The Best of John Chapter Two

 

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

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

It is interesting to note the symmetry – Jesus had three days at both his ministry's beginning and end which are pointedly brought to our attention. Counting back, the second day involved Nathanael, the first day involved the apostles Philip, John, and Peter where Jesus spent the night – and the day Jesus arrived at the camp of the Baptist is not listed as part of that. Why?

Jesus, when he headed out for Galilee, may have specifically had the wedding at Cana as his goal – Nathanael was simply along the way. That invests a certain amount of importance in the Cana wedding. In other words, Jesus was not simply there; Jesus was deliberately and purposefully placing all his ducks in a row.

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

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

One consideration is that of honor. In those days, family honor was of vital importance. Weddings usually lasted for seven days, during which time food and wine supplied by the bride’s and groom’s families flowed freely. To run out of either implied a thoughtless or impoverished host. Running out of wine would bring dishonor upon the family name. As a personal favor, Mary turned to her divine Son for help. Her family was about to be shamed in the community, and she knew her Son could do something about it.”

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

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

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

• Again the couple would say a blessing over the cup of wine.

• The ceremony finalized the promises and vows.

The pinnacle of this joyful celebration was the marriage supper:

• It was much more than just a sit-down dinner for all the guests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is clear that Jesus did not. Return to verse four to see why – “mine hour is not yet come.” It appears that in Jesus' own words, he was not yet ready, he had not yet begun. Again, however, I think his response to his mother's request was not related to miracles or his public ministry but was in regard to something personal. Here is the reasoning: his ability to perform a miracle was not dependent upon the commencement of his ministry. That was already an established fact known between mother and son as evidenced by her request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verse twenty-three shows us that by the time that the feast day rolled around, Jesus having been in Jerusalem from the onset of the Passover, he had performed miracles in Jerusalem which are not included in the writing. It is stated that through the miracles performed in Jerusalem before and on the feast day that many believed in his name. Jesus was a common name. The name they believed in had to be another name. Was he promoting himself as the son of God, the Christ?

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

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

The Best of Romans Chapter Seven

 

Notes on verses, one through six: The author, here, takes up the same argument but with a different example. He is speaking of a change whereby a person who, being bound under the law, is suddenly free to make a better choice. In his example, the author brings up the institution of marriage. Under the letter of the law, the wife is bound to her husband for life. There is no place within the law for that wife to choose differently. It is for life that the letter of the law is in effect. As long as the husband is alive the wife is bound to him. Should she choose to be with another man while her husband yet lives, she is in violation of the law. When the husband is dead, the woman is no longer his wife. She is set free from that law that formerly bound her for life. She is free to make her own choices.

The example is clear and straightforward. The author applies it to all people who are bound for life under the letter of the law. It takes a death to set them free. That death was found in the body of Jesus Christ. As in the example, the person set free from the law is now in a position to choose another attachment without fear of penalty. The example of the wife serves a focused purpose, that being to show our need for alignment and allegiance.

The wife in the example is aligned with her husband. It is that alignment that defines her place in life. Without alignment, there is no place. For the woman, there was only her attachment to her father or her attachment to her husband. Being single had no definition. The daughter drew her sustenance from her father. The wife drew her sustenance from her husband. The purpose of the wife was to bring forth fruit for her husband. A wife set free under the law would most likely seek another husband with which she would serve the same purpose.

The author applied all of that to his readers. They were like the wife set free who would naturally seek another alignment, another attachment from which to draw sustenance and in which to find a similar purpose. The expression which the author employed was “bring forth fruit.” That must be viewed within the framework of marriage. To bring forth children was borrowed from the physical alignment under the law and applied to the new spiritual alignment to God.

Having served sin under the law, it could be reasoned that we brought forth children after a fashion. All we were and all we did carried the entire system of sin forward just as a wife carried forward her husband's bloodline. In a similar fashion, those of us set free must seek a new alignment and serve a new purpose. We, the new body of Christ, must be wed to him, must draw our sustenance from him, must bring forth fruit in all we are and all we do. We serve a very singular purpose and it is within our skills and abilities to pull it off. It is up to us to carry it all forward.

