John 12, Part One

Mary anoints Jesus (vs. 1-8)--This appears to be the same event as recorded in Matthew 26 and Mark 14. There are some differences in John's account, but not contradictions. Jesus came to Bethany "six days before the Passover" (John 12:1), but doesn't say exactly when this supper was held; Mark tells us it was two days before the Passover actually began (Mark 14:1). Matthew and Mark both indicate that Mary poured the ointment on Jesus' head; John says on His feet. Obviously, she did both, and then wiped His feet with her hair. John emphasizes that Judas complained about the waste (John 12:4); this apparently started a murmuring among other disciples (Mark 14:4). The cost of the ointment was almost an entire year's wage at that time (300 Roman denarii), so it wasn't cheap.  Jesus praises her actions, though, obviously because it came from her heart; to Mary, doing something for Christ was more valuable than the money it cost her.  “The poor you have with you always”, Jesus tells us in verse 7, and it is a Christian’s duty to take care of those who are less fortunate, financially.  We have largely abdicated that role to government nowadays, of course, which is why people look to government, not to the church, for financial assistance.  That’s partly the church’s fault; we spend so much money entertaining our youth, building our elaborate cathedrals, and hiring our “staff” to do our work for us that we have little money left over to help those who truly need our help.  I suspect that over half the budgets of most churches are spent on things—church buildings, “youth ministers,” “involvement ministers”, etc. that are nowhere mentioned in the Bible and did not exist in the first century Christianity we reputedly are trying to restore.

Kill Lazarus, too (vs. 9-11)—Lazarus was a walking embarrassment to Christ’s enemies—and proof of His true identity to the open-minded (he still is).  So, rather than accept the implications of his resurrection, “the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also” (v. 10).  These people saw the resurrected Lazarus and still rejected Jesus.  Denial of Christ is not a matter of evidence, folks; it is purely a matter of the heart.  Of course, acceptance of Jesus has consequences, mainly, denial of self and sin, and submission to Him as Lord.  That is a price too high for many to pay.

Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem (vs. 12-19)—Here we have another indisputable proof of the deity of Christ—the fulfillment of prophecy.  Zechariah has specifically mentioned this event almost 500 years previous (Zechariah 9:9); humans do not have a capacity to know detailed, precise events that far into the future.  We can make general prognostications for the near future, based upon historical trends and principles; but to know actual occurrences, 500 years in advance, is far beyond our abilities.  God reserved that for Himself, and indeed mocks other “gods” for their inability to predict the future (Isaiah 41:23).  To put Zechariah’s prophesy into perspective, let the reader remember that 500 years ago, Columbus had barely discovered the New World.  Could anyone, in the year 1513, have predicted Barack Obama or even the current United States of America?  Of course not.  The Old Testament, in effect, writes the entire life of Christ hundreds of years before He was born.  Only God could do that.  Jesus’ obtuse disciples did not understand all of this at first (John 12:16), and the occasion further riled the Pharisees:  “Look, the world has gone after Him!” (v. 19).   It is important to remember that Jesus always had a large following among the common people; such is why the religious leaders had to kill him at night, illegally, before the people knew what was happening.  Of course, the people did not truly understand Jesus, either, but they did sense His love and concern for them.  Envy killed the Jewish Messiah.

“The hour has come” (vs. 20-26)—Being the Passover, there were Jews from many places in Jerusalem, including, apparently, from Greece.  There is some difference of opinion as to who these people were—Jews who lived in Greece?  Grecian converts to Judaism?  Or, were they actual Gentiles who, having heard about Jesus, wanted to meet with Him?  The first idea seems to be the best to me, given John’s statement about people “who came to worship at the feast” (v. 20).  Gentiles wouldn’t be doing that.  Regardless of their identity, they had the right idea—they wanted to see Jesus (v. 21).  They spoke this request to Philip who, for reasons unknown, took it to Andrew, who then brought the matter before the Lord.  Jesus, as He usually did, turned it into a spiritual lesson not (always) easy to follow:  “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be gloried” (v. 23).  What, exactly, that had to do with some Greeks wanting to see Him is not immediately obvious, but then, we are dealing with the mind of God here.  Jesus speaks of His death, comparing it to a seed that must “die,” be planted in the ground, and then “live” again.  Jesus isn’t discussing horticulture here, He is describing His coming crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.  He once again, though, tells us, in effect, why so many will reject Him:  the cost is too high.  “He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (v. 25).  This is simply a statement that we must love Jesus more than we love this world, or even ourselves.  Most people don’t want to do that.  But those who serve Christ will one day be honored by the Father (v. 26).

John 11, Part Two

Gathering at the tomb of Lazarus (vs. 27-37)—Martha may have sensed, given Jesus’ last words to her, that He was going to do something momentous.  She went to her sister Mary, in secret, to tell her that Jesus wanted her attendance as well.  We probably aren’t privy to all of the conversation Jesus and Martha had, so some of the motivation here escapes us.  However, Mary quickly arose and went to Jesus (v. 29), not telling her friends why she was leaving.  They presumed, “She is going to the tomb to weep there” (v. 31).  That would be a reasonable presumption, but erroneous, of course.  Jesus’ presence was, apparently, not yet publicly known (v. 30).  Mary’s agony touched Jesus deeply (v. 33), to the extent to where He even wept (v. 35).  Controversy followed Him, even at this sad time; some couldn’t resist taking a dig at Him:  “Could not this Man, who opened the eyes of the blind, also have kept this man from dying?” (v. 37).  I am reminded of the current situation in America where liberals, especially, use every event, such as a tragic mass murder, to try to make political gains.  The concern of such people (and, as we see, they existed in Jesus’ days), is not for the well-being of others, but advancing their own cause.  Such small-minded people have always existed, and always will.  If Jesus was aware of their gibes, He wisely ignored them, having a far more important mission.

