John 3:10-21

“Notice what you notice.” Quite a few thoughts for today, some lingering over from yesterday. The first, in fact, is from yesterday, that Nicodemus came to Jesus “by night” (John 3:2). I’ve always heard that it was because of Nicodemus’ fear of condemnation from the Jewish rulers. But one of the Internet sites suggested that by nighttime the crowds would have gone home and Nicodemus would have a better chance of some one-on-one time with Jesus. So my further thought was that instead of being scorned by the Jewish leaders, they may have seen Nicodemus as an emissary (“Who is this new ‘teacher’ who has come on the scene? Can we learn from Him?”) or a spy (“Find out what you can about this guy!”).

A second item is John 3:16 – a verse citation that regularly pops up on our television screen during football games and other sporting and entertainment events, possibly the most memorized verse in the Bible. I’m sure I’ve seen this item before, but now looking more intently at small Gospel passages, there comes the reality that this verse, these words come from Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus. Jesus is trying to explain heaven and the Holy Spirit world to Nicodemus – who clearly is much more earthly focused: How can these things be? (v. 9).

It’s virtually impossible to understand Jesus in today’s reading without connecting back to yesterday’s verses, especially verse 5 (born of water) and verse 6 (born of the flesh), contrasted with born of the Spirit (John 3:5-9). Today’s reading continues with Jesus speaking of heavenly things and eternal life (John 3:12-13, 15-16), essentially teaching Nicodemus about a spiritual world that Nicodemus has not well understood. The entire passage in verses 10-16 makes so much more sense when we see the contrast with Nicodemus’ earthly understanding.

There is more that I could chat about – condemnation and salvation, light and darkness, belief and unbelief – I leave these contrasting pairs for your own ruminations!

Slava Bohu!!

John 3:1-9

“Notice what you notice.” BORN! Born again. Born from above. Born of water and the Spirit. Born of the flesh. Again Jesus gives (to me) a confusing answer to Nicodemus’ comment. Nicodemus says to Jesus that …no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him (v. 2). Here Jesus responds with His first “born again” comment. Bible translations and Internet notes both say that the word “again” is ambiguous and could also be translated “from above”. If you translate Jesus (v.3) reply as “born from above”, then it’s a perfect answer to the qualifier on Nicodemus’ previous comment, “unless God is with him”. However, “born again” is the better lead-in to Nicodemus’ (v.4) reply, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? The word “again” in verse 3 is perfectly consistent with Nicodemus’ verse 4 comment. All four translations that I looked at have “born again” as the translation with “born from above” in a footnote. So Jesus could have been answering “from above” while Nicodemus heard “again”.

Suppose Sweetie needs to be home from her Saturday evening date by midnight. Studley drops her off at 11:59 pm and at exactly 12:00 am and says “See you tomorrow.” Studley expects to see her on Sunday. Sweetie, however, being more literal in what she heard makes Sunday plans and expects to next see Sweetie again on Monday. Yes, they fight and break up over their miscommunication!

As to “born of water and the Spirit”, I think it’s easy for us today to read that phrase as Baptism and Confirmation. But these are church concepts developed over hundreds of years. What did Nicodemus hear? I’m guessing that he could have related “born of water” to John the Baptist baptizing in the Jordan River, while “born of…the Spirit” would have left him completely confused. We’ll have to wait until tomorrow to see how Jesus clarified that item!

So from now on in John’s Gospel I will be looking for how a hearer could have misunderstood Jesus’ response to their comment/question or how Jesus’ “confusing” answer truly answers the comment/question posed. Holy Spirit, help me!!!

Slava Bohu!!

John 2:13-25

“Notice what you notice.” When we are reading through these Gospels it is often hard to see something new. That’s the case with me today – the words are old and familiar, but I do have two items, one a reflection and the other a question/confusion.

As to the reflection, I’ve always wondered at Jesus’ brashness in cleansing the Temple. As we surmise from others’ works, these merchants and money-changers would have been in the outer court, the Court of the Gentiles, with no restrictions on admittance. Jews coming from afar (1) could not bring their sacrificial animals over such a long distance, and (2) would have had foreign currency (Greek, Roman, etc.) that would not have been acceptable to the Temple authorities. These travelers needed both the merchants and the money-changers. I’ve often wondered where these merchants would have conducted business if not in the outer court. Again, I’ve imagined the Temple to have been built on one of the highest hills in Jerusalem, so conducting business on slopes leading up to the Temple would have been difficult. But it’s Jesus Who is doing the cleansing, so I do not linger long with His motives or actions!