Notes on verse seven: In that the author has placed faith and the law as opposites, he feels compelled to set the record straight. They are not opposites. The person of faith must neither fight nor oppose the law. The law has its place, a proper place, as the author explains, he would never have known what was wrong except by the law. In showing him what was the wrong thing to do, it also, by extrapolation, showed him what was the right thing to do. The law, therefore, was a necessary stage in his spiritual evolution, a marker on the road to his higher calling.

The author extends his reasoning in verse eight. The law, itself, is not sin but sin used the law to bring about many occasions of longing contrary to reason. To understand what the author was speaking of, the reader must know a little about the Jewish mindset of that day – the author speaks from that mindset.

This excerpt from Wikipedia will certainly help the reader. “In Judaism, there is an early concept of yetzer hara (Hebrew: יצר הרע for "evil inclination"). This concept is the inclination of humanity at creation to do evil or violate the will of God. The yetzer hara is not the product of original sin as in Christian theology, but the tendency of humanity to misuse the natural survival needs of the physical body. Therefore, the natural need of the body for food becomes gluttony, the command to procreate becomes sexual sin, the demands of the body for rest become sloth, and so on. In Judaism, the yetzer hara is a natural part of God's creation, and God provides guidelines and commands to help us master this tendency. This doctrine was clarified in the Sifre around 200-350 CE. In Jewish doctrine, it is possible for humanity to overcome the yetzer hara. Therefore, for the Jewish mindset, it is possible for humanity to choose good over evil, and it is the person's duty to choose good (see: Sifrei on Deuteronomy, P. Ekev 45, Kidd. 30b).”

Notes on verses nine through thirteen: “For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once,” said the author. The essential nature of humanity, as in the state of a young child, is new and pure. But it doesn't stay that way. The evil inclination is born through the given command. By this, I point to the child of older years, an unruly child that chafes at being told what to do and what not to do, a child possessed by the spirit of rebellion. Many parents know, for example, that to get a child to do something, they must use reverse psychology and tell them to do just the opposite.

My Mom would say things to me like, “Go ahead, jump off the roof. Break your ankles. Just don't come crying to me.”

The author explained what went wrong in the human spirit by explaining what went wrong in himself personally. “When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it, slew me.” The sinful nature within him, the evil inclination, used the law to his detriment.

The author commends instruction through the law as holy, just, and good. He asks, was the good thing made evil just to kill him? His assessment was that the good thing remained good but sin had to remain sin. In the great tapestry, everything is known for what it is. For sin to be sin, it had to look the part. Sin was not a part of the good law but a part of his own evil inclination. His own sin used the law against him, it twisted the things he understood. It was like oil on a pole he was attempting to climb. His knowledge and his will should have gotten him to the top but his own inclinations prevented him at every turn.

In the nature of his evolution, he had to reach a point where his own inclinations repulsed him. By using the good thing to work death in him, sin matured to the point where he found it to be vile and repulsive. Things grow, they become, they mature. His own spirit was also in the process of maturation. He came to the point where he saw the absolute futility of his best hopes.

Notes on verses fourteen through twenty-five: The author has fully realized that the law is spiritual in its nature. Further, he knows all too well that his body and persona, his nature, is twofold. There are a noble nature and a base nature that war against each other. His noble nature would do all that is good and right but his base nature, a nature sold under sin, continually justifies the more judgmental aspects of the law, setting them above the grace of God that is through faith.

His sinful nature causes him to do the opposite of what he wants to do. He looks for a way to do the things his noble nature has called for but because the sinful nature constantly redirects him back into the overwhelming strictures and legalisms of death, he cannot find his way. He knows the impediment but he cannot find a way to circumvent it. He is conflicted, tormented.

