside of him.

Jesus continued his response in verses ten through twelve. He asked, 'Why is it so hard for you to believe that I am in the Spirit and the Spirit is in me?' He said, 'The words that I speak don't originate in me. They come from the Spirit. The works are those of the Spirit. Either believe me that I am in the Spirit and the Spirit is in me, and if you can't do that, at least believe me for the sake of the works that only the Spirit can do.' When he said that last little bit, to what did he refer? Jesus referred to the works that God did through Jesus. They were works that every one of them had seen with their own eyes.

Jesus walked on water, he raised the dead, he healed the incurable, he turned water into wine, he drove evil spirits out of people, caused the blind to see and the deaf to hear and the lame to walk again. He glowed on a mountain top while he spoke to Moses and Elijah. None of those works were possible for a man apart from the power of the Spirit within.

Jesus said in verse twelve, 'I tell the truth when I say that if you will believe in the spiritfilled man, you will do similar Spirit-powered works. Your works will continue forward because I go to the Spirit.' Now, I want the reader to pay special attention to what Jesus said in verses thirteen and fourteen. What did he really say?

The words are these: “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son (that the Spirit may be glorified in the man). If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The truth behind the words is this – when we pray in Jesus' name, we are praying to God. We are Praying in Jesus' stead with an honest expectation that God will answer the prayer. Jesus is actually speaking of a spiritual hierarchy. While Jesus moves up to attain the Spirit, the believer steps forward to fill the shoes of the son of God – the son of the Spirit, the Spirit-filled man. Jesus had just told them that he was going to the Father in verse twelve. So, here is where adding one to one equals two: Jesus went to God, in other words, he attained the Spirit. Because of that, when we pray in Jesus' name, it is Jesus who will answer the prayer. Why do I say this? I say it because Jesus is the heir to the throne (the power) of God (the Spirit).

When Jesus took his place as the rightful heir, that is equal to a spirit-filled man obtaining God-hood. Jesus the spirit-filled man became Jesus the Spirit.

What is verse fifteen? Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” When we love Jesus, are we asked to love the spirit-filled Jesus or Jesus the Spirit? Are we asked

to keep the commandments of the spirit-filled body who was lost to us or are we asked to keep the commandments of the Spirit which is eternal?

Jesus was born of the Eternal Spirit, Matthew 1:18 and 20, Luke 1:35, Luke 3:22, and Luke 4:1. Jesus returned to the Eternal Spirit, John 3:5 and 6, John 13:1 and 3, John 14:12 and 28, and John 16:16, 7 and 28. Listen to what the Eternal Spirit says about love and commandment-keeping (“If you love me, keep my commandments.”) in Exodus 20:1-6, “And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me ... I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

Verses sixteen through eighteen deserve our closest scrutiny. He had told his disciples that he would leave them. Now, he was telling them that he would not leave them without a comforter. We understand that he is speaking of the Holy Spirit. To go beyond the common understanding of things, one must keep all the facts in mind. One must put all the cards on the table. Jesus told his disciples that he would ask God, who is Spirit, and God would, after the departure of Jesus, send them another comforter. Please sit up and take notice of the word 'another.' What was Jesus telling them?

He was telling them that he, Jesus, up until that time, had been their comforter. He had given them his words, which he got from his Father, and by doing so had elevated the minds of his disciples, who were ordinary men striving and desiring to reach truth. His words took root in their minds, like a tiny mustard seed, and grew. They came closer to the truth with every new revelation and in so reaching those heights, they found comfort.

Now, they were being told that the comforts of Jesus would end – but all was not lost.

They would soon get 'another comforter.'

Who would this new comforter be? What comforts might he bring them? The first fact they learned about the comforter to come was that he would abide with them forever.

None of us have a clear or complete concept of 'forever,' it is simply beyond us, but we can be certain that for the disciples, at least, the abiding would last to the end of their mortal lives. As mortals, we have mortal thoughts. The limit of mortal thought is found in death. Beyond our mortality, the concept of forever must be thought through with a higher spirit. Is forever like a really long line? Is it like a loop? Is it something on a par with Yin and Yang? Does forever cycle through mortal life as in the concept of reincarnation?

Jesus did not leave them in the dark about the new comforter. He named him. He described him in terms of applicability – that is to say, the comforter would be someone they could receive as opposed to the world (the worldly mindset) who could not receive him. He named him 'the Spirit of truth' in verse seventeen. One point I have labored to get across in my writing is that spirit and mind are two different words for the same

quality. The mind is the spirit and the spirit is the mind. In regard to that point, here are two known facts.

One of the names attributed to Jesus is the 'Truth.' Jesus had just told them in verse six, I am the way the Truth and the life. By extension and in regard to the point made above, to say 'the spirit of truth' is like saying 'the spirit of Jesus.' It is also like saying 'the mind of Jesus.' What did Jesus say to his disciples? Did he tell them that the new comforter would be the mind of Jesus? Let us look closely at the assurances of Jesus.

The world, or the worldly way of thinking, could not receive the mind of Jesus but the disciples could. Jesus told them that the mind of Jesus could be found in his disciples but not in anyone of the worldly mindset. In fact, his own words to them, in verse seventeen, were that the mind of Jesus “shall be in you.” Note the word 'in.' In regard to the identity of the comforter, look closely at the words that Jesus spoke – and as we know, he got his words from the Father. In the same breath that Jesus told his disciples “and shall be in you,” (future tense) he said to them “he dwelleth with you” (present tense.) This is important to anyone who earnestly seeks the truth. It is also a comfort. Keep in mind that concepts such as 'abide' and 'dwell' are concepts of physical point location. It is where in space and time that you exist; it is where you are; it is where you stay; it is where you can be found; it is where you remain.

Up to the place and time that Jesus left to be with the Father, he dwelled with his disciples as their comforter. He assured them, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” Jesus, the spirit-filled man, would leave them but Jesus, the Spirit, would come back to them with more of the same stuff that had comforted them all along.

Jesus will get back to the comforter in verse twenty-six but, first, in verses nineteen through twenty-five, he brings the attention of his disciples back to the present physical reality. Yet a little while and the world, as a whole, will be deprived of the son of God. However, such is not the case for the believer. He told them, you see me. That was a present-tense state that transcended into the future state. Life saw life in the sense of it takes one to know one. His assurance to them and to us is that all of us who have such a connection to life, in that we see it and know it in an intimate way, possess that same life within ourselves. When we see Jesus in ourselves, Jesus is, indeed, within us – living and sharing with us all that he is, that is to say, the way the truth and the life.

The day will come when all doubt shall flee and they shall know with certainty that all he told them was true. To make it clear, the mind that harbors the commandments of Christ, which come from the Father, is the mind that loves and connects with God through Christ. In that case, after Jesus is physically taken from the world, both Christ and God will connect to that mind in return. They will come to that mind and make their abode there. Remember what was said about abiding just above? It is where in space and time that you exist; it is where you are; it is where you stay; it is where you can be found; it is where you remain.

How can they and we receive such and yet the same is hidden from the world? It is the mental connection. That is to say, our spirit connects with his spirit and thus we are one.

The worldly mind does not make that connection. The worldly mind rejects the sayings of Jesus thus cutting themselves off from the truth. It is a conscious and deliberate choice. By limiting themselves in such a way from the truth, they also limit themselves from life. The salvation that is offered by God is to whosoever will. Note the word 'will.'

Jesus is telling all of this in advance. He is preparing the mind that will make the connection. All of us who receive the truth, who love Christ and keep his sayings, who reach out to receive the salvation that God the Father offered through the death of his son Jesus Christ – we also come to our place by way of a conscious and deliberate choice.

So, back to the comforter in verse twenty-six. Jesus identified the new comforter as the “Holy Ghost.” Note the word ghost. If you recall, when Jesus walked on the water, all of his disciples feared, thinking that they saw a ghost or spirit. They may have been just as superstitious as we are today. Apparitions they could not immediately identify as normal or commonplace, they sweepingly included under the stock header of a spirit or a ghost.

Was Jesus at all indicating himself by the word ghost? Let's think a moment about that. I have already put forward that the Holy 'Spirit' is the Holy 'Mind' and that the Holy Spirit of Truth (Jesus being the Truth) is the Holy Mind of Jesus. Yet, in his own words, in verse twenty-six, Jesus further identifies the Holy Ghost by saying, “whom the Father will send in my name.” That is like saying 'in my place' or 'in my stead' or 'to represent all that I am.'

One might say that the entire verse is pretty Jesus-specific. What will the Holy Ghost do once he (refer back to the word whom) is sent by God (refer back to the word Father?)

This is what the son of the Father says that the Holy Ghost will do – first, the Holy Ghost will teach them all things. Note the word all. He will not stop at some things but will teach all things. This, I think, is an answer to those who complain that the Bible was written by 'fallible man.' Second is even more Jesus-specific. The Holy Ghost will bring everything that Jesus ever said to them back to their memories. Some people actually think that the writers of the Bible were making things up. I think that, even in their farflung years, even in moments of dire distress, it was the Holy Ghost who caused them to remember and write the truth.

What would you be like if the Holy Ghost was with you (“dwelleth with you, and shall be in you?”) Note the word in. If the Holy Ghost, Spirit, Mind of Jesus is with you wherever you go and, in fact, can be found inside you in the space where a spirit or mind fits, then, we may justifiably say, and without any doubt, that we possess the mind of Christ. Christ leads us, Christ comforts us by teaching us all things and by bringing into our thoughts all the truth that he is – all that he ever said or has yet to say. In a world devoid of peace, those who possess the mind of Christ also possess peace of mind.

Verses twenty-seven through thirty-one are a fitting conclusion to this chapter. In the wake of Jesus' sudden absence, Jesus told them, one thing would be left. That one thing would be the peace of Jesus. It is important to note that even Jesus felt it was necessary to set that peace off as separate from and opposite to the peace of the world. You might say that the peace of Jesus and the peace of the world are worlds apart. One major difference between the peace of Jesus and the peace of the world is that the peace of Jesus is a peace that is 'given.' That is never the case with the peace of the world. The world might try to sell you peace but it will not just hand you something for free. For anything you get from the world, you must give twice the price for half the value. To obtain peace from the world, one must surrender a substantial portion of what makes that person naturally noble and justifiable.

Don't worry, Jesus told them. There are no strings, no catch. What Jesus gives makes us more not less. Jesus reminded them, then, that the gain they would experience was akin to the gain that he, Jesus, would obtain. Jesus was going back to the Father – that made Jesus more. Likewise, those who love and are loved by Jesus will receive into themselves something greater than themselves. The Father, whom Jesus was set to receive, was greater than Jesus. The spirit of Jesus, whom the disciples were set to receive, was greater than who they presently were. That goes for all believers. We are drawn up with him. Recall John 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”

Jesus told them that if they loved him, they would not weep and bemoan his departure from this world. Instead, they would see that he was going to something better than this world. His present state would be elevated and if they recognized that fact, that fact alone should be cause for them to rejoice. It is the case with most deaths and funerals in our experience that those left behind grieve the loss of those they love. The crying cannot be for those who are no longer a part of this reality. Rather, when we cry, we grieve our own diminished state. There is a hole in us, an emptiness, and for that, we cry.

We cry because in this world there is no peace, no consolation, no comfort.

Jesus told them to their faces, he made it as plain as he possibly could that he wanted them to remember his words – they were an advance warning. He prophesied that the spirit of the Father was turning away for a time. Not only would Jesus be forsaken but the disciples as well. That left only the mindset of the world. Because of that, Jesus would communicate less with them for a while. The mind of the world has no place in a spirit-filled man. The spirit of the world would gain dominance just as the pendulum swings back from whence it came. This would be needful so that the world might know the truth that God loved Jesus and the commandment given him by the Father was, because of the same love, implicitly obeyed. Why? Why so that 'the world' would know and not just the believers? It is for the very fact that the pendulum will swing back once more.

Chapter Fifteen.

I can imagine Jesus continuing to speak as the disciples prepare to leave – even as they leave and walk to their destination. Chapter fifteen, while twenty-seven verses long, seems short because it is one solid message. At the end of the message, Jesus will return again to the comforter. He will say what he has already said but he will frame it in new words. We will compare these new words to the words already spoken. The comparison will reveal to us a deeper insight into the truth.

Jesus compares himself to the vine upon which the fruit depends. He compares God the Father to a husbandman. The definition of a husbandman is, simply put, a farmer. It is a person who cultivates the land, plants the seed, and prunes the planting to produce more fruit. We should also understand that such a person raises fruits and/or vegetables for himself. He puts the harvest in his barn for his own purposes. As for the act of pruning, if there is an unfruitful branch on the vine, he cuts it away. Those branches that are fruitful are also cut – not away as the fruitless branch is but in a way that produces yet more of what the farmer wants.

There are further comparisons and comments about both the fruitful and unfruitful branch. One very telling point is that the branch has to be a part of the vine. It cannot bear fruit apart from the vine. Jesus specifically alludes to the disciples as “clean” branches, meaning that they are the acceptable branches that will be pruned to bring forth much fruit. They are clean and acceptable because they have received the words of Jesus which, of course, come from God the Father. This also speaks of the branches that are cut away. They are not viewed as clean. They are not acceptable. The farmer, who knows his craft, can look at the branch and assess the fact that it is in no shape to bring forth fruit – it is dead. In that it is dead, we know that the life is not in it. When we connect the dots, we understand that the life equates to the word which is spoken by Jesus.

This is an either-or scenario. The fruitful branches must, first, be a part of the vine and, second, remain a part of the vine. The power to produce fruit is not an aspect of the branch. It is an aspect of the vine. The branch cannot do anything apart from the vine. To be separate from the vine is a sorry state, indeed. To be separate from the vine is a dried and withered state. There is no function, no purpose. These are the things gathered to be burned. After all, they are good for nothing else. Also, being apart from the vine, they have no immunity from being gathered for the fire.

The branch that remains on the vine may freely partake of all the vine has to offer. The branch may ask what it will. The vine will provide. In the asking and the receiving, there is produced an abundance of what the husbandman wants. Jesus tells his disciples, his branches, that the Father is glorified. We may see this in the best vineyards of the world.

When an exceptional crop is produced, the growers display them proudly. People commend them. We say that they are really good at what they do, that they are the authority in their field. They are glorified.

Love is the key. The husbandman takes pride in his work. His care for the vine is intimate. That care, that love is carried through the vine to the branches. Jesus has assured his disciples not only of his love for them but, also, of God's love for them.

There are few things as beautiful as a perfect cluster of grapes glistening in the light, full of the substance of the vine. They are savored for their sweetness. Not as grapes but as disciples, that sweetness is the fullness of joy. Not only the husbandman but the fruit itself may savor the sweetness. Love is key, as I have said. It is seen in the husbandman's care for the vine. It is reflected in the vine's supply to the branch. It is easily spotted in the fruit, itself. Between each glistening fruit, the same sweetness is expected. That is the underlying command. That is the process. It must proceed in that manner. It is the command of God and the command of the son that there be love between the branches.

We are commanded to love as Jesus loved and as God the Father loved.

No less is expected from the branch than the vine has already given. The sweetness of the vine has been given to the branch. There is no greater love, or life, than the giving of it. Jesus gave both. He laid down his life and passed it to the fruit-bearing branches. He gave life and love. That life, in his followers, is his word. We must keep it. We must not lose it. In verse thirteen, we must see not only what Jesus says but, also, what he does not say. He said there is no greater love in a man than the laying down of his life for his friends. He did not say that such a great love included anyone other than his friends. To throw one's life away is not great love but foolishness. There are situations in which the giving of one's life is not the same as passing it on. If the life given is not accepted, it lives on in no one and is lost.

After saying “that a man lay down his life for his friends,” Jesus defined both friendship and 'laying down' or, the passing on of one's life. They were Jesus' friends if they received the command from him which he received from the Father. It may be seen that the receiving of the command is the receiving of the word – and the word is the life. By this, the laying down of Jesus' life was not merely his death on the cross but, also, the process which came before the death as well. His death without the preparations in our spirit coming first would only have been the waste of a life. You may throw a ball but without a glove to catch it or a bat to redirect it, the ball just rolls away.

Verse fifteen. Jesus gave his disciples an upgrade from servants to friends. The servant does not know why he does what he does; he only knows that he is required to serve.

The friend knows why and that takes the whole matter into the arena of choice and cooperation with goals that are held in common. He makes it clear to his friends that the work is not theirs. They did not choose Jesus. It was all prearranged. Jesus chose them.

Moreover, he ordained them in his work. They were then members of his team – to go out and get lasting results. Therefore, because they were doing the things that please

God, they were allowed to ask anything of God in the name of Jesus (that is, as ambassadors) in full confidence of getting what they asked for.

Jesus interjected a claim. One might normally think that to love one another is a single command but Jesus clearly said, “These things I command you.” 'Things' is the plural form of the word and that changes it up. To love one another now becomes the end result of the things that Jesus is commanding them to do.

Jesus, in verse eighteen, connects the dots. He tells them a world that hates the son of God will also hate the friends of the son. They are forewarned and forearmed. He frames that statement in an unmistakable context. They are no longer of the world. The world loves its own. The world will hate them because they are not the world's own. They are set apart from the world and the worldly way of thinking. What the world cannot own it subdues, it destroys. The world has persecuted Jesus. They can expect the same.

On the flip side of that, Jesus points out that anyone in the world who has a propensity to hear and keep the word of God and Jesus will also hear and keep the word of duly ordained ambassadors. Let us take a moment to understand the terms in use. What is ordained and what is an ambassador? To ordain is to make someone a minister, it is to confer on that person holy orders. It is to invest, anoint, and consecrate that person to the work with the full authority of the one who ordains. It is to pass the torch. It is to deputize. An ambassador, for all intents and purposes, is the fully accredited representative of a major player superpower.

Jesus forewarned his friends of persecutions to come. He does not hide the reason behind the persecutions. The world will persecute everyone who is named by the name of Christ because the world does not have a connection to the one true living God. Jesus further claims that had he not exposed them with his words for what they were, their sin would have remained hidden. Because Jesus came and said the things he said, the world no longer may hide, excuse, or justify the thoughts and actions that are separated from God. Jesus makes it plain, whoever hates him also hates God. Jesus explained that unless he had done the works among the worldly that no other man stepped up to do, the world could have gone on pretending to be all that is right. It was like a trap they fell into that exposed them for what they truly were. They may be seen to hate both Jesus and God. Moreover, it was the fulfillment of their own law, the books they used to justify their stand. It said they would hate him without a cause.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses, a matter is established. That was also of their law. So Jesus returns to the topic of the comforter. Point one, it is Jesus that sends the comforter to them. Point two, the comforter is the Holy Spirit of Truth, the spirit of Jesus, which issues from God. Point three, both the Spirit and discipleship will be the two witnesses that will establish the truth of Jesus.

