The Best of John Chapter Seven

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be precise, Jesus used the word 'world' rather than 'they.' The world hated him. Jesus made the remark that the world could not hate them as it hated him. What did that mean? Did he mean to say that they were beneath the radar, too small for the religious elite to take notice of? In retrospect, we may see the bigger picture – that it was a local rather than a global event. Obviously, it was not everyone that rejected his words or sought to have him killed. He had many followers. It was just the 'Jews' that troubled him.

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

If Jesus was alone and on his own, his brothers having departed for Jerusalem, his disciples temporarily scattered yet under the same law to attend the feast in Jerusalem, it kind of makes sense that Jesus first says he would not go but then changes his mind – albeit, going incognito.

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

Notes on verses eleven through thirteen: During the feast, two things were at play – and Jesus was central to both of them. A debate raged through the city. The common people were keenly interested in the topic of Jesus. As the Jesus controversy raged, some argued that Jesus was a charlatan while others maintained that Jesus was genuine and earnest. Whatever their personal opinions, they kept it among themselves “for fear of the Jews.” The religious elite were obviously a big part of the debate. Everyone knew that the Jews had it in for Jesus. They also knew an unguarded word could place them in the crosshairs with Jesus.

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

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

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

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

My developing argument is that Jesus was one of them.

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

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

The religious elders, no doubt, would also have been there in abundance. Remember, they were looking for him. Jesus just walked right in and started teaching. Nobody bothered to point a finger, much more to arrest him. He did not just begin to teach, he stood there and talked for a while. He had their attention. They listened to what he said. Even the elders listened and understood. They heard from him such things they would have expected from themselves and it was obvious he knew as much or more than they did. They were impressed.

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

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

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

It is possible that the ones who questioned Jesus' education did not avail themselves of his full history. Perhaps the missing years of Jesus were also missing to them. It is not necessarily the case that Jesus would have been trained in the law there at Jerusalem. He might have trained in Alexandria Egypt. It is also possible that what they meant by “letters” was a degree of mastery usually reserved for the highest levels among their own ranks. It might be helpful to us if the teachings of that day had been recorded. At least we might determine if it was something they had not heard from him before.

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

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

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

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

Jesus publicly calls out the Jews present and accuses them of plotting to have him killed. Of course, they object. Jesus then names the offense – the healing of the man at the pool during Pentecost of the previous year. He explains their reasoning, also, and all for the public to hear. Jesus maintains that he had done no more than any of them would have done in performing a circumcision on the Sabbath. Why would they do such a thing? They performed circumcisions on Sabbath days in order to keep the law of circumcision as passed down to them by Moses. Jesus explained that circumcision was nothing more than a standard of their forefathers; circumcision was not a matter that originated from God but simply a practice already in use that God made use of.

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

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

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

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

In verses twenty-five and twenty-six, the people of Jerusalem make their assessment of the argument between Jesus and the Jews. “Then said some of them of Jerusalem, is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?” The Christ-hood of Jesus was a big part of the Jesus controversy. If those who knew the religious rulers wanted to kill the one they believed or suspected might be the Christ, why did they idly stand by? Was their fear of the rulers that great? Were they waiting for the Christ to turn things around? They were peasants and workers. They stood in awe but they would not have known what to do even if they thought they should do something.

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

In the following verses, Jesus will answer these people of Jerusalem. I imagine them as curious individuals who worked their way up close to the action. They wanted good spots where they could hear all that was going on. Perhaps they were more arrogant than the common crowd, less fearful of the rulers, or perhaps more affected by the rulers. They presumed to know him and he agreed that they did.

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

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

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

Upon his answer, “they,” in verse thirty, sought to take him. Who were 'they?' It was not the common crowd, you can be sure. So, then, was it the full array of the religious elite, officers, and functionaries (who felt assured of their purported knowledge of Jesus?) Functionaries have no authority to act. All they could do was run off at the mouth. Officers would not act without orders, so, that leaves the identity of “they” for one group – the religious elite. In that they sought to take Jesus at that point in time, I think it was less an action than a decision. They could not sully their positions with such actions but they might have ordered officers to apprehend Jesus. Yet, Jesus stood there; nothing happened.