Realizing the sin within his members was at war with his mind, a mind that would serve the will of God, he asks who it is that can deliver him from the body of death. He sees how it works with him, that even while he delights in the law of God after the inner man, his body wants to keep him on the merry-go-round of death. He sees Jesus as the only deliverance and is glad that, even while his flesh continues to serve the law of sin, through Jesus, his mind is able to serve the law of God.

The author is a person with serious shortcomings, as are we all. The struggle is just that severe but the prize is worth the hardship. The author tells us that he is not someone who has achieved perfection, no, he is far from perfect. But he will not give up. We will not give up. We will ride the stormy sea and let the waves lash us for we hold onto the one solid truth that will keep us afloat – Jesus Christ the Son of God.

The Best of John Chapter One

The Best of John

by Daniel L. Herring

completed in 2020

Introduction

A study of the Gospel of John, in the fashion of “The Best of Romans,” pulling the special content to the surface for closer investigation. In my study, one may not always find a chapter and verse. I often treat multiple verses without numbering each one. The reader should, therefore, read my study in conjunction with his or her own study, keeping the Gospel of John close for handy reference. I have never been one for name dropping. You will not find an index at the end of this work. Neither will you find that I am writing about what previous authors have said. When I bring up references, it is usually from Wikipedia, a dictionary, encyclopedia, or online site of a current author. The study, as it is presented here, is solely my own and is the product of collaboration between myself and the Holy Spirit. It is not my intention to teach anyone what either is or is not. The work, at its most basic level, represents my thoughts only. However, it is hoped that as the thoughts of others have both inspired and spurred me forward, my thoughts may be of some similar use in leading the reader to his or her own thoughts. It is with a great sense of personal satisfaction that I forward this work and, because of the sure assistance of the Holy Spirit in my endeavors, I suggest to anyone with an interest in the truth, never strike out on your own nor lean on your own understanding but allow the Holy Spirit to lead.

Chapter One.

Verses one and two. The use of the word 'same' asks the reader to compare two beginnings, the beginning of the Word and the beginning of God. Each is an early, if not initial, point in time or process – one with the Word and one with God.

Verses three through five. Christ, being equal to God, perhaps one and the same, created reality, but that reality, from the beginning, was in full association to man.

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

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

Verses twelve and thirteen. Those who are not ignorant of Christ in the world and of Christ in man are only different from the rest of his own in that they are empowered to progress spiritually – being born of the spirit (the light) and the express will of God.

Verses fourteen through eighteen. the Baptist's witness, an introduction to the savior, presents a problem. Verse fourteen seems to be the writer's opinion rather than John's witness, but the witness that follows that opinion, John's introduction to Christ, is couched in blatant specificity. Did the Baptist introduce the savior using Jesus' name or was that specificity the inclusion of the writer? It could have been either one, for all we know. The writer obviously knew Jesus by the title “Jesus Christ” but that in no way discounts the Baptist for he was Jesus' cousin. They may have grown up together.

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

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

(Rabbinic Ordination (taken from Aish.com in regard to the Sanhedrin:)

Every member of the Sanhedrin must be ordained, following a tradition from Moses. It is thus written, "Moses did as God commanded him. He took Joshua... and laid his hands on him, commanding him, as God spoke through Moses" (Numbers 27:22-23). Moses also laid his hands on the other elders, ordaining them as members of the Sanhedrin. These, in turn, ordained others, generation after generation, in an unbroken line of ordination from Moses.

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

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

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

In John 1:21, who is ‘the (or that) prophet’?

(taken from Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange, a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts.)

(Answer: NOT Jesus, and not Mohammed either.

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

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

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

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

John said that he knew him not, not once but, twice. The second time, in verse thirty-three, is an indication of a previous vision – a vision in which he found his calling. Someone in John's vision, either God or an angel of God, told him the identity of Christ. He would know the one by seeing the spirit descend upon him. Both 'I knew him not' statements, taken as a whole, are presented in a single monologue. It was something that John said as he saw Jesus coming to him. He said all of it for the benefit of those around him. All of them nearby heard him name Jesus as the Lamb of God. What he said in that monologue was said prior to the baptism of Jesus.

