The Best of John Chapter Eight

 

Verses one through eight: the day after the feast. In verse one, Jesus left for the day, going, as it is written, to the Mount of Olives. On the western slope of the mountain was the garden known as Gethsemane. On the eastern slope of the mountain was the village known as Bethany, where the friends of Jesus, Lazarus, Mary, and Martha lived. At the summit of the mountain was the altar of the red heifer and a cemetery that was central to Jewish culture dating back some 3000 years. Many important Jewish dignitaries have been buried there.

Many important events center around the Mount of Olives and Jesus seems closely associated with that particular location. While I am not wholly sold on theories of Chakras and Ley Lines, I offer this interesting aside on the electrical aspect of the Mount of Olives. I draw this from “The Chakras of the Earth and Ley Lines by Tanaaz.”

“Just like we have veins that flow in and out of the heart, Mother Earth has Ley Lines, which are lines of energy that coil around the earth in a similar fashion as a strand of DNA.

In fact, where the Ley Lines intersect are believed to be high points of energy or high concentrations of electrical charge.

These intersecting points along the Ley Lines are also coincidentally home to some of the most sacred temples and monuments in the world including the Egyptian Pyramids, Machu Picchu, Stonehenge and Angkor Wat.

The throat chakra of Mother Earth includes the area of the Great Pyramid, Mt Sinai and the Mount of Olives which is located in Jerusalem. The throat chakra is one of the largest energy centers of Mother Earth, which indicates its importance at this particular time in our history. It is also the only energy center that is not connected to the Male or Female Great Dragon Ley Line.”

As the festival which just concluded was an autumn festival, cooler temperatures prevailed. One would naturally rethink sleeping out, if, indeed, one chose to sleep in the garden. My thought, here, is that Jesus visited his friends and stayed the night. Having taught in the women's court, Jesus would have exited through the eastern gate and returned the same way on the following day.

It is not indicated how many Jesus taught in the temple on the day after the feast, yet, one does get the impression that the women's court was a place the common people resorted to for social interaction. It might be considered as the 'business portal' of the temple. Over its eastern gate hung the outer curtain of the temple, a curtain some eighty-two feet high, twenty-four feet thick, and weighing around thirty tons – that according to Josephus. There were the steps that led up to the temple, there were the balconies along the walls, and there was an open dirt court. Jesus stooped and wrote in that dirt, so, my impression is of loose dry dirt verging on a sandy quality. Scripture plainly states that he 'wrote' as opposed to 'drew' or 'doodled'.

It would be interesting to know what he wrote. Did he write scriptures? Were they lecture notes? Was he marking his place as a means of remembering something? His manner seemed casual and aloof. Was he simply annoying the Pharisees or is this a fair depiction of his manner and speed in general? While waiting on them to make up their minds, Jesus stooped down a second time and continued to write on the ground. Was the ground his whiteboard?

Notes on verses nine through twenty: When Jesus continues teaching the crowd, we see that the Pharisees are still there. It is as if they only retreated a short distance to regroup. We see that these Doctors of the law swarm Jesus at every opportunity. I have to ask, why were they not teaching the crowds? Seems they were traditionalists. In other words, they waited for the people to come to them, to the synagogue on the Sabbath. On the other hand, Jesus was like a Doctor of the law who made house calls.

As he taught, and we find out that his teaching was in the treasury, Jesus made the claim that he was the light of the world. He further explained that any who followed him would not walk in darkness but have for themselves the light of life. It follows, then, that life is the light of the world – yet, obviously, not the life that ends in death. The word, 'follow', has many applications. I would like to explore a few of them.

One may follow a path. One may follow a lead or a clue. One may follow the news or a specific interest. One may follow the crowd or one may follow tradition, submitting to peer pressure, laws, and the authorities. Then again, one may follow an example. I believe what Jesus meant here was exactly that: “Follow my example; be like me.” Here is how that plays out – if Jesus is the light of the world, because, as he said in John 11:25, he was the life, and if someone should follow that example, to be like Jesus, and if, because of that, that person should obtain within himself the same life, then, the end result is that the follower becomes, also, the light of the world.