Chapter Sixteen.

Jesus told his disciples, and us, these things for a reason. It was so they would not be offended. It is so we will not be offended. As I write out the notes of my studies, we live in an age where almost everyone is offended. It seems like many view this minor affectation as the truth these days. It is not. Instead of dealing sternly with this emotional weakness, many bow the knee to it. Jesus did more with his words than merely forewarn his disciples and those of us who live in these troubling times. He forearmed his disciples. He forearmed his adherents also in this day and age.

Let us stop here and consider the nature of being offended. I will start with a simple illustration. A man goes to the gym for the first time. On the first day, he exercises vigorously. That night his body aches terribly. He is offended. The action that results from his distressed frame of mind is that he goes no more to the gym. He ceases all exercise because he equates exercise with pain. Let me, then, transfer those elements into a situation of new faith. The man will reach a point that tests his resolve. It will not be easy. There will be distress. What will he choose to do? Will he bow the knee to a minor affectation? No, he will not. He has been forearmed. He has that with which to address the difficulties of the moment. He may overcome the obstacle and remain true to the chosen course. Look around at all the people of this world. Think about all the individuals who never rise above the present situation because they allow themselves to be ruled by their discomfort and distress.

Look at all the offended people of the world. They are people who hold back the advancement of humanity's spirituality. How will we ever grow as one when all the individual mind ever sees is its own distress? The tragedy of the matter is this – people ascribe offense as the actions that others perpetrate against them rather than honestly admitting that the offense is just an emotional response in their personal thinking. In other words, it's all in their heads. Consider the frame of mind upheld in a certain other religion. The orientation is toward 'honor'. While that so-called honor is never adequately defined, much less deserved through such righteous deeds as inclusive forgiveness, it is, nevertheless insisted upon and enforced through acts of physical revenge. That seems to me to be a spirit from which the best parts have been amputated.

All of this stems from the first verse of chapter sixteen in John. In verse two, Jesus explains. His disciples were Jewish. Being allowed into the synagogues was a core element in their Jewish constitution. By that, I mean that it was a highly coveted privilege of the 'chosen people' frame of mind. To be put out of the synagogues would have been tantamount to being stripped of their status as the chosen people of God. What an offense! Right? Well, what about the Christians of our day? What would it mean to us not to be allowed to worship or fellowship? Christians around the world are being deprived of just that. They are tortured and killed for their faith. Those who persecute and martyr the Christians are those who oppose the Christian faith.

Jesus told his disciples a thing I have always found curious. “The time will come when those who kill you will think they are doing God a service.” Obviously, then, the persecutors are godly men. It is not the Atheists or Agnostics who persecute Christians in our modern era. By and large, that distinction goes to the Muslims – men who claim to be godly, who claim their actions are a matter of faith. Let's see – faithful people persecuting faithful people – no. I just don't get it. No doubt, the men of the Sanhedrin, men of intense faith in God, thought the persecution of Jesus was a service to God. Nothing destroys the rightness of faith more than 'offense.'

The communist Chinese persecute Christians, among other faiths. The Chinese are not wholly nonreligious. They have faith but their Government feels the need to control or sanction what the people believe and practice. Wikipedia tells us This. The ruling Communist Party of China officially espouses state atheism and has conducted antireligious campaigns to this end. China's five officially sanctioned religious organizations are the Buddhist Association of China, the Chinese Taoist Association, the Islamic Association of China, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. These groups have been overseen and controlled by the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China since the State Administration for Religious Affairs' absorption into the United Front Work Department in 2018.

Unregistered religious groups—including house churches, Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists, underground Catholics, and Uyghur Muslims—face varying degrees of harassment, including imprisonment, torture, and forced religious conversion to atheism.

Seems like Atheism, in China, is an actual religion.

That is a good example of how governments, collectively, project their offenses (feelings of discomfort and distress, emotional affectations) into fears which, in turn, are projected into actions of repression. Look at the so-called faithful Baptist church that harasses the gay people in American society. I get that they are offended but there are better ways to deal with their personal feelings. Offenses account for much of the turmoil in everyday life. Antisemitism is a matter of someone's personal offense not properly dealt with.

Islamophobia is a matter of someone's personal offense not properly dealt with. Racism is a matter of someone's personal offense not properly dealt with.

How may a person deal properly with their personal offense? It is essential that a person recognize a basic truth. Their feelings are not caused by other people. Their feelings are their own. They may accept them or reject them. The responsibility for their reactions or feelings may never be projected onto others as if they are the cause. They are not. An individual's mindset is the sole cause of that individual's feelings. That individual who is offended is solely responsible for how he or she deals with their personal feelings. When the offense reaches beyond the realm of feelings into the arena of responses, what has always been true still holds true. That is, simply put – there are a right way and a wrong way to go about things. If a person chooses the right way, it is that person's personal choice. If a person chooses the wrong way, it is that person's personal choice.

Verse three deals with people making the wrong choice. What is the true nature of persecuting another because of your own offense? When it comes to the persecution of faithful people because their faith seems offensive, Jesus said this. “And these things will they do unto you because they have not known the Father, nor me.” The Hebrews that persecuted Jesus did not have a valid connection to God. The Hebrews who persecuted disciples and Christian converts did not have a valid connection to God. The modern Christian who persecutes a person of another faith, non-faith, or differing sexual orientation does not have a valid connection to God. A Muslim who persecutes another person of faith does not have a valid connection to God. What is the faith of a Christian?

It is a faith of love and forgiveness. Righteousness must be practiced within those boundaries. Anyone who has a faith, not of love or forgiveness, will be seen to practice a faith in revenge, hatred, fear, and repression.

In verse four, Jesus stated that he had fulfilled his obligation. He had forewarned and forearmed. When the things he mentioned begin to happen, we may recall that Jesus told us so. In that regard, will we be unseeing until the events are irrevocably upon us or will we prepare our minds in advance? How will we order our lives knowing what is to come? What attitudes will we adopt knowing the types of people who work against us?

One thing is certain. We cannot say that we were not tipped off.

On a more personal note, Jesus reminds his disciples that it is his time to move on. He accuses all of them of falling short of the moment. They had stopped being seekers.

They failed to keep in step with the conversation. Why? It was because Jesus reminded them of his imminent death. Instead of moving forward, they stopped and sorrowed. In other words, they were offended. Why didn't they ask, at the very least, 'where are you going?' Jesus brushed aside their failure for he still had something to tell them.

While they were sad about his death (which was a matter of their personal sense of loss), the truth of the matter was that his death would work in their favor. The next phase of God's will and work could not begin until the present phase had come to an end. Jesus must die for the Comforter to come. It was a big and necessary change order-ofbusiness-wise. The Holy Spirit of Truth would do a great work. For the Comforter to continue the work of Jesus, Jesus had to be out of the way. Still, we must assume, that was no early retirement or vacation for Jesus. Jesus had to assume the reigns. There were preparations to make – preparations for his return.

What Jesus says about the Comforter are some of my favorite verses in the Bible. The work and purpose of the Comforter are explained in verses eight through fourteen of chapter sixteen in the book of John. The Comforter is shown to have one major work that is divided into three parts. He will reprove the world. Let us, here, recall the meaning of the word. According to the dictionary, reprove has this definition: to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent, also to express disapproval of: to censure.

More archaic applications, which would fall closer to the meaning from a biblical point

of view, would be to disprove, refute, convince, and convict. As an intransitive verb, it would be to express rebuke or reproof.

The Holy Spirit of Truth is tasked with correcting the world, by which I put forth the word 'world' to mean the worldly mindset. In this regard, the worldly must be clearly shown three basic truths. These truths are 'sin' 'righteousness' and 'judgment.' I would like to be diligent and give due time and consideration to each of these important topics.

Sin. When the Holy Spirit of Truth addresses the worldly mindset about sin, it will boil down to an issue of personal choice. Every individual in the world shall receive information about Jesus. Some will believe and some will not believe. The sin that some will be reproved about is the sin of deliberately choosing, for whatever reason, not to believe in Jesus. For those who do believe, what are they believing, exactly? To believe in Jesus is to believe in God. To believe in the Son is to believe in the Father. To believe in man is to believe in the spirit placed in him. To believe in the messenger is to believe in the message. Jesus is the word sent by God. Jesus is the example to the common man of the existence of the Spirit of God within mankind. A man simply cannot buy into himself apart from the greater spirit that enlivens, enables, and animates him. That greater spirit is a package deal – to accept the benefits of the package one must also accept the responsibilities of the package.

Righteousness. Jesus was a man in possession of the full package. When we think of the Holy Spirit of Truth reproving our simple worldly take on the matter, we must know that at some point, we will be reminded of Jesus. We will be reminded that Jesus was filled with the mind of God. That does not necessarily mean that we are not. It means that Jesus accepted the full package. He did not pick the parts he liked and reject the parts he did not like. Each of us has as much in us of the spirit but, sadly, most of us only accept the part that is about us – the independent individual. The full package includes so much more. To put it simply, the full package not only includes the part about us, it includes the part about others, as well. It includes our responsibility to love others, to forgive them, to work with them, include them, help them, and demonstrably care about them – all of them. The full package includes the parts that God really likes. The full package includes God. So, when we are reminded of Jesus, a man with a Godly mindset, we are shown someone who did not camp around the bottom of the ladder. We are shown a man who actually reached the top. You can't reach the top without trying. You will not try unless you have the mind to.

Judgment. When the Holy Spirit of Truth reproves our half-package minds about judgment, it is not the judgment of you or me. It is actually the judgment of the prince of this world. We must begin our understanding of this with the definitions of two concepts – judgment and the prince of this world. It falls to the willing to know as much as possible about the topics we are making our minds up about. We may not assume that

we know just because. I turn to the dictionary for the word “judged.” I turn to Wikipedia for information about the prince of this world. Let us have the facts on our side.

Judged. Surprisingly, the definition of the word 'judged' has more to do with one's mindset than it does with actions or emotions. Simply stated, judged means that you have formed an opinion or conclusion. You have decided. Some related words are appraised, assessed, gauged, rated, examined, eyed, scrutinized, inspected, investigated, reviewed, surveyed. Let us go with one word in particular – the word examined. Let us say the prince of this world has been examined. That entails that we no longer take things at face value, we no longer blindly take the word of others. We stop and take it upon ourselves to investigate the matter. Each of us must personally take the necessary steps to rightly discern and each of us must accept personal responsibility for our own final determination of the available facts. In short, it is our job to know. The Holy Spirit of Truth will compel us.

The prince of this world. Who or what is being referred to? Wikipedia tells us that A prince is a male ruler (ranked below a king, grand prince, and grand duke) or member of a monarch's or former monarch's family. Prince is also a title of nobility (often highest), often hereditary, in some European states. The feminine equivalent is a princess. The English word derives, via the French word prince, from the Latin noun princeps, from primus (first) and capio (to seize), meaning "the chief, most distinguished, ruler, prince".

This gives us a lot to consider. Two words immediately caught my attention – primus, and capio. I see in this a former order as in a member of a former monarch's family. I also see a sort of Yin and Yang where the dark half gives way to the light. The wheel turns. The pendulum swings. The tide turns. We may quickly jump to the identification of the principal face of the old order as the devil. A point I wish to bring up here is the match against equal contenders. Jesus is also a prince. If the Prince of Peace takes a stand against the Prince of this World, what does that say about opposing natures? It says to me that the prince of this world is the prince of non-peace. A logical line of thought may be employed at this point.

If, as scripture states, Jesus is the Truth, the Holy Spirit (mind) of Truth is the continuation of all that the Truth originally advocated. That would be the spiritual qualities and physical applications that are pleasing to God. We have all that the light side of the wheel stands for taking action against all that the dark side of the wheel stood for. We have peace against non-peace, we have transparency and disclosure against secrecy and misuse. We have reality against party lines. We have understanding and love against fear and rejection. Everything about the old way will be brought into the light of examination. The mind that is reproved by the Truth will ask questions. Why? Why do brothers war instead of standing together? Why do men arbitrarily divide faith? There are too many 'whys' that are crying out for diagnosis. The spirit in man seeks resolution

and discernment. The Holy Spirit of Truth will convict a mind to establish truth and dispel falsity.

In verses twelve through fourteen, Jesus told his disciples that they were not prepared to hear the things he had to say. He would have told them so much more but that would have to wait for the Comforter. Jesus would continue to speak to them through the Comforter. The Holy Spirit of Truth, as Jesus put it, would continue his work in them.

The Comforter would guide them into 'all' truth. In other words, the Holy Spirit of Truth would convict their minds to establish truth and dispel falsity. The Comforter would have a limited dialog with them. By that I mean, the Comforter would only tell them the things he got directly from Jesus. After all, the Comforter is the mind of Jesus. “He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” “He shall glorify me.” This follows in the same nature as Jesus doing all the things that pleased God. Finally, there is an intriguing part that I like the sound of, that fills me with hope in the light side of the wheel. Jesus said of the Comforter, “He will show you things to come.”

Continuing from verse fifteen, we see an explanation. Jesus explains to his disciples why he said, “He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” He explains the broad scope of the previous statement in the addendum, “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.” Imagine the endless larder of the Holy Ghost. All things that belong to God are within his reach.

All truth, all power, all empowering from the very beginning of existence to the furthest reaches of the future – if it belongs to God, it belongs to Jesus. Since we may assert that God is a spirit, as Jesus said, we may also say that if it belongs to the spirit, it belongs to the spirit-filled man. There will always be that connection which Jesus proved to the world – that Jesus was the exemplar of God in man. There is also the connection of spirit to spirit. I have maintained that the spirit and the mind are one and the same. Along this line of argumentation, one may see that the Holy Spirit of Truth (truth being a name given expressly to Jesus) is the Holy Mind of Jesus. That mind in Jesus is the same mind that is in God for, as he said, “I and my Father are one.” Since Jesus is the prime example of God in man, we may see the connection of our individual minds to the mind of God. The riddle of verse sixteen. “A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.” This all has to do with the transfer between the physical and the spiritual comforter. They will not see the body but they will see the mind. Jesus graduates up into the full connection between God and man. The small mind becomes the big mind. The trickle-down becomes the hope for all mankind. When Jesus said, “I and my Father are one,” he spoke of a process in which his physical death accomplished the ultimate culmination. This is in no way withheld from the ordinary man. Jesus will say later in chapter seventeen and verse twenty-one, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” We may see clearly in these two Jesus quotes that the mind of God occupies

the mind of Jesus and that that same mind occupies the minds of not only the followers of Jesus but the followers of the followers of Jesus. All are one.

A step beyond the explanations. In verses seventeen through twenty-four, Jesus makes an allusion to a woman giving birth. He connects, in the minds of his disciples, a type of sorrow with a type of sorrow. He shows that both types of sorrow bring something forth that is the reason for joy. As the disciples faced the certain arrest and crucifixion of their master and comforter, it was likened to the pangs of childbirth, which is a matter that may not be gotten through easily. However, when they are delivered from the pain and struggle, they will see that they have accomplished something worthy of joy.

It is telling that Jesus says, “in that day ye shall ask me nothing.” They had been asking exclusively from Jesus for about three years. But now, after his departure, to whom would they turn to ask. Asking was their joy. They were lifted up by the answers they had received. Learning something new is, admittedly, uplifting. Imagine how much more joy they had received by learning to heal the sick and drive out devils and evil spirits. Imagine their personal loss in the absence of their source of joy. Jesus told them a new and greater joy was at hand. They would not be without a comforter; the difference was that the new comforter would be internalized. To finalize the matter, they would be able to ask God anything in the name of Jesus and be assured they would have their prayers answered by God. They would continue to receive just as they had received when they asked of Jesus. Their temporary sorrow would be transformed into a life-long full-on joy.

I want to take a moment to consider the deliverer of the message. If Jesus was surrounded by his disciples as he spoke, it makes sense that they would have asked for immediate clarification on uncertain matters. Instead, we see that Jesus says a thing and the disciples question the meaning among themselves. Had Jesus wandered in, said a thing, and then wandered away? Was there distance between the disciples and Jesus so that a representative of the disciples went back and forth with questions and answers?

How much time was involved in the exchange? Did the disciples move away into a huddle to discuss something Jesus said while Jesus was busy at some other task? For me, an encounter where there is nothing more going on than the exchange of words, the implication of that moment can be one of two things – focused and direct or casual. This encounter seems casual rather than immediate.

Another exchange occurs in verses twenty-five through thirty. Jesus says two things in verse twenty-five. First, he informs them that he has been telling them certain things using the format of the proverb. Then, he tells them that the time will come when he will drop that and speak to them plainly of the Father. He uses the word 'show' which indicates more of a demonstration than an explanation. What is a proverb, exactly? What is its purpose? Wikipedia says, A proverb (from Latin: proverbium) is a simple, concrete, traditional saying that expresses a perceived truth based on common sense or experience. Proverbs are often metaphorical and use formulaic language. Wiktionary

gives the definition, A striking or paradoxical assertion; an obscure saying; an enigma; a parable.

The time will come. That is a point in the future. Jesus continues in verse twenty-six by saying, “At that day ye shall ask in my name.” This is a clear reference to verses twentythree and twenty-four above. It is a reference to a time beyond the physical death of Jesus. It is the advent of the internalized comforter. The believer will ask of God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ the Son and God will gladly give what is asked for because the believer has loved Jesus and believed that Jesus came forth from God. It is asserted that God's love for the believers is due to the aforementioned truths about the believers. It will no longer depend on the prayers of Jesus on the behalf of the disciples.

The assertion was that they had yet to truly believe.

When Jesus makes the claim, in verse twenty-eight, “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father,” the disciples answer with more immediacy than they did in the previous exchange where they reasoned among themselves. It also occurs to me that a part of the apostleship might have been the occasional test where they were required to interpret what Jesus said.

Jesus knew that they would rather have just asked and got the answer but, perhaps, the reasoning among themselves was a sort of homework exercise. It was one of those “Aha!” moments when the disciples thought they had something figured out.

It was three years into knowing Jesus that the disciples said, “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things – by this, we believe that thou camest forth from God.” And Jesus is like, 'Oh, really?' He prefaces what he says in verse thirty-two by saying, “Do ye now believe?” That is like saying, 'this is what your premature confession of belief will lead to.' He predicts the outcome, “Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own.” He tells them that their faith has not yet arrived, that they will all desert him in his final hour. If you are going to make the claim that you truly believe, be prepared to carry through. Right? At any rate, Jesus told them that their desertion would not mean that he was alone because, as he concluded, “the Father is with me.”