The raising of Lazarus (vs. 38-44)—John tells us that Lazarus’ tomb was “a cave, and a stone lay against it” (v. 38); apparently, such burial plots were not unusual among the Jews.  When Jesus commanded the stone be removed, Martha, skeptical, was concerned about the smell.  What was going through her mind?  Why did she think Jesus wanted the stone removed?  We don’t know, but her statement doesn’t manifest much faith in Christ at this point.  So, Jesus, with a pointed question, redirects her attention to where it should be:  “Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?” (v. 40).  It wasn’t her faith that raised Lazarus, of course, it was the power of God, and Jesus fully intended to bring Martha’s brother back from the dead, whether she believed or not.  In verse 42, in His prayer to the Father, Jesus once again states the purpose of the miraculous:  “that they may believe that You sent me.”  Miracles were performed not because of people’s faith, but in order to create it!  Miraculous evidence to support a miraculous claim.  And there is no better evidence than that produced in this chapter, which is, no doubt one reason why the Holy Spirit, through John, spends so much time discussing it.  Only God can raise the dead; man can’t do that.  Jesus raised the dead, ergo, Jesus came from God.  That is the only conclusion that can, logically, be drawn from this story.  The only way to deny that is, of course, to deny that this event ever happened in the first place, i.e., call John a liar, which means that everything he, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, and other Bible writers wrote and said was pure fantasy.  That is an awful lot of evidence to simply toss in the trash without any attempt at refutation.  John, in effect, is saying, “Here is what is happened.  Refute it, if you can.”  Nobody can, so it is easy to simply deny it and, more than that, try, through ridicule and mocking, to intimidate believers into silence.  Historical evidence is stubborn, though.  When Jesus spoke—“Lazarus, come forth!”—not even death could defeat Him.  Can you imagine the awe, and probably sheer terror, of the people standing around when Lazarus came walking out of that grave!  Jesus, however, had only one other thing to say:  “Loose him, and let him go” (v. 44).   Human words fail at trying to explain the magnificence of this event.  The reader is invited to use his/her own imagination and creativity in order to properly appreciate what happened on that day.

Wouldn’t it have been interesting to talk to Lazarus, after he was raised, to ask him where he had been and what he had experienced!

Belief and obstinacy (vs. 45-57)—Many honest individuals did, indeed, believe in Jesus after this event (v. 45), but some hearts are so stubborn and cold that no amount of evidence can ever be persuasive (v. 46).  The Pharisees and other religious leaders soon gathered together to take council about what to do about Jesus (v. 47).  They could not deny the miracles He did, yea, admitted them:  “For this Man works many signs.”  Their fear was for their own honored position:  “If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation” (v. 48).  That statement shows such utterly convoluted thinking that it is hard to imagine intelligent men talking like that.  If Jesus was indeed the Messiah, come from God, with the intent of establishing the kingdom the Pharisees wanted, then the Romans could have done nothing against Him; not even Rome could defeat God.  But the Pharisees did not draw the correct conclusion from the evidence they themselves admitted; they did not believe that He was God, and thus, if the people tried to make Him an earthly king (which Jesus never intended, of course), then the Romans, who had no king but Caesar, would come and destroy Israel, and, more importantly, the power and prestige of the Pharisees.  Why not accept the evidence—and the explanation of He who gave it?  But that is something they would not do.  So the high priest, Caiaphas, announced, prophetically (v. 51) that Jesus had to die—it was either him or the nation (v. 50).   So, from that day forward, the plot to kill Jesus picked up at a feverish pace (v. 53), so much so that Jesus could no longer walk “openly among the Jews” (v. 54).  The final Passover of Jesus’ life was near (v. 55), and He continued to be “the talk of the town” (v. 56).  A general order was given that, if anyone knew where Jesus was, they were to report it to the Jewish authorities (v. 57).  Now, the Pharisees were serious about killing him, and the last days of His earthly sojourn are upon us.

 

 

John 11, Part One

The death of Lazarus (vs. 1-16)—This is one of the most remarkable stories in the New Testament which, if true, forever verifies the divine nature of Jesus.  The Jews understood this, too, of course, which is why they wanted to kill Jesus—and Lazarus (John 12:10-11).  Some have expressed surprise that the other three gospel writers did not include this story, but that is perhaps because they wrote while Lazarus was still alive and did not want to draw undue attention to him because of the Jewish leadership’s desire to kill him.  For whatever reason, John includes it.  This isn’t the only example of Jesus raising someone from the dead, but it does seem to have been surrounded with the most fanfare and consequences.

Lazarus is identified in vs. 1-2 as the brother of Mary and Martha, the same Mary who had anointed Jesus’ feet with oil and wiped them with her feet (Matt. 26:7).  The family was good friends of Jesus, and lived in the town of Bethany, a small village about two miles (“fifteen furlongs,” KJV) from Jerusalem.  Lazarus was sick (v. 3), and would temporarily die; that is the meaning of Jesus’ statement in v. 4.  In that verse, Jesus states the purpose of this whole event—to bring glory to God and Himself.  For again, if this account actually happened, then Jesus certainly is God and requires our allegiance and obedience.  The Lord waited where He was for two more days (v. 6) before making the decision to go to Bethany, probably waiting until his beloved friend was dead.  His disciples express surprise that Jesus would go anywhere near Jerusalem again, since the Jews were so threatening (v. 8).  But Jesus came to the earth to work and had to do that (during the “day”).  One doesn’t work or travel in the dark, that’s dangerous, and in a spiritual sense, will be disastrous (vs. 9-10).  Lazarus had died and Jesus was going to go to him, “that you may believe” (v. 15)—more evidence to convince the disciples who Jesus really was.  His apostles were willing to go wherever He went (v. 16).  At least for the moment.

“I am the resurrection and the life” (vs. 17-27)—By the time Jesus arrived in Bethany, Lazarus had been dead for four days (v. 17).  A crowd had gathered to comfort, and mourn with, the family (v. 19).  It was a perfect setting for a notable miracle.  When she heard that He had arrived, Martha came to meet Jesus; for unknown reasons, Mary remained in the house (v. 20).  The following conversation between Jesus and Martha is striking and enlightening.  Martha’s incomplete, yet growing, knowledge of Jesus is evident from her statement, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.  But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You” (vs. 21-22).  Jesus did not have to be there heal Lazarus, He certainly could have done it from a distance, so Martha was still confused as to the totality of His power, and thus His full identity.  Yet, she had enough faith in Him to believe that He could raise Lazarus from the dead if He asked God to do so.  Jesus tells her that Lazarus would live again, which she misinterprets as the final resurrection (v. 24).  Jesus then speaks some of the most beautiful, and comforting—and breathtaking —words, recorded in Scripture:  “I am the resurrection and the life.  He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.  And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” (vs. 25-26).  If Jesus isn’t God, then He was utterly insane.  How could any mere human make a claim like this?  Many such statements by Jesus could only be based upon Him being the Son of God, i.e., God in the flesh, an earthly, living manifestation of deity.  If indeed Jesus is God, then the words here are among the most comforting He ever spoke—eternal life awaits the believer.  Martha expresses her belief in Jesus being the Christ, though, as noted, her understanding was apparently somewhat faulty.  She, like all other Jews, had been (erroneously) educated to expect certain things from their Messiah, things which Jesus wasn’t providing.  That confused them and made them fully unsure of His plans and power.  But her faith was deep enough, and her love for Jesus was certainly deep. 

