John 12

Chapter 12
This account of Jesus' last days starts with his arrival at Bethany 6 days before Passover.  (Harmony says the last public ministry of Jesus is now recounted, from the Friday before until the Tuesday of Passion week, in the Spring of AD 30, or maybe AD 29.)  John says they gave a dinner for Jesus in Bethany.  This would have been the night BEFORE the triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  Such a dinner would seem a fairly big deal and the implication is that the whole town was involved.  Martha serves at the dinner, Lazarus himself reclines at the table, and Mary anoints Jesus' feet with perfume and cleans them with her own hair.  Judas sees this as waste, though he is more jealous of not getting his hands on the money it would have brought.  Jesus says she should "keep it" for his burial.  So this same spice may later have anointed his body for burial.  I never caught that before either.  Perhaps ESV is why this is here.   Nope, once you see the ESV translation, the KJV obviously says the same thing.  I just missed it.  2020 - I note this year that John is pretty direct about the kind of person Judas Iscariot was, even before he betrayed Jesus.  Judas was perhaps never a true believer.  He traveled with a sinless man, and stole money from the common purse with that man, and with 11 "friends" of his.  He was never really part of the group, despite the teaching that he got.  Perhaps this is why he'd been better never to have been born.  The parables that were a mercy to those who would never believe anyway were explained to him.  To him, MUCH was given, and he disabused it all.  He would have much to answer for.  Just like we as Gentiles do today.  The mystery has been revealed, and we ignore it at our own risk.
Possible FB post.  Start with "why did Jesus say Judas should never have been born.  Bring in the parables - designed to lessen hell for unbelievers.  Then think of Jesus.  Then think of this country and the resources we have now.  To reject Jesus here and now is to say "Call me Judas.  

2021 - This verse:
7 Jesus said, "Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. [Jhn 12:7 ESV].  There is a footnote with an alternate translation that says "Leave her alone; she intended to keep it..."  Jesus tells Judas he was never going to get the money for this fragrance anyway.  Mary had always intended to use it when Jesus died, to anoint his body for burial.  She apparently decides to use a bit of it while he is alive, so that he may enjoy it.  This more directly put Judas in his place.  He should have realized from what Jesus said that Jesus knew his real motivation was greed, not helping the poor.  But more than that, Jesus says "This was never going to be yours, you really didn't lose anything here.".

2022 - This verse:
8 For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me." [Jhn 12:8 ESV].  I've heard this verse quoted, but never really appreciated the context.  Judas sees this expensive ointment and says it would have helped many poor.  Jesus says the poor will still be here next week, and you can worry about them then.  But for now, honor the one who won't be here next week, the one with whom your time is very limited.  We ought to think of this in terms of our family and friends also perhaps.  When something is either/or, shouldn't we choose those we love, who we do not have forever, rather than something ultimately "common", that will always be there?  Shouldn't we hang with the kids on Saturday and Sunday rather than getting ahead at work?  There will always be work to do.  As there will always be playoff games, grass to mow, groceries to buy, houses to clean.  These things will all be there tomorrow.  We ought not behave as if there is a big choice to be made between these things and those we love.
Good FB post.

The chief priests find out Jesus is in Bethany, and that many Jews have come there to see him.  And they also see Lazarus, alive, and believe in Jesus because they know Lazarus was dead.  They know.  They knew him before, they likely saw him dead, and now they see him eating.  This would profoundly prove that Jesus was more than man.  So the elite plot to kill Lazarus too, so that he cannot persuade others of the truth of Christ.  It is this same principal that makes those who  are outspoken about Christ despised today.  The darkness hates the light, and so hates the sources of light that shine on what they want hidden.

2021 - These verses:
10 So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus. [Jhn 12:10-11 ESV].  See above.  This is a good FB post.  The darkness hates the light.  The brighter the light the more the darkness hates it.  Lazarus is a pretty bright light.  There are people at this dinner that saw him dead.  For days.  They saw him buried.  They saw him walk out of the grave in the "clothes" he was buried in.  Lazarus was proof - dazzlingly bright proof.  Lazarus had to die...again.  We have to ask ourselves if we are even shining bright enough to be noticed by the darkness.  If we're dim bulbs we need to do something.  We need to find a way to shine brighter.  And here is something...Only in darkness is a light noticeable.  If we're hanging out with bright lights, we add very little.  Even if we are dim, we look bright in the light of those who shine.  We can be dim and no one knows it, if we hang with the right kind of folks.  Our light only shines when we are bright enough to be noticed in the company we keep.  And we can judge the success of our cranking up the lumens by whether or not we are hated by the darkness.  So there's the method and the measure for amping up our light!
2022 - Good FB post...why have I not seen it before?  Check and make sure it hasn't previously been used.
2022 - Does tradition/early church history tell us what happened to Lazarus?  Did he live on to a natural death, or did the Chief Priests succeed in killing him?  A quick Google search turned this up - in a couple of different places:
The Bible gives us no further information about Lazarus. Any additional details stem from church history and may or may not be accurate. One tradition holds that, after Jesus’ ascension back into heaven, Lazarus and his sisters moved to Cyprus where Lazarus became the bishop of Kition and died of natural causes in AD 63. Another theory claims that Lazarus and his sisters moved to Gaul to preach the gospel, and Lazarus became the bishop of Marseilles, where he was beheaded under the tyranny of Emperor Domitian. Whatever happened to Lazarus is unknown. But we can be certain that his physical body died a second time. And we know that, according to 1 Corinthians 15:51–53 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14–17, Lazarus will be raised again from the dead to join all God’s saints in eternity.  https://www.gotquestions.org/what-happened-to-Lazarus.html

The next day, Jesus goes into Jerusalem, sitting on the colt.  John's account says the people were saying "...even the King of Israel."  They knew who Jesus was, but proclaiming him King publicly would certainly have gotten the attention of the Romans, in addition to the chief priests and other elite.  This sort of puts them all on the same side against him.

2021 - This verse:
15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!" [Jhn 12:15 ESV]  John quotes the OT here.  I don't think he's done that very much at all up to this point.  He must have thought this prophecy fulfilled, with perhaps thousands of witnesses who could attest to it, was a worthy point to make.
2022 - And a difficult thing for the sect of the Baptist to refute.  Just too many witnesses.  And a sign like this, if it was something people tried to pull off every day, would be well known.  They were too reverent of scripture to go around trying to fake it all the time.  This ride on the donkey was unique because it was in prophecy.  

Vss 16-19 are "new" to me.  John says the disciples didn't connect the colt, the foal of a donkey to Jesus' entry until after Jesus was glorified.  They just didn't make the connection.  It also says a large crowd of Jews in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover go out to meet Jesus as he arrives because they had heard he raised Lazarus from the dead.  This miracle was well known and widespread, and the miracle was connected with Jesus the man.  Because of this "rush to Jesus", the Pharisees become more desperate, seeing that they are losing their authority to him, and their plots are coming to nothing.  It is clear they will become more direct.

2022 - Not that in 16, John gives us another of his "explanations" of the events he is narrating.  He does it again in vs 18.  And 33. And in 41 he tells us what Isaiah meant.

There is a story of some Greeks who want to see Jesus.  When told about them, Jesus says that a grain of wheat comes to nothing unless it dies first, and then it will come forth producing more wheat.  He is speaking of his own death, but goes on to say that whoever loves his life here will lose it - we all do - and whoever hates life here, and despises it for the sake of things to come, will gain his life.  It ends with "If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him."  2020 - In what way is this answer connected to the request of the Greeks to come and see Jesus?  Is it about the prevalent Greek belief that the soul is a good thing, and the physical body a bad thing?  Is he answering their questions without actually having them come to him?  Hmm...it kind of seems so, because Jesus talks about how something that dies ends up producing on the other side.  Therefore, all must die in order to be glorified.  This was the answer to the Greeks unspoken question.  Doesn't Paul use this same analogy about a seed somewhere in his own ministry?  YES!  Here:  35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. [1Co 15:35-38 ESV]  I never connected these two before today.  ALSO, only John tells this story, and the next part, where God speaks to Jesus from heaven as Jesus is troubled.  John might well relate the part about the Greeks, and Jesus' answer, because of the attacks on the church at Ephesus by Greek philosophers.  Maybe.  And perhaps the Gnostics were somehow assimilating this part of Greek philosophy into their "special knowledge".   2021 - I think this is the right way to interpret this.  The Greeks wanted to discuss soul and body.  Jesus sent them the right perspective.  This body must die, that a better can take its place, and live forever.