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

Verses thirty-five through thirty-nine. It was the day after Jesus entered the camp where John baptized. John had already introduced Jesus on the previous day. He had said, “Behold the Lamb of God.” He said the same thing the following morning. Jesus was leaving the camp at that time and the two disciples of John left John to follow Jesus. I assume that it was the morning because we are told in verse thirty-five, “after John stood, and his two disciples.” This wording suggests two things to me. First, I see in the wording that John only had two disciples present (at least at that time) and they left him for Jesus. Second, is the information 'after John stood' which suggests that they had just awakened – therefore the time frame would have been around the first hour or 6AM.

An alternate reason for the wording 'after John stood' might be the resumption of his ministry of baptism, where standing might indicate a more public aspect, as in standing before the people, perhaps in the water with his two disciples as aides in the process of baptism.

If Jesus had been baptized on the previous day and started early to return to the place where he then resided, we must consider that a long walk followed his first meeting with Andrew and John, the two disciples. I say a long walk because of the wording in verse thirty-nine. The reason the two disciples stayed there rather than go to their homes was precisely that it was late in the evening – around 4PM.

It could have been the time of year when the daylight hours were shorter so that any further travel beyond the 4PM mark would have included walking at night. The reason John mentioned the tenth hour as the reason they stayed rather than moved on could have had a purely Jewish connotation. As Jews, the whole baptism thing would necessarily have to close up for the Sabbath. People would need to return to their homes. Preparation for the Sabbath was required and needful. The Sabbath placed limitations on how far a person could legally walk. It also restricted even the work of cooking food to eat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Andrew left at 4:30 PM and walked half an hour to reach Peter, then the round-trip would have seen them both with Jesus at approximately 5:30 PM. Had he walked an hour before returning, they would have returned around 6:30 PM.

The next listed event in this straight line of occurrences is found in verse forty-three; it is listed in these words: “The day following.” This verse is also important in that it gives a general location where Jesus, Andrew, Peter and John are found. More precisely, this verse shows where they are not found. If as the verse states, “Jesus would go forth into Galilee,” then the place where they spent the night was not in Galilee.

Jesus walked from where he was staying to the area generally, or at the time, considered to be Galilee. In other words, Jesus crossed a border. The historical ebb and flow of borders only matters to us in an oblique manner. We do not require exact measurements. Generally speaking, I think Jesus stayed somewhere near or on the sea of Galilee but not in the area of Galilee, as known in that day and age.

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

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

Why did Jesus go there?

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

My supposition is that Philip found Nathanael under a fig tree where he sat in the shade – signifying the warmer part of the day, say around noon. That would be less of a walk from the place where Jesus had been staying than the sojourn of the previous day. Were fig trees visible from the road upon which they arrived in Bethsaida? Had Jesus spotted Nathanael on the way into town?

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

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

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

The Best of Romans Chapter Six

 

Chapter Six

The author is still building on previous argumentation. Upon the established conclusion that grace abounds because of, and through, sin, he asks, 'should we continue as before for the sake of grace?' He answers his own question with an emphatic and resounding 'no'. From verses one and two, we get this: grace has made us dead to our previous mind, our previous actions. Our being 'dead to sin' is such a monumental respite from the past that it deserves nothing less than a clean break. Our inclinations must not be allowed to go back. Given the opportunity to advance, we must now settle it in our hearts to press forward only.

Notes on verses three and four: Here, the author clears up and defines the matter of baptism. Baptism is much more than the washing away of sin, for that is the secondary aspect of the ritual. The primary aspect of the ritual is that we are buried with Jesus. The old life is gone. We are raised from that old life with Christ by the glory of “the Father.” We are raised to a new life – a life washed free of sin, a life in the family of God.

