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.

The Best of Romans Chapter Thirteen

 

Verses one through five of Romans thirteen present a bitter pill that many people find hard to swallow. It is the belief of the author that the higher powers are ordained by God and that we, as the body of believers acting in concert with each other, should in no wise resist the higher powers. There is no power but God. Does this speak only of the church? No. It also speaks of civil governments.

Those people who are over the little man at times seem to be monsters. They send our young people out to die in their wars. They tax us into poverty. They pretty much have their way in all matters and benefit at our expense. Was the author speaking of such powers as Rome? Yes. But, the Romans were cruel in their subjugation. How could Paul recommend obedience to such a government?

Paul's purpose was to unite the churches into a single body. There had to be a single standard that covered them all – a spiritual approach to worldly issues. One may not simply say that the powers should only be comprised of sympathetic souls who treat well those who are of like mind. The world is full of unlike minds. God puts them all on the playing board. God has ordained the enemies of his people as well as the friends of his people.

Let me ask a question of you. How are you to overcome the evil with good if there is no evil to overcome? The extended question, then, is how will you overcome evil with good if you set yourself at odds with it? Isn't that the old mind? Isn't that the way of the world? Didn't the author just instruct us in chapter twelve, rather than be conformed to, that is, to act in accordance with the standards, ways, or rules of the world, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds?

Don't get me wrong. It would be great to know that the higher powers were seeded with souls who thought and acted in concert with all other believers. At least we would be assured of love and compassion, of righteous discernment. However, we can't just go out and beat our adversaries into a mindless subservience to the new mind. The new tactic is to win them from the inside out.

Christian democracy has been a hard-won achievement and a boon to mankind but the battle is far from over. There are still powers in the world that are outdated and cruel, that seek to beat us into submission. We will win them from within. We will incorporate them into our brotherhood of the new mind.

There are two reasons why the body of Christ should submit to the higher powers. One is because of 'wrath' and two is 'conscience.' Working back toward verse one from verse five, the author tells us that there is only one cause to fear the higher powers. That one cause is if you do things that are unlawful. The higher powers are described as having a dual purpose. They are ministers of God to the doers of good for good and to the doers of evil for revenge. To those individuals who act unlawfully, the higher powers will execute the punishment of God's wrath. However, these same will praise and reward all who are in concert with the law.

The book of Romans was written by a Christian who was also a Roman citizen. He was in a position that provided a clear view of both sides of the occupation. Rome had many gods. When they conquered another culture, they incorporated that culture's god along with the people. Rome was not necessarily Christian but it did include Christianity within its parameters. Their laws were neither necessarily pro-Jew nor pro-Christian but governed them nonetheless. The author's instructions to those under the law called for subjection to that law in the spirit and practice of the Christian faith. The instructions were without regard to the type or source of the government.

We look around these days and see many meek and humble people in this world. They are faithful and kind, they are willing to put themselves out for the benefit of their fellow man. We see them in subjection to many different kinds of governments. Some of these governments are brutal in their treatment of God's people. They ban their faith and destroy their places of communal worship. They arrest, torture, and kill them. They are beheaded, stoned, or burned alive. These actions are perpetrated against them, not because their faith is wrong, but merely because their faith runs counter to the higher powers they live under. If one would flee to a more tolerant culture, there would be no wrong in doing so. It seems that just being a good person is not enough under some governments. What good does it do for a person to be in subjection only to be rewarded with such mistreatment?

All governments, even the bad ones, are composed of people and can be represented as a solid core around which is a misty penumbra that is gradually becoming less solid. That was certainly the case under the Roman occupation for Jews and Christians. There were cases where a Christian's subjection to the higher power brought him in contact with Roman officials who were persuaded to the Christian faith. They, in turn, persuaded others. I think this is an overlooked point when most of us consider the persecution of Christians under the higher powers of the Muslims or the communist Russians and Chinese. Conversion to the Christian faith is the will of God. For their conscience's sake, it is the responsibility and duty of the oppressed. 'Whosoever will' is an option that is extended to the non-Christians through the Christians. It is what Christ died to provide.

Continuing from verse six, the payment of tribute is also mentioned. The higher powers have their place and function and should have their provision. Of course, while the higher powers of the author of the book of Romans included the governing bodies of both Rome and the religious assemblies of the Jews and Christians, governments of the gentiles must be inferred from the indications of verse seven.

It is advised to be in arrears to no higher power. As governing bodies, they are assemblies of men and women, basically. Don't be found owing to any individual anything, with the exception of love. Despite the local and regional variations of law, the author asserts a law that is both above the higher powers and of intrinsic core value in regard to human nature across the board. He states that love fulfills the law.

The very nature of love implies obedience to the law. Because of love, a person will not commit such wrongs to others as adultery, murder, theft, coveting, and false witness. Every civil law in every government, from the Ten Commandments and up can be summed conclusively in the saying, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The premise for the author's argument is concluded in verse ten where he states plainly, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

Verse eleven continues the argument with two important points that each of us should think through carefully. In regard to love and with the certain realization of the times we live in, every faithful believer owes it to him or herself to awake out of sleep. Therefore, sleep is the first important point we need to think through carefully. The second important point is the assertion that our salvation is now nearer than we had previously thought. If we carefully think through each of these important points, what vital understanding might we benefit from as followers of Christ and seekers of truth?

What might it mean for the believer to awake out of sleep? Many people walk through life as if asleep. This includes the faithful. There are 'downtimes' placed deliberately along the highway of our progress. They serve a function just as sleep serves the body. Yet, when we are asleep, we are unaware of what goes on all around us. When we are asleep, we are inactive. The matters that we would carry forward are at a standstill. The works that we would attend are withheld from us by the chains of darkness.

The author continues the thought in verse twelve. As for our downtime, the night is far spent, and at hand is the dawning of a new day. We have slept, now, let us awake. We have worked the works of darkness, within our chains of darkness, we have failed to attend to the waking matters that assure our future good. We are the workers. We work for our pay. When the day is done, we are at ease and we seek leisure activities. The night is not all sleep.

In the dark, there is deceit, hiding, riotous behavior, wantonness, and the desires of the flesh. Even without all the evil inherent in our nature, we still turn to ourselves for normal desires. We eat our meal and lay down to heal both body and mind in preparation for the new day. While we may be groggy, we know that we must arise. We must shake off the feelings and stand up to face the work ahead. As workers, we dress for work and put on the uniforms that identify the ones we serve.

Our salvation is nearer than when we believed. How should we understand the second point? The Jews sought salvation. They had a set view on salvation and their savior. It did not work for them. They crucified their savior, working against the salvation they needed. From that sleep arose those who still worked the works of the day, who put on the armor of light. The progress of the faithful continued forward. The armor of light is the uniform that identifies the worker. The author states the same in verse fourteen but he shows us just what he means by the armor of light. He puts it to us in these words, “put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

You are the faithful. You have cast off the works of darkness. You have awakened out of your sleep and now stand dressed in the armor of light, ready for the works of the day. Let each of us put this in context for ourselves personally. Jesus said it, himself, in Mark thirteen verses thirty-five through thirty-seven, “Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.”

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.