On that note, I want to connect the dots to something Jesus said on the cross. He said, Matthew 27:46, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” We have to ask, is the Father with him or not? It is certain, from the reading of the gospels, that Jesus marched to death with purpose and deliberation. It was his plan all along. It is also certain that God was with Jesus and that Jesus was confident in that fact. Was Jesus merely quoting from the Psalms, as some claim? Is it not more likely that God had to abandon his son at that moment and that Jesus was genuinely horrified? In the garden, Jesus prayed that the cup be taken from him. Was that a reference to God's abandonment of Jesus known in advance? Why would God turn away from Jesus and leave him hanging, so to speak?

Let me say this – Jesus could not have died our deaths for us unless he had been just as

helpless as we would have been. The help could not be present. God had to forsake his son at that moment for the work of salvation to be effective.

Jesus concludes chapter sixteen of John in verse thirty-three. He gives a reason for his parting comments. He said, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.” The connection is key. Jesus would leave them physically but return to them in the comforter. The Holy Spirit of Truth is the Holy Mind of Jesus. He would not leave them comfortless. Jesus would be internalized and in that connection only would they find peace and joy. In the world, as Jesus said, they would find only tribulation.

They indeed had reason for joy and peace in the connection they would have with the Son of God. He had overcome the world – that power and victory would be internalized in them through the Holy Mind of Jesus.

Chapter Seventeen.

The prayer that Jesus prays in chapter seventeen takes up the entire chapter. The prayer was prayed in the room where they had eaten, the room from which Judas had departed after supper, where they had been speaking throughout chapters thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen. This all occurred, as is said in verse one of chapter thirteen, “before the feast of the Passover.” It is a beautiful and moving prayer but when it is broken down into its various points, it is a prayer that is both telling and essential. To show just how important it is to the seeker of truth, I will list the points in order. My treatment follows a somewhat topical approach when it comes to such concepts as 'glorification' and 'sanctification'. For that, I have grouped certain verses together.

I am not bringing into this study any elements other than the language the Bible presents us with and the meanings of the words used. In other words, why was that particular word chosen for the passage and what does it mean? Many people, I am aware, read the Bible-sounding words and accept them as just that. They do not research or consider the use and meaning of a particular word. What does it mean to sanctify, for example? Did you know, for instance, that if you have been sanctified, in effect, you have been made Holy? I think that an understanding of the definitions of the words used in scripture brings the message home and makes it more accessible.

The glory of the son and of the father. In verse one, the indication is that Jesus could not glorify God until the condition of Jesus' glorification was established. That is to say that it was precisely the glory of Jesus that effected the glorification of God. It was a simple matter of the letter A coming before and thus, leading to, the letter B. We see a circular logic in a dual glorification. It is a conundrum. It is an enigma in which the 'self' wins the victory over an obstacle but, in so doing, the 'self' turns and reaches down to help the 'self' up just as the 'self' puts his shoulder into boosting the 'self' up and over.

Jesus glorified God by finishing the work God gave him to do. In verse four, Jesus stated that God had given him a work to finish and in the accomplishment of that work, Jesus effected the glorification of God. That is to say that Jesus proved the high renown and honor of God. Synonyms for the word glory include such words as fame, prestige, distinction, magnificence, splendor, grandeur, majesty, greatness, nobility, and beauty.

The wording of verse four leads one to understand that the works and accomplishments of Jesus, with the resulting glorification of God, were no mere mental exercises, neither exaggerated claims or opinions. The work that Jesus finished and the glorification of God that Jesus accomplished was on the earth. They were done in real-time and in a solid and fact-based reality.

The return of glory to Jesus. In verse five, Jesus asks that the favor be returned. He asks that God prove the high renown and honor of his only begotten son. All of the above synonyms apply. The language infers that such glorification is to be accomplished on the earth, in real-time, in a solid and fact-based reality. Jesus is not asking for anything new but, rather, for a return of the glory, he had with his father before the world was. Those who look closely will see how the asked-for glorification will be accomplished. God will not glorify his son with some off-the-wall accolade. God will not glorify his son with or through anything that is of the created world or the aberrant stand of sinful souls. God will take of his “own self” to glorify his son. We see in that a called-for union, a merger, a marshaling. We see the oneness of a dualism.

Joint custody of separated men and the glory that Jesus found in his disciples. In verse ten, Jesus mentions his disciples. Three facts are brought up in connection with the people that have followed and believed in Jesus. First, they belong to God. Second, they belong to Jesus. It is a sort of joint custody by which it is said, 'what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine.' Third, Jesus is glorified in the disciples. The third fact is mentioned in a particular connection to the first two facts. It is appended to them by use of the conjunctive 'and.' It is presented in such a manner as to infer that it is the result or natural outcome of the first two facts. In turn, the union of facts one and two seems to raise another, more subliminal fact, mainly that Jesus is glorified in his disciples for the very reason that they belong jointly to the father and the son.

The passing on of Jesus' glory to the disciples and why. In verse twenty-two, we are presented with the passing on of a standard and the purpose of it. The standard of which I speak is glory. It is a kind of trickle-down effect. Think of the perfect investment. Let us say that by giving you access to my dollar bill, I gain access to your dollar bill. We each have access to the full spending amount. Then, we, together, grant access to our two dollars to a third party. In like fashion, all three of us have access to the full spending amount. But wait, there's more. If both of the original parties have access to the full amount – that is, I can spend two at the same time you spend two – the amount is actually double in value – that is, not two but four. With the addition of the third party, the actual value is not three, it is nine.

That is what we see in the transfer of glory. God has a glory that he shares with Jesus.

Jesus, then, adds his glory to God which no longer counts as two singles but the combined effect times two. Next, Jesus adds that combined glory to the disciples. We recall that Jesus said of his disciples, in verse ten, “and I am glorified in them.” Them is plural, there were at least eleven of “them.” So – no, it's not three, it's not even thirteen.

It's more like nine times eleven. At nearly one hundred percent gain, that is a lot of glory being shared. Heavenly math is simply divine. However, it is not math for the sake of math. It has a purpose which is clearly stated in verse twenty-two. That purpose is solidarity, it is unity, it is oneness on a level of strength and greatness in numbers. It is not merely the coming together of so many individual units but without order. Rather, it is the weaving of cords into stronger cords and, then, the weaving of stronger cords with other stronger cords to make greater cords.

God's sanctification, the word, the truth. In verse seventeen, we are presented with three concepts – complete with all of the implied undertones and overtones. These concepts are sanctification, truth, and the word. By sanctification, truth, and the word, I mean God's sanctification, God's truth, and God's word. These are the areas in which God shines and this is exactly where we may realize the renown of God. This is God's glory, this is what God has in common with his son Jesus Christ. This is also what Jesus passes on to the disciples. Here is where we need to remember the trickle-down effect of heavenly math. While we are at it, we should go ahead and connect the dots. Sanctify means to set apart as or declare Holy. When God sanctifies the disciples through his truth, he is, in effect, doing so through the agency of his son. Names for Jesus Christ knowingly portray him as both the Word and the Truth. As when a pendulum swings to and fro, God makes Jesus Holy, Jesus makes the disciples Holy and, then, the disciples magnify Jesus who, in turn, magnifies God. All of us are magnified. All of us are sanctified. All of us are Holy.

The bridge that was Jesus' sanctification. In verse nineteen, Jesus presents himself as a bridge between God and man. The goal of this particular verse seems to be the sanctification of the disciples and, pointedly, a sanctification effected “through the truth.” The word sanctify, when used as a verb, means to set apart to a sacred purpose or to religious use, to consecrate, to free from sin, to purify. In this verse, such accomplishments are achieved through the truth. Now, as we recall, truth is another name for Jesus. Sanctification is not a result that may be granted by one's equals, much less by one's inferiors. It is bestowed from above. It must come down the chain of command. We see that in this verse. It came down from the Son of God – however – we also see that Jesus first had to sanctify himself, which means to qualify himself with the authority to sanctify another. In order to offer consecration to another, in his present state, he first had to be consecrated in his present state. As such endowments go, Jesus had to place himself as the middle link of the chain between God and man. For Jesus to claim the position and place of a bridge, the sanctification, consecration, and

authorization he received from on high would have to be, of necessity, a quality that was fit for not only the spiritual Jesus but the man he was, as well.

Like Father like Son like disciple. Verse eighteen gives us that 'sacred purpose' mentioned above. Just as God planted his son in the world, Jesus planted his disciples in the world. His disciples would take up the sacred purpose that had been given to Jesus.

The torch would be passed to them. Everything Jesus had taught them had been a preparation for them to continue his work in the world. A deputy under a sworn marshal is someone who has trained for a particular job. The plan of action, the purpose, the lifestyle, are all known and accepted by the deputy. One thing remains. The marshal must swear him in and give him his badge of authority. If the chain of command is a series of three candles, the intent is that all should burn with the same fire. If the chain of command is a series of three light bulbs, when the switch is thrown, all will light up with the same power. The same power, the same purpose, the same authority, the same spirit, the same mind – these are the substance of oneness.

God's name, separated men, and the keeping of God's word. Verse six teaches us the word 'manifest.' To manifest something means to display or show by one's acts or appearance, to be the evidence of, to reflect accurately and completely. Jesus said, “I have manifested thy name.” That is to say that Jesus displayed the accurate reflection of God's name in his own actions and words – it was there in Jesus' physical and real presentation. But, I must ask, what is in a name? This verse has as its structure a perfectly matched beginning and end. By that, I mean that God's name, at the beginning of the verse, and God's word, at the end of the verse, are presented as one and the same.

The disciples are not said to have kept God's name, they are said to have kept his word – and that in direct relationship to the manifested name. A person's name is what that person is all about and the power that makes it so.

Neither are the disciples just any old rag-tag group of commoners. They belonged to God before Jesus manifested God's name to them. They had been separated out of the world. They had been prepared for discipleship. Jesus did not convince worldly-minded men to follow him. They already had a predisposition to seek the messiah and to readily accept Jesus as such. Where were the first two disciples, for example? They were disciples of Jesus' cousin John. They were in the wilderness looking for the way when the way just walked up and got himself baptized. Look at how easily they deserted their discipleship with John to follow Jesus. The tax collector easily left his lucrative position because his heart was not in it – he had been separated out of the world beforehand – he belonged to God. You can look at all of the disciples in the same way, God had prepared them for their respective roles as disciples.

Someone might bring up the disciple, Judas Iscariot. You might have just concerns about his being separated out of the world and prepared in advance, for even Jesus said of him in verse twelve, “but the son of perdition; ( downfall ) that the scripture might be fulfilled' ” Perdition may be described by the synonym downfall. Downfall, basically, is

defined as a loss of status. It must be noted that for the major part of Jesus' three-year ministry, Judas was a disciple of equal standing with the other eleven. When Jesus sent the disciples out two by two to heal the sick by the power of God, Judas was one of them. He returned just as excited as any of the other eleven about the power of God working through him. It was only in the end, despite his hopes and best intentions, that Judas lost that power.

Men separated out from the world belong to God. Verse nine shows us as much by the definition Jesus gave for separation from the world. As we recall, this is chapter seventeen – a chapter that only contains the spoken prayer of Jesus. Jesus was praying for his disciples and he set them apart by saying they were not of the world. His prayer was not for the world. He said in his prayer, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world.”

Who were they exactly? They were men that, in Jesus' words, even in the transfer from God to Jesus, still belonged to God. The phrasing is, “them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” They were accepted into God's ownership from the world. In other words, they were acceptable in God's estimation. You might say, they were hand-picked.

When God turned them over to Jesus, all of them had the approval of God. It is an accolade of the highest order that a man belongs to God. In that Judas lost the honor of belonging to God, that is something a man may accomplish only through deliberate choice. The current Coronavirus pandemic teaches us that our bad choices, even our common choices, have dire consequences.

Separated men being one with God and Jesus as a sign to the world. In verse twenty-one, being one with the Father and Son is not just some feel-good epithet, it actually has a purpose. The believer is not just a believer but a believer toward a specific end. Jesus compares them to the “us” relationship between God and Christ which is a unity and a solidarity of higher purpose, a oneness of forward momentum. Jesus, being one with the Father, was planted in the world to bear fruit. Likewise, believers are not here to simply be what we are – we are no idle window dressing – but to bear fruit, to grow the oneness. It is a sign to the world that Jesus was actually sent into the world by God for the ongoing purpose of spiritual magnification. Believing that God sent Jesus into the world, believing that Jesus is the Christ, is the first step toward induction into the higher ranks of spiritual reality.

The full and timely knowledge of the disciples. Verse seven is a snapshot of that initial step toward induction. It is to know, it is to realize that every facet of the Christ in the body of Jesus was deliberately and purposefully God-sent and God-ordained.

Knowledge is not an opinion. It is not conjecture or theory, it is a certainty. It is a realization of reality. It is the impetus for a one-up.

Jesus, the messenger of God's word and the knowledgeable faith of the disciples. Verse eight shows us the mechanics of God's ongoing spiritual magnification in the persons of the original disciples. Everything that Jesus said, he received from God. Jesus' words were actually God's words. Jesus took those words and passed them on to the disciples –

men with a preexisting connection to God and, in turn, a connection to Jesus. These men who belonged to God and were given into the care of Jesus received the words of God that were passed on by Jesus. They did not reject them; their acceptance of the words that Jesus gave them was not cavalier. Rather, as Jesus noted, they knew “surely” through those words that Jesus “came out from” God in response to God's purpose.

Jesus prays not for the world but for the men separated from the world. Chapter seventeen, in its entirety, is a prayer. Jesus prayed aloud. He prayed so that his disciples heard. They followed along in their hearts silently. They were impressed with the prayer enough so that they remembered it in the following years. They spoke about it, recounted it to one another, and revealed those substantive words to new converts.

Ultimately, those words were recorded for posterity. In verse nine, we see that just such was the purpose of the prayer. It was part of the forward momentum. Jesus took from God and moved the plan forward. Likewise, the disciples took from Jesus and moved the plan forward. “I pray for them” who are part of the plan. “I pray for them” who mind higher things than the things of the world.

A clarified definition of Jesus' present prayer and why. Jesus prayed for the believer, the person separated out from the world, the person whose nature was predisposed toward higher, more spiritual, matters. In verses fifteen and sixteen, we get a clarified update on the prayer that Jesus prayed. Jesus explains what he is doing and why. Jesus really cared for those whom he had received from God. They were his now, they were his charge.

You or I might pray for our loved ones to be spared all the pain and suffering, we would ask that they be protected. Jesus made it clear that he was not asking for that. Indeed, their protection would have thwarted the plan. It would have halted the forward momentum. Jesus did not pray for their bodies, he prayed for their minds. It was not the intent of Jesus that his disciples should be removed from harm's way but, rather, while they remained in the world, that God should strengthen their resolve to move forward and upward. Jesus asked for God's help for the believers to be of a righteous mind, to resist evil, and move the plan forward. It is interesting and comforting that Jesus compares the believer to himself in verse sixteen. These are the words of comfort and inspiration for you and me: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”

The reach of Jesus' prayer. Jesus received God's word and gave it to the believer. The believer received the word and knew it with certainty. The seasoned believer helps the new believer to “surely” know. God's plan moves forward. In verse twenty, Jesus extends his prayer beyond the original disciples to those people who enter the oneness through the words of the disciples. This statement shows us the scope and the reach of God's reality. The plan is structured to move forward from one generation to the next. It is like an unstoppable snowball rolling downhill, getting bigger as it moves forward.

Jesus no longer in the world but coming to the Father while the disciples remain. Verse eleven presents a conundrum. While Jesus is standing physically among his disciples, he says in prayer, “now I am no more in the world . . . and I come to thee.” What has

changed so that he can make such a claim? When I graduated High School, after the last class and the last test, I could have rightly said, I am no longer in school. I could have truly said such a thing even though I stood there in a school building. By saying, I am no longer in school, I would have simply meant that I was done with it and that I could move on. It was a point in my progress in which I found myself at the end of one thing and somewhere at the beginning of something bigger and better. That is what I think Jesus meant. He had taken the last class and passed the final test. His works were done.

As he stood there physically, he found himself at the beginning of something bigger and better. “I come to thee.” Now came the rite of passage. Synonyms for a rite of passage include trying experience, initiation, a test of courage, trial by fire, and martyrdom.

How God retains the disciples on Jesus' departure and the beginnings of solidarity. Still, in verse eleven, Jesus prayed, “but these are in the world.” The works of the disciples would continue past Jesus' passing. They had a long way to go to reach their final exam.

It is, for the disciples, as if they had graduated Grade School and would soon begin High School. It would be like going from basic math to calculus and algebra. What would they need to face the more arduous task of higher education? What they already had was a good foundation in basic knowledge. They knew surely. They had the word of God that Jesus had passed on to them. They had a working faith. Still, what they were up against would test their resolve and task their strength. They needed a superpower that would battle dissolution. They needed unity. They needed oneness. In his prayer, Jesus asked, “keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” Jesus asked for oneness on a par with that which existed between God and his only begotten Son. Jesus' track record. In verse twelve, we see what Jesus claimed to have achieved. While he was in the world, Jesus, as the duly authorized representative of God, kept them, held them together, protected them. That was his track record. Of twelve disciples, one was lost. Yet, even so, his success rate stood at 100%. The loss of the “son of perdition” was meant to be. It was deliberate and had a purpose. What was the intent behind deliberately losing one of those whom God had given to Jesus? It was so that the scriptures would be fulfilled. God's word is true from beginning to end. It does not fail.

Which scripture was referenced? I take this from Wikipedia: Various Old Testament origins have been suggested for "that the scripture might be fulfilled." These traditionally include Psalm 41:9 "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." Also Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take his office." which is interpreted by Peter in Acts 1:16-20 as having been prophetic of Judas.

Of course, there are other associations. Antiochus IV Epiphanes is one such association to the “son of perdition” or “man of sin.” Antiochus was the man who attacked the second Temple in Jerusalem and is recognized by some theologians as a prototype.

Then, there are Satan and the fallen angels who left their first estate but what does being

a son of perdition entail, especially concerning Judas Iscariot? As a man, Judas first believed and followed Jesus along with the other eleven disciples. He belonged to God and was given of God to Jesus. He went out with the other eleven disciples, two by two, healing the sick and casting out demons. He might have considered himself to be religious – definitely a warning here to church-going Christians everywhere. It only takes one instance of contrary intent, one bad choice, to bring the faithful to the point of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Thank God for salvation.

Passing on the joy. Verse thirteen is interesting. Again, Jesus claims, “And now come I to thee.” What comes next is kind of the whole point of Jesus. Why not just exercise divine powers from heaven? Many other results were achieved after that fashion. God said thus and thus and it was so. What we have learned from the old testament is that on many of the more important matters, God sent a physical presence among men – and that was the thing that worked. The burning bush was a physical presence for Moses.

The fiery and smoky pillars were a physical presence for the escaping children of Israel.