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

This next bit comes from Bible History Online:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet not all of those convened felt that way. Nicodemus questioned their approach to the issue. He counseled that they should not condemn Jesus without first hearing him. Mocking Nicodemus, they asked if he was also of Galilee? They railed on him in their argument. Their whole point and mindset revolved around a single determination – they knew Jesus to be from Galilee but the scriptures stated that the Christ would come from Bethlehem. Even in the condescension that Jesus might be a prophet, their research assured them that no prophet ever came from Galilee.

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

The Best of Romans Chapter Twelve

In chapter twelve, the author comes, at last, to what he wants from the reader. Twelve is a list of specific traits that are to be found in the believer. As a whole, they are a standard by which all men may be judged in regard to their faith. If they say they believe in and serve God but their works are not the works in this list, they have lied to the world but, more tragically, they have lied to themselves.

Romans twelve is a list that describes the personal traits of the believing Christian. It includes not only the spirit of the believer but the body of the believer, as well. The body is listed first. It is stated that the reasonable service to God of any faithful soul is to present their body as a living sacrifice. This simply means to live in a particular way. It is a way that is special, set apart, set above. It is a way that is not common, not profane. It is the way of dedication – a gift to God. As such, the body no longer belongs to the believer but to God. One need not make a vow of abstinence, per se, neither a vow of silence. One need only exercise moderation in the spirit of dedication.

Speaking of the spirit, the orientation of the spirit directly and precisely affects the flesh. The mind can form either a fist or an open hand. With that in mind, let us take a look at the author's list of traits. The very first thing the author says about the spirit is found in verse two. It is immediately important to recognize that the author names the spirit. He calls it the mind. He also offers the formula by which any individual may test and prove what is good and right. There are many issues in this life that threaten to overwhelm the spirit. This world is a formidable adversary. It seeks to incorporate your mind. It will beat you with thoughts and feelings that have already been around the block. They are old thoughts, common thoughts. They are familiar and easy. Friends and family who have been incorporated by the world will assail you with these thoughts and feelings as if they are your only options. They are not.

The first spiritual trait of the believer is the renewing of the mind. Not only is it the first but it is the most essential. You might call it the foundation for other spiritual traits. Indeed, one might call the renewing of one's mind the cornerstone of one's spiritual temple. New thoughts, new feelings, must be set above the old and common by which the world magnifies itself. New thoughts and new feelings, in the spirit of dedication, lead to new actions. What you think, you will do. As you believe, so shall it be.

This is what the Bible tells the believer:

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.” Proverbs eighteen verse twenty-one.

“For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile.” First Peter three verse ten.

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Philippians four verse eight.

“And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” Matthew twenty-one verse twenty-two.

All individuals should think soberly and not imagine themselves to be higher up the ladder than someone else. They should not view themselves in any way other than by the measure of faith God has granted to them. This is a spiritual trait by which one may prove to oneself their connection to God. We should view ourselves as parts of the whole, like organs in a body, each with its own function, yet, dependent upon the other organs and with the certain knowledge that they depend as much upon us. Our work, our health, our growth depend on this spiritual certainty.

Some of us will prophesy, some of us will minister, some of us will teach, some of us will exhort, some of us will have substance to give, some of us will rule, and doubtless, some of us will sweep floors and wash dishes. Whatever we have to give, let us give it with simplicity and diligence, showing mercy from a glad and cheerful spirit. Those who believe, work together with all other believers. Between believers, there should be no concealment of our thoughts and feelings. There should be no pretense, deceit, misrepresentation; neither hypocrisy nor double-dealing. We are one and should work as one. The grace of God has given each of us a unique gift, our own place, and function. A new mind will fully accept this truth.