Notes on verse five: It is an important aspect of this verse that the author used the word “planted.” As it is presented, the verse is laid out in two parts – an action and a result, a cause, and an effect. The two poles of this verse are death, as the action, and resurrection, as the result. In that the word 'planted' was employed to convey this message, we are reminded that the action of death is the death of the seed referred to in John 12:24. Resurrection, as the result, is a harvest obtained from the planted seed. That is to say, because the seed died, it is now able to bring forth much fruit, which we know to mean, many like itself.

Notes on verses six and seven: Having touched upon the ritual death of baptism in verses three and four, and following immediately with the actual death and resurrection in verse five, the author lays out the mechanics of it in verses six and seven. The point of it is the 'clean break' from sin – to be no longer bound to it or bound by it – but to be absolutely free from it, above it, beyond its pull and influence. The mechanics that brings one to this point hinge on a new alignment. In other words – to align oneself with Christ in his death and to have the same death in oneself. It is to the effect that the body of sin (the spiritual “old man”) should be destroyed, wiped out once and for all. The author uses the same common logic that we still employ to this day, that being, a dead man is finally free of all that bound him in life. There is no more ring in the nose to lead us; there is no more monkey on the back, no more devil on the shoulder whispering in our ear.

Notes on verses eight through eleven: Choices. It is the author's hope and choice, indeed of all Christians also, that planting oneself in the death of Christ will, by the same power of the spirit, join one to the harvest produced by that planting. The reasoning behind this is that we are swept up in the wake of Christ's forward momentum. While Christ died once in regard to sin, as should all faithful, Christ lives (the harvest) unto God. Please take careful note of the word 'unto'. It is a directional word; it is a progressional word; it is a developmental word.

When the word 'unto' is used, one must understand that there is a progression of development in one direction. When we say unto, what we really mean is through and toward. For the faithful to fulfill the same forward momentum as Christ, he or she must face one direction only, he or she must make choices that progress higher and higher. The faithful must move forward through a spiritual terrain, never looking back. To look back is to go back.

Verse eleven is spiritually pivotal. When I say 'spiritual', I point to things we should know and understand; I point to things that should be settled in our hearts and minds. The terrain we progress through is Christ himself. Every developmental choice we make should be a Christ choice. We can ill-afford to merely be 'like Christ' – we must be Christ. We must have his nature. To come close is not enough. Christ recommended that we learn of him. That learning should be neither static nor idle. Learning is the mortar by which we build into ourselves, brick by brick, the essential reality of Christ.

For a while, our progression will include the vehicle of our flesh. We will be as a driver in a car, barreling down an obstacle course, meeting situation after situation in which a decision must be made. The question we must ever keep as compass and guide is, “What would Christ choose in my place?” The mind of Christ exists in all Christians but it may be neither static nor idle. It is a thing we must learn and practice. The mind of Christ is 'unto' Christ, it is developmental and may progress in one direction only.

You are racing around the track in your car, striving to reach the finish line. Your car comes equipped with a rear-view mirror. You must realize that is not forward-looking; there is nothing behind you anymore. Those others you are out ahead of treat the race, not as an obstacle course but, as a demolition derby. Your car comes equipped with a reverse gear. You must realize that you cannot win the race with it. You must bring all forward progress to a halt in order to engage that gear. Your car has a steering wheel with which you may steer your car in any direction – but the car is not the driver; you are in control. You have made your choice; you have set your goal; you are ahead of the others. That is all good. Why change any of it? Stay your course; win the race.

Notes on verses fourteen through eighteen: Under the conditions so far explained, sin no longer has dominion over those who have died and risen with Christ. The reason is pointedly simple: they are now spiritually aligned to the grace God wishes to extend through Christ and no longer subject to the sin and the death that come through the law. The author returns to the same question he asked in verse one. If we are free, may we do anything we choose? The answer, of course, is no. When one is set free from bondage, one may, thereby, choose only freedom. The moment one chooses bondage again, that one is no longer free.