2022 - The word "glorified" keeps showing up today.  It  is in vs 16, Jesus uses it in vs 23 and 28. Theos also uses it in 28.  

These two verses, also "new" to me, and only recorded in John:
27 "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." 29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him." [Jhn 12:27-29 ESV]

2022 - in vs 28 God says he HAS glorified, past tense, His name, and he WILL glorify it, future tense, again.  Are these references to specific times, or is this general?  It would seem to me that the perfect sacrifice glorifies God.  Doesn't Jesus say elsewhere that his purpose is to glorify the Father?  I bet there is a lot in this little verse that I am missing.

God again testifies before men of the glory of Jesus.  A witness.  Jesus testifies of himself, God testifies of Him, John testified, and the miracles testify.  Four proofs.  Interesting that not all who heard identified it as God's voice.  Some thought it thunder, but even then...very impressive.
2021 - There is sort of a break between vss 26 and 27.  A response is sent to the Greeks, then Jesus is troubled in the next verse.  We can't really tell where Jesus was at this time.  He had entered Jerusalem on the colt, but we haven't been told that he arrived at a particular place.  Did this come upon him as he was riding?  Had he dismounted and gone in somewhere private for a few minutes?  Had he arrived at the temple and been surrounded by throngs of people come to hear what he had to say?  Was he overcome by the hatred of the Pharisees,?  This is an emotional moment - a very human moment - where ever it took place.

Some think it merely thundered, others think an angel spoke to Jesus.  My guess is that none but maybe the apostles understood the words. Maybe only John understood since he is the only one who talks about this.  

2022 - It is odd that only John would consider this event significant enough to include in his gospel.  Maybe John is indeed the only one who understood the words, and the others just thought it coincidental thunder.  But if so...don't we need to look for the reason that only John would hear this?  It is about God's glorification of the Son.  No....it was a big enough deal for Jesus to explain it to the crowds in the following verses....

Since no one understood it exactly, Jesus explains it this way:  30 Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." [Jhn 12:30-32 ESV]  Why in the world is this only in John?  Look at what all is here!  Judgement day is here.  The second part of the double punishment?  Or continued blindness and deafness for not accepting Christ?  Judgement on the world or judgement on Israel?  Ahh...Judgement on Satan, the ruler of this world!  Because upon Jesus rising from the dead, after being the perfect sacrifice owing to his sinless life, Satan's end is sealed.  Satan has spent all of history and who knows how long before then trying to prevent the death and resurrection of Christ, and he is about to forever lose that battle.  From this time on, salvation is not through any other - especially not through Satan - but only by the name of Jesus.  There is no compromise here with Islam.  It just cannot be compromised.  No compromise with the RCC.  Maybe the reason it is  only in John is because he wrote so much later, and by that time they'd begun to understand in far more completeness just what Jesus was really about.  They'd more formally separated and understood the prophecy of Suffering Servant and Conquering King, and John recognized just how pivotal in God's plan for humanity this moment was.  From vs 28b, it would seem that he was still outside.  Likely he was thronged in the streets, and was overcome with the need around him, and with his role in meeting that need.

2022 - But Jesus says it is about that voice.  The voice is to affirm that these events are God-ordained.  They all knew this voice was a big deal.  Jesus tells them why.  Satan had been in charge of this world since the fall.  Sin reigned.  The Law shined the light on the sinfulness of man.  Belief until then kept you out of hell in the afterlife, but it did not, could not get you to heaven, because the necessary propitiation had not yet appeared.  With Jesus' accomplished work, believers in him go straight into heaven to be with God.  We go as spirit.  At the rapture, body and spirit are reunited as one.  We will eat again, we will hug, we will hold hands with those we love...at the rapture.  NOTE:  I have no idea if this is on the right track or not, but surely there needs to be an explanation for why we need a rapture if we go straight to heaven anyway.  I mean, don't we need a reason?
2022 - But then this verse:
34 So the crowd answered him, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?" [Jhn 12:34 ESV].  So the argument of some - who were quite familiar with scripture - was that once Christ appeared, he would remain forever.  They seem to understand very well that Jesus is saying he must die.  Also very significant is that they know Jesus calls himself the Son of Man, and these people associate that term with Christ.  They see the two titles as belonging to the same person.  This is a big deal.  What they are not connecting is that the Suffering Servant is also the same person.  They did not expect, AT ALL, that the Son of Man would die and be resurrected.  They did not anticipate that Christ would conquer death and in THAT sense be with them forever.  
2022 - If it was the followers of John claiming that Jesus could not be the Messiah - the one that John said would come after him - a greater than John - then the Apostle would include this exchange in order to remind them that they were wrong about Jesus at that time.  By the time John writes his gospel, Jesus had risen and this was a widely known fact.  So John's gospel is not only saying that the Sect of the Baptist was wrong at the beginning, but that even they know by now what Jesus meant by these words.
2022 - MSB gives two possible verses they might have had in mind:
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. [Isa 9:6-7 ESV], and/or possibly:
25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. [Eze 37:25 ESV]
Both these are considered Messianic, and we are privileged to have explanations for them today.  But there is no indication here that the son given must first die and then be resurrected, nor that Ezekiel is speaking of the Millennial.
2022 - Jesus' answer also seems to reference an OT messianic scripture:  
2  The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone. [Isa 9:2 ESV].  Those asking the questions knew where Jesus was from.  They knew him as a Galilean.  That is the region to which this Messianic prophecy referred.  So via this verse, Jesus connects himself also to the verses his questioners referenced.  He is answering "Who is this Son of Man".  Jesus is telling them that he is Christ, AND that they have missed something.  He is saying that their understanding is incomplete, and that he is the explanation.  He does not "reveal" what has been hidden to them, but he tells them where to look.  He is sort of telling them to pursue that question!  You have gotten yourself a clue - you see that Christ and Son of Man are the same - but there is more to the mystery, and you need to keep pursuing the answers and observing what "the light" that is present does - so that the mystery can be revealed to you.  Do this lest you fall back into the darkness and the light is not longer there to observe.  What an answer!

Despite all this, there is vs 37:
37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, [Jhn 12:37 ESV]
Why would we be surprised when people who haven't seen miracles directly but only hear of them or read of them reject the truth of what happened.  They saw, yet did not believe!
2021 - 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" [Jhn 12:38 ESV].  John quotes the OT again here and in vs 40:  40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." [Jhn 12:40 ESV].  In 37, John says people didn't believe, despite all these miracles.  How could they not?  Perhaps this was the great question in Ephesus as John is writing this.  How could they have seen, and not believed?  And John answers the question....the miracles were more than sufficient to make anyone believe, but they were not all allowed to believe.  Israel's punishment for their rebellion was not yet complete.  They were blinded, prevented, locked out of salvation because justice had to be done, promises had to be kept.

2022 - With reference to vs 40:
40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." [Jhn 12:40 ESV]
I wonder how much of the confusion about Calvinism vs Armenianism is rooted in this blindness that God sent upon the Jews because of the continual rebellion of Israel in the OT.  God DID blind the Jews and make it impossible for them to be saved - many of them blinded even while the light was walking among them.  Only those Jews God chose and GAVE into Christ's safe-keeping were allowed to "see" the light and be saved by the light.  
Can we separate out the references to God's choosing of certain Jews for salvation from references that also apply to the church during the church age?  That is...oh my, can I even write this...does Calvinism have any place at all in the church age?  We would also have to try and determine, during each of Jesus' discourses, whether he was talking to all men, those hearing his words and all future men, or only to those hearing the words, or only to the church.  Now that would be a pretty mountainous task...and I bet a very rewarding task.