The angels were a physical presence for Lot and his family. There is a long list of such immediate contacts that got men in on the game plan. God's very history is always set forth in association with mankind. Things can be accomplished from heaven but it seems that God's preferred method is to get stuff done in the world. After an agricultural fashion, it is like the farmer that rolls up his sleeves, gets down on his knees, and gets his hands into the soil. If you want something done right, you do it yourself. Right? So, here we are, included in the prayer that Jesus prayed in the world. Why? Jesus said, “and these things I speak in the world.” There was a real and immediate reason. He was passing on the joy: “that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.”

Let's think about joy for a moment. Let us try to picture in our mind's eye the joy that Jesus exhibited in his person. What picture did you come up with? Historically Jesus has been portrayed as solemn and aloof. There are no specific examples in scripture of Jesus laughing or being happy. What is the general consensus about joy? I get this from the dictionary, a feeling of great pleasure and happiness. Synonyms for joy include words like jubilation, exultation, exhilaration, and exuberance. When you look up images of joy on the internet, you see people laughing and jumping up and down. That does not match up well with our mental image of Jesus but Jesus did have joy. I think most of us usually confuse joy with happiness. I want to suggest a joy that is less frenetic, a joy that is a deep well of refreshment. A source of strength.

Jesus made the disciples like himself, not of the world, by the giving of the word of God. In verse fourteen, we see believers made great. We see believers made like Jesus himself. We are the augmented people, we have received a one-up. Even as Jesus is not of this world but has ascended to the preliminary stages of a higher plane, so, we too, have evolved upward in our spirit. By achieving this in himself, Jesus achieved the same in every individual who assumes the name of Christ. Christian is not just a word, it is the definition of higher being. The method by which Jesus achieved such a grand feat in and for all believers from the original disciples down to you and me is not lost on us. It is

clearly stated. All of us are one-upped through the word of God. Jesus gave the word of God to his disciples. That made them like him. What a kind gift. That same word of God was passed on by the disciples to as many who willingly received it and they, too, received the gift of a spiritual one-up. The gift has been passed down to our current generation and as many as willingly receive it become like Jesus. We can not help but pass that gift on to those we care about.

How it would all play out. In verse twenty-three, Jesus shows us the mechanics of the spiritual one-up. He shows us how it operates, how it plays out. Do you think it is mere word-play that I say we are like Jesus or that we have received a spiritual one-up? Jesus had said of himself, 'I and my Father are one.' He had said of his own one-up, 'now I come to thee.' Jesus had said, 'don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words I speak to you I speak not on my own but the Father who lives in me does the work.' Now, Jesus ties together all the loose ends of mankind's connection to God as he says, “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;” to the end that “the world may know that thou hast sent me, and loved them, as thou hast loved me.” Clearly, the purpose was twofold. What good would be accomplished by providing such a wonderful gift as oneness with God only to reach a few men? No, the spiritual one-up is a gift for all men and women. It is there for you and you and you. There are but two simple requirements – you must want to be one with God and you must avail yourself of the gift through the one channel God has provided. You must be one with Jesus to be one with God. The special request and the relationship to God. In verses twenty-four and twenty-five, Jesus declares the special relationship he has with God. It is not only a fact that God loves Jesus but the extended truth is that God has loved him since before the world was founded. As relationships go, this one is solid. There are no gaps, no pauses. It was not 'then' and again 'now' but, rather, it is a relationship that defines eternity. It is a love that describes the constant and enduring fabric of divine reality. No one has known God like Jesus has. No one has been more aware of the abiding love that is God. As incredible as that is, there is something even more incredible to be seen in these two verses. Jesus made a special request of God. What he asked goes far beyond his disciples being allowed to see his glory. What Jesus asked of God stretches time and space and boggles the mind. He asked, “I will that they also be with me where I am.” How does that even work out? Examine the words closely. It is not a 'where I will be' or a 'they will be.'

Jesus was transcending to a higher plane of existence, the disciples would remain as flesh and blood men. How could they be flesh and blood men and also be in the same place that Jesus was transcending to? The place to which Jesus was going is the eternal place where he is the same yesterday, today, and always. It is beyond the capability of mortal man to be in such a place but it is not beyond the power of God to share his eternal spirit. The one who placed his spiritual son in a body of flesh and blood can also put that spirit inside the spirit of every believer.

The purpose of the declared name of God. In verse twenty-six, we see the power of the declared name of God – that it is more than a mere word. Whether that Holy name is written or spoken or considered in thought, the power of it touches everything it comes in contact with. Even when a non-believer says that he does not believe in God – it is too late, he has already invoked the power of the name. Jesus said that he declared the name of God to his disciples. If the name of God was no more than a word, Jesus could have uttered the name once and moved on. Consider, however, that he declared the name of God for a solid three years. To declare the name of God is to invoke the power of the name, it is to instill the reality of the name. His disciples heard and saw more than just a word, they were made intimately aware of the real and timely presence of the powerful persona that permanently permeates everything that is. God is above and God is below, God is over and God is under, God is outside and God is inside. You are invited to the eternal, the invitation that was sent is real and solid – it is you yourself. The spirit within you is the power of God's name. That is how a flesh and blood believer can be with Jesus where he is in the eternal. Jesus said, “I have declared unto them your name and will declare it: that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

The giving of power and the giving of eternal life. Verse two speaks about the power of God's name and how it is passed forward – to whom it is passed and for what purpose. It is a summation at the very beginning of his prayer. Jesus declared that God empowered him over all flesh to give eternal life. We think of Jesus declaring the powerful name of God to his disciples but it really does not stop with them. The extent of his empowerment is “over all flesh.” That is “as many as” God has given. We saw that before they came into the care of Jesus, the disciples belonged to God. They were acceptable to God and prepared for Jesus. The power of God's name was at work before Jesus declared it. In that manner and, also by extension, others who are acceptable to God, others who are prepared by God, others, also, may come to Jesus through the disciples and through converts of the disciples. To all of us, then, who are prepared, who are willing – the power of the name of God is declared to us, that we also may be with Jesus where he is, that we may see his glory and share the love of God which was given without reservation from before the foundation of this world. To be where Jesus is constitutes the eternal – that is a flesh and blood human being with the spirit of Jesus residing in the spirit God has placed in us for just that purpose. We were prepared and Jesus was empowered for the passing on of eternal life.

The meaning of eternal life. Finally, in verse three, we come to the topic of eternal life.

Many people are clearly wrong to view eternal life as somehow surviving death and continuing forward in anything resembling our present form. Bodies of flesh will perish.

It is meant to be that way. The soul does not survive death – the soul is a combination of the spirit given by God and the body he has placed it in. Death separates the body from the spirit. Yet, there is eternal life and Jesus defines what that is. We learn in verse three that eternal life is not a complicated issue, it is not beyond us or over our heads. It is

quite simple in fact. The explanation that Jesus gives needs no further elucidation. Jesus said clearly enough, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Chapter Eighteen.

At or near the western slope of the Mount of Olives, the garden, unnamed and assumed to be Gethsemane, was approximately one and a quarter-mile from the city of Jerusalem.

It was an easy and casual evening stroll. We find directions to it in John 18:1 and 2. You had to cross the brook Cedron to get to it. Whether or not there was a bridge in that time is for others to speculate. My focus is not so much on the physical details of an evening sojourn as it is on the popularity of the destination.

Jesus liked the place. He often took his disciples. Perhaps it was a popular place that many people enjoyed even if it was an undeveloped area. That a Rabbi with at least twelve disciples in tow frequented the area suggests that it was a good place to sit and teach. During warm weather, it may have been a popular choice for sleeping out. It was known that Jesus often went there but – known by exactly who is a matter for consideration. Obviously, the disciples knew and that, as is stated in verse two, included Judas Iscariot. To give the matter full consideration, does wording indicate that the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees did not know where Jesus often went with his disciples?

Does it infer that the Sanhedrin did not resort to or teach in such settings?

It is certain that Jesus and his disciples had secured, if not rented, the upper room for the meal. That is not to say they had secured lodging. However, I think it only presumed that the last supper was eaten in Jerusalem. One fact about it is sure, that is to say, that it was recorded. That fact is that the last supper was eaten before the Passover commenced.

John 13:1 sets the stage in this manner, “Now before the feast of the Passover.” That, in itself, suggests that it was not necessary to be in the city of Jerusalem.

Here are some things to consider. It is a fact that the precise location of the garden that Jesus was arrested in is not known today. It is a fact that modern experts cannot identify the exact location of the upper room in which Jesus ate his final meal with his disciples.

The commonly traveled roads, trails, and pathways of old along the ridge that is known as the Mount of Olives cannot now be determined. While it is practical for large groups to walk along open, easily accessible, and commonly used trails, some of those trails, in time, may have been overgrown.

Bethany is located on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives, less than two miles from Jerusalem. It would have been nothing at all, if Jesus ate his last meal at Bethany, for he and his disciples to follow a trail around to the western slope of the ridge where the garden may have been located. It would have been a more logical route than through

trees and thickets or through the cemetery. Lazarus and his family, friends of Jesus, lived in Bethany. When Lazarus died, no doubt, he was buried in the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jesus was quite familiar with the area. Who's to say that the Lazarus estate did not have an upper room?

Had it actually been during the Passover and not before the Passover, Jesus would have been required to be in Jerusalem. The people who wanted to detain and deal with Jesus would have had a better handle on his location. The fact that it was before the Passover better explains their need for someone like Judas to help them locate Jesus. Timing was another issue for their course of action as Jesus was very public during daylight hours.

During the day, Jesus was often found surrounded by great crowds as he addressed the public. It is my suggestion here that Jesus went between Bethany and Jerusalem in the days before the feast for the purpose of openly speaking in public. If we go all the way back to John 12:1, we see that Jesus returned to Bethany six days before the beginning of the Passover. It was on the next day, five days before the Passover, that Jesus went to Jerusalem on a donkey.

Everyone knew that Jesus was staying with Lazarus. The crowd went from Jerusalem to see him in Bethany. That crowd went with him to Jerusalem crying “Hosanna.” It is no stretch to think that the Sanhedrin also knew he was staying in Bethany – but Bethany was not their jurisdiction. It is easy to determine, from chapter twelve, the extent to which they sought Jesus. They wanted him in the worst way. They were so vexed by him that they even sought to kill Lazarus who had, not that long ago, already been dead. It was in part due to the raising of Lazarus that many of the Sanhedrin's constituents had switched sides. Chief priests, Pharisees, and doctors of the law were believing and following Jesus. The Sanhedrin was losing the game and they were at the point of desperation.

It was actually from the lower ranks, the chief priests and the Pharisees, that Judas received his band of “men and officers,” suggesting the epicenter of distress was located more among the ranks who were losing their members. That further suggests that, while there was a more or less general consensus in regard to Jesus, desperate action was specific and localized rather than general.

Jesus arrived at Bethany on a Monday, six days before the beginning of the Passover which, as I understand it, began and ended on a Sabbath. It was on a Tuesday that Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. His arrest, therefore, took place between the triumphal entry on Tuesday and the evening following the last supper, which was still before the Passover. In other words, the arrest happened between Wednesday and Friday.

If Jesus was tried and crucified before the Passover, his arrest occurred on the evening of Wednesday or Thursday. Was Jesus crucified before or during the Passover? According to the gospels, there was a custom of Pilate to commute a prisoner's sentence before the Holy feast. However, which Saturday in the week-long feast was the actual Passover?

Both Sabbaths in the week-long feast were holy days. I am aware that most studied scholars address the point of Jesus' crucifixion in a straightforward manner with all details progressing in an immediate manner. Thus, in their view, Jesus was arrested on Thursday night and crucified on the day of preparation, Friday. While I am certainly no bona fide scholar, my mind is open to expanded possibilities. It could well be that Pilate released a prisoner toward the end of the week if at all. There is disagreement on the issue of Pilate's 'custom.' There is a possibility, in my thinking, that Jesus was detained through the feast week and crucified toward the end of it by way of Rome rubbing the noses of the Jews in their occupation. However, for the present, I will treat the arrest and crucifixion as occurring before the first day of the feast week.

John, to me, is the most interesting of the four gospels. The life of Christ was a life that fulfilled old testament prophecies. It was a life that paralleled people and events from the old testament. As an example, one such parallel was between John the Baptist and Elijah the prophet. The parallel was so close that the two men's physical appearance and mannerisms were identical. There is, also, somewhat of a parallel between the arrest of Jesus and the arrest of Elijah. There is enough power evident in the incident that it knocked the men over. Verses four through nine provide the account of Jesus' arrest.

Jesus demonstrates his power and asks that his disciples be set free.

There is no Judas kiss in John's account of the arrest. On the contrary, it is more like Judas is punched with an invisible fist. All the men are slapped down. Torches and weapons fall to the side. As they stand and collect themselves, smarting from, embarrassed by, and made afraid by the invisible power of the man before them, Jesus asks for safe passage for his disciples. According to verse nine, that is another parallel between the prophecies of the old testament and the facts of Jesus' life and ministry. I get the image of Jesus as confident, his disciples standing behind him. Peter, on the other hand, was not so confident. He took advantage of the confusion to draw a sword and attack a member of the band.

That person, Malchus, was a servant of the High Priest, Caiaphas – obviously a wellknown person. There was also a relative of Malchus present among the men. He later accused Peter publicly. Malchus was, perhaps, not one of the officers but was in easy striking distance. What was Peter up to anyway? There was a group of armed men there to arrest his master. Peter rushed into the group. It shows that Peter was not a man used to the exercise of swordplay. He swung wild and hit the man's ear. It was neither precise nor lethal. It was a panic play. He may have stepped back to assess the situation and there may have been enough room for Jesus to step between Peter and the band of armed men. There was no immediate armed response to Peter's action. It had taken everyone by surprise. While it is said there were officers present, I suspect they were nothing like Roman soldiers who would have given an immediate armed response. Jesus talked them all down.

Even as the band and the captain and the officers of the Jews bound Jesus and led him away to Caiaphas, I get the impression that they did so respectfully. Was that because he had knocked them down with an invisible power or was it because Jesus held a place high in their estimation? It seems like the arrest, not of some stray wannabe but, of a person of high rank. Their handling of the arrest might be seen as similar to the same men having to arrest Caiaphas or one of the other higher-ups. Does the texture of this arrest suggest that Jesus was a bona fide Rabbi? I think so.

So who actually gave the order to arrest Jesus? Were there behind-the-scenes machinations at work? Why was it exactly that Jesus was led first to Annas rather than to the High Priest? Other accounts of the arrest give the impression of the armed band rushing in and grabbing people willy-nilly insofar as an innocent bystander was snatched in the raid and only escaped by the skin of his teeth or the linen of his covering, as it were. This account in John, however, seems tame in comparison, planned and by the numbers. I get the sense that it was intended to be quiet and secretive. Was it a gift from Annas to his son Caiaphas? Why is it suggested in this account that it was the son who got it started but it was the father who took action? https://www.ritmeyer.com/2012/08/28/the-palace-of-annas-the-high-priest/ will provide more thoughts on this matter.

Two disciples follow Jesus to the house of Annas. One was Peter but the second is not named in the John account. Many, however, believe that the second disciple was the young John, the one who leaned against Jesus during the last supper. I take the following from Wikipedia: Generally listed as the youngest apostle, he was the son of Zebedee and Salome or Joanna. His brother was James, who was another of the Twelve Apostles. For some interesting thoughts on how John may have been known among the priests, see https://www.bethanybiblechurch.com/john-18a-was-john-related-to-the-priests/ Here is another thought about the unnamed disciple. What if that disciple was Judas? It does not stand to reason that, between the arrest and the house of Annas, Judas completely disappears. It appears that the majority of disciples scattered at the arrest of Jesus. Yet two followed. We know that Judas was known by the priests – he was the one that led the band of men to the Gethsemane location. Was he a sort of material witness?

At any rate, his part in the matter may not have concluded with the arrest. It seems within the bounds of reason that Judas would have returned with the band that he led to Gethsemane. So – after ten disciples scamper away, two losers stand with faces downcast. One of them betrayed the master and the other shamed himself before the master with panicked violence. I am not saying the unnamed disciple has to be Judas, just that it would make sense. Also, it is possible that the unnamed disciple is neither John nor Judas but one of the other ten.

Verse fourteen is interesting in that such knowledge of the High Priest's words could only have been relayed in one of two channels. Most reasonably, the information was added from testimony after the fact. Said testimony would have been transmitted by a

person present when the High Priest said what he said. Number one, then, is a person in the know. Number two is a more direct channel although not directly to the author but, rather, to the disciple that was known by the High Priest. It may have been a case that Caiaphas said what he said on more than one occasion. If it was repeated to the disciple that went in, we have to consider which makes the most sense. Was it said to John or was it said to Judas? If to the latter, it was a selling point for the proposed treachery. If to the former, it was in argument with a person who pleaded for the captive.

Another thing we must consider is the wording of the passage. Verses fifteen and sixteen repeat a fact about the unnamed disciple. These verses do not say that the disciple was known 'by' Caiaphas which would imply something of a relationship. If that was the case, priests generally running in the company of others of their own kind, then how might we reconcile a disciple of Jesus is also a priest or a Rabbi or a member of the Sanhedrin? What the verses actually say is that the disciple was known “unto” the High Priest. That is a different story altogether. The use of the word 'unto' implies knowledge without the personal relationship aspect. Judas was known unto Caiaphas if Caiaphas had a hand in hiring him. John was known to him if he was the son of a church official or was in some training program – say, to become a Rabbi.

Peter was not left out in the cold. The unnamed disciple had a thought for the man. How are we to see such concern for Peter if that disciple was Judas? John does speak of a closer relationship, on the other hand. We know that afterward, Peter and John worked together, and, as well, it was Peter and John who ran to the open tomb. However, such concern that brought Peter into the courtyard could just as easily be seen in other disciples. Andrew, for example, was Peter's blood brother. Also, it was Andrew who was seen in the active pursuit of a religious lifestyle. Before he followed Jesus, he followed another man who was called Rabbi by the priesthood. Andrew had as much history in that regard as John did. Finally, I want to consider the doorkeeper. Was she awakened and enlisted at the moment or was that her actual job? What does a doorkeeper say about the privilege of the priesthood? Why did she answer to the unnamed disciple? Did he approach her on his own or in the name of Annas?

It was the doorkeeper who first fingered Peter. I get the sense, from the word 'damsel', that she was perhaps a girl. It is not likely that she was among the men involved in the arrest. Her question was not an accusation so much as curiosity. It was another disciple that asked her to let Peter in. If she was concerned with doing her job correctly or about punishment if she did her job poorly, her question seems perfectly natural. I doubt that upon seeing Peter in the morning hours she could have, in any way, personally identified him.