The Jews then accused Jesus of lying, of making things up off the top of his head, as an old Southern expression puts it. His answer to their accusation included these points for all to hear. The law considered the testimony of two persons to be a matter of truth. Not only did Jesus testify of himself but the Father also testified of him – these would be things written in the law and prophets.

They asked, where is your Father? Jesus answered that they neither knew him or his Father and he phrases that answer in a noteworthy manner. He said, if you had known me, you would have known my Father. Such a statement leads me to the thought that the Jews did have an intimate knowledge of Jesus, as in a long-standing relationship between fellow Rabbis. His statement also says, in not so many words, that based on such familiarity, the Jews would have to know that Jesus was all about the Father, all about the work he had been charged to accomplish. I am given to think that through the preceding years, they had ample opportunities to hash out all the details through numerous discussions. What Jesus is saying with “If you had known me” is you knew me well enough to figure out the rest, or, you never could figure me out although you had every opportunity, or simply, you ignored the obvious truth.

The condemnation of the Jews is that they judged after the flesh. They knew Jesus well, they just refused to see him as anything other than a man like themselves. They saw mankind as low and the Father as unobtainable. They saw the justification of any man only in the traditional and customary adherence to the laws of Moses.

Let me return for a moment to the treasury, where Jesus taught. This next bit comes from Ritmeyer Archaeological Design, an online resource. They say this about the treasury: “The Treasury was a court that was located to the east of the Temple itself, just below the Nicanor Gate. This court is also called the Court of the Women, as that is as far as women were allowed to enter the Temple courts.”

Notes on verses twenty-one through twenty-five: Still in the treasury, Jesus continues addressing the Jews. This is the name given by the author for the religious elite, that is, for the Pharisees, Sadducees, priests, lawyers, Rabbis, and all such Doctors of the law. Jesus spoke to those men who felt threatened and/or offended by his teachings. They sought a way to remove him from the public eye. It was as if they were engaged in a car race with him and since his car was faster and his driving skills greater they resorted to running him off the road.

Jesus still addressed them and all the people present in the treasury heard how well he presented his case. These particular Jews were not the big dogs, as it were, but lesser functionaries sent to keep an eye on him. The big dogs were in the Sanhedrin meeting place and would not deign to venture out themselves. The lesser functionaries had already sent to the big dogs who, in turn, sent officers to arrest Jesus who, in turn, failed to accomplish that as his word had confounded them.

Directly addressing the Jews, Jesus added to his argument the following points. I go my way and where I go you cannot follow. This sounds like something one would say to familiar peers. You will seek me but you will die in your sins. You Jews are from beneath; you are of the world. I am not of the world; I am from above. The reason I said you will die in your sins is because you will not believe that I am who I told you I was.

The Jews had reasoned, after a worldly fashion, on where Jesus might go that they could not, coming to the conclusion that he might commit suicide. These are the thoughts of those who had come up with him, learning as he learned, rising through the ranks together. They figured they could not follow him in death as suicide had dire spiritual consequences.

The following comes from myjewishlearning.com – While there is no explicit biblical prohibition on suicide, later rabbinic authorities derived a prohibition from the verse in Genesis 9:5, “And surely your blood of your lives, will I require.” Rashi and other early rabbinic authorities understood the verse as a prohibition against taking one’s own life. Contemporary rulings from all three major religious streams have upheld the view that suicide is fundamentally incompatible with Jewish law and values.

Here is where it gets interesting. In response to Jesus saying, “if ye believe not that I am he,” the Jews demanded a clear assertion of who he claimed to be. The Jews were too familiar with Jesus to be genuinely confused about his identity. They already believed they knew that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary. Their query was actually a test, wordplay to trip him up in public so they might have legal grounds against him and witnesses. And yet, it is not like he had not already discussed the issue with them.