John says this unbelief was prophesied by Isaiah - so about the Jews of Jesus' time, not necessarily about us.  It says this is connected with God blinding them.  Surely this was done as part of the punishment for their apostasy as a nation, their perversion and outright rejection of their national covenant with God himself.  They didn't recognize Jesus because they had rejected everything that led up to him.  It was justice that they be denied knowledge of him because of the sins that led to this situation, and for their own sins in that day.  I never understood the fairness of this.  Now I see that it was.  I am more convinced than ever that the Covenant of Sinai is set aside and of no effect in our modern times.  I don't even see that the current nation of Israel has a place in scripture.

There is so much here.  These verses:
42 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God. [Jhn 12:42-43 ESV]

Belief, but not sufficient belief for their salvation.  These are the seeds that fell among the tares.  They were overcome by the things of this world, and never produced.  Never matured.  2020 - never saved?

vs 46, the new covenant is a covenant of light, not of salt:
46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. [Jhn 12:46 ESV]

And I cannot close without these verses, which distinguish the work of of Father and Son in the Trinity:
47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. [Jhn 12:47-48 ESV]

2022  - I think we saw this term "last day" a couple days ago.  I think in Jn 11.  It seems to me that Jesus is saying here that he will not judge those who reject him.  God will judge them.  It is God who is on the GWT, no Jesus.  Theos not Christos/Kyrios.  Jesus will sit on the throne and judge at the beginning of the Millennial.  Only then.  Even the bema sit will have God on the throne.  Jesus is again speaking spiritually, not physically.  John is just full of this, and so are the other gospels, if you are just aware of it.

Jesus doesn't judge, the Father judges.  The Son redeems.  And those who reject the redemption of the Son will be judged without mercy by the Father that sent him.  How can this be anything but fair?  Jesus doesn't judge lest he be accused of judging in anger or vengeance for the death he suffered for what we sinners have done.  He doesn't put himself in that position.  We are judged by the one that sent him for a purpose.  An objective judge.   (2025 - We Dispensationalists do not say that.)

John 13

John 13
John also says the devil used Judas to betray Jesus.  

These verses:
3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, 4 rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. [Jhn 13:3-4 ESV]
The implication, the point here, is clearly that Jesus had authority over all the universe at this point.  He was King of Kings and Lord of Lords at this time.  And in that capacity, he still gave us the example of making ourselves humble and low and washing the feet of others.  This example is even more profound than I realized.

And then this verse:
10 Jesus said to him, "The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you." [Jhn 13:10 ESV]
Jesus is telling them they are saved.  Already.  Despite what is to come, even Peter's denial.  Peter is clean already.  Judas is not.
2021 - It would seem from what Jesus says here that Judas was there when Jesus washed their feet.  He almost certainly washed Judas' feet also.  That is an amazing thing...

2022 - vs 11 is another of John's explanations inserted into the narrative.  Who are these insertions for?  Who was he explaining these things to?  Does he do this sort of inserting in 1,2,3 Jn?  In Revelation?  It is so prevalent here that you have to think he was addressing someone or some group specifically.  It fits with this being a polemic.  So if this is addressed to the Sect of the Baptist, they were likely saying that if Jesus had known it was Judas who would betray him, he'd have said so, and he'd have done something about it.  But since Jesus did nothing, he certainly could not have known.  So John says here that he did know, and this thing that he said "...but not every one of you", is proof that he knew.

2022 - This verse:
13 You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. [Jhn 13:13 ESV].  Jesus gives himself these two titles - Teacher and Lord.  In Greek, didaskolos and kyrios.  

2024 - This verse:
14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. [Jhn 13:14 ESV].  This is a command.  I am thinking of Bonhoeffer Chapter 2  where you don't sit around puzzling out what the command might mean in your own particular context, you just obey.  You just do it.  Don't sit and wonder where this Christian brother over here who has exactly zero church status is worth a hello this Sunday, you tell him hello when you bring him coffee and a donut.  You serve him.  If you even compare your status to his, you have missed the entire 1000' long boat!  I do not believe this is a literal footwashing thing.  We don't dress as they did.  We don't bathe as they did.  What it means is for us to do what a slave would do today.  Remember also that this was not AT CHURCH, this was in private.  The teacher served the students when it was just them.  It was not to impress those "outside" who observed what happened.  It was to teach them.
We can broaden it some I think to Christians serving other Christians, because he tells them to wash each the other's feet.  
But here I am, modern Christian, over-complicating the simple.  What Jesus here commands is that you serve your brothers, all of them, even if you REALLY ARE the one who should be teaching, and even if everyone knows that is the case!

2021 - This verse:
15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. [Jhn 13:15 ESV]
How does this language differ from the "Lord's Supper" language.  I know that foot washing is not considered a church ordinance, but how is it that we don't see it that way.  It has to be that we think he spoke these words to the 12 only, but the Lord's Supper language was to the church.  This would be a good study.
2024 - Jesus did not tell them to wash feet "in remembrance".  Viewed this way, Jesus is not giving them an "ordinance" to practice in church, but an unforgettable metaphor for how Christians ought to treat one another.  

2022 - This verse:
18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' [Jhn 13:18 ESV].  This seems to be a reference back to Genesis 3:  15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." [Gen 3:15 ESV].  The wording doesn't quite seem right though...In Genesis, the offspring of the serpent will bruise the heel of the offspring of the woman.  But Jesus says the offspring of the serpent is lifting his heel against the offspring of the woman.  Reverse interlinear inline says "He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."  Hmm...Every way I look at it seems to indicate a mismatch between Gen 3 and Jn 13...
2024 - That is because this isn't about Genesis 3.  The whole "heel" reference is not the key.  MSB footnote on 13:18 says the scripture quoted is from Psalms:
9 Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me. 10 But you, O LORD, be gracious to me, and raise me up, that I may repay them! [Psa 41:9-10 ESV].  Obviously this is more accurate.  I also included vs 10 from that same Psalm.  This is one of those cases where Jesus quotes part of passage, and by doing so, incorporates the whole of the passage into his meaning.  Jesus didn't remind them that this Psalm also foretells his resurrection and triumph and ultimately his vengeance against Satan and those who oppose God.  But it is still there, and it will come to pass.  

2022 - This verse:
19 I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. [Jhn 13:19 ESV].  This is in red, and is the second time I have noticed that words in red seem to be an inserted explanation.  In this case, this could be a reference to the OT where there is a passage that uses this as a test of the true prophet.  If they say it will happen, and it does, that is a true prophet.  This also corroborates the insertion in vs 11 that "proves" Jesus knew about Judas ahead of time.  This is the same thing again, but in Jesus own words rather than as an insertion.
2024 - When I say insertion here I am not talking about an "addition to the original text" put in there 500 years later.  I am talking about John, maybe 50 years later, and an eye witness to these events, including something Jesus said at this time that the other gospel riders did not include.  John includes perhaps as a rebuttal to the Sect of John the Baptist, as Culman often says, or perhaps to rebut some other claim made by false teachers, or to some sincere but mistaken group that had arisen by John's time.  John is "course correcting", as he has authority to do, as the last surviving apostle.

2024 - In Greek, that "I am he" at the end is "ego eimi".  This is the exact same phrase as in "Before Abraham was, I am."  When he said it then, it was recognized as Jesus claim to deity, to being God, and they were going to stone him for his trouble.  He says the same thing here, in private, to the 12 (yes 12, Judas is still there.)  