Well, we all know the story of Peter's three denials. I will not dwell on that. I do, however, want a clear image in my mind's eye of the layout of the house. Jesus and Peter were in two separate locations, yet, they could see each other. Most houses of that time were built around a courtyard. The entrance into a courtyard, in many cases, was the

only way in and out of the house. There was usually an upper story. Experts now believe they have an understanding of the layout of the house that Jesus was taken to after his arrest.

So, there were multiple layers in the house. Peter stood in the courtyard near a small fire.

He stood with the men that had arrested Jesus. Was Malchus among them? All of them had ample opportunity to notice Peter as he hacked off the ear of Malchus. Why does there appear to be doubt among the men? It may just be me but the timeline here seems a bit iffy. After the fact that Jesus had been interrogated and slapped, and Peter already in the courtyard warming himself, the author seems to backtrack and say, in verse twentyfour, now Annas “had” sent him . . . to Caiaphas. That small past tense word raises a red flag for me. Was it actually Caiaphas, not Annas, who questioned Jesus? I know the socalled experts believe that Annas first questioned Jesus but I am not so sure. If it was Annas then, Peter warmed himself twice.

The complete statement that I am considering here is “Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest and Simon Peter stood and warmed himself.” If the house was large enough then it is reasonable to think that Annas lived there with his sons and daughters. If Caiaphas lived in the same large multi-layered house, then all Annas needed to do, he no longer being the High Priest, was to stand in the courtyard and be sure that Jesus was indeed arrested and bound. What's more, after the interrogation, the slap, the warming, and Peter's final denial to the kinsman of Malchus, verse twenty-eight concludes in this manner, “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas.”

“Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early.” Well –

the rooster had just crowed. It was dawn. In the John version of the Jewish trial, Peter did not go out and weep bitterly, there was no false witness, and Caiaphas did not rip his

garment. Jesus had given the Jews nothing on which to base an assertion of blasphemy.

He simply said 'I spoke openly, ask them.' So, at the crack of dawn, they all marched over to the hall of judgment and there was Pilate – up and ready to serve like no other public servant ever in the history of leaders and politicians. For the Jews, speed was essential. They wished to be done with the matter and move on to the preparations of the Passover.

Verse twenty-nine begins the interrogation by the Roman governor of Jerusalem. The Jews would not go in because that would make them unclean and then they would not get to celebrate the Passover. So, Pilate had to leave the confines of the building.

Remember, the sun was barely up and it was cold. An unasked and unanswered question is this: did Peter and the unnamed disciple also go to the hall of judgment? I cannot for the life of me imagine getting up so early and jumping into the business of the day with both feet. Had Pilate even had a chance to eat breakfast and do the other things that people normally do to prepare for the day? I can imagine his temperament as he stood there in the cold, dressed only in a hasty robe thrown over his sleeping attire, having been roused too early.

As it was early and as it was cold, Pilate ran back into the building and called Jesus in for a cursory questioning. The Jews would not go in for fear of contamination. I have to ask, who went in with Jesus? Who was it that recorded his conversation with Pilate?

Before I go there, let us take a moment to examine the brief exchange between Pilate and the Jews. As a large and noticeable body, they had marched across town. Had word gone ahead of them to Pilate or did they just show up and make a noise? Did Pilate know that it was Jesus who would be brought before him? If he was forewarned, he would have certainly known.

Guards and soldiers patrol the city in the early morning hours. They see a large crowd of the Sanhedrin ilk heading for the hall of judgment. The band of men and officers with the priests may have their torches held high. They run to Pilate in alarm. They wake the governor with word that the Rabbi, whose movements and teachings are all the news, has been arrested. Consider just how Pilate said what he said. He was a Roman, he might have cared nothing at all about issues concerning lesser men, but he came out into the cold and demanded, in verse twenty-nine, what charges do you have against “this man?”

Consider also the response of the Jews. When asked, they did not present a litany of individual charges. It was as if they expected Pilate to be on the same page with them. In the John account, they actually have no charges. Nonetheless, the Jews and Pilate have an exchange that presents them on opposite sides of an issue with obvious contention in the words of both parties. The Jews answer the challenge of Pilate by saying, in verse thirty, “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.”

What kind of answer is that? I don't buy it – and I don't think Pilate did either.

Pilate clearly did not want to be the judge of this matter. Let us ask why. Was it simply that he did not want to be at the beck and call of the Sanhedrin? Was it because he was cold and sleepy? He had more than likely dealt with other malefactors at the behest of the Sanhedrin but what if – what if this was a case of the priesthood, not delivering up a man of lower station but, rather, another of the priesthood, one of their own? Under the condition of the Sanhedrin delivering for judgment a bona fide Rabbi, and especially one known to be at odds with the priesthood, the words of Pilate, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law,” makes absolute sense. Pilate was a civil governor. Matters of priest against priest or Rabbi against Rabbi, a cold and sleepy civil governor would not feel compelled to treat. He would have as much as told them, this is a religious matter, deal with it.

As I pointed out, the thing about Jesus and the religious authorities was a matter of public news. It was on everyone's lips. The issue was polarizing as many took sides, some with Jesus and some with the established order. People spoke about these matters on a daily basis and followed all the current news with intense interest. It is impossible that Pilate would not have known that the established order was gunning for a popular and well-loved Rabbi. Pilate was not fearful of a people subjugated to Rome. He was in charge and had trained soldiers to execute his every decree. Yet, he wanted no part of the Jew's turf war. It might have even been possible that Pilate secretly rooted for the underdog in this matter. It seems clear to me that Pilate did not want to be the judge in Jesus' trial.

Still, in verse thirty-one, the Jews answered Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” Well, I have to ask, if it was not lawful for them to put Jesus to death, why did they want to kill him? Were they asking the governor to help them commit a crime, to break their own laws? Were the Jews asking for Pilate to legitimize their lawlessness as a return favor for helps they had rendered to his governorship? If the governor and the religious elite were, at some level, in cahoots, why would he have sought to avoid just another small cooperation? I think that Pilate's wife was not the only one of them troubled by the turf war. Had Pilate taken sides? So, Pilate pulls Jesus inside, away from the Jews.

Consider their private exchange in verses thirty-three and thirty-four. It is no idle question that Pilate asks Jesus – are you the king of the Jews? It sounds very much like something Pilate needed to know. It is very likely that many people voiced around the nativity story of Jesus, attaching the story to prophecies from the old testament. It is likely that Romans submerged in Jewish daily culture would have heard of the same things spoken over the course of some years. It is not likely that the Jews could charge Jesus as a malefactor to the Roman governor on the basis of either folklore or religious titles for their own messiah. Pilate wants to know for personal reasons. He does not want to judge a man who might actually be the prophesied son of a god.

The use of the term King of the Jews is found twice in the four gospels. It is used during the trial and crucifixion. Pilate uses the term and it is written and placed on the cross.

The term is also used in the nativity story by three wise men from the east. In its various forms, the titles are king of the Jews, king of the Judaeans, and king of Israel. When Pilate asks Jesus, are you the king of the Jews, he may really be asking, are you that king of the Jews. Either Pilate seeks a way out of the matter because of Jesus' actual status or because of religious labeling, neither of which is sufficient criminal activity against Rome to bring him in on it. Another way in which this question may have been asked is through familiar association. In other words, Jesus and Pilate may have had a sit-down in their past which was either not recorded or was removed by way of an editor's personal preference.

What if Pilate knew Jesus? What if Pilate actually liked Jesus? Consider the interesting response of Jesus. He answered Pilate, are you asking for yourself or just because you heard others say it? The response seems both familiar and casual. Jesus' response is not the only interesting response in this exchange. Pilate responds in kind, not speaking down to a criminal, but in a manner that is just as familiar and casual. Am I a Jew? Think about it. Why would a Roman, who knew he was a Roman, ask a Jew who knew also he was a Roman, such a question? It's like, 'Look, man, you've put me in a hard place. It's not me bringing accusations against you. Your own kind, Jewish priests, want you dead. What have you done to enrage them so?' That is in verse thirty-five. No one is there except Jesus, Pilate, and some soldiers standing guard by the door. Clearly, this was a Jesus/Pilate moment.

Jesus explains to a Roman governor looking for a way out of religious intrigues by telling him two things at the same time. One: yes he is that king. Two: his kingdom is not political. Further: if his kingdom had been political, his servants would have fought against the Romans – obviously, they had not. They would have fought the religious order also to keep him out of the hands of spiteful Jews. They had not done that either.

Therefore, the kingdom of the king of Israel, as explained by Jesus, was a spiritual kingdom that was neither political or violent. Pilate reaches for certain confirmation when he asks, 'so then, you are a king?' Jesus answers, 'The word, king, is in your mouth. I came only to bear witness to the truth. Men who believe in and desire truth will hear my voice.' Still speaking man to man, Pilate asks, what is truth? There are many mindsets from which such a question will issue. The mindset of a violent and hateful Roman ready to persecute a subjected Jew at the drop of a hat is not one of them.

Before the private conversation between Pilate and Jesus, when Pilate had first come out to speak with the Jews, the first occasion of Pilate trying not to judge Jesus occurred.

After the conversation, Pilate went back out to the Jews, in verse thirty-eight, and tried a second time to avoid being the judge in a religious squabble. These two actions put Pilate on the side of Jesus. What Pilate told the Jews, whether on a professional level or a personal level, deserves more than a cursory response on our part. Pilate said, “I find in him no fault at all.” What does that mean? It means, first, that he does not believe that

Jesus is a malefactor. He thinks Jesus has done no wrong. He thinks the matter is a religious matter and that the title, king of the Jews, poses no threat to the authority of Rome. Since he had to judge, he made a judgment in favor of Jesus and not in favor of the accusing Jews.

Whether or not there really ever was a custom to release a prisoner at the Passover is still hotly debated. Some place the ball in the Roman court asserting that the alleged custom belonged to Pilate. In verse thirty-nine, Pilate asserts that the custom belonged to the Jews. Some say there was no custom at all. For typical scholarly views on the matter, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas#Etymology In the account by John, the offer to release an imprisoned robber in Jesus' stead was met with resistance but not from a crowd as Pilate was still only dealing with the chief priests and the band of men and officers that had arrested Jesus. With or without the Barabbas element, the story of exchanged political pressures surrounding the prisoner stands on its own feet.

Chapter Nineteen.

It begins thus, “Then Pilate, therefore, took Jesus, and scourged him.” Please do not overlook the word 'therefore.' It is a connector between what the Jews wanted and what Pilate did not want. It should be noted that scourge does not always mean to whip; it can mean to beat. It seems that Pilate was more interested in making a statement to the Jews rather than being complicit in their shallow plot to have Jesus killed. I say this because Pilate had already invested time and effort on Jesus' behalf. It does not seem likely that he would flip so soon and, too, we will see that Pilate, after the scourging, continues to invest himself in Jesus' defense. I also must point out that following immediately on the heels of verse one, the narrative shows a beating rather than a whipping. I see what the soldiers do, not as callous Romans being brutal but, as simply following orders. Again, who was there to record the events?

Verses two and three describe the scourging as a cursory interlude that included hitting or slapping Jesus and dressing him in a crown and purple robe – all for a visual show.

Pilate wanted to shame and mock the Jews. This, also, can be included in Pilate's defense of Jesus. If that was the case – that it was ordered by Pilate, then the hitting might have been to the face for effect. Still, in all, it seems rather less extreme than the Mel Gibson movie. If Pilate believed that there was no fault in Jesus worthy of death, a flogging with a cat of nine tails seems out of place in our thinking. It had no place in the John narrative.

Verse four provides the reader with another 'therefore,' another connector between thoughts and events. Having not wanted to be a part of the Jew's plan, having found no fault in Jesus, having invested time and effort in the defense of Jesus, and having had

Jesus dressed as the King of the Jews to mock and shame the Jews, Pilate 'therefore' went back out to illustrate just what he thought of the Jews and their plan. He said to them, “Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.”

Pilate went to lengths to make his position clear. This was his third act of defending Jesus. He stood Jesus before his accusers dressed as the very thing they accused him of and said, in verse five, “Behold the man!” Take a good look; he is not the threat you imagine.

But the Jews, and they alone, cried out for his crucifixion. When they saw Jesus dressed as a king, they 'therefore' were angered because they held that no mere man could be the Son of God. 'Why' might be more involved than commonly thought through but that is a topic for others to take up. Here, I wish only to parade the facts that, one: Pilate found no fault in Jesus, in other words, he did not believe what the Jews said and we are presented with an image of contention between Pilate and the Jews that may have had deep roots. Two: that it was only the group of men that came from the house of Annas that demanded Jesus' death. There were no public outcries. Three: Pilate answered their demand by saying, again, you take him and crucify him because I just don't believe he deserves to die. Is this a picture of a cold and callous Procurator totally willing to crucify any and every Jew? No. Pilate had been acting and speaking in Jesus' defense. This was, in fact, the fourth occasion where Pilate defended Jesus.

Verses seven and eight put a new spin on the story for, up until that moment, Pilate treated Jesus as an accused king who posed no threat to the Roman empire. Up until that moment, Pilate feared neither the Jews, Jesus, nor Roman sovereignty. Then, The Jews explain their case more precisely. They had a law under which Jesus deserved to die but also by their law, they could not kill him. That much still put the matter under a religious header. It seems that Pilate was more than willing to let the religious elite wrangle among themselves. Still no fear on Pilate's part and, here, we should understand that Rome and Judah had more than one connection. Pilate understood the language they communicated in. He also understood their beliefs – he had to in order to govern them. A polytheist Roman would have dismissed the religious details of the Jews and their God as so much Jewish weirdness. What the Jews said next should have in no way troubled a Roman governor. Yet, we see that when the Jews say that Jesus has made himself out to be the son of the Jewish God, suddenly Pilate was, as verse eight says, “more afraid.”

Just what kind of fear was Pilate operating under before he heard the Son of God part?

Was he afraid, that is, reluctant to get entangled in matters of a foreign religion? Up until that moment, Pilate presented himself as unafraid of the Jewish machinations. He seemed in possession of himself and asserted his decision with confidence. Jesus was a king that need not concern the Roman empire. It was a religious matter – let the priests hash it out. If by “more afraid,” the author only means more reluctant, then Pilate might well have looked at Jesus and thought, 'what have you gotten me into?' On the other hand, let us view Pilate as suddenly and truly fearful when the 'Son of God' topic is dropped at his feet. What kind of man might Pilate have been to become suddenly

fearful in regard to the Son of the Jewish God? Certainly, he had an understanding of their religion. He would have known about their prophecies. A religious matter of another culture would not have troubled an unbelieving Roman but, what if – he sort of believed?

He pulled Jesus back into the judgment hall for further interrogation in verses nine through eleven. As we recall, the Jews took Jesus to the judgment hall in chapter eighteen and verse twenty-eight where it is recorded that “it was early.” In chapters eighteen and nineteen, there are several short conversations between Pilate and the Jews and Pilate and Jesus – none of which would have lasted more than an hour. Also, the scourging is described as more or less a cursory extension of Pilate's argument with the Jews. Yet, by the time Pilate gives up and hands Jesus over to be crucified, the hour of the day is noted – it is the sixth hour: noon. If that was the case, the Jews had been standing just outside of the praetorium for half a day. Speaking of which, how do you imagine the structure of the building?

I imagine, to begin with, steps up to an outer porch on which the governor stood to address the Jews. The judgment seat is described as if in a different location – one called the 'pavement' – yet, near enough to the same group of Jews. If the praetorium was its own building, the Jews were standing in the street, and others might have gathered. If, however, the praetorium was an annex of another building – say, the temple – the Jews might have stood inside a courtyard where things remained relatively apart from the general population in the early morning hours. After the Jews scare Pilate, he retreats with Jesus to question him some more. Let us take a look at the line of questioning.

Pilate asks Jesus, “Whence art thou?” That is like asking 'from where' or 'from which' are you? This may be Pilate asking Jesus, 'Are you from heaven or earth?' Jesus did not answer that question and Pilate was perturbed. He asked, then, 'Why won't you answer me? You realize, don't you, that I have the power, not only to crucify but, to set you free?' Jesus answered that question, saying, “You could have no power at all against me except it were given to you from above: therefore he that delivered me to you has the greater sin.” Pilate already was comfortable with the authority given to him by Caesar.

He would not need to be told about an authorizing power “above” if Jesus had meant to bring up his placement in the military chain of command. Jesus spoke to Pilate about the Jewish God whom the Jews place 'above' all else. Why would a Jewish Rabbi say such a thing to a polytheist Roman? Jesus further explains that because of the point he just made, the Jews who delivered him to Pilate had the “greater sin.” Why would a subjected Jewish citizen talk to a Roman governor about the Jewish concept of accountability? More importantly, why would Jewish talk of sin trouble a Roman with the power of life and death?

What is actually being said to Pilate by Jesus? Pilate, your power over me has been given to you by none other than God. You are guilty for your part in this but not as guilty as my own people. Recall that Pilate asked Jesus the question, “Am I a Jew?” Was that a

rhetorical question? Pilate followed that question with the statement that Jesus' “own” people delivered him. In a conversation between a Jew and a Roman, the topic of Jewish 'sin' under a singular God is hardly compelling. Yet, it was because of what Jesus said that Pilate took the matter to the official judgment seat level. Up until then, Pilate had not officially spoken to the Jews. He spoke to them more as a man. His defense of Jesus may be seen as personal rather than as 'officially Roman.' It would be interesting to know if Pilate and Jesus had met and talked beforehand. It would be interesting and perhaps helpful to know if Pilate had inclinations toward the Jewish faith even if they were kept a secret. While it is not included here, other gospels record that Pilate's wife was especially troubled over her husband's involvement in the trial of Jesus. Was she a follower and, if so, did her faith influence Pilate?

Pilate's final attempts to acquit Jesus begin in verse twelve. It says, “And from thenceforth,” that is, from the point where Jesus informs Pilate of God's actions (perhaps a test) and the distribution of blame in the death of Jesus (which even Pilate can see that Jesus is deliberately not avoiding) “Pilate sought to release him.” It was Pilate's intent on the official level to release the accused prisoner. Up until this point, we see no jail time in the John gospel. The timeline quickly and smoothly proceeds from Jesus handed over to Pilate with a few words between him and the Jews, to an exchange between Jesus and Pilate in which Pilate says three things and Jesus says three things, and then to another short exchange between Pilate and the Jews in which the Jews ask for Barabbas, on to the minimal scourging and presentation of Jesus dressed in crown and robe, the reaction of the Jews, Pilate's response, the Jew's response, another exchange between Jesus and Pilate in which Pilate says two things and Jesus says one thing. All, pretty straightforward, timeline-wise.

In a final attempt to defend Jesus (and I have to ask, why would Pilate care so much about the fate of one Jew?) Pilate is shot down by the Jews, who change their tactic to political pressure. They insinuate that unless they get their way, Pilate's allegiances will be suspect. This is the point, in verse thirteen, where Pilate assumes his seat of authority.