His answer: “Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.” Please pay special attention to the wording. He had made a claim 'from the beginning' and it was something he had said to the Jews. Jesus had been telling them all along. What many people fail to see is the long history, the close history Jesus had with the Jews. My contention is that Jesus had trained with them as a Rabbi. Jesus, himself, had been called a Jew – he was recognized by those not ordained as a Rabbi.

To which 'beginning' did Jesus refer? His beginning in Rabbinical training? His time among them at age twelve? What was said of him in the law and prophets? Any of those might apply but my argument is that Jesus had a close personal history with “the Jews.” In all of his three years of ministry, Jesus never just went out and preached to the common people. The Jews followed him everywhere. They questioned and tested him constantly. Jesus regularly taught in synagogues and especially in the town he lived in. In many places, Jesus was received into the homes of Pharisees, Rabbis, and priests. When Jesus spoke to the Jews, he was speaking to people he knew.

Notes on verses twenty-six through thirty-two: There was a rift among the Rabbis, a schism among fellow students of the law. There was division within the ranks. Some, whom Jesus championed, had freer thoughts and aspirations than some others who seemed trapped and imprisoned in dogma. They were the new generation of spiritual leaders in the making but there was dissension among them.

Consider the things that Jesus said to them within the context of long familiarity. How many hours had been whiled away in heated discussion? How many lamps had burned low as they spoke into the late night? How often had Jesus indicated the true path that he followed? How had he yearned to convince his peers that there was only one way to be right with God?

There were levels in their long-standing relationship and that comes through in the things that Jesus said specifically to the Jews. Personal levels are set against higher levels in verse twenty-six. He said specifically to the Jews, “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true, and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.” The many things to say and judge, to me, sounds exactly like a personal level, the level of a close and long-standing relationship. The remainder of his statement smacks of an indictment against friends – that they had failed to communicate the same truth.

Still speaking specifically to the Jews, Jesus said, in verses twenty-eight and twenty-nine, “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” I feel that Jesus is, here, referring to things brought up in previous discussions. What tips me off is 'then shall ye know.' Such an expression speaks of all the things he had told them before, all of his past arguments would be seen to come true when a certain point had been passed when a certain action had been taken. At that time and place, they would realize that he had been right all along.

That time, that place, that action? When they had lifted him up. Now, the usual take on this expression is of Jesus being lifted up on the cross, of the betrayal of his peers. In that context, they could have been convinced by the darkness on the face of the whole earth, they could have been convinced by the earthquake, or how such a solid piece of material as the veil had been rent in what seemed like a supernatural manner. And too, their conscience could have kicked in. They might also have been impressed with the superhuman comportment of the man on the cross. But, I want you to know that there is another way to interpret being 'lifted up.'

That other interpretation is internal rather than external. It is the lifting up of Jesus in their estimation. Yes, all the events surrounding his death impressed them, and as a result of that, their stands reversed, the opinions changed, they considered Jesus, then, to be exactly who he told them he was from the beginning. Now obviously, these things were said to the Jews that took a stand against him, for he immediately turned his attention to the Jews that did believe he was who he had said he was and addressed them in verses thirty-one and thirty-two.

There was a power struggle in the organized religion of Jesus' day. Among the new generation of the religious elite, there was a row that centered around the radical divergence of interpretation that Jesus put forth. Among the new generation of the 'Jews', a word used by the author to include all priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, Rabbis, and everyone else in religious power, there were plenty who disagreed with Jesus but also many who thought he was right.

To those who believed on him, among his peers, Jesus said, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Now, these were not the common people that Jesus addressed, these were his fellow Rabbis. What would the keepers of the law of God need to be set free from? Well, perhaps free from keeping the law of Moses so they could start keeping the law of God. The religious infrastructure of that day and age, of that particular culture, had become stagnant. They thought that the law of Moses and the law of God were one and the same. Jesus came along and told them there was a difference, that there was room for improvement.