 

 

John 10, Part Two

“I am the Father are one” (vs. 22-30)—The scene here is three months later, the Feast of Dedication, which took place around (our) December 18 and lasted for eight days.  It was not a Mosaic feast, but rather was instituted in 164 B.C. by Judas Maccabees.  A Greek emperor, Antiochus Epiphanes, had grossly defiled the temple, but a revolt, led by the Maccabee family, actually gained independence for the Jews for about 100 years.  Judas had cleansed and rededicated the temple in 164, and this feast was a commemoration of that event.  The word “winter” in verse 22 implies nasty, inclement weather, which is why Jesus was in Solomon’s porch (v. 23), which was the covered entrance at the east of the temple.  The question the Jews asked Him doesn’t suggest sincere curiosity, but anger, frustration, and malice.  And, once again, Jesus does not give them a direct answer, but points them to the evidence (v. 25).  Words are virtually useless; proof is in deeds and Jesus had done “works” that “bear witness of me” (v. 25).  A person must have the right kind of heart, however, to accept truth (Luke 8:15), and these Jews did not (v. 26).  Those who remain faithful to the Lord shall have eternal life (vs. 27-28); because the Father is greater and more powerful “than all”, Jesus’ sheep are secure in the Father’s hand--as long as they remain faithful.  “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10).  Jesus then closes this section with a remarkable statement:  “I and the Father are one”--“the” Father (ASV), not “My” Father (KJV; NKJV).  This is an obvious claim for deity, and the Jews understood it as such.

“You are gods” (vs. 31-42)—That the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God is evident from the next verse:  they were going to stone Him, which was the Old Testament penalty for blasphemy (Lev. 24:14-16).  They told Jesus that was the reason:  “You, being a man, make yourself God” (v. 33).  Jesus then throws them a curve by quoting an Old Testament passage to them, “I said, You are gods” (Ps. 82:6).  The context of Psalms 82 refers to judges, or prophets, who had received the Word of God; they are perhaps given that title, “gods”, because they were given God’s message to pass on to the people. Jesus’ point here is that, if these mortal men, who were simply spokesmen for God, could be given the appellation “gods,” then how much more should Jesus, Who had truly done the works of God and proven by proper evidence that He indeed was God, be rightly called “God.”  Since these Pharisaical Jews did not, themselves, do the works of God (v. 37), then it is not surprising that they would not recognize someone who did.  But the Lord again encourages them to look at what He was doing, not just at what He was saying (v. 38).  Jesus never asked anyone to believe simply on the basis of what He said.  Any fool can claim to be God; only Jesus did works that proved He was.  Most of those who saw Him didn’t believe Him, so it’s hardly surprising that so few people today believe Him.  The Jews tried to seize Him again at this time, but He escaped in a manner which John does not explain.  Jesus then went to the location, east of the Jordan River, where John was initially baptizing (John 1:28).  Many people accepted the evidence Jesus provided (v. 41) and believed on Him (v. 42).

 

 

John 10, Part One

The true and the false (vs. 1-6)--From all appearances, the first half of this chapter is a continuation from chapter nine.  Jesus uses a very poignant and relevant illustration.  Since He's in the temple area, where sheep are being brought for sacrifice, He borrows that to make His current point.  His main idea initially is that error tries to use deception and trickery while truth needs no such dishonesty.  The sheep will know the voice of their true owner and follow him; and, indeed, "he calls his own sheep by name" (vs. 3-4).  But they won't follow a stranger (v. 5).  Those who want(ed) to follow God would know/ recognize Jesus for who He was (is).  This section is as much a slap at the Pharisees as anything, and they didn't understand it (v. 6).

The Good Shepherd (vs. 7-18)--Jesus uses two metaphors in this section, "I am the door" (vs. 7, 9), and "I am the good shepherd" (vs. 11, 14).  People enter into salvation through Him; "if anyone enters by me, he will be saved" (v. 9).  There had been counterfeits (v. 8); history tells us of some false Christs who arose.  The true sheep will only hear and follow the true Shepherd.  In verse 11, He hints at His coming crucifixion--"the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep."  A "hireling"--false teacher--won't do that (v. 12), but leaves the sheep to the wolf.  He "does not care about the sheep" (v. 13).  An interesting commentary on false teachers; they "serve their own belly" (Rom. 16:18).  To make His crucifixion allusion even clearer, He says in verse 15, "I lay down my life for the sheep," and because of His willingness to do so, the Father loved Him (v. 17).  God loves all of mankind (John 3:16), and needed some way to try to bring men back into fellowship with Him.  Jesus was willing to pay the price to do that.  How could the Father--or any other right thinking person--NOT love Him?  Jesus did this voluntarily (v. 18).  The Father didn't force Him to do it, and the Jews couldn't kill Him without His permission.  The "other sheep" of verse 16 almost surely refers to Gentiles, to whom the gospel would also be sent.  "There will be one flock and one shepherd."  All of mankind, Jew and Gentile, can unite in the Lord's church.

Opinions about Him (vs. 19-21)--Nothing Jesus had said, or could say, lessened the division He caused.  Some claimed--with absolutely no proof--the He was insane or had a demon (v. 20).  Others, more reasonably, pointed to the evidence--"Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"  Only God has that kind of power, of course.  But, some people were, and are, immune to evidence, especially if it would force them to change their lifestyles and give up their sin.  That's the commitment Jesus demands and it's too high a price to pay for too many people.  So, find an excuse, and pretty much any excuse will do as long as it convinces the one making it.  It doesn't fool God, though, or those who are knowledgeable of the truth.

John 9

Healing the blind man (vs. 1-12)--This is a very interesting story.  We see a lot of 1st century Jewish philosophy here, and much of it is wrong.  When Jesus' disciples saw the blind man, they asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"  The underlying presupposition of the question is erroneous:  God was punishing this man with blindness because somebody had sinned.  Sin can have physical consequences, but not like this.  And they should have known better.  This is the same philosophy Job's friends had--"Job, you must be a wicked person for God to do what He's doing to you."  Job knew he hadn't sinned, at least not like his friends were accusing him, so he couldn't understand what God was doing either.  In the case of the blind man, Jesus tells His followers that nobody sinned, but this case will be used "that the works of God should be revealed in him" (v. 3).  And Jesus would keep working the works of God as long as He was here because He is the light of the world (vs. 4-5).
 