2021 - This verse:
21 After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." [Jhn 13:21 ESV]
This is the second time John has mentioned Jesus being troubled.  12:27 was the first time.  
2022 - And this is the third time Jesus has indicated that Judas will betray him.  Perhaps this was an argument by the Sect of the Baptist that carried a lot of weight at the time, and John is emphasizing the arguments against it very repetitively here.  Three times Jesus said he knew it.  His behavior now shows he knew it, not just his words.  It really bothered Jesus that Judas was going to betray him.  Jesus is allowing such treachery.  Jesus is creator.  He could so easily have stopped it all.  But at this time, per vs 3, Jesus "owned" it all.  All creation was his to save by a painful and ignominious death, or to lose if he decided we weren't worth it.  What a moment.
2022 - Vs 26, Jesus tells John that he will give the bread to his betrayer.  This makes John now a firsthand witness of Jesus' prior knowledge about Judas.  The fourth time we've been shown this.

Jesus tells them his betrayer is among them.  Peter motions for John - who is right next to Jesus - to ask Jesus who the betrayer is.  Jesus answers indirectly that it is the one he gives the bread to.  Then he gives the bread to Judas.  This verse:
27 Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." [Jhn 13:27 ESV]
Could we say that Judas had not "embraced betrayal" until this moment?  That he still could have backed out, but at this time, he decides to go through with it and to betray Jesus, even with all he has seen Jesus do? 
2021 - No, I don't think so.  I think Satan entering means things are going to a Spiritual level.  Satan has a vested interest in making sure Jesus messes up these last few hours.  He wants to attack him in the weakness that is inherent in humanity, and exploit these human weaknesses to bring about a sin that will disqualify Jesus as the perfect sacrifice.  Satan cannot leave this to chance, he has plotted and planned it for far too long.  He enters Judas to make sure Judas doesn't mess things up.  

2021 - 30 So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night. [Jhn 13:30 ESV]
John is about as specific as you can get as to when Judas left.  As I read it, in light of the information from JSB and the four cups, Judas was there for the first two cups, and for the bitter herbs, but was not there for the last two cups - the cups of redemption and praise.  This makes pretty good sense.

2022 - These two:
31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. [Jhn 13:31-32 ESV].  This reference goes back to the voice so many heard, and that only John reports.  Here are several references here in John:
39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. [Jhn 7:39 ESV]
16 His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about him and had been done to him. ... 23 And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. ... 28 Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." [Jhn 12:16, 23, 28 ESV]
Why is the departure of Judas the "now" of Jesus' glorification?  We saw earlier that all had been given into his hands.  Was foregoing action against the betrayer a cause for glorification?  Why?  
MSB says Jesus was looking past the agony of the cross, and on to his glorification at the right hand of the Father.  When Judas went out, the final piece was in place for events to unfold according to scripture.  That sounds like someone trying to give a reasonable explanation to a difficult passage.  It could be so...but it seems to me that the glorification of Jesus would have more to do with what he was doing than with what Judas was doing....

This verse:
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. [Jhn 13:34 ESV]
So this is new.  Love your neighbor as yourself was not new, Jesus quoted it to the rich young ruler...or someone.  But to love one another as I have loved you...that was completely new.  Jesus gave this new commandment to his apostles - to the eleven at this point...but is it only for them?  Or is it for the church?

John 14-15

At the end of John 13, Jesus has just told Peter that he will deny him three times.  They are still in the upper room, though Judas has left already.  Almost all the words in 14-17 are in red.  This is why so many chapters today.  John, who was reclining on Jesus as these words were spoken, has recorded what he heard.  Maybe we should think of this as Jesus' last discourse, his last instructions, his last orders, his last admonition/pep talk, his last appeal for them to be faithful.  Note also that this four chapter discourse is only recorded by John - according to my Harmony.  

2022 - Matthew would have been there.  But perhaps Matthew considered these words as strictly intended for the 12, and so did not share them in his gospel.  Perhaps the other apostles also considered them so, and did not share them with Mark or Luke.  But when John writes, it's likely been 50 years since these events took place, and he considers that long enough.  It is just as likely that John was the only apostle still living when he wrote his gospel, and so he did not want these last instructions from Jesus to die with him.  

The footnote to Chapter 14 is interesting.  It says that John 13-17 all really go together.  It starts with Jesus trying to stop the bickering of the 12, then his warning, and their reply.  Jesus continues to address them with repeated interruptions, but finally they fear to ask him further.  The discourse concludes with the wonderful prayer (the real Lord's prayer) in chapter 17.

2021-2 - 13 ended with Jesus telling Peter he would deny him, but just before that, Jesus is talking about going where they cannot follow.  In 14, he tells them that in the place he's going, he will be preparing a place for them.  So this is really a continuation of what was being said in 13 before Peter interrupted. 

It starts like this:
1 "Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. [Jhn 14:1 ESV]
Belief in Jesus is a natural thing if you believe in God.  
Jesus tells them he is going someplace else and will prepare a place for them there.  Once prepared, he says, he will come get them and take them there.  He tells them they already know the way.  But Thomas disagrees, (2021 -2 - First Peter interrupted, now Thomas does so) and says he doesn't even know where Jesus is going, much less how to get there.  As is usually the case, Jesus speaks of spiritual things, the disciples are stubbornly literal.  Jesus' answer is this verse:
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [Jhn 14:6 ESV]
This answer was not just about how the 11 were to get there.  This is a universal answer.  Jesus doesn't say "none of you", he says "no one".  

2021-2 - Look at vs 3:
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. [Jhn 14:3 ESV].  This is how you get to where Jesus already is.  He comes and gets you, and takes you there with him, so that you can be in the same place he is.  Perhaps Jesus here was talking about where his body was going, and about how the apostles could not come there in bodily form on their own, but they know that they will eventually be there, because Jesus is going to come and get them - and come and get us all.  This is the rapture.  But then vs 6...Is Jesus referring to the body?  The only way to get a physical body into God's presence is through Jesus, at the rapture.  Is this not about salvation at all????  He is talking here about getting to heaven, but I don't think he is talking about salvation.  Well...back in vs 1 he is saying they already believe in God, and that peace comes from believing in him also.  This is salvation.  You believe in God, believe also in me.  If you believe, Jesus will come back and get your physical body and take it to the place in heaven, in God's presence, that he has prepared.

2024 - This should not be confusing, yet I do believe that sometimes, in these chapters that record Jesus' last words to his apostles, Jesus is addressing things that will happen to them uniquely, and at other times Jesus addresses things that will happen to the church...and if his lifetime on earth has a different set of rules, then that comes in here also.  We know from other scriptures - 2Thess for instance - that vs 3 encompasses more than just the 11 who hear it directly.  We also know, from other scriptures, that this is talking about physical bodies.  The spirit goes to heaven immediately when we die.  The body follows at the rapture, perhaps some at the beginning of the Millennial, and the rest at the GWT.

2024 - In response to "we do not know the way", Jesus says "I am the way, and there is NO OTHER WAY".  This would not have been addressed to the 11 only.  The way to physically arrive in heaven is through belief in Jesus, and ONLY through that.

Verse 7 says this:
7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him." [Jhn 14:7 ESV]
What does "from now on" mean?  What was about to change?  It is yet a while before the day of Pentecost, but this verse promises a sea change in the way the 11 see Jesus.  Does this connect back with what Jesus says just before he washes their feet?  
3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, [Jhn 13:3 ESV]
The transfer had been made in verse 3.  All things were in Jesus' hands.  Jesus now has the full authority that previously was in the Father's hands.  If he has the authority of God, then he is God.  MSB says this is one of many references emphasizing that Jesus is God incarnate.  Still...this verse says "from now on".  Something was changing.
2021-2 - There is a footnote to this verse in TCR ESV.  It  gives two other possible ways to translate this verse.  It is one of those places where the Greek carries more meaning in one word than English can carry.  It is translated three ways in ESV because the Greek word is in the Indicative mood.  Here is the definition of the indicative:  It is a simple statement of fact.  If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.  So whether they already knew Jesus, or did know Jesus, or were going to know Jesus - as long as one of those was true and factual - then they would know the Father also.  For us, this is about three tenses.  In Greek it is about the indicative mood.  The fact is not fixed in time.  Didn't mean if you have already in the past done this, then and only then will you know the Father also.  It meant whenever in your life, so long as you do at some point "know" Jesus, then you will know the Father also.