As to the confusion, the last two verses… I went online to commentaries for some help. The first, But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people… (v. 24) is less difficult. Matthew Henry’s Commentary suggests that these potential converts may have been attracted to Jesus because of His cleansing or other signs He had performed. That is, theirs was not a deep faith borne out of a serious commitment to Jesus (unlike his Galilean followers). In addition, these local Jews would have respected (or feared) the Temple authorities who already had problems with Jesus, again leading to a weak “faith” in their hearts toward Jesus. So He did not commit (or entrust Himself) to them.

Verse 25 was more challenging at the outset. …and {He} needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man (ESV). Here other translations helped: …because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man (NASB) and He did not need any testimony about mankind for he knew what was in each person. (NIV) That is, Jesus, the Galilean did not need to go to the local Jerusalem psychologists or psychiatrists to understand the Jerusalem Jews – He already had His own insights! It is often very helpful to compare translations!

Slava Bohu!!

John 2:1-12

“Notice what you notice.” On the third day… (v. 1). This item goes back to John’s first chapter. Jesus’ first appearance to John is noted in verse 29, beginning with The next day… his first Behold the Lamb of God… Then we have Jesus’ second appearance to John in verse 35, again beginning with The next day… and another Behold the Lamb of God… So John’s writings may not have been as “pure” as ours. That “next day” may have been a week or more past. (When I taught on a MWF schedule I would often begin a Monday lecture with “Yesterday…” when it had actually been three days past.) So yeah, the “next day”… But now John writes specifically On the third day… (v. 1). So is John, in fact, more chronological, more historical than we’ve often imagined/expected? It also was not lost on me that John closes this incident with Jesus and others going to Capernaum and …they stayed there for a few days (v. 12, ESV and NASB) or …they did not stay there many days (NKJV). John clearly looks to be reporting first person actual activity.

If in fact John (the writer) is reporting chronologically, then John the Baptist had to be baptizing further north than “east of Jerusalem”. A “next day” walk would not have taken Jesus and his disciples all the way to Cana, some 60-80 miles!

One final item, John begins verse 12 with After this he went down to Capernaum… Here there is no specificity on the exact day. Why? Jewish weddings were week-long events, not like ours today – one day affairs.

Not a lot of theology or philosophy, but interesting to me nonetheless…!

Slava Bohu!!

John 1:35-51

“Notice what you notice.” Come and see (John 1:39,46). After first noticing this phrase in my reading I looked it up online and found two more occasions in John’s gospel where this phrase occurs. The first occurrence after John 1 is in John 4:29, the story of the woman at the well, when she told the men of the village to “Come and see”. The second is John 11:34 (Lazarus’ burial spot). Matthew also uses the phrase in Mt. 28:6 (come and see where they laid Him). Finally the phrase occurs twice in the Psalms (Ps. 46:8, 66:5) and four times in Rev. 6:1-7 (the four seals and the four living creatures).

I have paraphrased “come and see” on a number of occasions when I have invited people to church, as in “Are you part of a church body?” <No> or <I’ve been looking around.> Then me, “You should join us at church this Sunday.” One of the commentators that I looked up said, “Come and see is a deeply biblical model of evangelism, a model that flows from our trust in God, a model that relies on God’s activity.” (https://yosteve.blogspot.com/2012/03/come-and-see-in-gospel-of-john.html) Our trust, God’s activity. That’s really all it is.

COME AND SEE!!

Slava Bohu!!

Luke 4:1-13

“Notice what you notice.” A number of items today… First, when we read according to the schedule that we are following we see quite a bit of repetition in the synoptic gospels and we naturally make comparisons between these accounts. In this temptation account many writers point to the difference between Matthew and Luke in the order of the presentation of the temptations. Some say that Matthew’s ordering is “correct” in that the devil leaves Jesus when he is finished – THEN the devil left Him (my emphasis) (Mt. 1:11). Luke simply says when the devil had ended every temptation (Luke 1:13), leaving open the ordering. I have read two different explanations for Luke’s ordering. The first is geographical, from the wilderness (barren, isolated) to the mountain top (with the view of all the kingdoms) to the city. Interesting. The second points to Satan and Jesus finishing in Jerusalem, Luke essentially pointing to his readers that Jesus was looking at His finish in Jerusalem from the very beginning of His ministry.