Our love, our thoughts, our actions are a whole. We must, each of us and all of us, think the thoughts of the whole. We must hate evil and seek the good as a whole. We must love the body and the members of the body. Our preference for all that is good and right will bear the fruit of kind affection, brotherly love, and honor for all fellow believers. That is the spiritual trait of the new mind.

Actions will naturally follow from the new mind of the faithful believer. Traits may be seen not only in the spirit of the believer but in the believer's works, as well. A believer will not be slothful in business, for example, and this is because the believer is fervent in spirit, that is, mentally impassioned as he or she serves the will of God. Rejoicing in hope, patient during troubles, consistent in prayer – these are spiritual traits in all believers that will be seen in the works of each. The new mind will display the following action-traits in all true believers.

The believer will distribute to the necessities of the saints (other true believers.)

The believer will be predisposed to hospitality.

The believer will bless those who persecute them, after the manner of Jesus on the cross, who did not curse his persecutors.

The believer will rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep.

The believer will be of a like mindset and in agreement with other believers who show the traits of true believers – both in spirit and in works.

The believer will not mind high things, as the Pharisees did, but more like Jesus, they will condescend to men of low estate.

The believer will not be wise in his own conceits, that is, vain or self-centered. Rather, the believer will strive to be in concert with God and the unity of believers. In all their works, they will be seen to submit to the will of God while in their spirit, they will trust God wholeheartedly.

The believer will not repay evil with more evil.

The believer will provide things honestly in the sight of all men.

The believer will try to live peaceably with all men.

True believers will not avenge themselves. Rather, they will let God lead in his own affairs.

The believer will show compassion even for an enemy.

The believer, finally, will not be defeated by evil but will defeat evil by enacting goodness from a new mind. 

The Best of John Chapter Six

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

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

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

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

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

Were they immediately in the mountains or was there also some downtime to be considered here? Had they returned to Bethsaida where the fishermen lived and worked? Was their time in the mountain meant as a final meeting before a break?

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

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

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

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

Certain details of the gospels lead most of us to assume that person was Judas Iscariot. While Judas may have been that person toward the end of Jesus' ministry, that may not have always been the case. It may well have been that in the early parts of Jesus' ministry, he entrusted the coin purse to Philip.

So, he asked Philip a monetary question and Philip answered in a very knowing manner. In other words, and in all likelihood, Philip's answer accounted for their entire net worth: two hundred pennies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Jesus perceived they would take him by force, he slipped away back into the higher climes of the mountain. For some reason, his perception of the threat comes across as a last-minute thing. Were the men making overtures? Were they speaking their mind loudly enough to notice? Was the crowd turning into a mob, getting out of control? Why did Jesus not perceive this fact sooner?

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

All of a sudden, Jesus was not there. The mob had to deal with the disciples. They may have wandered off in different directions, looking for Jesus. They may have become distracted by need and the late hour of the day, deciding instead to turn for home.

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

The disciples had rowed for about three miles, I am assuming, against the wind. I imagine them following the coast and its landmarks. I don't see them out in deep water. From the internet, we have this about the winds around that lake. “The sea's location makes it subject to sudden and violent storms as the wind comes over the eastern mountains and drops suddenly onto the sea. Storms are especially likely when an east wind blows cool air over the warm air that covers the sea. The cold air (being heavier) drops as the warm air rises. This sudden change can produce surprisingly furious storms in a short time, as it did in Jesus' day.”

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

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

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

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

They had waited all night for Jesus to return. Were they still trying to take him by force? So there they were on the shore of the Kinneret; they saw that of all the ships present, along with some which had come up from Tiberius, only the disciple's ship was gone. This adds credence to the thought that Jesus employed his disciple's fishing ship from Capernaum to launch his shore-line town-to-town ministry that ended at the place of the miracle – a place between Tiberius and Capernaum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As predilections go, you might say, that for 'the Jews', those biases were chiseled in stone. It was all about the law. For them, the law was set; the law could not be re-rendered. All their mental constructs adhered to well-worn, deeply entrenched patterns. While they definitely looked for a messiah, that messiah could not be just another man. If they could not even bring themselves to utter the name of God, you know their general predisposition would not permit a man to call himself the Son of God. That would be sacrilege. Besides which, reason dictated that flesh and blood could not come down from heaven, usurping the providence of God and angels, especially the flesh and blood of a local man whose father and mother were well known. Please also note that the manner in which they express their familiarity with the parents of Jesus gives no indication that Joseph was past tense.