Then Philip (Peter, then Thomas, and now Philip interrupts) asks Jesus to show them the Father, and that will be sufficient.  Jesus says Philip should know that if he has seen Jesus, he has seen the Father already.  They are one and the same.  I'm going to put both of these verses in:
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. [Jhn 14:10-11 ESV]
If I was living in 30 AD, how would I explain the Trinity to a lot of fisherman and uneducated commoners?  They didn't know a lot of biology.  They had a hard time with "abstract thinking", and tended to hold onto the literal with both hands.  So is that what Jesus is trying to explain to them?  That He and God are the same spiritual being, yet each is performing a specific set of agreed upon tasks in order to stay within the rules ("No man has seen God at any time", and "the blood of bulls and goats" is not enough, and don't forget "for all have sinned") and yet keep God as both planner, executor, and savior of all that was, is, and will ever be?  To keep everything "kosher", God must act as if he were three, though the three are of one mind, and of one person.  They are not "of one body" because they are spirit.  The incarnation was a supernatural "demotion" in order to save all mankind, God's creation in the image of himself and because of that similarity, a creature worth reconciling to him - not just worth saving from eternal damnation, but perfecting and resolving this image to that of the creator God.
Maybe that's the way to look at all this.
2021-2 - I think so.  "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" certainly makes them inseparably the same - yet they are two.  It is the Father that speaks through Jesus - so God is the one speaking.  God is right there, in the person of Jesus.  God is being God, but in the human form named Jesus.  It is the Trinity.  And then again we get the verse about "believe BECAUSE OF the works".  I think we have to read this as Jesus saying only God Himself could do miracles the way Jesus has done miracles.  I go back to the "kind and quantity" argument.  Jesus did things never before done in history.  No prophet had ever restored the sight of one born blind.  I don't think anyone had ever healed a man lame since birth.  And I know no one had ever restored life to one dead four days.  And then there is quantity.  How many places does it say he healed ALL who came to him.  No one had ever done that either.  The outpouring of supernatural power on such a scale was unprecedented, and was done to affirm that God was present Himself, in Christ.

2021-1 - You cannot "demote" God.  God cannot be less than He is, nor can He be more, because He is all.  Everything is contained in Him, nothing can possibly be added.  The man Jesus was not less than God, but a manifestation of God in human history.  God had to enter "time" in order to be a physical sacrifice.  God had to indwell us to reveal himself to us and to transform us into His image.  All this is God, though in three applications.  Think of the Rosetta Stone.  All three version say the same thing, reveal the same thinking.  But one part reveals itself to one group, another part to a second, and the third to a third.  But all three parts point back to the same intent, the same "mover".  Never thought of this before, but it is a way to look at it.  Seems like a pretty good way.  


Moving on now...

Vs 11, above, ties back to Jesus earlier claims to Pharisees directly.  Either believe me, because I'm standing right here, or believe the works that prove I am God.  That's what Jesus is saying to them.  He is man, yet he is also the Father.  Both the Father AND the Son.

2021 - 1 - If we interpret "...I am in the Father and the Father is in me..." as Jesus' way of revealing these two aspects of the Trinity, and not try to get too far into the details/weeds/comprehension of it all, this will read a lot better.  Let's try that...
I do think it is important here that Jesus is saying that the Father isn't working "through" him to do His own miracles, as God did with Moses, Elisha, and so on.  Jesus says that in his case, the sheer magnitude of the works, the power of the works, demonstrate that he is not just in tune with God and acting on His behalf, but is in fact one and the same with God.  No "mere" man could do these things.  Only God could do these things.  Jesus does these things.  God and Jesus are one.  But I am getting bogged down in explaining the Trinity again.

This verse:
12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. [Jhn 14:12 ESV]
I was afraid of this...every single verse is just a lens to a much greater, much lengthier, more profound concept.  Jesus is telling them so much...
MSB note on vs 12 (I so wish they were online so I could copy/paste) says the greater works referred to are about the scope of what they do, not the miraculous extent of what they do.  Not that they will do more or more "impossible" miracles, but that what starts with them as disciples going to all the world will reach more people and win more souls than Jesus did during his 33 years or so on the earth.  The "because" is because the Holy Spirit will not be sent until Jesus has gone.  I do not know why this is a requirement.  Perhaps the world can only take one of the Three at a time?  Perhaps it is only in heaven all three can be present and understood.  Perhaps it is the mind of mortal man that limits us.  Understanding the concept of the Trinity even with only one present in physical space at a time is beyond us, how would we understand both a physical and a spiritual at the same time while the person of the Father was still in heaven.  The thing is, there's no need to speculate on that.  The key is that the Spirit will not come until Jesus has gone, and it is the power of the Spirit, indwelling with power, that makes Christianity the force that it was and still is.

These verses, because I think the MSB note is important:
13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. [Jhn 14:13-14 ESV]
Jesus promises that whatever they ask in his name, he will do it.  I believe this is a promise specifically to the 11.  As apostles, the power that is coming after Jesus returns to the Father will be theirs in huge measure, and as they die, that kind of power will never again be wielded by man..  Not so to us today.  

2021-1 - I think this is right.  The Holy Spirit acted with greater power in the 11/12 at the start of the church than it has ever acted through anyone else since then.  Whatever the apostles asked, Jesus would do.  I think this is in the sense of the valve being fully open for power to flow in them.  I don't think there is anything that we cannot ask.  I don't think there's anything he won't answer.  I just don't think he is going to answer everything.  With the apostles, I think he pretty much answered everything.

Answered prayer may be likewise.  They were being given a special privilege because they were the chosen 11 that does not extend to all.  The rest of us get answers in accordance with his will.  I think Jesus meant they could have whatever they wanted...and their lives show that they set aside earthly things and prayed for his help and to do his will.
2021-1 - After reading the MSB note here, and after some of the things I read today in Chapter 15, I don't think this promise is limited to the apostles.  I think it is to all Christians.  Here are some things from the MSB note on vss 13, 14. Putting quotes around it as I will just copy it:
"In their hour of loss at the departure of Jesus, He comforted them with the means that would provide them with the necessary resources to accomplish their task without His immediate presence which they had come to depend upon.  To ask in Jesus' "name" does not mean to tack such an expression on the end of a prayer as a mere formula.  It means: 1) the believer's prayer should be for His purposes and kingdom and not selfish reasons; 2) the believer's prayer should be on the basis of His merits and not any personal merit or worthiness; and 3) the believer's prayer should be in pursuit of His glory alone."
So this promise is the "tool" Christians have been given to perform the work assigned to us.  It is prayer, a privilege, directly to the Father through the Son for God's help in what we do for Him.  Add to this the coming of the Helper, who will "interpret" for us with groanings that cannot be uttered, and you get the bigger picture of just how we pick up the spreading of the gospel that Jesus started.  The Spirit that interprets is in us, we are in Christ, Christ is in God.  We are all one in the purpose and plan of God.