Jesus between the two parties, Pilate begins by saying, 'look upon your king.' The response of the priests is, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him.” Pilate seeks confirmation of their will and intent by asking, “Shall I crucify your king?” Even in his official capacity, Pilate seems reluctant to be the one to kill Jesus. He has made the point that, on an official level, he sees the kingship of Jesus as a non-political issue by placing the weight of accountability squarely on the shoulders of the Jews. The Jews assert that they have no king but Caesar which may, in and of itself, be a small win for Pilate's administration – something which he can hold over them.

Verse sixteen states, “Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.” The Jews took Jesus and led him away to be crucified – all they required was the sanction of the governor and soldiers to perform the crucifixion. Verse seventeen simply states that Jesus, “bearing his cross,” went to the “place of the skull” and was, as is continued in verse eighteen, crucified. As for pertinent

details, there are few – only that Jesus was crucified with two thieves and Jesus in between them. There is no mention of the release of Barabbas, no mention of Simon carrying the cross for Jesus, no mourning women along the Via Dolorosa – just the barebones facts. Where was the place of the skull? John tells us, in verse twenty, “for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city.”

I get this from Wikipedia: All four Gospels use the Greek word kranion to describe the place where Jesus was crucified. Unlike skufion ("skull"), kranion (in English – cranium)[59] is the upper part of the skull excluding the face bones. Since the temple faced east,[60] the curtain in front of the entrance[61] of the temple would have been in direct view of those gathered on this mount at the northeast corner of the Temple Mount, just outside the city wall. And to testify that the curtain ripped at the very moment when Jesus died,[62] there must have been eyewitnesses. The Gospel of John refers to Golgotha as being very near the city, so near that all who passed by could read the inscription[19:20]. Considering also the prophecy in Psalms 69:12[69:12], his place of crucifixion would have been near enough to the gate that Jesus could hear what the people were saying about him there. And just as Eusebius comments in Onomasticon concerning Golgotha as being a hill just outside Jerusalem, north of the ancient Mount Zion[55], this hill fits his description.

Let us consider the “title” that Pilate wrote. It was a placard large enough for passing people to read. It was written in three languages – which in and of itself tells us much.

Pilate understood and could write in three languages. It was a way of telling the Jews that more than the local Jews were under the governance of Rome. It was also a way to rub it in, that the Jews were killing their own prophesied king and he, Pilate, had done his personal best to avoid the death of a blameless man. The sign also suggests to me that Pilate attended the crucifixion. It is only mentioned after the fact that Jesus was on the cross between two thieves. We see, too, that Pilate was adamant about the words he had written. He wanted to lay the blame fully on the Jews.

Let us consider the soldiers that crucified Jesus. Verses twenty-three and twenty-four inform us that only four soldiers were in the detail. We know this because it is said they divided Jesus' clothing into four portions. What might Jesus have been dressed in other than the seamless coat or purple robe? Let us consider that the soldiers would not necessarily have wanted his undergarments so, as to the outer garments, if the outer garments were not ripped into four parts, there were five items of worth. One of them was the seamless coat. Why would soldiers, who wore Roman and military issue, want the clothing of a dusty rogue teacher? The answer, obviously, is that the clothing of Jesus was not common clothing. It was valuable enough that at the very least, they could have sold it.

Since there was no mention of Jesus being unclothed before his march to Calvary, it is at least possible that the purple robe was among the clothing. Small details such as these may offer greater insight. In many depictions of the crucifixion, Jesus is shown to be

wearing the crown that Pilate had him dressed in. If the crown went to the cross, perhaps the purple robe did also. For that matter, how did Pilate come across a royal purple robe?

Was it contraband? Did he borrow it from Herod, who lived nearby in the city of Jerusalem? As for the seamless coat, why would Jesus be dressed in such a thing?

The following information comes from https://nowthatimcatholic.com/2019/03/15/question-what-is-the-significance-of-jesusseamless-garment/ The seamless tunic wasn’t just mentioned for its monetary value, it was also part of the liturgical vestments, that was designed by God and given to Moses in the desert of Sinai.

Throughout the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, there are many mentions of linen garments that are to be worn by the priests that serve at the tabernacle, and even Ezekiel mentions several times the linen garments to be worn during Temple service.

Interestingly, according to the Talmud (A collection of Jewish teachings on the Torah) a priest was divested of his divine office if he failed to wear the proper vestments, While they are clothed in the priestly garments, they are clothed in the priesthood; but when they are not wearing the garments, the priesthood is not upon them. ~BT Zevachim 17:B But many of these references are to the vestments worn by the Levitical priests, and not necessarily reserved to the High Priest, except for a couple of places in Leviticus and Exodus. These passages go into great detail about the vestments to be worn by Aaron, who was the first High Priest of Israel, and all who follow him in that office. Part of his vestments was an under robe, to be made seamless, and to be reinforced around the neck opening so to prevent tearing, It shall have in it an opening for the head, with a woven binding around the opening, like the opening in a garment, that it may not be torn. ~Exodus 28:32 All of this is to say that the seamless garment mentioned only by John, is to point directly to the fact that Christ is the High Priest Of the New Covenant. What was alluded to by John, would later be spelled out by the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews.

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then

through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.” ~Hebrews 9:11-15

(Really the entire book of Hebrews is on this theme of Christ’s covenant being greater than the old covenant, and His priesthood greater than the old priesthood. It’s worth reading in its entirety.)

Christ the High Priest. At the very beginning of the Gospels we hear Jesus called “the lamb of God” by John the Baptist (John 1:29), He calls His own body “greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6) and “this temple” (John 2:21), and the seamless garment designated Him as the High priest.

What does it say to us that Jesus' daily wardrobe included the seamless tunic of a High Priest? Is that how so many people recognized Jesus as a Rabbi and as a Jew? Was it the wearing of such a coat that made the sellers in the temple reluctant to fight back when Jesus overturned their tables and brought their livelihood to a standstill? Is the seamless tunic the reason the “band of men and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” fell back in the garden from the presence of Jesus? It has been my opinion throughout my studies that Jesus was a bonafide “Rabbi.” The seamless tunic adds the weight of justification to my assumption.

The mother of Jesus being in Jerusalem is the next issue I consider. Chapter nineteen verse twenty-five tells us that Jesus' mother was present in the city of Jerusalem. We might do well to ask why. Women were not required to travel from their homes to attend the Passover in Jerusalem like the men were. We can think of Jesus attending the Passover, his disciples, his brothers even. Why would his mother have attended the Passover on the very day of his crucifixion? What might have transpired to bring her, her sister, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene to the crucifixion of Jesus?

Let me start with Mary Magdalene. It has been recorded that Mary was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. She may have been a woman of substance who supported his ministry financially. She may have traveled among the disciples and could well have been present in the garden. It might also be, as I have set forth, that she was his wife and also the sister of Lazarus who lived just a few short miles away in Bethany. If Mary was his wife living at Bethany, it is no stretch to think that Jesus' mother would be welcomed there. Jesus did go to the home of Mary and Lazarus almost a full week before the Passover began. If Jesus' brothers traveled to Jerusalem, as was required for the Passover, it is no stretch to think of their mother and sisters going with them. Neither is it a stretch to think of certain family members of the disciples attending the Passover.

Some scholars place the wife of Cleophas, or Clopas, as the mother of James – with a possibility that the James noted is the brother of John. Some scholars place Clopas as the brother of Joseph. Since we see, at the cross in John's gospel, both the mother of a possible James and the disciple John, I will go with the thought that family members of the disciples were present and accessible in the city of Jerusalem during the Passover. It is only in the gospel of John that a disciple beloved by Jesus is mentioned. It is well to stop here and consider a beloved disciple at the cross of Jesus. Scholarly postulations as

to the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is important in regard to the list of women at the cross. Who has been identified as a possible beloved disciple?

First and foremost is the disciple John. This is based on the wording in the final chapter of the gospel of John, 21:24, “This is the disciple that testified of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” Why would Jesus specifically love this one disciple? The disciple in question entered the house of Annas freely, then got Peter admitted. If that disciple had connections within the priesthood, it may well be that Jesus loved him due to a shared love for the law of God. The fact that Peter, during the last supper, asked this beloved disciple to inquire about the identity of the traitor suggests a higher level of confidentiality shared between Jesus and the beloved disciple.

Some scholars have suggested that James, the brother or cousin of Jesus, is the beloved disciple because of family ties. Not much more is set forth except a later naming as 'James the Just.' The word, 'Just,' suggests a known and respected quality of character that may have paralleled that of Jesus. Some scholars, on the other hand, suggest that the beloved disciple was Lazarus. This is so because the use of the descriptions, “beloved disciple” and “disciple whom Jesus loved” only began to be used from the thirteenth chapter of John. Before they were used, it was noted in earlier chapters that Jesus “loved” Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. Also, Mary and Martha sent to Jesus on the behalf of a very seriously ill Lazarus, stating in chapter eleven, “he whom thou lovest” is ill.

While it is recorded that Jesus ate the last supper with the listed twelve disciples, there is still a point to be made that Jesus had returned to the home of Lazarus a week before the Passover. It may well be that he ate the last supper in the home of Lazarus.

Finally, some scholars have suggested that the true identity of the beloved disciple was Mary Magdalene. They suggest that later edits to the gospels were effected to hide her identity. I get this excerpt from The Jesus Memoirs. Access the site for more information. https://jesusmemoirs.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-beloved-disciple-asmary-magdalene/ .

The idea that Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple was another option not included in Charlesworth’s survey. Yet she plays an important role in the Gospel Easter narratives and was remembered as a privileged disciple in some of the Gospels in the Nag Hammadi collection (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip). The major obstacles are the use of masculine pronouns for the beloved disciple, the reference to the beloved disciple as “son” in John 19:26-27, and the distinction between the beloved disciple and Mary in John 20:2-9. In Ramon K. Jusino’s thesis online, he argues that Mary Magdalene was the original leader and hero of the Johannine community, but that an editor concealed this fact and inserted new references to make it appear that the beloved disciple and Mary were distinct characters.

Let's jump back to the garden. I wish to consider a certain scenario. Jesus was arrested.

The twelve disciples were scattered. John (or James,) possibly Judas Iscariot, and Peter followed to the house of Annas. That left between nine and ten disciples who had to

have someplace to go. While their story is not told, it is realistic to think that they ran to people they knew and told them the news. Let us imagine that James runs to Bethany to inform Mary the sister of Lazarus. Suppose that his own mother is staying at the Lazarus' home because she is with the mother of Jesus, who is an in-law to the Lazarus family. If Jesus is arrested with only his core twelve disciples present and, then, the three Marys show up at the crucifixion – someone was responsible for informing them of current events. It is clear, from Luke 23:49, that women from Galilee came with Jesus when he went down for the Passover, stopping to stay at Bethany a week before the feast. These women would have necessarily included his mother and aunt. The women that came with him from Galilee would have included family members of the disciples.

They stood at a distance observing, yet, a select few were allowed near the cross – most likely due to an immediate family relationship.

Let's think about John and Mary. John 19:26 and 27 described the presence of Jesus' mother and a disciple standing near her. It is only said that this disciple is the one whom Jesus loved. There is no actual identification. It is realistic to think that any of the core disciples who fled the arrest scene in the garden might, for fear, be standing afar off. Yet, one disciple stands with Mary near the cross. I have suggested that, of the women who stood afar off, being those who came with him from Galilee, those who were allowed near the cross were permitted that privilege due to a close family relationship. We know that Jesus' mother had a close family relationship. It is my personal opinion that Mary Magdalene had a close family relationship. The matter of the apostle John is a different story. John and his brother James, another apostle, were there with their mother, the wife of Clopas. There were also the sons of Salome.

Catholic and Orthodox traditions believed that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. Among the disciples, there were James and John, the sons of Zebedee and there were James and Matthew, who were brothers by the father Alphaeus. The lack of a positive identity for the beloved disciple is a mystery. We know that Jesus had many disciples but only twelve apostles. The core twelve, aside from being students, were messengers sent out to the world with the gospel. It is not, therefore, absolutely certain that the beloved disciple was one of the apostles. James and John were first cousins to Jesus but they had their own family. We often look at the giving of Mary to the beloved disciple as a need – as in Mary suddenly found herself without a family. However, she lived with and raised the sisters of Jesus along with his four brothers, James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. While many religious scholars, in an attempt to maintain a particular image of the Lord and the unsullied virginity of Mary, suggest that Jesus' brothers were actually cousins or halfbrothers, I see no problem with Jesus having actual brothers and sisters by Mary.

Let us build up from the basics. People came down from Galilee with Jesus. He had disciples and apostles. They brought family members. Jesus' own mother came down with him. I think it likely that family members came with her. Let us say that the brother James, who later became a leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem, came with Mary.

Let us also think of him as standing with his mother at the cross because the Romans

limited the people there to the immediate family. It is no stretch to see Jesus give Mary to James, to reinforce, as it were, the family bond. Even to consider James as a halfbrother by Joseph, the giving of Mary to James would make sense. Who else might make sense? Some of the people who followed Jesus stood afar off watching the crucifixion, others were allowed so close to the cross that they could hear Jesus speak. I have suggested that such was due to a close family association. Who was around the cross? There were the priests that led Jesus to the cross, there were the four Roman soldiers, possibly, there were the officers who had arrested Jesus and, as I have suggested, Pilate may have attended to place the placard above the cross and thus goad the Jews.

Mary comes up and, maybe not the Romans but, perhaps one among the priests recognize the mother of Jesus and allow her in. The unnamed beloved disciple, who got Peter into the house of Annas, may have gotten Mary a place close to the cross. He may also have gotten Mary Magdalene a place near the cross. If it was James, the brother of the Lord, he might have said, “This is the man's mother and wife. I am his brother.” As clearly shown in the death and resurrection of Lazarus, many of the priests, whom the author of John always referred to as “the Jews,” came to mourn his death and gave particular attention to his sister, Mary. See John 11:32 and 33. As to followers and believers of which it is written that Jesus loved, John 11:3 states, “he whom thou lovest is sick.” Verse five of the same chapter states, “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” So, I have to wonder if the beloved disciple is Lazarus bringing to the cross the mother and wife of Jesus – his immediate family.

How about the act of receiving a mother into your own home from that very hour? Let us view the brothers and sisters of Jesus as being from a previous marriage. They would be older than Jesus. They all would have been married and lived in their own houses – a scattered family. If Joseph was dead, as many scholars suggest, Mary, the mother of Jesus would have lived alone or, perhaps, with her sister. In that scenario, it makes sense to give her to any of the known disciples, to any of his older brothers. To me, it would make more sense for Lazarus, the brother-in-law, to take her in. Both Marys stood there, Jesus, basically, entrusted his whole family to someone he loved. To say, “Behold thy Mother” to a cousin or half-brother is the creation of a matter but to say, “Behold thy Mother” to a brother-in-law is like saying take care of your family.

I want to question the vinegar. Was vinegar at the cross a common accessory? I get this next bit of information from the site Old Dominion University. Check out their link for more information: https://ww2.odu.edu/~lmusselm/plant/bible/gall.php. Some gospel accounts give us vinegar mixed with gall while other gospel accounts give us wine mixed with myrrh. According to this site, the concoction was commonly used by the Romans to help those on the cross endure the cross longer. A concoction of wine or vinegar mixed with a plant that had a narcotic effect was customarily used during crucifixion. The plant, due to its extent throughout the Middle East and its long history of use, has been identified as poison hemlock.

Jesus died just after receiving the vinegar mixed with gall. When did Jesus die?

Wikipedia states, In Mark 15:25 crucifixion, takes place at the third hour (9 a.m.) and Jesus' death at the ninth hour (3 p.m.). However, in John 19:14 Jesus is still before Pilate at the sixth hour. Scholars have presented a number of arguments to deal with the issue, some suggesting a reconciliation, e.g., based on the use of Roman timekeeping in John, since Roman timekeeping began at midnight and this would mean being before Pilate at the 6th hour was 6 a.m., yet others have rejected the arguments. Several scholars have argued that the modern precision of marking the time of day should not be read back into the gospel accounts, written at a time when no standardization of timepieces or exact recording of hours and minutes was available, and time was often approximated to the closest three-hour period.

If Jesus was handed over for execution around noon and died around three in the afternoon, that argues for a far shorter crucifixion. It seems reasonable that the time of death arrived later. The Jews were concerned with the time. It was the preparation before the Sabbath, mentioned explicitly in John as a 'High Sabbath.' The Jews wanted to get it over with and go home. They asked Pilate, another reason I think Pilate was there, to have the legs of the prisoners broken to speed things along. The soldiers broke the legs of the other two men but not Jesus. See verses thirty-two and thirty-three of chapter nineteen. They saw that he was already dead so they did not bother to break the legs.

Instead, one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side and there came out blood and water.

Before I move on to the issue of blood and water, I would like to examine the difference between a regular Sabbath and a High Sabbath. As the Jewish culture has rocked along through the ages, Sabbaths have pretty much been a regular Saturday event to the day.

Saturdays have been continuous through the ages. On the other hand, High Sabbaths have been explained as feast Sabbaths that coincide with the regular Sabbaths. Such an explanation necessarily includes the fact that not all feast Sabbaths coincided with the regular Sabbaths. On that particular feast, both Sabbaths in the week-long feast fell on a Saturday. Without accurate data, Jesus could have been crucified on the Friday before either Sabbath. Was Jesus rushed through a hasty crucifixion before the feast began or was he detained and crucified days later on the second preparation day? I will leave that as an open question.

On the matter of blood and water, significant symbolic importance is customarily attached to the wording. I have read that there is an actual medical condition where the heart is surrounded by a sack of clear fluid but I wish to speak more about the religious importance of blood and water to the Jews. To speak of them separately, starting with blood, Leviticus 17:11 states, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” That explains the restriction on eating blood. It was ordained for a special purpose. Atonement was obtained exclusively through blood.

Every Israelite was keenly aware of the significance of blood. The symbolism of life

through the blood of a sacrificial lamb was not wasted on the Jewish psyche. Blood had another symbolic significance as well.

Birth and blood are inextricably linked in all conscious thought. First John 5:6 says, “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood.” In the epistle of First John, we see that the very eternal life of God was robed in human flesh. According to John, there was a widespread belief that Jesus had only "appeared" and therefore did not come in the flesh – also known as the incipient Gnosticism. Wikipedia explains the term as follows: This spiritualizing of the resurrection sprang from the idea of the necessarily evil nature of all material substance. This idea immediately led to the conclusion of the essentially evil nature of the human body, and that if man is to rise to his true nature, he must rid himself of the thraldom, not of sin, but of the body. This contempt for the body led to the denial of the resurrection in its literal sense; and all that Christ had taught on the subject was explained only, in an allegorical sense, of the resurrection of the soul from sin.