So Jesus made clay from dirt and spittle and anointed the blind man's eyes, telling him to go wash in the pool of Siloam (vs. 5-6).  The making of clay was symbolic; Jesus had, many times, healed with a word.  But Christ wanted the man to do something towards his own healing, and the fellow did.  And he "came back seeing" (v. 7).  Can you imagine what it would be like, having been blind from birth, and now able to see?  It must have been a marvelous thing.  And indeed, it attracted attention (vs. 8-12), so much so that he was taken to the religious leaders for cross-examination (v. 13).

The blind man's conversation with the Pharisees (vs. 13-34)--John informs us that the healing had taken place on the Sabbath day (v. 14).  That meant more to the Pharisees than an incredible miracle being performed.  They asked the man what had happened and he explained (v. 15).  The Pharisees were incensed; Jesus can't be from God because He broke the Sabbath, or at least their interpretation of it.  But some of them were confused.  "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?" (v. 16).  It was a legitimate question, but too many of the Pharisees were simply immune to examining their own religious doctrine.  The blind man himself, understandably, claimed Jesus was a prophet (v. 17).  What the Pharisees did next is not necessarily to be condemned, except they weren't properly motivated:  they asked the blind man's parents about him.  Getting confirmation was a good thing, again if motivated correctly.  There were then, as there are today, a lot of tricksters and shysters who made (make) their living through deception.  The blind man's parents claimed their son (v. 20).  When asked how he was now able to see if he was born blind, the parents, reasonably, replied, "ask him.  He will speak for himself" (v. 21).  John does note that they were intimidated by the Pharisees (v. 22).  So, the religious leaders turn back to the blind man.  "Give God the glory!  We know that this Man is a sinner" (v. 24).  The blind man rips their argument apart.  "I don't know if He's a sinner or not.  All I know is, I was blind and now I see" (v. 25).  In other words, "you draw the conclusions from that."  The Pharisees asked the man again how he had been healed (v. 26).  "I've already told you.  Do you want to be His disciples, too?" (v. 27).  That really angered the Pharisees.  "We're Moses' disciples.  We don't where Jesus came from" (v. 29).  And once again, the blind man makes a fool of them.  "This is amazing.  A sinner couldn't do this, only somebody who truly worships God" (vs. 30-31).  Actually, his "we know that God does not hear sinners" (v. 31) is more inaccurate Jewish philosophy.  Depending upon circumstances, God will hear "sinners"; Cornelius in Acts 20 is an example.  But because the Jews would agree with the blind man's philosophy, he has them cornered.  "He's performed a miracle that is unheard of 'since the world began'"--an interesting observation on the economy of miracles in human history (v. 32).  So, the man's conclusion was logical, given his doctrine:  "if this Man were not from God, He could do nothing" (v. 33).  And there was no way the Pharisees could counter that--except by force, so they kick him out of the synagogue.  This was something of an excommunication, separation from those who would worship God at that place.  His parents had feared this would happen to them if they supported Jesus (v. 22).  The blind man's adherence to logic and truth cost him his place in the Jewish religion.  But gained him something better.

Notice also in verse 34 that the Pharisees, too, accept the idea that the man must have been a sinner to have been born blind.  God blesses the righteous and He curses sinners.  If rich people can't go to heaven, who can? (Matt. 19:25)  It was the common belief of the Jews of that day but it was wrong.

Jesus' conversation with the blind man (vs. 35-41)--Jesus apparently went looking for the fellow (v. 35) and directed him to saving faith.  The miracle wouldn't have done much good if the man hadn't been taught what to do with it.  Jesus came to the world for "judgment" (v. 39).  In other words, those who will "see," will be judged righteous and be granted eternal life.  Those who will not see will be judged and condemned to eternal separation.  The Pharisees, hearing this, wanted to know if Christ considered them among the spiritual blind (v. 40).  Jesus' enigmatic statement in verse 41 probably confused them.  "If you were blind, you would have no sin"--if they didn't already have their minds made up, they would be open to His message--"but now you say, 'We see.'  Therefore your sins remain."  They thought they already had the answers, thus they were not willing to listen to Jesus.  Their rejection of him was their ultimate sin.

John 8, Part Two

Truth produces freedom (vs. 30-36)--Verse 30 tells us that "many believed in Him" as a result of what He had just said.  It is interesting how people are converted; different messages appeal to different people, and whether they fully understood Him or not (and surely they didn't), there were those who were impressed enough by Jesus that they began to trust in Him.  He then had a message for them:  by continuing to follow His teaching, they would be His disciples and "the truth shall make you free" (vs. 31-32).  Perhaps perceiving this shift of public opinion towards Jesus, His enemies intervene once again with a humongous lie:  "We are Abraham's servants and have never been in bondage to anyone.  How can You say, 'You will be made free?'" (v. 33).  The Jews, of course, had been in political bondage many times, and Palestine was, indeed, at that very moment a province of the Roman Empire.  Jesus, in His reply, doesn't bother discussing history or politics with them.  He had been speaking of spiritual bondage--sin--not physical, and once more, the Jewish leaders had misunderstood Him.  Jesus' teaching, if adhered to, will free us from the penalty of sin and allow us to follow Him to eternal life.  That's why He came.  And being "free," we will be "sons" and abide in "the house forever" (v. 35).  But only Christ can provide this sort of freedom (v. 36).

Their true father (vs. 37-47)—The Jewish leaders had brought up Abraham, so Jesus picks up that thought.  They might be Abraham's physical descendants, but not his spiritual ones.  Jesus did the works of His Father and these Jewish leaders did the words of their father, whom Christ will identify clearly momentarily (vs. 37-38).  "Abraham is our father," they replied (v. 39), and Jesus' answer was, if Abraham were truly your father, you'd follow in his footsteps--that is, have true faith in God.  But it's obvious they did not, because they wanted to kill Jesus, who had come from God (vs. 39-40).  The Jewish confusion is further manifest by their statement in verse 41, "we have one Father--God."  Well, they had just said Abraham was their father and now they assert that God is their Father, so they are either totally discombobulated, or they began to have a slight perception of His spiritual meaning.  But Jesus immediately thwarted that claim by saying that if God were truly their Father, then they would love Him (Christ, v. 42).  They didn't understand Christ because they did not truly know God.  Their father is the devil (v. 44) because they believed lies and not the truth.  And because Jesus spoke the truth (v. 45), they didn't understand or follow Him.  Again, He concludes this little speech by saying they don't truly know God, so they don't recognize Jesus as coming from God.  It once more boils down to the fact that they did not understand their own Book.