Vss 15-17 are about the coming of the Helper.  It says the world cannot receive him because it doesn't see or know him.  This is a supernatural thing in the lives of those not in the world.  From/through the Holy Spirit within us, we gain insight, understanding, and are instantly changed into a new creature, and we continue to be pulled free of the encumbrances of sin as we grow in truth and knowledge.  This is all sounding like a preachy sermon.  It is in fact a modern day ongoing miracle right in front of our eyes that we rarely acknowledge.
Further, Jesus uses the same language as to the Holy Spirit and man as he uses of Himself and the Father.  He says "...he will be in you...".  Wait though...it doesn't say we will be in the Spirit, but only that the Spirit is in us...at least so far that's all that's been said.  Then in vs 18, this:
18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. [Jhn 14:18-20 ESV]
When the Spirit comes, Jesus is in the Father, and we are in Jesus.  So we are in the Father via Jesus.  Jesus in also in us.  This is the difficult part.  How can we be "in" Jesus at the same time Jesus is "in" us?  This violates our human concept of physical space.  So, this must be an entirely spiritual concept, that we will understand by and by...

This verse:
21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." [Jhn 14:21 ESV]
This is a two-sided relationship.  It says that those who are truly saved keep the commandments, and are therefore loved by God, and will see Jesus in their own lives.  Only the saved get this promise.  (I am worried about saying parts of what Jesus says are just for the 11, and other parts are for everyone.  There are certainly no grammatical indications that this is the case.  Only the 11 are there.   Perhaps the best way to look at it is to say that all that is said is to the saved universal, but that the degree to which it is true is different.  The 11 did miracles after Jesus had ascended, up to and including raising the dead.  But such things diminished with time.  There are still miracles today, but not really through individuals.  More corporate miracles through the prayers of many.

Judas (the other one) asks how Jesus will manifest himself to them but NOT to the world?  (Peter, Thomas, Philip, and now Judas) I never really saw this question this way before.  What is it that will be different about the apostles - and I think this one applies to all saved people - that they see Jesus in the world but the world doesn't see him.  Jesus answers that those who keep his commandments are the ones that love him, and because of that his Father loves them, and Jesus and the Father will make their home with him.  Jesus moves on to tell them that the Helper will be sent by the Father in Jesus name to explain it all to them, to reveal the whole truth to them.  
So Jesus will reveal his continued presence to us through the work of the Spirit.

2021-2, This verse:
24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. [Jhn 14:24 ESV]  What does this mean?  Those who don't love Jesus don't hear Jesus' words, but they hear the Father's words.  Think of the unsound/false doctrine that could be made out of this verse!  And wouldn't you know...there is no MSB note on this verse.  This seems to be about those who worship God but not Jesus.  First people that come to mind are the Jews who deny that he is Christ and yet pray to God at the wailing wall every day.  There are so very many like this - believers in God, but not in His Son.  Then there is Islam.  They believe in the God of Abraham.  But not in Jesus as Son.  But...doesn't it also say that if we don't know Christ we don't know the Father either?  I found this one, also from John: 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. [1Jo 2:23 ESV].  So...you don't "have" the Father, but you hear Him?  I really need to come back to this.  What does this mean????
Later, same day.  It isn't a mystery at all.  Just one of those brain locks I sometimes get.  What it means is that this "rule" about how keeping the words of Jesus signifies a love for Jesus, and not keeping them means you don't love him, is not Jesus' rule, but God's rule.  God ordained that it be this way.  Once again, both to my surprise and chagrin, it was the NIV that clarified the meaning of this verse.

2021-1 - These verses:
25 "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. [Jhn 14:25-26 ESV]
This would seem to be specifically addressed to the 11, and we should be very careful in applying it to ourselves.  I do think that the more saved people study the Bible, the more of it is revealed - that whole to him who has most, more will be given concept.  But the fact that we have parables that say that is what we should go back to for support, not this verse right here.

This one:
28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. [Jhn 14:28 ESV]  What do we say to "the Father is greater than I"?  MSB addresses the question.  Jesus gave up glory to be incarnated as a man.  He will return to the Father and have equal glory with Him.  The phrase "found in fashion as a man" comes to mind.  The apostles should have rejoiced that Jesus was going to the Father and re-assuming the glory that is only found in heaven, indeed can only be found in heaven.  It cannot be that Jesus meant the Father was greater, because in vss 7-11 he repeatedly claimed equality with the Father.  MSB gives a long list of references in the book of John where this claim was made.  

Chapter 15

2021 - End of 14, Jesus says let's go.  Then we start with the vine.  Does not say, yet, where they are now.
The true vine.  This verse:
2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. [Jhn 15:2 ESV]
MSB note says the taken away branches are apostate Christians who were never really believers.  Their lack of fruit identifies them as not really being part of the vine, and so they are taken away.  But does that mean as we go along, or at the judgement?  The implication to me is that it will happen as we go along, because the vine bears more fruit after they are gone.  That would not be true at the final judgement.

2021-1 - We might also get into a whole thing here about whom Jesus is talking to with this?  Is this applied to all Christians, or just to his audience there in the upper room.  They would have heard it, I believe, as instruction specifically to them.  Only with the coming of the Holy Spirit might they have understood it to be universal.  In a sense, we could also see this as instruction to the church - to the members of the body.  It could even be seen as addressed to the Jews, since there is no talk of grafting.  I do note that the branches that are taken away are burned, not just piled up somewhere as useless.  They are destroyed.  Hmm...this most certainly would not have applied to any of the apostles still present there, because Jesus pronounces them all clean in the next verse.  He's made it clear up to here that the 11 still present are his.  No matter what they do, they will not be burned, so this verse must apply beyond the Upper room!  

vs 3 says the 11 are already clean.  They are saved, before they desert him just a few hours on.  

2021 - 2,  I think these vine verses are about Israel at the time of Christ.  ALL Israel was chosen, so all automatically attached to the vine.  But with the abrogation of the law, the setting aside of their favored no matter what status, changes must be made.  No more hangers on that don't produce, that don't move their allegiance to Jesus as Messiah.  Messiah was always coming, and the Jews had a bit of a pass until his arrival.  But that pass is expired now, and they either follow the Messiah or they have to go.  Removed with prejudice.   That's what this is about.  I think this makes a lot better sense than MacArthur's version.  All this about abiding is about believing in Jesus instead of the Law.  You must "rest" on Jesus and his promises, the words he brought, the things he's taught - it all must come down to him - or you're out.  It is not an either/or proposition depending on what you're most comfortable with.

2022 - Jesus has already said they are clean.  The clean don't need to be washed, except for their feet - where they contact the world all day every day.  He says it again in vs 3.  The word has cleaned them.  All these go here:
48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. [Jhn 12:48 ESV]
23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. [Jhn 14:23 ESV]
3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. [Jhn 15:3 ESV]

2022 - Surely Jesus has spoken the saving word to them.  He has taught them that a new age is beginning - the church age, the age of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which will communicate with the spirit of all who believe.  So what he is saying about the vine and the branches tells us that if this Spirit is inside us, we will produce.  We must produce.  The branches, even those that do not produce, are originally attached to the vine.  They have to be.  Then, in vs 6:
6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. [Jhn 15:6 ESV].  He is "like" a branch.  Jesus seems to be saying that this is metaphor, and to be careful of reading too much into it, being too literal about it.  I think then, that the point is that many will claim to be branches.  Many will associate themselves with the true vine.  But not all will produce.  Some will walk the aisle because all their friends did, or because some preacher shamed them into it, or because they feel the urge to decide...but are too young or too untrained to understand what they are doing.  These are all outward indicators which can be simulated.  You can make yourself look like and act like a branch, but if you are not truly attached, there will be no real fruit.  There will be no Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is what distinguishes pretenders - even sincere pretenders - from the true branches.  Water and nutrients flow from vine to branches via the Holy Spirit.  Once the noncommittal separate from the proximity of the vine - that is, once they stop going to church, stop reading, stop learning - THEN they begin to wither.  It becomes obvious that they are receiving nothing from the vine.  Somehow they were faking it.  But once they are apart from the vine, they wither quickly.  They are gone.  And they were never saved.  They wither, and die, and are gathered up and burned at the end.  This is profoundly frightening.  These can still be saved...but only if by God's grace, he offers them salvation again.  They will be scarred and calloused towards it, having spent so much time exposed to it without being saved.  The odds are very low.  
Yet there are Christians who get off the road for a long time.  Pilgrim's Progress gets several chapters out of it.  And talks about the consequences of getting off the road after you're on it.  How do we tell the difference here?  We must treat all such as needing salvation.  We must treat all such as prospects for conversion, not as prospects for "rehab".  To prevent such things, we must abide.  Perhaps even these who were brought up correctly but not truly saved early, though they think they are, need to stay in church, since the word has made them clean, but they must stay - must abide - to truly become productive.  I don't know though.  This is a lot to read into Jesus talking to the 11.  Yet he does speak this verse to them...if you do not abide, you will be thrown away.  But the wording makes it seem as if he's telling them about others, rather than warning them about their own state.  No...he is applying it all to them also...