Water was also symbolic of life and of birth, as in the breaking of the water. However, water took on the additional significance of cleanliness and purity through washing and baptism. Water came to be associated with the higher nature in man – the spirit – while blood remained as the life of the flesh. Looking at the symbols of blood and water in concert, we are asked to understand the fullness of life in circuit. God was born by water and blood, in the flesh, to save flesh by the reality of the spirit-filled flesh. Jesus, as the sacrificial lamb that realized atonement for the spirit in man, poured out salvation not only through the blood but also through the water. I can see salvation as realization.

The reality of God and man was captured in the image of God in man through the concerted action of both flesh and spirit as symbolized in the blood and the water that poured forth from Jesus' wound. Just so the reader may be certain, the author officially bears record of the event, as a faithful witness, and of the scriptural associations.

Prophets of old foretold of the very event the author faithfully recorded: no broken bones but a piercing instead; lots cast for the vestments; and a tomb among the rich.

Who was Joseph of Arimathaea? He was a secret disciple of Jesus. He feared being found out by “the Jews.” He ran in the company of Nicodemus, who was a member of the Sanhedrin. He had a home nearby and, near that home, he had a nearby tomb.

Arimathaea is tentatively identified with places far from the site of the crucifixion.

Where Joseph originally haled from is not germane to this writing. The points I have listed above will suffice to give us an idea of who he was.

To continue with Joseph's identity, let us return to the crucifixion and the people who attended. There were the four Roman soldiers and, as I have surmised, possibly Pilate, himself. There were the leaders of the Sanhedrin who accused Jesus. There possibly were some of the officers who participated in the capture of Jesus – however, as we have seen, the process of getting Jesus to the cross took the leaders of the Jewish faith all of the morning and the event continued toward the evening. It is reasonable to think that

non-essential people were dismissed early on. Aside from the family members in attendance, the greater part of those present were the major players within the religious order. They were members of the Sanhedrin, High Priests, lesser priests, Pharisees, etc.

The coming and going of those particular people is as understandable as the aides of the Prefect coming and going. It was acceptable for the members of the Sanhedrin, those who did not accuse Jesus and may have been secret followers, to wander in. It is my point, here, to assert that both Nicodemus and Joseph were members of the religious elite who followed and supported Jesus.

We must also ask the overlooked questions. Why did Joseph ask for the body? Was that not the place of blood relatives? Was this Joseph related to Jesus? Did he ask for the body based solely on his agreement with the teachings of a man without rank? Did he ask for the body out of sympathy for the poor family of the man? Of course, it was a matter of the Jewish psyche that Jews should not be left to hang overnight – even base criminals were taken down. It was important to the Jews, in a legal sense, that an honorable burial be offered. That being said, could it have possibly been a decision based on the principle that Jesus was one of their own? Let us take into consideration the fact that Pilate had been dealing with the Sanhedrin all day and at the end of the day, perhaps in his own thinking, he turned over the body to the same group that had accused him. One other matter to keep in mind is that the burial of Jesus was a joint work between Joseph and Nicodemus. It seems to have been an act done in the spirit of honoring one who had served.

Let's take a look at verses forty-one and forty-two. The author provides information about the burial site of Jesus. We already have been informed that Jesus was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. It was on a hill shaped like the top of a bald head. The author tells us that the site of the crucifixion was near a garden and in the garden was a sepulcher. A thing we have already investigated was the Mount of Olives. It had a garden and a graveyard. The graveyard on the Mount of Olives was a place where the rich and men of renown were buried. I ask, therefore, how many garden/graveyards are we dealing with in the narrative of the crucifixion.

There is little hard evidence for Joseph but the four gospels make claims about him. He was rich, he was a disciple of Jesus, he was a member of the council who was looking for the Kingdom of God. Does that last part indicate great age? Perhaps. He considered the topic of his own death closely enough to build a tomb for himself. That tomb was in a garden. Was the garden his – as part of his property? As a senior member of the council, did he live in a really nice and gardeny spot close to Jerusalem? There were just himself and Nicodemus, another old council member, to carry the body to the tomb. The information that the tomb was nearby is an important clue. What does it say about him that he, along with Nicodemus, was prepared to touch a dead body in contradiction to Jewish law? He would have been unclean for the seven days of the great feast. If the two men had servants to carry the body and carried it to the graveyard on the Mount of

Olives, near or appended to the garden and, perhaps, Joseph's property, that would qualify as nearby being about a thirty-to forty-five-minute walk.

There is a possible connection between Joseph and Jesus as the Marys are recorded as being present at the burial. Wikipedia says, 'Christian tradition represents Mary as a widow during the adult ministry of her son. Joseph is not mentioned as being present at the Wedding at Cana at the beginning of Jesus' mission, nor at the Passion at the end. If he had been present at the Crucifixion, he would under Jewish custom have been expected to take charge of Jesus' body, but this role is instead performed by Joseph of Arimathea.' According to legend, after the burial, the council leaders became angry with Joseph, beat him, and sent him away. Joseph stayed with Gamaliel. Gamaliel was a great teacher of Judaic law who taught Paul. There is a tentative connection between Gamaliel and Jesus that I found in an article from Wikipedia.

'Various pieces of classical rabbinic literature additionally mention that Gamaliel sent out three epistles, designed as notifications of new religious rulings, and which portray Gamaliel as the head of the Jewish body for religious law. Two of these three were sent, respectively, to the inhabitants of Galilee and "the Darom" (southern Judea), and were on the subject of the first tithe. The third epistle was sent to the Jews of the diaspora, and argued for the introduction of an intercalary month.

Since the Hillel school of thought is presented collectively, there are very few other teachings which are clearly identifiable as Gamaliel's. There is only a somewhat cryptic dictum, comparing his students to classes of fish: A ritually impure fish: one who has memorized everything by study, but has no understanding, and is the son of poor parents A ritually pure fish: one who has learned and understood everything, and is the son of rich parents A fish from the Jordan River: one who has learned everything, but doesn't know how to respond A fish from the Mediterranean Sea: one who has learned everything, and knows how to respond.

As we recall, Jesus used the expression – 'fishers of men'.

Chapter Twenty.

The first verse of this chapter takes us to the first day of the week. Nothing is mentioned of the Sabbath or of the Passover. Too many people just rush through the verse on their way to the next verse. I want to stop and ask questions. I want to study the details others

rush past. One such detail is the three-day period that Jesus was in the grave. The Bible gives us a three-day period in order to make a connection between Jesus and Jonah who spent three days in the belly of a fish. Jesus was interred on the evening of the day of preparation before a High Sabbath of the Passover feast. Jewish days ran from the evening to the morning. Going to the morning of the Sabbath is only one day. Going to the morning of the day following the Sabbath is only two days. To have a full three days, Jesus would need to be in the grave from the evening of the preparation day (a Friday as the Sabbath fell on a Saturday) to the morning of Monday. Verse one has us at the first day of the week and therein lies a problem to simple logic. The Jews consider Sunday to be the first day of the week.

I will leave that for others to hash out. I want to turn my attention to Mary Magdalene, a very persistent character in the story of Jesus. She was said to be with him from the beginning of his ministry. If memory serves, Jesus' ministry began at or around the wedding at Cana. Information on Mary is limited in the Bible but every instance of her in the story of Jesus gives off the vibe that she was more important than the scriptures record. I see it in the little details like her being with Jesus' mother at the crucifixion and being present at the burial. That she was the very first to his grave after the Sabbath reeks of importance. I have to ask, where was she staying during that time? I have to ask, what state of mind was she in that caused her to be out before the sun came up? Had she lost sleep? Was she distraught? I suppose other disciples and apostles were distraught at the death of their master but none of them were up before the crack of dawn. I can picture Mary walking in the dark with a small lamp. But why her? Mary rushing to the grave at the earliest possible opportunity speaks of personal feelings that go beyond the distress of an apostle without a master.

There are four versions of Mary going to the grave and the John version is the only one that has her going alone. Still, in verse two, when she runs to Peter with the news, she uses the expression “we know not where they have laid him,” indicating a consensus rather than a solitary opinion. In the three other gospel versions, Mary goes in the company of other women. In two of the three other versions, the women have prepared spices to anoint the body of Jesus. Those two versions raise some rather serious questions. First, I must ask, how did they presume they could roll away the stone? Were two or three women sufficient to the task? Second, I must ask, why would there be a need to anoint the body of Jesus a second time? Joseph and Nicodemus are recorded in John 19:39-40 doing that at the time of the burial, “And there came also Nicodemus . . . and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred-pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.”

It would be great to know more of the facts. Why did Mary run to Peter, for example, and not to Andrew? Why were Peter and the unnamed disciple whom Jesus loved

hanging out together? Where were they staying? Where were the other disciples? How far did Mary have to run to reach them on that dark morning? If the unnamed disciple was John – didn't he take Jesus' mother to his home? Was the mother of Jesus there somewhere? If we recall, when Jesus came down to the Passover, with those who came with him, he went to the house of his friend, Lazarus, to stay. Were he and his disciples lodging with Lazarus? Was the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene staying at the house of Lazarus? Had all of the early morning running taken place on the Mount of Olives between the Lazarus home in Bethany and the graveyard on the same Mount of Olives?

In verses three through eight, those two disciples ran to the grave but it is not mentioned, at this point, that Mary went with them. Let's take a look at the race of the two disciples.

One of them was faster than the other and arrived first at the grave. What does that suggest? It might be a clue that Peter was older. It might be a clue about the disciple that Jesus loved. His racing so hard to get there speaks of the love that was reciprocated. It might speak of a deeper relationship or one that was more long-standing. If that disciple was James, the brother of Jesus, we are clued in to a deep brotherly love that speaks of more than cousins. If that disciple was Lazarus, we are clued into a long-standing love for the entire Lazarus family of whom it was recorded in the Bible that Jesus “loved” them.

So, the beloved disciple arrived first at the grave but did not go in. Perhaps he was heavily winded. Perhaps he was afraid. If it was Lazarus, perhaps it was a moment of wonder and reflection as he, himself, had risen from the dead and he found himself enthralled in the epiphany of the power of God over physical death. When Peter arrived, he went in and the unnamed disciple followed. Now, we come to details that bear the weight of credibility. Jesus rose from the dead and both disciples saw a linen cloth that the body had been wrapped in. When I say wrapped, I mean with the arms inside. I mean wrapped tightly to hold the spices close to the body. It is rather like a straight jacket in that it would be extremely difficult to get out of without assistance. The author worded it thus, “and seeth the linen clothes lie.” That suggests that the linen was still in the place where it should have been – just empty. When people pen in the little details it is because they are impressive. The face cloth is mentioned for that reason. It was not where they might have expected it to be. It was set aside – and it had been folded. How many scenarios can we imagine where the linen is where it should be but the face cloth has been folded and set aside?

That was just one of the details. This is the other detail: the beloved disciple followed Peter into the grave and saw what Peter saw first. When he saw it, he believed. Let's jump way back to a point when Jesus confided to his brothers. In chapter seven of John, Jesus walked in Galilee. For a time, he avoided travel into Judaea but the feast of tabernacles was at hand and it was one of the three feasts that required Jews to be

physically present in Jerusalem. I bring this up because the unnamed disciple all of a sudden believed. Seeing is believing. Right? Well, Jesus was in Galilee with his brothers. They mocked him. They mocked his ministry and what he hoped to achieve.

Obviously, they knew what that was or they would not be able to mock him. In not so many words, they told him to get off the pot. They told him, if you want to make a name for yourself, you can't do that hiding here with us – go. Show yourself to the world.

Verse five of that chapter explicitly states, “For neither did his brethren believe him.”

Was James that unnamed disciple?

Back to chapter twenty and verse nine. It states, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” Well, what had Jesus been teaching them for three years? The core twelve disciples were steeped in such teachings. As Jews who went weekly to the Synagogue, they were familiar with all the prophecies about the messiah. They were present at occasions where Jesus raised the dead and Jesus spoke to them at length during their final meal together about his death and resurrection. Had they simply not connected the dots until they saw the empty grave? James, on the other hand, was a righteous man who later governed the early church in Jerusalem but many scholars agree that he was not initially sold on his brother being the savior.

Verse ten. “Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.” Their home? Did they live together? Did they have a rented home in or near Jerusalem? Their own home speaks to me of Capernaum where they actually owned homes but the plural is not used.

The singular 'home' is written. If that was not an idiom of the writer or a mistake of the interpreter, then I am left to believe that the two men lived in the same dwelling. Peter and his brother, Andrew, lived together in Capernaum. If, however, we are not considering a long trek to Capernaum, we are left to consider a local lodging that is identified deliberately as “their own home.” It is possible that they hired a room somewhere but when the running to the grave is taken into account, it seems unlikely that they were in Jerusalem. That would have been a really long run and if Peter was an older man, he might not have done well to run such a distance.

There is, on the other hand, a real possibility that they stayed in Bethany. That was a small town or city. There may have been accommodations to be had for a coin or two. I am still at a place in my thinking where the grave location seems more likely to be somewhere close to Bethany. Although, I admit the possibility that there was some halfway point between Bethany and Jerusalem where a rich old man had built himself a garden gravesite. However, to be buried in a virgin grave set alone does not quite fulfill the prophecy that the Messiah would be buried with the rich. There could have been a private garden with graves set aside for the priests and council members but they hardly qualify as rich. I say this to point out the fact that there was a nearby graveyard with many graves of the rich and renowned. It was within walking distance.

And, then, there is this from https://alt-arch.org/en/graveyard_metropolis/ Kidron Valley Antiquities The burial monuments in the Kidron Valley, at the foot of the Mt. of Olives, are considered the grandest and most unique of Jerusalem graves. These monuments have been recognized as part of the landscape surrounding the Old City for thousands of years. The Pillar of Absalom is in our day the most prominent edifice in the Kidron Valley, easily recognizable through its singular architecture: a round dome set on a square structure. Beside it, we find the Tomb of Benei Hezir and the Tomb of Zecharia.

These tombs are excavated in the rock; their facades resemble free-standing structures, and they enclose much more space than that necessary for burial.

Verse eleven brings us back to Mary. She had followed the two disciples back to the sepulcher. After they left, Mary remained. She stood outside the open grave and cried. If she was the only one there, who recorded the event? Did Mary tell this part later? As she cried, she stooped down and peered inside the grave. She reported seeing two angels dressed in white. One sat at the head of where the body had been laid out and the other sat at the foot of the same structure. I picture in my mind a raised edifice. Joseph of Arimathaea had built the grave for himself, for a single person. There is no mention of family and, traditionally, family was interred on top of their ancestors. Keeping the family together after death was a thing back then. The gospel of Matthew tells us that Joseph carved his grave out of rock. If he was rich, as Matthew suggests, the work was done by masons. The garden was a property that abutted a rock face. Perhaps his house sat atop the escarpment. That is just my thought.

So, two angels, dressed in white, sat on a raised rock slab. When Mary peeks inside, they speak to her. This suggests a certain size limit and possible shape. It was small and tight but with enough room for two men to step down into. If the grave had been a hole in the ground, she could have looked into it standing. She stooped down and looked in, suggesting that it was a rock face but not a very high rock face. The opening was just large enough for two men carrying a body to enter, turn around and climb up out of after placing the body. If the grave was square, it had to measure more than six feet across. It was at least deep enough for men to sit on the raised slab. That suggests an internal height of around five or six feet.

Mary seems not at all alarmed that there were two men in the grave. She had followed the two disciples back to the grave and likely watched them enter and leave. The disciples mention nothing to her about angels. Her weeping and her emotional state seem to be such that she is not shocked to see such a sight. Moreover, she engages with them in conversation as if it was normal. Mary was emotionally distraught to an extreme degree. In fact, her degree of distress and anguish, when contrasted against that of the

two disciples, is striking. Mary appears as a woman forsaken. The differences between men and women will not explain her state of mind.

Mary answers the strangers then rises and turns to leave as if it was common in her experience to see angels or strange men in a grave. When she turns, she sees Jesus but does not recognize him. She assumes he is the gardener. Jesus had been buried naked.

Had he been naked, Mary might have made the connection. However, since she presumed him to be the gardener, we may take it that he was dressed. We also must assume, especially if the running back and forth was between Bethany and the graveyard on the Mount of Olives, that it was still dark or that the sun was not fully risen. What prompted Mary to turn away rather than continue her discussion with the two angels?

Why do Jesus and the two angels ask the same question word for word?

Jesus asks her, “Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?” Let us examine her response. She thinks the man she sees is a caretaker of the property. She asks a question that presumes he might have moved the body which, in turn, presumes that the burial may have been, at least in her understanding or confusion, a temporary arrangement. She pleads for the location of the body and assumes complete responsibility for it. One might even see in her response a spirit of ownership. Did she imagine she could carry the body away physically? She did not seem to care about the logistics at that point – she would deal with it somehow or the other. Look at Mary's response in a continuing examination of her state of mind. These are the facts of the story: Mary was the first there, she brought two disciples, the extreme degree of her distress is evidenced in her weeping, in her unalarmed, steadfast, and undeterred response to strangers in the grave and the presumed gardener. Mary is not the disciple weeping at the loss of her teacher, she is a woman weeping at the loss of a loved one.

Then Jesus called her name and she “turned herself.” She was not looking at him directly. It could well be that Mary was in shock, going in circles, turning first from the angels, then toward the gardener, then away and back toward when, at last, she heard her name. Fearfully, as one who cannot believe what is going on, she asks, 'Is that you?' She uses the word 'Rabbi' or master according to the narrative but those are just words – they could have been inserted. It appears that when it all became clear to Mary that she moved to touch him in some way for Jesus had to warn her off. “Touch me not,” he said to Mary. He did not just say to her, 'don't touch me,' he gave her a reason for the request.

He was still in the process of ascension. Although she may have dearly wanted to embrace him, or kiss his hand, or kneel at his feet, contact would have had a negative outcome to the finalization of his reaching God from the mortal plane.

Verse seventeen. Whenever I see the word 'for' in the scripture, I automatically replace it, in my mind, with the word 'because.' In such verses, I see a reason. In such verses, I see cause and effect. When Jesus told Mary not to touch him, he gave a reason. He said

to her, 'Don't make physical contact with me because I am still in the process of ascension.' If Mary desired Jesus as much as the previous verses of this chapter indicate, I'm sure she wanted to touch him – and Jesus was even more sure. However, he was in a stage of something that physical contact might undo. Instead of a quick hug and a pat on the back, Jesus turned the conversation by giving a goal, a purpose. He sent her to those she had just gone to, not for her own reasons this time, but for his.