"Before Abraham was, I AM" (vs. 48-58)--These Jewish leaders were so incensed that they could no longer think clearly.  In verse 49, they throw out a wild, ridiculous accusation, part of which Jesus doesn't even bother to respond to.   But they also claimed He had a demon, so He takes that thought and compares it with the truth.  If He had a demon, He would be seeking His own honor, not that of God.  Christ's word will lead to eternal life (v. 51), a thought the Jews again misconstrue into physical, not spiritual, terms (v. 52).  "Who are you?  Are you greater than Abraham?" (v. 53).  No doubt they are mocking Him here.  And once again Jesus points to the evidence--what has the Father allowed Me to do? (v. 54).  Jesus' works, His teaching and His miracles, clearly indicate, to the open heart, Who He is.  "Abraham rejoiced to see My day" (v. 56).  Indeed, all in the Old Testament who lived by faith understood that eternal, spiritual life was the goal, not earthly, physical existence.  Abraham obviously had a very limited comprehension of Messianic matters, but he did know that sin separated him from God, that life on earth was temporary, and that forgiveness was necessary to secure eternal life in heaven.  In that sense, he "rejoiced" to see Jesus' day, that is, what Jesus would bring to the world.  The Jews, again, were clueless as to all of this.  "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" (v. 57).  Jesus then makes one of the most remarkable statements in the New Testament:  "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (v. 58).  This can be nothing short of a claim for eternal deity.  It reminds us--and no doubt intentionally--of Jehovah's statement to Moses in Exodus 3:14, “I WHO I AM."  God just is, He exists, He always has and He always will.  And this is exactly what Jesus is claiming here.  He is God!  And THAT the Jews understood (or at least that He was claiming so) because they were so outraged that, right then and there, they were going to kill Him.  But He managed to escape (v. 59).

Any religious group, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who teach that Jesus is anything short of eternal deity must completely and utterly pervert John 8:58.  Everything Jesus had said up to this point indicated His divine nature; now He flat-out claims it with a statement that only God could make.  How could any human being, any non-eternal being, make the ultimate claim "I AM."  And note, He did not say, "Before Abraham was, I was."  That could imply a time when He did not exist, even though He might have been around before Abraham.  The "I AM" is eternal in its meaning, and again, the Jews understood it to be so, held it to be blasphemous, and were going to stone Him for it in accordance with Leviticus 24:16.

John 8, Part One

The woman taken in adultery (vs. 1-11)--We have an interesting little interlude here as the Jews try to trap Jesus.  It is quite a conundrum they put before Him.  They find a woman caught in the very act of committing adultery (there have been Catholic writers in the past who have told us that her name was Susanna, that she was married to a feeble old man named Manasseh, and that she died a saint in Spain.  This, of course, is nothing but fanciful speculation.).  The problem Jesus faces here is two-fold.  The Law of Moses requires that the woman be put to death (though not necessarily by stoning, Lev. 20:10.  Certain rabbis say there were strangled.)  Roman law, however, did not make adultery a capital crime.  So, Christ was on the horns of a dilemma here.  If He said, "Stone her," He could be in trouble with the Romans.  But if He did not support the death penalty, then He would be denying the Law of Moses, and this would certainly go far in destroying His influence with the Jewish people.  The scribes and Pharisees, who initiated this dilemma, probably didn't care how Christ answered; they thought they had Him, either way.

"Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger" (v. 6).  What did He write?  Who knows, and there's no sense in guessing.  He acted like He didn't hear what was being presented to Him, so they pressed Him on the matter (v. 7).  He responded with that well-known, and bone-chilling, answer, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (v. 7).  There was no good retort for that, so the crowd slowly dissipated and left the woman alone.  Since, under Jewish law, a capital crime needed at least two witnesses for the punishment to be applied, and since no one was left to accuse the woman, Jesus couldn't very well condemn her to death.  He certainly didn't deny her guilt, He simply told her to "Go and sin no more" (v. 11).  Which is the worse sin--adultery or hypocrisy?  Either will cost a person his/her soul.  In this marvelous example, Jesus exposes one and forgives the other.  A good example for us to follow, but great wisdom and prayer are needed to know when to do which.

Bearing witness (vs. 12-20)--There is a lot of conversation between Jesus and the Jews that make up the rest of this chapter and it's somewhat convoluted.  The Jews didn't understand Him and were constantly trying to twist His words to their own advantage.  Jesus starts out this section by saying "I am the light of the world," a most arrogant claim--unless He were truly the Son of God.  The Jews, and rightly so, responded, in effect, "We don't have to believe you just because you say so."  Again, the idea of the necessity of more than one witness.  Jesus replied that, even if He didn't have any supporting witnesses, His words were true (single testimony isn't necessarily false), because He knew where He had come from and could tell them about it (v. 14).  But He didn't speak only from Himself, but the Father supported Him (vs. 16, 18).  He had made this point before, of course.  So, they ought to believe Him, based upon their own law (v. 17).  The Jews wanted to know where His Father was.  Jesus replied that they would know the answer to that if they truly knew the Father--that is, what had been revealed in the Old Testament.  He had gone back to the temple, so there was obviously a large crowd listening in (v. 20).

Death leads to life (vs. 21-29)--This is wholly incomprehensible to Jesus' opponents.  Jesus begins by telling them of the immediate future, which, in effect, summed up His mission.  He was going to die and go back to heaven, but this unbelieving group would "die in your sin" (v. 21) and not be able to follow Him.  Of course, they didn't understand.  "Is He going to kill Himself?"  Jesus tries to explain His divine, heavenly nature and home, and that they would "die in your sins" if they did not believe in Him as the Son of God " (v. 24).  Clueless, they ask Him "Who are you?" (v. 25).  Jesus responded, "I've been telling you that all along, speaking to you the message from above," but "they did not understand" (vs. 26-27).  His death would convince many of His true identity (v. 28), because He would be fulfilling the Father's will as revealed in the Old Testament.  That's what's important to understand here.  If Jesus wasn't the fulfillment of the Old Testament, then all of His statements regarding "the Father has sent me and taught me" etc. would be so much humbug.  These are things the Jews should know, but so foreign to them was His mission, that His words were incomprehensible.

John 7, Part Two

"Could this be the Christ?" (vs. 25-31)--John relates a brief summation of some of the discussion people were having about Jesus.  "Is this the one they want to kill?" (v. 25).  "Don't the rulers know this is the Messiah?" (v. 26).  "Can't be, because we know where this fellow is from and nobody knows where the Messiah comes from" (v. 27).  This last statement certainly wasn't true, because Micah 5:2 very plainly states that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem of Judea.  A minimum of research would have discovered, of course, that Jesus was born in that city.  It's easier to remain ignorant, however, than it is to do a little work.  Jesus' statements in vs. 28-29 were designed to help the people understand His divine nature and source, but they almost surely didn't understand Him.  Well, some of the leaders apparently understood Him well enough to still want to kill Him (v. 30).  The debate raged (v. 31).