Notes on verses thirty-three through fifty-nine: Next came the 'son's of Abraham' argument. That was the stock assertion of all Hebrews; that was the Hebrew national identity. As group identities go, this one lifted an entire people. It set them apart in their hearts and minds from all other peoples. It placed them in a separate place that defied the woes of war, the plain path of peace, and the odious ordeal of occupation. The Hebrew mindset, indeed, the mindset of the 'Jew' who found his entire worth and justification in being a son of Abraham and having the law of Moses was a mindset of unadulterated freedom. What Jesus said to them flew in the face of more than a thousand years of custom and tradition.

Jesus countered an argument of the flesh with an argument of the spirit. It did not matter who they thought they were, a sinner would always be the servant of sin. As servants go, at the end of the day, they get locked out of the house and must spend the dark night in their tents and shanties. Name dropping did them no good in the end. The owner and heir of the house remained, however – sin in the house of sin and righteousness in the house of righteousness – the son remained. The son of righteousness could hire from the shanties of sin, and since no man can serve two masters, the servants of sin would be set free from sin.

Jesus accused their lineage. They thought being a son of Abraham was all that but Jesus put them in their proper place as servants of sin. Fact was a son of Abraham would not want to kill the heir to the God they said they served. The proof was in the pudding. Their actions spoke volumes above their claims. They were too much like their true father for the 'son of Abraham' claim to be valid.

The son serves the father, the servant serves the son. The word of the father moves the son, the word of the son moves those who serve him. If the Jews were the sons of Abraham, the word of the father and, therefore of the son also, would have been instilled in them through Abraham and through Moses. However, that was not the case with the Jews. Their action proved whose word was actually in them. The word of the devil, their true father, was in them. It was the word of his lusts, his lies, his murderous intent.

In the evolution of their argument, the Jews thought they meant to say that by being the sons of Abraham, they were the sons of God. Jesus countered that in the first place, a son of Abraham would not seek to kill him because Abraham would not, and in the second place, if they were sons of God, they would love him rather than hate him; they would realize that he came not from himself but from God. The argument of the Jews that they were not sons of fornication but sons of God is very telling. It tells us they were able to reason spiritually with Jesus, that they understood what he was saying. It does not come across in a revelatory manner but seems to be an answer used not for the first time. It seems like an answer dredged up from previous conversations.

This proves true also in the response of Jesus when he asks them, why aren't the things I am saying getting through to you? He answered his own question and said, even because my word, the word of the heir of God, is not in you. They reasoned with him on a spiritual level and gave themselves away. Jesus proved to them that they knew exactly what they were choosing as far as which spiritual camp they resided in. Their spirit was just like the spirit of their spiritual father, the devil. Like him, their lies were their own constructs, for the devil was a liar from the beginning, the father of lies and lying. When the father of lies, and by extension, the son of lies, tell a lie, that lie originates from them. That is their spirit – the spirit of lies and murder.

In contrast to their own devilish spirits, Jesus told them that the truth within himself was not self-made, it was truth because it came from God, the father of truth. Had he told them lies, they would have believed him. Since it was truth that he told them, the exact opposite of their own spirits, they could not receive his words – the simple matter was they were firmly in the opposing spiritual camp, they were the servants and sons of all that ran counter to the truth that came from God.

Take special note of the wording used by Jesus. Jesus told the Jews in verse forty, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has done nothing more than tell you the truth which I have heard from God. On the surface, they over-reacted – he was just telling the truth. On a more spiritual level, only those who were the enemies of truth would so react. But, what I wish the reader to see is what Jesus thought of himself. Yes, he thought of himself as the son of God, as the heir of God, but he called himself a man.

In verses forty-six and forty-seven, Jesus basically told them that he and they were like water and oil. They were so different, they could not possibly mix. He was water and they were oil. None of them were able to convince him that he was anything like them. Their spirits were complete opposites. He concludes his argument on a matter-of-fact note. He concludes if I am the truth and speak the truth, why do you think it is that you do not believe me? It was kind of a rhetorical question. He had told them from the beginning; they need not feign ignorance, he would state the obvious – again.

Jesus answered his own question with a truth so plain and open that none could possibly miss the point. If you are of God, if you are of the truth, you will receive the truth of God. They would not receive the truth of God for the simple reason that they were not of God.