Second, Luke adds a few words in his final verse that Matthew and Mark leave out: the devil … departed from him until an opportune time (my emphasis). Intriguing. That is, Satan was not finished with Jesus. He had lost the battle, but was not ready to admit defeat in the overall war. AND, even when Satan was finally defeated in Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, he could not bring himself to admit defeat – he is still here trying to tempt Jesus’ followers away from Him and joyfully leading non-believers down every wrong twist and turn. Satan wants a do-over!! I guess that’s what Armageddon is all about! But we’ve read to the end of the Book and we know how it all ends, so why the continuing battles that we face? Why does he persist when he knows he will lose? Why?

Finally, my Study Bible points to Luke’s focus on the Holy Spirit. It cites a dozen or so mentions of the Holy Spirit in Luke’s gospel and (shockingly) 55 mentions in Acts. That’s an average of two a chapter! I have noticed this Holy Spirit focus in Acts and even highlighted most of those mentions in the first Bible that I bought after I was born again. This item doesn’t really relate much to the temptation, but it was a footnote item in my Study Bible – and a major “notice” for me!!

Be blessed!!

Mark 1:12-13

“Notice what you notice.” Sorry for a late post today, folks. Things happen! So today only two verses – Mark’s account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness. Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark is not at all detailed in his account of the content of the temptations. He has nothing to say about the content. However, he includes one item that the other two synoptics do not include – wild beasts.

I had never thought about wild beasts in connection with Jesus in the wilderness. But when we think more fully about it, in the OT there are a number of occasions where we see lions in Palestine: “The presence of the lion in the land of Palestine is shown in the historical narratives in which the lion actually appears, most of which are well-known to all of us. Such familiar incidents include Samson’s empty-handed slaying of the lion in the vineyards of Timnath (Judges 14:5, 6); David’s combat with a lion in defense of his flock (I Sam. 17:23); the slaughter of a lion in a pit in winter by one of David’s notable companions in hiding (II Sam. 23:20); and the tribe of lions which, sent by the Lord, descended upon godless Samaria and killed some of them (II Kings 17:25), as well as the destruction of the disobedient prophet by a lion, mentioned in I Kings 13…” (https://standardbearer.rfpa.org/node/46784). We also have the story of two female bears killing 42 boys (2 Kings 2:23-24).

So, reading between the lines and with reference to OT texts, lions and bears were probably among those wild beasts that Jesus may have encountered in the wilderness. How did Jesus handle them? Matthew says that angels came and ministered to Him after the temptations while Mark says that angels were ministering to Him (verse 13, past continuous tense). Guardian angels? We have seen such “creatures” before in the OT (Ps. 34:6-7, 94:11) and we’ll see them again in the NT. Here we see them with Jesus. Can we see them with and around us?

Matthew 4:1-11

Moses and Elijah… When we see those two names together we are inclined to think of the Transfiguration or of Jesus’ references to “the Law and the Prophets” (Mt. 5:17, 22:40).

Another connection with those two to Jesus is their unique “departures”. Jesus died, rose, and ascended; Moses died and the Lord buried him (Deuteronomy 34:6); and Elijah was “taken up to heaven” (2 Kings 2:1-11).

But a third connection is their “forty days and forty nights”. Moses was forty days and forty nights on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 24:18-34:29). Elijah arose and ate and drank, and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb, the mount of God. (1 Kings 19:8). And now we have Jesus in the wilderness forty days and forty nights (Mt. 4:2). Beyond observing these connections, I have nothing to add. “Moses, Elijah, Jesus” – sounds like a good book title.

The second item I noticed was Satan quoting Scripture (Mt. 4:6). He saw Jesus do it in verse 4 (Mt. 4:4) so he thought that was a good tactic. But Jesus refuted Satan’s Scripture quote with his own quotation in verse 7 (Mt. 4:7). The lesson: be careful not to use Scripture to satisfy your own ends.

Slava Bohu!

Luke 3:23-38

“Notice what you notice.” Not much today, Luke’s genealogy… I had already commented back on January 8 about some comparisons between the two accounts, Matthew’s and Luke’s. But I did notice three more small items. First, Luke has no women mentioned, while Matthew mentions four (Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba, Mary). Why? No idea…! Second, there are two more Josephs mentioned, in addition to Mary’s husband. I might not have seen that, except that my middle name is Joseph. Finally, I counted 76 human generations named in Luke. Matthew had only 42 – three sets of 14. Nothing special about Luke’s 76 (compared to Matthew’s 42), except that if you add God as a generation you get 77 – a play on 7, the number? Go figure.

Not much today…

Slava Bohu!