More obtuseness (vs. 32-36)--John gives us interesting insights into the blindness and, implicitly, the effects of the philosophy of the Jews.  The Pharisees sent men to arrest Him (v. 32), but Jesus kept teaching (vs. 33-34).  "I shall be with you a little while longer, and then I go to Him who sent Me.  You will seek Me and not find Me, and where I am you cannot come."  He's referring to heaven, of course, but the earthly-minded Jews could only think in physical terms.  "Where does He intend to go that we shall not find Him? Does He intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?"  (v. 35).  The "Dispersion" refers to Jews who lived outside of Palestine.  Many who had been taken from Palestine during the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities chose to remain where they were, and indeed, move to other places.  We know from the rest of the New Testament that there were Jews living all over the Roman Empire.  Paul continually argued with them on his missionary journeys.  But the bottom line of this section is, again, the cross talk between Jesus and the Jews, i.e, His intentions versus their expectations, and thus the utter lack of effective communication between the two.  However, it should be pointed out that they did understand Him well enough to realize He claimed to be God.  That only infuriated them because He didn't provide them what they wanted--glory over the Romans.  And since that is what they thought their Messiah would bring them, Jesus must be a blasphemous imposter and thus worthy of death.  If He had fulfilled their earthly, carnal desires, they certainly would have followed Him wherever He led them.

Living water (vs. 37-39)--This is a theme He had used with the Samaritan woman in John 4.  The "living water" was supplied by the Holy Spirit, who "was not yet given" (v. 39).  Whether this refers to miraculous activity, or simply the salvation that comes through the word given by the Spirit's inspiration is not fully clear.  Probably the latter, since everyone can have salvation but only a few had miraculous gifts.  The Holy Spirit obviously did not inspire the New Testament message, given through man, until after Jesus was "glorified" (v. 39), i.e., finished His work and returned to heaven.

And this produces more division (vs. 40-44)--For whatever reason, this concept of "living water" led many to believe in Him (v. 40).  Different people are convinced by different arguments, metaphors, allusions, or parables, so Christ used many of all in order to reach as many souls as possible.  Some stumbled over the misconception that Jesus was from Galilee:  "Will the Christ come out of Galilee?" (v. 41), and those who had some knowledge of the subject knew that, as noted above, the Messiah would come from Bethlehem (v. 42).  But again, it wouldn't have taken much to clear up the false notion that Jesus was from Galilee.  That group probably didn't want to believe in the first place.

Division among the leaders (vs. 45-53)--Every rank and class of people were confused.  Verse 32 tells us that the Pharisees had sent some officers to arrest Him, but in verse 45, they returned empty-handed.  "Why?" they were asked.  "No man ever spoke like this Man!" (v. 46).  These officers were overawed by Him and obviously not prejudiced against Jesus.  This angered the Pharisees (not surprisingly) and a debate raged in their midst.  Nicodemus (of John 3) defended Jesus, or at least raised the reasonable point that the Law requires a proper hearing before judgment is reached (v. 51).  But the Pharisees through the "Galilee" argument at him (v. 52), and that's where the current matter ended.

John 7, Part One

"My time has not yet come" (vs. 1-9)--Jesus did not initially go up to the Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, something that, as a Jewish male, He was required to do.  There were three feasts each year which men were obligated to attend--the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.  This latter feast was celebrated in the Jewish month of Tisri, corresponding to our late-September or early-October.  Jesus' own brothers, who initially "did not believe in Him" (v. 5), apparently were chiding Him a bit when they encouraged Him to go to Judea (vs. 3-4).  Jesus wasn't ready to go, at least openly.  He intended to be there, but at His own time (v. 8).  It was easy for His brothers to speak; the Jews weren't trying to kill them as they were Jesus (v. 1).  In verse 7, Jesus provides us some wonderful insight as to why--to this very day--He and His religion are so opposed by so many:  "Because I testify of it [the world] that its works are evil."  Pour salt on a wound and it will hurt.  Expose wickedness, and the wicked will be outraged.  In John 3:20, Jesus said, "Everyone practicing evil hates the light."  Christ wasn't crucified because He preached loved; He was killed because He told people they needed to repent.  The hatred of Christianity is just as manifest in the world today as it was in Jesus', and the wise can perceive that such is what truly underlays the left's vehement opposition to politicians like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry.  This is no small part of it, and don't be deceived into thinking it’s not.

Division over Jesus (vs. 10-13)--Ideally, everyone in the world would unite behind the Son of God; God wants all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4).  But, while there is always an ideal, there also exist the reality, and that reality is that Jesus brought--and brings--division (Mt. 10:34-36).  Even though He hadn't arrived at the feast yet, He was the "talk of the town".  The Jews were looking for Him (v. 11; John apparently uses the term "the Jews" in reference to Christ's enemies, cf. v. 1).  The common folks also talked of Him, some supporting Him, some not.  But everybody was intimidated by the ruling authorities (v. 13).  The bitterness against Jesus within the elites was deep indeed; and, again, it still is.  The way Jesus and the Bible expose the true psychology of man is simply another evidence of the divine source of Christianity.

"My doctrine is not mine" (vs. 14-24)--When Jesus finally did arrive in Jerusalem about the middle of the week, He started teaching in the temple--that's where the people were, so that’s where He went.  We don't know why Jesus waited a few days before going to Jerusalem; we do know He was aware of the desire of the religious leaders to kill Him (v. 1).  He may have surmised that they would be looking for His arrival at the beginning of the feast, thereby hindering His movements.  By not entering Jerusalem till about mid-feast, He was able to slip in unawares and thus make His way to the temple unnoticed.  He wasn't hiding from the Jews; He simply had work to do and skillfully outmaneuvered the Jews to accomplish it.

People listened to Him, of course, and many marveled at the fact that He had such a keen grasp of spiritual truth, though He had never been trained by the "intelligentsia" of His day (v. 15).  Jesus answer was simple:  "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me" (v. 16).  What He was teaching couldn't have been taught by the religious scholars of the day, at least most of it.  Indeed, much about Christ and much of His message was revealed in the Old Testament, but not all.  So He was teaching doctrine that He came from heaven to deliver.  And the honest and good heart would recognize it (v. 17).  Jesus wasn't seeking His own glory, an assertion that could be substantiated by a petition to the Law of Moses (vs. 18-19).  If the Jews had truly adhered to the Law of Moses, they would have recognized Jesus as the one to whom Moses pointed. 