In verse forty-eight, the Jews employ an argument they had employed previously, possibly on more than one other occasion. The reason I assert, here, that they had used this argument before is found in their choice of wording. They had already called Jesus a Samaritan. This clues us in on the angle of the schism. The Jews were proud with nationalistic tendencies that bordered on racism. They had already said that Jesus had a devil. He was quite obviously a very painful thorn in their collective flesh. They desperately wanted to win an argument with him and they despised him for the fact that they never had been able to do so.

The wording that tells me they had been at that point of argument before is this: “Say we not well.” That is like saying, 'we were right when we said you had a devil.' They had said it all before. It had been an ongoing argument among the ranks of the Rabbis. Jesus had said it all before. Consider his reaction to the claim. Was it a new reaction? No. It did not have the sharp edge of a new reaction. Rather, it had the worn and blunted edge of a reaction that found nothing new in their words. His reply lacks, wholly, the quality of anger appropriate for such an affront.

Rather than an angry reply, Jesus' reply seemed tired and sad. He said, simply, “I have not a devil, but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.” Picture it in your mind. It is a public argument between Rabbis. There are witnesses. The complaints directed at Jesus by the Jews are on a personal level as of old hurts dredged up. Their arguments are filled with bile. I must ask, at what level does Jesus counter with “ye do dishonour me?” It is not on a spiritual level for he and they are in opposing camps. The enemy can hurl jibes all day and it will be chalked up to the nature of animosity. There is neither honor nor dishonor but, rather, brazenness. I think the level of response on the part of Jesus is part personal and part professional. As a man, as a Jew, as a Rabbi, Jesus stood on sound legs. The word of God had a place in him and he stood by that to the max. His contemporaries failed him and themselves in that regard.

Neither do I seek my own glory, continued Jesus. God alone seeks and judges whether a man is worthy or not. I have told you the truth, if a man keep my saying he will rise above death. He had said it before. His saying was his Father's saying in actuality. Jesus was just saying there is a way. He offered and repeated the offer. There is a way to be right with God and the reward is life. Contrary to the unassuming message, the Jews took it that a common man made claims beyond his station and ability.

They shot back at Jesus, “Now we know that thou hast a devil.” They felt sure and justified in their stand against Jesus. A common man who lived and died could simply not make such a claim. Even their national father, Abraham, a man who lived and died, was long dead – and not only Abraham but all of the prophets were long dead. How could this man claim that choosing him above the prophets or Abraham could provide immortality?

They asked Jesus, publicly, with witnesses looking on, how can you claim to be greater than the prophets which are dead, even Abraham which is also dead? Jesus answered that he, in no way, shape, or form, was attempting to say that he was greater than Abraham. He was not honoring himself at all. If there was honor due, it came from God – the very same God that the Jews claimed as their own. Jesus went a step further and made the claim that they did not know God in the least; they said they knew God but their claim was a bald-faced lie. Jesus accused them of being liars before many witnesses and then he made the counterclaim that he, Jesus, actually did know God. If he was to say that he did not know God, he would be as much a liar as all of them who claimed to know God but did not.

His point was something on the order of 'I know, recognize, and affirm God by keeping his saying' (meaning God's command, God's truth.)

Then Jesus made a statement that wounded and shamed the Jews. He said, your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day (a day in Abraham's future, the advent of Christ) and upon seeing it was glad. What he meant was Abraham the father of the people, not the father of the Jews for he had just told them their father was the devil.

This argument was engaged at a spiritual level. It was also on a spiritual level that the Jews responded for it was not at this point and for these words that the Jews tried to stone Jesus. Something very important is going on in this exchange, something often overlooked and quite frankly, hard to pin down. Their response was this: you are not yet fifty years old. We should take a long hard look at their choice of words. They were looking right at the man, they knew all the normal facts about him, his region of birth, his parents, etc. They knew Jesus was a man in his thirties. So, why didn't they say that Jesus was not yet forty?