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

Among those men who fit inside the synagogue, conversing with Jesus as he taught, there were a number of non-core disciples. These men had taken it upon themselves to follow Jesus, to be a part of his ministry. We may imagine they had many different reasons for attaching themselves to his movement. A prominent consideration would be the Zealot frame of mind. It was common. Even the priests desired to be free from the yoke of Rome. These non-core disciples might have included Zealots and Pharisees. Something in their conversation disappointed them to the extent that they could not see their agendas being advanced by Jesus, therefore they quit him that day and no longer followed him as disciples.

What the core twelve said: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

The difference between the disciples that went away and the twelve that stayed is that Jesus personally called his twelve. They were the ones, minus one, who were taught of God, who were drawn by God, who had heard the Father and learned from him. They were very close. As Peter said, perhaps as the spokesmen, they had come to know the nature and character of Jesus; they were assured, they were convinced that Jesus was, indeed, the Holy One of God.

What Jesus said: (Warning! These verses are not in order but have been rearranged topically and thematically.)

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

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

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

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

“Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. Truly, the one who believes has eternal life. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ”

Of course, they complained. The claim that Jesus made challenged everything they held dear, especially their positions within the religious hierarchy. Since some of them were trained in the law, he told them something they should have known by heart – he quoted scripture to them. They probably could have stated chapter and verse, but again, Jesus was speaking on a spiritual level. He did not approach national concerns; he did not approach legalistic or doctrinal concerns. Jesus spoke of the individual whose spirit was led by the Father to the Son – the individual who through faith will obtain eternal life. He presented eternal life as something that abolished neither death nor occupation.

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

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

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

Let us immediately zero in on the word “real.” Everyone did and still does understand the concept of physical flesh and blood as real. To deliberately delineate from the commonly held 'real' by using the same word suggests something above and beyond the common concept. The Jews balked at the thought of consuming human flesh or blood of any kind. The law forbade such things. Again, Jesus spoke of something spiritual rather than solid flesh. If one considers “the giving of my flesh for the life of the world” as the sacrifice Jesus made for the spirit within mankind, then one must understand faith in the work of Christ, the Son of God, as the consumption of the bread of life. One must absorb the spirit of Christ into one's own spirit. Yes, and not only the flesh, as that would represent a holding back. One must accept the whole thing, for the flesh and the blood are parts of the same package. We must understand that when Jesus spoke of life, he spoke of the life of the spirit rather than the temporary existence of the flesh.

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

This sentence is presented in halves, the second half being dependent upon the first half for its meaning. The second half, which presents the individual feeding on the flesh of Christ, suggests that, in like manner, Christ fed upon the flesh of God (who is a spirit.) Christ once told them (John 4:34) that his meat, or flesh, or food, or substance was to do the will of the one who had sent him, to finish the work that the spirit had ordained for him. The life of the son of God was the internalized substance of God. The life of Christ was the spirit. In turn, the life within a believer is the internalized substance of Christ, which is the substance of the Father God, who is spirit rather than flesh. Turns out the more ethereal quality is actually the more substantial quality.

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

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

Just a note, here, to investigate the ratio of one in twelve. There are, for example, twelve notes in an octave. One note among the twelve is a perfect fifth. The Biblical number 5 symbolizes God's grace, goodness, and favor toward humans and is mentioned 318 times in Scripture. The perfect fifth is the note of 'G' and is seven semitones above the note of 'C'. G is the first letter of God and C is the first letter of Christ. Christ chose a devil as a disciple. Why? This demands our attention. Was he giving him a chance? The one he called a devil, here, he called 'friend' in Matthew 26:50.

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

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

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

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