Jesus put the leaders back on their heels with His question, "Why do you seek to kill Me?" (v. 19).  They had to deny that, because Jesus did have a lot of following among the masses, and that following would want to know, too, why there was a plot to kill Him.  Once again, Jesus points them to Moses and their own hypocrisy:  they circumcised on the Sabbath and that wasn't a violation of the Law of Moses.  But they condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath--also not a violation of the law.  Judge righteously, He told them, not according to your own standards or the way things might seem to be (v. 24).  Notice that judgment itself is not condemned by Christ.  But we must make certain that any judging that we do is with "righteous judgment," that is, in accordance with the word of God.

Addendum:  For those interested in the particulars of the Feast of Tabernacles, Clarke has this fine note:  “This feast was celebrated in the following manner. All the people cut down branches of palm trees, willows, and myrtles, (and tied them together with gold and silver cords, or with ribbons), which they carried with them all day, took them into their synagogues, and kept them by them while at prayers. On the other days of the feast they carried them with them into the temple and walked round the altar with them in their hands, singing, Hosanna! i.e. Save, we beseech thee!—the trumpets sounding on all sides. To this feast St. John seems to refer, Revelation 7:9-10, where he represents the saints standing before the throne, with palm branches in their hands, singing, Salvation to God, etc. On the seventh day of the feast, they went seven times round the altar, and this was called Hosanna rabba, the great Hosanna….But the ceremony at which the Jews testified most joy was that of pouring out the water, which was done on the eighth day of the feast. A priest drew some water out of the pool Siloam, in a golden vessel, and brought it into the temple; and at the time of the morning sacrifice, while the members of the sacrifice were on the altar, he went up and poured this water mingled with wine upon it, the people all the while singing, with transports of joy, Isaiah 12, especially Isaiah 12:6: “With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.”  [This is actually Is. 12:3, MKL]. To this part of the ceremony, our Lord appears to allude in v. 37 of this chapter.

During this feast many sacrifices were offered. On the first day, besides the ordinary sacrifices, they offered, as a burnt-offering, thirteen calves, two rams, and fourteen lambs with the offerings of flour and the libations of wine that were to accompany them. They offered also a goat for a sin-offering. On all the succeeding days they offered the same sacrifices, only abating one of the calves each day, so that when the seventh day came, they had but seven calves to offer. On the eighth day, which was kept with greater solemnity than the rest, they offered but one calf, one ram, and seven lambs, for a burnt-offering, and one goat for a sin-offering, with the usual offerings and libations. On this day, they also offered in the temple the first fruits of their latter crops, or of those things which come latest to maturity. During the feast, the 113th, 114th, 115th, 116th, 117th, 118th, and 119th Psalms were sung. Leo of Modena says that, though Moses appointed but eight days, yet custom and the devotion of the people have added a ninth to it, which is called the joy of the law, because that on it they complete the reading of the Pentateuch….For the law relative to this institution, see Lev. 23:39-40, etc., and the notes there; and Numbers 29:16, etc.”  A lot of this information would be gathered from Jewish history books, because many of the particulars above are not found in the Bible.

—Adam Clarke's Commentary

John 6, Part Three

A hard saying (vs. 60-71)--"This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" (v. 60, NKJV, which helps clear up the KJV's "who can hear it?")  Yes, a lot of what Jesus said is difficult for men to comprehend, even today.  We can look back, through the entirety of the New Testament, and understand most of what Christ taught.  But for those worldly Jews to whom He was speaking, Jesus' message here was far beyond them.  Even some of His disciples complained (v. 61), and Jesus asked them, "Does this cause you to stumble?" (ASV, which is better here than the KJV and NKJV's "offend you."  Jesus' words didn't "offend" them in the sense we might think of, but because they didn't understand it, they might reject it.)   Jesus' argument in verse 62 seems to be, "if you can't understand the simple truth I've just taught, how are you going to grasp the great spiritual truths later on?"  The flesh (the physical bread) won't help you get to heaven; only spiritual bread ("the words I speak") will do so (v. 63). But Jesus knew that many would not believe, and even knew who some of them were (v. 64).  The "therefore" of verse 65 is clarified by what He had just said in verse 63--"no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."  How does the Father "grant" that one comes to Jesus? T hrough the words Christ spoke.  If we will accept those words, God graciously pardons us from our sins and allows us access to eternal life.  This wasn't what some people wanted to hear (v. 66); for whatever reasons, "many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more." Jesus then turned to the twelve and asked them if they were going to leave Him, too. Peter answered, and it's a classic: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou has the words of eternal life" (v. 68).  We've already seen, constantly in fact, the obtuseness and lack of understanding of the apostles.  And almost surely, they did not understand what Jesus had said in this chapter any more than any others of the Jews did.  What was the difference? The heart.  There is something about the Lord Jesus Christ that, even though we do not--cannot--comprehend him completely--the "honest and good heart" (Lk, 8:15) will accept and follow Him.  This is surely the case with His apostles.  The Jews who rejected Christ had seen His miracles and heard His teachings--just like the apostles.  The apostles followed Him, most of the Jews didn't.  The only difference was inside.  Peter then concluded by saying "We have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (v. 69).  Notice that Peter makes a distinction between belief and knowledge.  "We believe it, based upon the evidence, therefore we know it."  The evidence proves it.  But Jesus has some sad words to end this section.  "Not all of you believe; one of you is a devil" (v. 70).  He was talking about Judas (v. 71).

This chapter begins with a great miracle, follows with great teaching, and ends with a great statement by Peter.  Jesus is the "bread of life."  But it is spiritual life, not physical.  To those who love this world, the latter is not what they want.

John 6, Part Two

The bread of life (vs. 30-35)--Jesus introduces a theme that will thread through the rest of the chapter--the bread of life.  Actually, in a form, He introduced it in verse 26. The question the Jews ask in verse 30, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You?" is indicative of their cold, stubborn hearts.  They had just witnessed Jesus feeding 5,000+ people with five loaves of bread and two fish.  He had done other miracles in their presence.  What else did they want?  In mentioning Moses (God) feeding the people in the wilderness for 40 years (v. 31), their argument seems to be, "What is your tiny miracle in comparison so this?"  A miracle is a miracle, and what Jesus did was no small thing.  Yet, the Jews were looking for any excuse, and when that is the case, one is as good as another.