2024 - Looking this time at vss 1-11, I get the distinct feeling that these words are directed exclusively at the 11.  He is saying that the Law of Moses no longer applies.  That it is not in obedience to the Law that one rightly serves God, but it is in serving the Son.  Serving a written law, doing this that it says do, not doing what it says not to do....getting the jot and tittle right all day every day does not "bear fruit".  Bearing fruit is a living, dynamic, process, adapting to and changing with conditions.  No branch of the tree can bear fruit unless it is attached to and dependent on the vine itself.  Jesus says that now, from this point on, HE is the ONLY vine to which one can be attached and do the will of God.  And if you are not attached to JESUS, you are not attached at all, and you will dry out, be gathered up, and cast into the fire.  I do not think Jesus is threatening the 11 here.  And to make that clear and certain to them he reminds them in vs 3 that they are clean.  (But if that's what he means, why say clean instead of say "attached" to the vine?).  
2024 - Well...in vs 2 it says "...every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit..."  It uses the Greek preposition en.  The word is there in the Greek, not just implied.  How can a non-bearing branch that is attached (IN Christ) but does not bear fruit be taken away.  That is what it says, there must be an explanation.  The necessity of an explanation pushes JM to come up with this apostate Christian idea and say they were never really saved.  But I see no context at all for reaching so far.  Why would we think Jesus suddenly begins talking about apostates that were never saved?  There's no church yet, there are only Jews, and those who have physically seen Jesus on earth.  
2024 - Look at how vs 4 is worded:  "...neither can YOU unless you abide in ME."  Then he hammers home that he is speaking to them - the 11 - in vs 5 with this very specific language: "I AM THE VINE, YOU ARE THE BRANCHES."  Not "the Jews are the branches", not "the church members are the branches.  He is talking to them.  Judas has been cut off.  He was not really a branch.  We all know that.  Jesus says that if you aren't genuine, you will be cut off and burned.  BUT YOU ARE CLEAN!!!  That is not something he would have said to the world, that is not a generality, that is the 11.  John is the only remaining person on the planet who heard these words spoken, and now, after 50 years, he is sharing them so that they cannot be forgotten.  
2024 - Vs 6 does seem to do some generalizing, in that it says ANYONE, not YOU.  Perhaps here in this verse we get the concept of "false Christians", those who, like Judas, are right there in amongst the faithful, but who have a completely different and entirely selfish agenda for the "good" they are doing.  Jesus seems to say that their false works will fade with time, that they will do less and less, and eventually they will be discarded as to the work that needs doing.  And this is a bit thin.
2024 - And then 7.  Ask anything of the Father in my name, and you will get it.  I think this is about things needed to bear fruit.  Opportunity, protection, health, and so on.  This is ONLY to the 11.  They have been chosen by Jesus.  He has kept all but one.  They are entrusted to spread the message of Jesus to all the world.  Jesus is telling them that because of the purpose for which they are chosen, their resources on earth will be unlimited.  What they do in spreading Jesus' message, in beginning the church and establishing it as a permanent institution in the world, and in converting ultimately millions upon millions to Christianity, glorifies God - the mission of the Son if we remember - and so by glorifying the Son they too glorify the Father.  God sent the Son.  The Son sent the 11.  I think this is the parallel we need to adopt here in order to understand this passage.  We might well need to take this backwards to Chapter 13 also, and to everything from there through 16.  On through vs 11, this way of looking at it works.  See how Jesus repeats the theme that he is doing the will of the Father, and they are to do the will of Christ?  This is about the apostles.  Surely vs 16 corroborates this!
2024 - Now if this is so, and if Cullman is right and this is all written as a rebuttal to the Sect of John the Baptist, then what purpose does John have for including these personal instructions?  Perhaps that John the Baptist was NOT THERE!  It was the 11 who were given sole authority.  It is the 11 who are charged with God's work in the world.  To tie everything back to John and his disciples rather than to Jesus and his disciples is to be a non-abiding branch!  John the Baptist was neither the vine nor the vinedresser.  Those who are following him are going about the wrong work!  THEY are the branches that will be drying out, fading out, disappearing from history.  The 11 are the chosen.  YES!!!  This is the what and the why of these chapters in John's gospel!

2024 - And starting in 18, Jesus tells them how unique they are in the world.

2022 - This one:
8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. [Jhn 15:8 ESV].  Is all this about glorification?  Because that goes back to "I HAVE glorified my name, and I will glorify it again".  Jesus' reason for being here is to glorify his name.  Can we - must we??? - separate salvation from glorification?  Is this what Jed is always going on about?  No...because the withered branches are thrown into the fire.  Doesn't say their works are burned, it says they are burned.  No one saved - even ever so slightly saved - goes to hell.  I believe works are about crowns, works are about abiding - whether we live out what we profess very well or just a little - but works in no way affect salvation.  Works are evidence of faith, but works are not counted as faith.  Without works, faith is in question...
Is this what it says, or is this what I want it to say?  If we truly love Jesus, and so truly love the Father, wouldn't our aim be to glorify Him?  Glorify Them?  If we don't even try to bear fruit, we don't care about fruit, then we don't care about glorifying the Father.  How can we not care about that if we are saved?

This verse:
10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. [Jhn 15:10 ESV]
The way to a closer relationship with God, a true oneness with God, is to keep the commandments of Jesus.  There were two he talked about with the young ruler - Thou shalt love the Lord they God...and then also "Love your neighbor".  Then Jesus gave them a third one, a new one:  Love each other as I have loved you, Jn 13:34.  This is the whole covenant that we now live under.  We keep these three commandments, and we abide in him and he in us.  This is the state of things today.  Keeping commandments is loving Jesus, and God loves those who love His Son.  This is the whole thing distilled down to the essentials.

That  third commandment is repeated here, in vs 12.  I think that means I'm on the right track.  

These vss:
13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. [Jhn 15:13-14 ESV]
I would use this as a proof text for limited atonement.  
2021-1 - Further, it is a good verse for the Lordship of Christ.  We are not his friends just for saying that we are.  The visible demonstration - for ourselves and for others that see us - is that we follow his commands.  Even the ones we don't particularly like.  Even the ones increasingly incompatible with the culture.  Even the ones that are not PC.  We all make mistakes...so no one can judge this on the basis of a single positive or negative observation.  We must look at what characterizes the life of those who claim friendship with Christ.
We might also see this verse as expanding what is being said to all men.  Why else would we need a way to identify friends?  

2021 -2, This verse:
14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. [Jhn 15:14 ESV].  There is nothing here about praying the prayer and getting yourself baptized.  If we do what Jesus says, we are his friends, and he died for his friends.  He saved his friends.  We have built all this confession, sinner's prayer stuff on air.  Doing as he commands at all times with any audience covers it all.  It is a mindset, not a work.  Even praying the prayer is a work.  If you depend on that prayer, you've missed it.  It is about keeping his commandments.

