John 4:15-26

“Notice what you notice.” This chapter is probably the longest personal discourse that Jesus had with anyone that is recorded in the Gospels. So naturally there is so much that has already been said and so much more that could still be said. But what I noticed is verses 23 and 24, But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. What does it mean to worship “in spirit and truth”?

Back in chapter 3 we had Jesus talking with Nicodemus that we must be “born of water and the Spirit”. I had then connected those two concepts with Baptism and Confirmation – repentance and renewal. Actually our Men’s Group has me thinking more along the lines of salvation and sanctification. So if being born of the Spirit is tied to Confirmation or sanctification, is there a connection to worshipping in spirit and truth? Is worshipping in spirit that aspect of who we are that is being renewed and sanctified, being set apart, being Holy Spirit guided?

So what is “worshipping in truth”? Worshiping the One True God…? Compared to the false god of the Samaritans? Or compared to the Roman or Greek gods? Or in opposition to those who “worship” nature? Two years from now Jesus will say I am the way, the truth and the life (Jn 14:6). Then later that evening he says, Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice (Jn 18:37). And Pilate will famously reply, What is truth? Jesus is truth.

So, going out on a limb here – we read in verse 24, God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Is Jesus speaking of the Trinity? That is, if Jesus refers to Himself as the truth and we already know of the Holy Spirit, is our complete worship to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Glory! My head spins when I read John’s gospel!

Slava Bohu!!

John 4:1-14

“Notice what you notice.” I remain intrigued by the care John takes in his geographical and chronological narrative. He begins chapter 4 pretty much right where he left off in chapter 3. He notes that Jesus left Judea and headed to Galilee by way of Samaria only after He heard that the Pharisees had heard about Him and His disciples baptizing more disciples than John. That is, John the writer has Jesus still in Judea and now headed back to Galilee within a relatively short time frame from when He first made Himself known through the cleansing of the Temple and Nicodemus’ visit.

I’ve imbedded below a map that shows almost all the major locations we know of Jesus’ travels. He and His disciples were probably baptizing opposite Jericho (lower right on the map). You can see a road going north from Jericho through Samaria toward Sychar, a journey of some 25-30 miles from the Jordan River opposite Jericho. If Jesus got an early start and walked at a good clip, he could have arrived at Sychar at noon, tired (v. 6)! No major Gospel insight here, just my fascination with John’s geography and chronology. Moving on…

I’m sure we have heard many times about Jesus and the Samaritan woman – that proper Jewish men had nothing to do with Samaritans and were not to engage with a woman unless her husband was present. Jesus broke both of these standards that Jewish leaders would follow.  But I wonder if “common” Galilean Jews were different from Jerusalem Jews.  I’m mostly at a loss for anything more to add. Others?

Slava Bohu!!

John 3:22-36

“Notice what you notice.” My apologies for this very late post, but Carol and I have been in travel and “wedding” fellowship all day. But I did not want to fail to post!

So today I only brought The Chronological Study Bible and not my other Study Bible, so I can only comment lightly, but there are still a number of items that I noticed.

First, John the writer is staying geographical and chronological. He begins with After this <they> went into the Judean countryside… (v. 22). That is, Jesus and his friends have left Jerusalem (which was in Judea), but have left the city environment and have moved to the countryside, presumably near the Jordan River where Jesus could baptize. A small item, but it lends credence to John’s chronology!

Second, …He gives the Spirit without measure (v. 34). What an awesome thought! There is absolutely NO LIMIT to the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives! I know I’ve read this verse hundreds of times, but never picked up on that truth.

Third, putting together some phrases from vv. 31-32: He Who comes from above…, He Who comes from heaven…, and What He has seen and heard… All of these phrases refer to John the Baptist speaking about Jesus. Jesus Christ, God the Son, has come down from heaven to take up residence on earth – but He is still “from heaven”. What He has seen and heard… probably does not reflect his pre-human existence, but has probably come from His prayer time with His Father. But What He has seen and heard… is probably so unbelievable that “no one” (translate, the Jewish leaders) can believe his testimony.

Fourth, just read and re-read the words (vv. 31b-36a): He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. He who has received His testimony has set his seal to this, that God is true. For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life… GOD IS TRUE!

Slava Bohu!!

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!!