Jesus then (once again) steers them to what is truly important--spiritual matters.  The bread Moses fed the people was physical and did not last.  The bread the Father now sends down from heaven ("the true bread," v. 32) "gives life to the world" (v. 33).  His audience, thinking only in physical, wanted that bread so that they could have it always; famines were still common in the ancient world.  But Jesus is that true bread, and those who come to Him "shall never hunger" and "shall never thirst" (v. 35).  But they didn't believe (v. 36).

The Father's will (vs. 37-40)--It is the will of God that all men be saved (I Tim. 2:4; II Pet. 3:9), and the promise He has made to mankind is that those who come to Him through His Son would find eternal life.  Jesus will protect those who come to Him (v. 37).  That's what He came for, not to do His own will, but the will of the Father (v. 38), that is, to save men from their sins.  But again, that salvation comes through Jesus--"everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life" (v. 40).  The "seeing" here is obviously metaphorical; we "see" Him through the eye of faith.  We walk by faith, not by sight (II Cor. 5:7).

Returning to the bread of life theme (vs. 41-59)--The complaint of the Jews was Jesus' statement that He "came down from heaven" (v. 41). T hey knew His earthly father and mother, so how could He say He came down from heaven?  Jesus tells then that those who are "taught by God" (v. 45) would come to Jesus.  The statement "And they shall all be taught of God" is actually a quotation from the Old Testament (Isa. 54:13).  Thus, in effect, Jesus is saying that the Old Testament speaks of Him, and that if they knew their own book, the Jews would come to Him.  Now this is not a literal, face-to-face teaching by the Father (v. 46).  Nobody has, or can, truly see God.  But the Father teaches through the One whom He sent, and those who believe in Jesus will have everlasting life (v. 47).  In verses 48-50, Jesus again contrasts the bread He offers (which leads to eternal life) and the bread Moses fed the people with.  Those people "are dead" (v. 49).  The "living bread" which came down from heaven is Christ, and He emphasizes that those who partake of it "will live forever" (v. 51).  Keep in mind this is all metaphorical. Jesus often uses matters at hand to make a spiritual point, and since the feeding of the 5,000 was fresh on everyone's mind, it provided a wonderful opportunity for Jesus to use that event to illustrate a spiritual truth.  The Jews still didn't get it (v. 52).  Their worldly-mindedness simply forbade them to understand great spiritual concepts.  Some have seen in verses 53-55 (eating the flesh and drinking the blood) as an allusion to the Lord's Supper, but I'm not convinced.  I believe Jesus is simply indicating the necessity of partaking in His life and death, fully accepting Him; just as food is necessary to sustain physical life, spiritual food (Jesus) is necessary to procure eternal life.  And this was the bread the Father sent down from heaven (v. 58).  It's not like the bread which Moses gave to his people.  Jesus reiterates that point over and over again; how many times did He have to say it before they caught on? Well, they never did, so more repetition of it was not going to help, just like doing more miracles would not have created faith.  Jesus did enough, and taught enough, for anyone with a true heart to believe and accept Him.  If we do not believe on the evidence we have now, then we will not believe.

I will sum up the last few important verses of this chapter in my next post.

John 6, Part One

Feeding the 5,000 (vs. 1-14)—This is long chapter, so it will take at least two, and possibly three posts to cover it all.  Fortunately—at least for posting’s sake—the first two stories (vs. 1-21) are covered in earlier gospels.  Yet, there are a couple of brief points that John adds that are worth noting.  In verse 6, Jesus tested Philip, apparently to see what sort of conclusions that apostle had drawn from earlier miracles.  It was Philip who told Him that it would take an enormous amount of money—200 days worth of wages—to feed the whole multitude (v. 7).  Andrew then chimes in that “a lad here has five barley loaves and two small fish, but what are they among so many?” (v. 9).  John is the only gospel writer who tells us the source of the five loaves and two fishes.  The child apparently was willing to help and offered what he had.  Once the miracle was performed, the people were astonished, and said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world" (v. 14).  This statement is based upon Deut. 18:15, where the promise of the Messiah is made and the word “prophet” is used to describe Him.

Jesus walks on water (vs. 15-21)—Since many of the multitude had (rightly) concluded that Jesus was the Messiah, “they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king” (v. 15).  Jesus escaped from this ill-conceived attempt to turn Him into something He never intended to be, and even found some respite from His apostles (v. 15).  They then entered a boat in order to cross the sea.  As related in earlier gospels, Jesus walked on the water to go to them.  John omits Peter’s failed attempt to walk on the sea as well. 

The work of God (vs. 22-29)—Jesus is now in Capernaum.  The feeding of the five thousand took place near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10), which is on the east side of the Sea of Galilee, a couple of miles up from the Jordan River.  He drew a crowd, some of them coming from a city called Tiberias, which was on the southwest corner of the lake.  When they all got together, somebody asked Him, “Rabbi, when did You come here?”  Jesus doesn’t bother answering an unimportant question.  He, in effect, turns the question back on them and explains why they came to Him--not for spiritual reasons, but because He had fed them (v. 26).  Then, as always, Jesus tries to get them to focus their priorities on proper things:  “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him” (v. 27).  Jesus, having mentioned the Father, elicits a further question from them:  “What shall we do, that we may work the works of the God?” (v. 28).  It’s interesting that they do not use the term “Father,” perhaps because Jesus did and they didn’t want to be accused of the very thing they had wanted to kill Him for (John 5:18).  The “works of God” are those things which God tells man to do—in other words, commandments to be obeyed.  The concept of “works” has confused many, many people, and they get the willies when someone dares to suggest that men are saved by works.  Well, that’s exactly what James says in James 2:24—“you see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”  Man is not saved by works alone, of course; no one would be so ignorant as to claim that.  The point is, some works do save, and some do not (Eph. 2:8-9 and Gal. 5:19-21 speak of “works” which do not lead to salvation).  But some works do, i.e, the works which God gives us to do.  Notice very carefully John 6:29:  “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”  Even faith is a work!  It is something God commands us to do.  So think of the “works of God,” those which justify us (James 2:14-26), as doing His will as He commands us.  Too many denominational people have been so influenced by the Lutheran heresy of “salvation by faith only,” that they have a complete mental block regarding the word “works.”  It’s a fine word, the Bible uses it in relation to our salvation, and we should thus not fear to use it, either.  We just need to understand that no one can earn salvation (such is what Paul means in Ephesians 2 and Romans 4); no one can “work” their way to heaven, putting God into his debt as owing him eternal life.  But this does not mitigate the commandments of God, the “works of God,” or obedience to God, which is also obligatory for our salvation (Heb. 5:8-9).