Is all our accumulated information about the historical Jesus inaccurate? Was he, in fact, older than we think he was? What exactly is the deal about being fifty? Is there some religious or ceremonial significance to that age? Is it a special age or a 'marker' age for Rabbis and priests?

I tried to do some digging into that subject on various sites on the internet. I poured over accounts and interpretations without any particular success. I came away with no clear answer – yet, there were hints. I got this from Wikipedia:

Numbers play an important role in Judaic ritual practices and are believed to be a means for understanding the divine. A Mishnaic textual source, Pirkei Avot 3:23, makes clear that the use of gematria is dated to at least the Tannaic period. This marriage between the symbolic and the physical found its pinnacle in the creation of the Tabernacle. The Hebrew word for symbol is ot, which, in early Judaism, denoted not only a sign, but also a visible religious token of the relation between God and man. It is largely held by Jewish leadership that the numerical dimensions of the temple are a "microcosm of creation ... that God used to create the Olamot-Universes."

I got this from Biblestudy.org:

Fifty can be found 154 times in the Bible. Its meaning is directly related to the coming of God's Holy Spirit.

After Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene on Sunday morning, April 9 in 30 A.D., he ascended to the Father in heaven (John 20:17). His ascension, as a type of firstfruit from the dead (Revelation 1:5), occurred on the day God told the Israelites they were to wave a sheaf composed of the firstfruits of their harvest (Leviticus 23:9 - 11). It is on this day that the count of 50 days to the Feast of Pentecost begins.

In the New Testament the word Pentecost comes from the Greek word for fiftieth (Strong's Concordance #G4005). Also known as the Feast of Weeks or Firstfruits, it was on this special Holy Day that God first poured his Holy Spirit upon about 120 believers who had gathered to keep the day (Acts 1:15, 2). They became the firstfruits of God's spiritual harvest of humans.

Jesus, as mankind's new High Priest in heaven, had to first offer the blood of his sacrifice (30 symbolizes this sacrifice) to God upon the heavenly atonement altar (which 20 represents) before the Holy Spirit could be available to all. The number 30 plus 20 equals 50, which points directly to the Feast of Pentecost.

I cannot quite fathom why the Jews brought up this particular age. Would they have more readily listened to Jesus if he was fifty years old? Did that age mean something in the hierarchy of priests and Rabbis in training? Is there a deeper, more spiritual significance to that age that has been lost through the years?

So, what is left to this chapter of John? Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am. It was at that point the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus with. This area was the same in which Jesus stooped down to write in the dirt or sand. It was a broad flat area built to accommodate many people. It was a courtyard. Why were there also rocks and stones there? Was there a stockpile in a corner for convenient stonings?

Here is the really cool part. Jesus hid himself and left the temple through the midst of those who were trying to stone him. Let's give this some thought. The women's court was an enclosed area. I got this from Bible History Online:

Entering through the Susan Gate you would come to a large court called "the Court of the Women" not because there were only women there but because women could not go beyond it. There were smaller courts with columns in the four corners of the court.

According to the Mishnah (Middoth 2,5) the Women's Court was was just over 200 feet square between bounding lines. Each court on the outside was 60 feet square.

So, imagine the picture: many “Jews” with stones to hurl at Jesus, many more common people who were there to hear Jesus or to attend treasury business, and Jesus – the central figure in our mental image. He hides himself and passes unseen through them and out of the temple.

How did he pull it off?

Did he just throw his hood up over his head and disappear from sight? Did he suddenly look like someone else? He did that elsewhere in scripture. Did the crowd of people participate in his egress? They could have suddenly swarmed or fanned out, providing cover for his exit. My own opinion is that he walked calmly from the temple, possibly looking each of them in the eye without them knowing it was him. Surely once the Jews picked up stones, there would have been a stir among the people. There would have been excited calls and shouting. People would have moved away from the 'line of fire.' It is possible Jesus took advantage of these facts to make his exit in a purely natural manner – I guess I'm just an old-fashioned hold-out for the miraculous.