We see, in this, an either-or situation. One may choose either bondage or freedom but not both. One may serve either bondage or freedom but not both. One is completely owned by that which he or she chooses to serve. One may choose to serve sin under the law and expect the result of death or one may serve obedience under the provision of grace and expect the result of righteousness. Please note the four terms: 'sin', 'death', 'obedience', and 'righteousness.'

There are two sets and the elements of each set are placed in direct antithesis of one another. If sin is the direct opposite of obedience, we understand that sin is disobedience. Sin is under the law, therefore, the disobedience is not disobedience to the law but, rather, to the grace God extends through his Son. By the same token, if righteousness is the opposite of the death that follows from sin under the law, then righteousness is life. In this, we understand this particular life to be, not simply the state of organic living (which is affected by death) but, rather, a state that may not be affected by death.

The author is grateful for everyone who was the servant of sin, in that they made a life-changing choice from the heart (that is to say, from the mind) to adopt and follow the doctrine that was handed them – the step-by-step formula for setting themselves free from sin. They, because of the better choice and their disciplined actions, are no longer servants of sin. Still, however, they are servants. They have chosen to serve righteousness. A servant of righteousness is a servant of life and exists in a state that may not be interrupted by physical death. By stepping out of the dark, they stepped into the light. They have stepped into an uninterrupted spiritual state of connectedness to God by and through the life of Christ.

On a personal note, I wish to ask this question. Who are the kind of people that are able to pull off such a monumental change? To choose a thing unseen and unproven over all that is known and dependable (even comfortable) is no common ability. I think a mind must be prepared in advance. Such people are quite likely the “good soil” mentioned in the parable. They cannot be the people who must see to believe. They are not the type who are limited by worldly concerns or by corporeal facts and figures. Necessarily, they would have to see such things as trivial in comparison to the higher truths that have elevated their thinking.

Notes on verses nineteen through twenty-three: In verses nineteen and twenty, the author speaks to his readers as a man, knowing the weakness of the human condition. Verse nineteen is a partial command that both commends and speaks to the choice his readers have made. The choice cannot be all in their heads but must be a real change that includes both mind and body. The author uses the phrase “even so now yield your members.” This is a command that equates the new to the old by degree. The author is saying to his readers that to the very degree to which they yielded both mind and body to sin in their past, they should provide every assurance that their new choice follows through in both body and soul. The former service to sin and iniquity reached its fruition and so their new service to righteousness should reach a fruitious outcome.

Verse twenty continues to make an assessment. That is, namely, freedom from righteousness. It is the beginning half of an argument, the second half of which will follow in another verse. The nature of the argument lies fully within the either-or quality of the choice. When they chose sin, they were free from righteousness. They had not the slightest connection to righteousness. The old choice fully engulfed them. But, now they had rejected the old choice and made a choice for something completely contrary to the old.

The question is asked in verse twenty-one, now that they were ashamed of their past, could they not see the pitiful harvest of their previous planting? All of that – and for what – just to die? Their previous labors offered no do-overs, no coupons, no green stamps, no lottery tickets. In all, their previous estate offered but one reward – and that was a sorry end to a miserable life.

In verse twenty-two, we find both the second half of the argument and the rest of the command. Now, because of their own choosing, they were free from sin because righteousness fully engulfed them and left no tether into their sinful past. With such an auspicious new beginning, the command was that they should run with it. Serve God. Plant the whole field with obedience. Pledge and commit not only the mind to the service of God's will but the body as well. This time around, the harvest would not be pitiful. It would be grand and wonderful. It would be unceasing.

This whole argument ends, in verse twenty-three, with a straightforward and simple truth. For all the work they put into sin, their total wages were zip. Nothing gained. For their complete faith in the work of God's grace through his son Jesus Christ, the reward of unceasing gain would be freely given to them. What a gift!