In the message that Jesus gave to Mary to deliver, I see a connection in the thinking of Jesus. I see a way of thinking that might well be played back into the teachings of Jesus in the more personal moments between himself and his core twelve. I also see what Jesus thought of his accomplishment – that it was an achievement shared between himself and those he had taken as his own. I see, moreover, that Jesus identified with his own in every sense, not so much in a superior sense but, rather, as equal to the men he sent Mary to. He said, “my brethren,” he said, “my father and your father,” he said, “my God and your God.” He said we all made it across the finish line at the same time. He said the prize is ours to share. He said we are the same.

So Mary ran back to the disciples and told them that she had seen Jesus. There is not a distinction as in the earlier passage where Mary talked to only two disciples in their “own home.” She spoke to the assembled disciples. Where were they assembled? How far did Mary travel to reach the assembly? Was the place where they were gathered together the same place as where Mary found Peter and the unnamed disciple? No more is said at that point about the interaction between Mary and the disciples but I get the sense that they accepted the message. I get the sense that their thoughts had turned back to all that Jesus had told them about his death and resurrection. The narrative jumps to the evening of the same day. The evening is mentioned in connection to the fact that the doors were closed. The closed doors are mentioned in connection to the fact that they were hiding from the men who had crucified their Lord.

In other versions from other gospels, we get the sense that Jesus just mysteriously appeared among the men. The account in John ascribes no such mystery. It simply notes that Jesus came. Jesus was up and walking around that morning when he met with Mary and I get the sense that Jesus was up and walking around in the evening of the same day.

He could have knocked. Imagine the surprise of the man who cracked the door and peeked out. I also get the sense that the process of ascension was a settled matter. Jesus spoke to them. He showed them his wounds, which suggests a possible examination by each of them to the point where they were satisfied rather than concerned, glad rather than troubled or fearful. They found the evidence of his resurrection physically credible.

Jesus gave commands to them and breathed on them, saying, receive the Holy Ghost in verses nineteen through twenty-three. He gives them their commission. It is interesting to note in these verses that the expression, “Peace be unto you,” is repeated. The author

noted the repetition and used the word, 'again.' No question is asked as to why Jesus repeated himself. Personally, I wonder if there may have been a reason to say the same thing twice. I wonder if the placement of the expression, first as a greeting and second as the opening of the commission has significance we need to seek out. He came to them and said peace. He sent them and said peace. In and of itself, the expression obviously holds more significance than a simple hello-how-are-you-doing kind of thing.

Doubting Thomas was not present. There were ten disciples huddled wherever they were huddled. If they were afraid to be seen by the Jews, it stands to reason they were not hiding in downtown Jerusalem. Again, my thought is that they stayed with or near Lazarus in Bethany. It might also be possible they stayed with Joseph or Nicodemus.

They were also disciples. Perhaps Joseph had a large property with a garden tomb and all of the foregoing may be seen as quite localized. Jesus came and left. Thomas returned. They told him they had seen Jesus. They told him they had inspected the wounds. They were certain. The one man who away on a supply run can not be blamed for not having the same degree of certainty as the others in the group. They had seen, he had not. That thing that Thomas said to them is not especially troubling – he simply wanted to see as they had seen. What he said does suggest that he wanted to physically inspect the wounds just as the other nine had done. It suggests that the initial nine did put their fingers in the prints of the nails and thrust their hands into the spear wound. I get the sense that they had recounted to Thomas that they had done just that.

Was Thomas denied proof? No, he was given the same proof Jesus had given the other nine. The exact application of the word 'faithless,' as spoken by Jesus does not necessarily mean that out of all the disciples that Jesus had taught for three years, Thomas was the only hold-out. The most basic meaning of the word faithless is the synonym, 'skeptical.' Thomas received an account that was second-hand. It was a thing told by other men. The problem with Thomas is the problem with all men. The message in this is that it is not in our nature to think that another man can know more than we do.

We may be quite ready to receive that higher truth, we may be eager to believe – just not so much through another fallible human being. Not many of us have a natural appreciation for being told by another man, even another believer. When another man comes to me giving the impression that he knows more than I do, my first response is skepticism. This is my take, then – the message of Jesus to Thomas and to us through Thomas is that we can listen to and believe others – especially those invested with the Holy Ghost.

Chapter Twenty-one.

Verses one through fourteen tell the story of the third appearance of Jesus. While other gospels expand somewhat on the activities of Jesus after his resurrection, John recounts three final appearances and leaves it at that. There are no forty days or ascension into Heaven. John's account ends with a central emphasis on the disciple whom Jesus loved.

The story is as follows.

By the third encounter, Jesus had already appeared to his disciples first on the day of his rising and second one week later. That was in or around the area including Jerusalem and Bethany. By the time that Jesus met them on the final occasion, seven of the disciples had made their way all the way back to the sea of Galilee – and, I am going to assume the location was Capernaum where Peter lived and worked. The distance between Jerusalem and Capernaum is nearly seventy-nine miles and is about a four or five-day walk.

Peter is one of seven disciples listed: Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, and two other unnamed disciples. They were all hanging out together and life was returning to a sense of normalcy. Peter tells the others he wants to fish.

Business as usual. Right? Are the unnamed disciples Andrew and Philip? I assume that Andrew had to be there because he was a fisherman like his brother, lived in the same town, and worked with his brother in the family business. Who was the final disciple and was he a fisherman? I went to https://www.theclassroom.com/what-were-the-professions-ofthe-twelve-apostles-12083577.html for information on the professions of the disciples, finding what follows: The Other Apostles The Bible provides no information on the professions of Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Thaddaeus or James, the son of Alphaeus. It does provide information about Paul, who became an apostle after the death and resurrection of Jesus. He was a Pharisee and may have taught religion or worked in political office. During his missionary journeys, Paul supported himself as a tent maker according to Acts 18:1-3.

Four of the seven disciples present were bona fide fishermen. Three of them were not.

Yet, all three of them hailed from the same general area and may, at the very least, have had some exposure to the fishing profession. We see in the account that there is no mentioned difficulty in those three joining in an all-nighter with Peter. Imagine being on the open waters all night, casting nets and pulling them in hour after hour. Sounds like hard work. The three just jumped in the ship with Peter with no preamble. Just your average fisherman's night out. Well, with the ministry and shared funding at an end, I guess there was nothing better for them to occupy their time with than earning a living for their families. It is recorded that Peter had a family. It is no particular stretch to imagine that the others had families. It is seen as a pattern in the gospels that Jesus allowed downtime in which the apostles returned home.

The timeline. Jesus was crucified and buried on the day of preparation – a Friday. The evening and the morning were the day of preparation. The next evening through the morning were the Sabbath, running from the evening of Saturday into the morning of Sunday. Finally, the evening and the morning were the first day of the week, running from the evening of Sunday to the morning of Monday. Jesus appeared to the disciples that evening and again one week from that day. If Peter and his fellow apostles made a four or five-day trek from Jerusalem to Capernaum in the Tuesday through Friday period after the final Sabbath of the Passover, for which they were required to be physically present, they would have arrived on or around the following weekend and rested through the Sabbath and returned to earning a living on or around pretty much three weeks to the day they first saw the risen Jesus.

Verse three follows the decision to fish by the seven men immediately entering “a ship” rather than 'the ship' or 'Peter's ship.' If Peter's family and Zebedee's family ran a joint business, a ship makes sense. They just went out and grabbed one of the ships normally available to the two families. We've seen more than seven men on one of those ships. In general terms, such ships were a minimum of 27 feet long, 7.5 feet wide, and with a maximum preserved height of 4.3 feet. They included a mast, oars, anchors, rigging, and ropes. Of a necessity, they would need room for the men and the nets with all the required space for the catch to be dumped. Whether or not there were seats, I could not say but Jesus once fell asleep in such a ship – so, perhaps.

The seven men had labored hard through the night. It was dawn as they returned. The light was just coming up. Figures on the shore would have seemed like dark silhouettes.

Having seen Jesus a week prior and having received signs, they may have considered that the Lord had gone to be with the Father. There was no recorded instance of Jesus telling them he would be back in a week. It is possible the men considered Jesus gone.

Therefore, a dark figure on the shore on an early morning would have raised no flags in their thinking. They had to plan out their ministries, decide just how to proceed, and do a little fishing along the way. A man calls to them from the shore, “Children, have ye any meat?” To hear a stranger they could not make out address them as children, their first assumption may have been that it was an older man. To hear him ask if they had something to eat, they may have thought he was either a beggar or a customer. They answered simply, “no.” We must think not in terms of our own times and attitudes but in the way of the past. How would they react to each of the possibilities – to a neighbor and fellow fisherman, to a beggar, to a customer, to an elder?

Why would they have so easily been convinced that the person on the shore knew better than they or had sound advice? Well, they were still on the waters, there was little to lose. There was always a chance. Still, it depends on who they assumed they were responding to. Perhaps the town had many elderly fishermen who no longer went out but had experience the younger men felt obliged to respect. They cast their net in the advised direction and not only caught fish, which would have been enough of a surprise at that point, but they caught so many fish they could barely hold on to the net. They

could not, for the weight of it, pull it into the ship. What to do? They were both excited and perplexed. They had to do some quick thinking to keep the catch. I'm sure there was a cacophony of excited chatter but in the midst of that, the disciple whom Jesus loved came to the conclusion that such a miraculous catch could only be the work of Jesus. He said as much to Peter.

When Peter heard that it was Jesus, he also became excited. Before that, he may have only wanted to get off the ship and go get some sleep. He may have been exhausted but when he heard mention of the Master, he put on his work coat and threw himself into the sea. At two hundred cubits ( 300 feet ) from land, I wonder how deep the sea was? The water ranged from wading depth nearest the shore to approximately 32 feet deep. Peter swam for shore. It is mentioned that the other disciples followed in “a little ship.”

Perhaps they had a larger ship at their disposal but simply chose the smaller among the available vessels. I considered the possibility that another of the disciples had swum to shore and went back out with a smaller vessel. I considered them pulling the net to shore between them but the wording plainly places the remaining six disciples together.

Verse nine redirected my thinking. I assumed that Peter swam to shore but there is no mention of him being there when the others arrive on the ship. Now I must consider that bringing the catch to shore was the reason Peter jumped overboard. Perhaps a few others did as well. I can picture some of the men rowing. I can picture some of them in the water pulling. Perhaps, where they were, the waters were shallow enough for Peter to jump in and wade, pulling in his catch with brute force. It was a group experience to come close to shore, see a fire of coals waiting, and tie off the little ship. On the fire, they spotted fish and bread that Jesus had provided. In the process of all of that, Jesus said to all of them, “Bring of the fish which ye have caught.” They were to add some of theirs to some of his.

“Peter went up.” That is a directional statement. To my mind, it suggests Peter coming

ashore from the water and standing there on his feet. Peter is seen, in the John narrative, to 'muscle in' the fish with his own hands. To me, that suggests something of the strength and stature of the man. They later counted the fish and arrived at the number one hundred and fifty-three. It is stated that the net contained “great fishes.” That reference suggests a great weight of mature fish. Further, they thought it worthy of note that the net did not break under the full weight of the catch. I take it they were surprised by the size and amount of the catch. As to the exact number of 153, many writers through the ages have considered that there might be some deep or hidden significance to the number. Many have put forth theories, assumptions, and references. I found this in Wikipedia: The code for "mental processes & intelligence" in the Dewey Decimal Classification.

For myself, I have considered, through the years, that the number nine is the number that signifies change. When you add the three numbers, 1+5+3, the outcome is 9. It should also be noted that Jesus died in the ninth hour. Nine is, therefore, a number associated

with finality, and completion of one's purpose. If you take the 53 and add it to the 1, you get 54. Adding the numbers in 54 brings one back to the number 9. I mention this because I was born in 1954. I feel like these numbers are special to me as I was raised in a home with a house number of 954. The significance of numbers is an aside. I have no idea why the author thought it necessary to mention the number of fish caught.

So they pull the net in, count the fish, and add some to the fire. By this time, they are all aware that it is Jesus. The meal is ready and Jesus invites them to dine. They gather around the fire and Jesus takes bread and breaks it in a typical fashion. In short, Jesus serves them breakfast. The author states in verse fourteen that this was the third occasion where Jesus met them after his resurrection.

Verses fifteen through nineteen show us the familiar exchange between Peter and Jesus.

I get the sense that they are no longer sitting. Jesus asks a question three times. 'Peter, do you love me?' Peter answers three times in the affirmative although somewhat grieved over the repetition. It is almost like Jesus asking, 'Are you sure you love me?' 'Yes, Lord.

I'm sure.' 'Are you sure that you are sure?' 'I said so. I would know if I wasn't.' But – the thing about this repetition is that it has scriptural roots in the old testament law.

Deuteronomy 19:15 states, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” Also in Corinthians 13:1, we find, “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” The repetitious exchange between Peter and Jesus established both the fact that Peter loved Jesus (as in a pledge) and the charge to feed the lambs/sheep that Jesus placed in Peter's care. All of the exchange seemed to be summed up in Jesus' final command to Peter. “Follow me.”

The author gives an explanation in verses eighteen and nineteen. He explained what Jesus meant when he said to Peter, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” The author explained that those words signified the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. I have always gotten the sense of an older, feeble person who is unable to dress himself, rather than a prisoner being bound and led away. However, this was supposedly how Peter would follow Jesus. Peter was perhaps one of the older disciples and after leading the Jerusalem church for years, he would have been approaching his doddering years. It is possible that those around him in service helped him dress and made sure he got to where he was supposed to be.

There is another point about these verses that I wish to bring up. If the author was John, how does he come by such a sage explanation? Was he the disciple whom Jesus loved because he had a gift for discernment? Early Church tradition states that Peter probably died by crucifixion in the year 64 around the time of the Great Fire of Rome. Bible scholars say that the Gospel of John was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Word of Peter's demise may have reached the author of John long before the gospel was

written. Even so, the beloved disciple may still have had qualities that brought him closer to Jesus when he was a young man. Discernment is one possibility. Another is a thirst for truth. Another is a child-like faith.

So Jesus was walking with Peter after the meal which they ate in Capernaum after they had fished all night. Peter looks over his shoulder and sees the beloved disciple following Jesus like a puppy. That the beloved disciple was following speaks of his character and personality. Peter asks what Jesus was going to have that disciple do. Let us stop ahead of Jesus' response, to ask why. Why? Why was Peter concerned with the other person? After the meal, Peter and Jesus are up walking around and engaged in conversation. Why were not the other disciples following? Perhaps they had gone home to sleep. Perhaps they still sat around the fire in conversation. Perhaps they were processing the catch. Perhaps they were showing deference to their master thinking he wanted to speak with Peter alone. Only one disciple walked behind them. It was the beloved disciple. He followed as if he did not want the Lord to get too far away. Perhaps he feared he would not be present when Jesus left for heaven. Perhaps he desired to know if there was a command for him. It is possible that some or all of the other disciples followed at a distance behind the beloved disciple. Peter's question is never fully explained. It is presented as possible jealousy, as possible truculence or obtuseness.

What I get is that Peter thought he was going to his commanded duties in an immediate fashion, as if Jesus was taking him to the lambs and sheep right there and then. I see Peter as mostly curious.

Peter asks Jesus, “What shall this man do?” More or less, Jesus told Peter, 'Don't you worry about him. Focus on the path I have set for you.' The details of Jesus' response to Peter, in verse twenty-two, is 'if I decide that he wait until I come, that is not your concern.' Let us ask ourselves, just what did Jesus mean when he used the word “come?”

Obviously, word got around that Jesus meant, 'until I return,' which presumes that they thought Jesus was walking, at that time, to a place where he would leave them for heaven. That presumption signifies the possibility that all the disciples followed as Jesus and Peter walked ahead and that the beloved disciple was just the closest after them. The rumor that the loved disciple would live until the return of Jesus could have had its origin in any of the disciples. However, I want to suggest the possibility that Jesus meant, in the sense of handing out commands, 'until I come to him.'

The fact that the author felt compelled to rectify the rumor, in verse twenty-three, suggests that the author and the beloved disciple were actually one and the same. The rumor was not an immediate thing. The author used the expression, “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren.” The ''brethren" speaks, in a broader sense, of the followers of Jesus. There were the seventy or seventy-two apostles, mentioned in Luke, that Jesus sent out two by two. Jesus also had a large following among the common people as well as followers among the priests and Sanhedrin.

So, maybe the beloved disciple was actually the disciple John. Maybe he had a skill in

discernment and understanding which was accepted beyond his own opinion. Verse twenty-four is suggestive. The author claims that the beloved disciple (student) is the very one who is testifying about the events of the written account. He also claims that “we” know that his testimony is true. That is a shared assessment more than an opinion.

By the time of the writing, there was much commonly shared experience. There was a consensus among the brethren. It is not a stretch to think that there was something special about John. It is not a stretch to think that John's special quality was the reason Jesus loved him. It is not a stretch to think that said detail was well known by many.

The gospel of John includes no forty days, ascension, or the five hundred people mentioned in Corinthians fifteen. Other gospels have Jesus ascending from the Mount of Olives near Bethany. Alternately, Jesus leads the disciples to Bethany and ascends, commanding them to stay in Jerusalem for a time. The Gospel of John has a closing statement. They had their breakfast of fish and bread. Then they were up and walking.

Perhaps they were heading back to Bethany. Some facts are absent as if the author is writing to the people who knew, the people who were there. To the general audience, he leaves a closing statement. It is a statement which suggests an active period in which many things occurred. The author intimates that so many things took place in that time that many volumes could not contain the information. Someone should have written about those forty days.

There you have it. That is the end of the gospel. To be honest, this work could be fleshed out a bit. This work is little more than the personal notes I have written down in my studies. As to whether or not they could be of use to others in their studies, I may only hope. I have not tried to understand the common things. One may understand only so much from going to Bible School or church. Those are the things which the spirit defines through the Apostle Paul as the rudiments. I will close with a reference obtained from an article written by Joseph A. Cannon including a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary.

“Rudiments” appears only twice in the Bible. Paul uses it, however, with surgical precision to describe the nature of the choice that all of us must make between the natural, carnal, or materialistic world view, and the spiritual, “in the beginning God …” perspective. Rudiment means the “first principles or elements of a subject; those points which are first taught to, or acquired by, one commencing the study or practice of a branch of knowledge.” It is a “first principle; an initial step or stage.” Rudiment is “the imperfect beginnings of some (material or immaterial) thing; those parts which are the foundation of later growth or development” In my studies, in these notes, as in my mental development, I have striven to move beyond the rudiments. I have considered the rudiments to be like a glove that only shows the basic form of what exists beneath. I have striven to dig deeper and reach for the

details. I have wanted a more perfect or fully realized understanding of the Bible's truth.

So, I took the time, I dug deeper into the Bible praying for the help of the Holy Ghost in my quest. These are just my thoughts but if anyone reads the things I have written, I ask that you compare my thoughts to your own thoughts. We just might be on the same road.

End.