Another "dilemma":
15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. 
Why does Paul so often call himself doulos if he is friend instead of servant?  Unless this statement is only to the 11.  And I just don't see John's account as jumping back and forth between intended audiences here, almost from verse to verse.   I think we showed above that the burnt branches indicate that the intended audience is all Christians.  (2021-2...Nope.  Audience is Jews.)  I don't think John is the one who decided that's who he meant these verses for.  Jesus knew the time was at hand.  He knew these would be his last instructions, not only to the apostles, though perhaps especially to them, but to all who would come after.  Maybe it is in the word used for "servant"?  Nope.  Doulos is the word Jesus uses.  So why, Paul?

Here is one, kind of "hiding" in the middle of this discourse:
16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. [Jhn 15:15-16 ESV]  A proof text for irresistible grace I think...or maybe unconditional election...or both - or at least for election as opposed to purely free choice.  And if we are chosen, if we are friends, then the Father answers our prayers.

2022 - And if we are chosen, we bear fruit, we abide, we love, we obey his commandments.  We must be chosen, we do not choose.  And on in vs 19b, the world hates us because the world knows that we were chosen, and they were NOT.  It is jealousy, it is recognition of how it really works.  We are friends of God, and they are not, nor can they be, because He must CHOOSE THEM.  No wonder they hate!

Then Jesus tells them that the world is going to hate them for what they do.  This is a key verse:
19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. [Jhn 15:19 ESV]
2021-1 - Here is the danger of adapting the means of the world, the music of the world, the philosophy of the world to the church.  If the church is not hated, the church has it wrong.  Or...is this only applicable to individuals?  What about individuals in the church who insist on dogged, or should I say dogmatic, adherence to the letter of the word?  If we are hated in the church for this, what does that say about those who hate us, disdain us, write us off as dinosaurs?

This worries me.  If the world loves you, then you are of the world.  If it hates you, then you are not of the world. The best thing is to be hated by the world.  Yet it is also true that the disciples had people around them all the time that loved them.  Other Christians loved them.  It was the deceivers that hated them, pursued them, and tried to kill them.  It was the established religions and civil governments that oppressed and persecuted.  It wasn't really so much about individuals but entities that hated them.
2021 - 2,  Today, the world's level of hatred toward Christians is rising.  Not every individual Christian gets singled out for hatred, but in general, Christians are more and more ridiculed, persecution is on the increase, churches are being burned, all kinds of religious practice is being outlawed.  The world wants Christian voices silenced, and by force is probably preferred.  This is what is meant here.  It doesn't mean that each of us must go out and get so in someone's face about Christianity that they hate us personally.  That's not what this is.  

This verse is a hard one:
22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. [Jhn 15:22 ESV]
This cannot possibly mean that if Jesus hadn't come, everyone would go to heaven.  He did not come to condemn!  MSB has a note, but I'm going to phrase it in my own words - so may be getting it wrong.  I would say that Jesus incarnation multiplied/amplified the guilt of all those who rejected him.  They heard his very voice, saw with their eyes, and yet decided to kill him instead of worship him.  It is these actions taken specifically against Jesus that is bringing the severest of punishment on them - and on us also.  It was a matter of faith before, and failing at that deserves damnation, but when you are blessed with seeing the Messiah himself, and you reject what your own eyes tell you, then your rebellion is inexcusable.  This can be tied right into the double punishment and to God's way of condemning at a point, and then letting the sin he condemned play out to it's inevitable end, proving that when God pronounced judgement in the first place, the situation was already beyond help.  It was not going to change.  The world in Noah's time would not have turned back to God if he had not destroyed it.  He gave them 120 years to repent after saying they had to be judged.  They ignored it, and got worse.  These condemned who saw Jesus have even less excuse than those of Noah's time.
2024 - Or if he had not come, their following the Law of Moses and believing in God would have been enough.  But once the Messiah came, and they refused to accept him as prophecy fulfilled, THEN they were truly guilty, no only of the violations of the Law, but of violating the principles behind the Law.  Even thinking of adultery or murder is now adultery and murder.  Before Jesus, this was not so.  But Jesus did come, and he did works that left no doubt, and even seeing him physically in the world they still chose to reject him for their own reasons.  This may well be only about those who saw Jesus in that 33 years.  Their faith was sight.  Ours is not.  Surely they are more condemned.

I think all this is brought on home in this verse:
24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. [Jhn 15:24 ESV]
Again, the works are the unimpeachable witness to the person of the Messiah.  Despite this witness, they still hate him.  There is no excuse.   We don't see the kind of miracles that Jesus is speaking of here.  But we see plenty of others.
2022 - And this is why those who were present and SAW the miracles are more guilty for rejecting than we are.  Man...that would mean this whole passage is about degrees of hell.  I just have a hard time thinking that is what Jesus means!  Why would he be talking about how much hotter hell is going to be for those of his own time than those of any other time?  Surely this is about the abrogation of the Law.  He has told them himself that the Law was insufficient, and yet they cling to it.  This was revolutionary to the Jews.  Yet the works that he did should have made it clear to them - to that generation and all who would follow - that something better to believe in than the Law had appeared.  Their belief, their worship, their loyalty and dedication should no longer have been to the Law, but to Jesus, as God incarnate on earth.  He is the true vine.  Those who pretend to leaving the Law behind, yet continuing to practice both the Law and Jesus, produce no fruit.  Production comes ONLY through Jesus, and splitting loyalties results in dead branches.  This is about the Jews!  Gentiles are also saved, but this discourse is about the Jews as the Law is abrogated by Christ!
2022 - Surely vs 25 confirms this:
25 But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.' [Jhn 15:25 ESV].  "They" can only be a reference to the Jews who have rejected him.  He came to his own, and they would not receive him.  They means the Jews of Jesus time.  And so they are pruned out, and the producing Gentiles come in.

2021-1 - There is the old idea, based on universal atonement, that says Jesus died for all sins but one.  The only sin that any man can commit now that sends him to hell is to reject the completed work of Jesus Christ.  These verses, 22-25, are surely useful for making that case.  However, at this point, I believe atonement was limited, and that this has just been stated by John in 15:13.  Just the same, the rejection of Jesus despite all that he did to prove who he was is the "severest and deadliest" sin.  
I believe I am too worn out to discern anything more in this verse today.  The TCR has a footnote, 2, in verse 22 that just seems to be totally out of place.  The superscript just seems to be in the wrong spot in the text.  I checked the interlinear and doulos does not appear in vs 22.  That didn't make a difficult verse any less difficult.
2021 - 2 - I think this makes the same point that Jesus made when he explained why he began speaking only in parables.  It at least made the condemnation of non-believers a little less than if they completely understood it all.  Parables or not, the miracles were undeniable, and for not believing such obvious signs of the truth, for attributing them to Satan instead in order to NOT see them for the proof they were, brings multiplied, amplified, intensified guilt for sin.  To whom more is given, more is required.  In Jesus' day as in ours.

25 But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.' [Jhn 15:25 ESV]  Here are the words being fulfilled in Jesus:
19 Let not those rejoice over me who are wrongfully my foes, and let not those wink the eye who hate me without cause. [Psa 35:19 ESV]
4 More in number than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without cause; mighty are those who would destroy me, those who attack me with lies. What I did not steal must I now restore? [Psa 69:4 ESV]
Their hatred had to be without cause.  There was no injury.  No harm to them from what Jesus said and did.  But they hated him anyway, making their guilt complete.

This verse ends chapter 15:
27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. [Jhn 15:27 ESV]
Sure makes it sound like it is ONLY the 11 that the preceding applies to.  Surely does seem that way...

2021-1 - LOTS of time on 14 and 15.  Next year, read straight through them and spend the time on 16 and 17.  Just reading the rest of this...Already near 4 hours on these first two chapters.
2021-2, DID NOT get 16 properly studied.  So it is up again next time.

2023 - Read 15 yesterday.  I am still nagged by the question of who Jesus is really addressing here?  Is he speaking only to the 11 - because Matthias hasn't been chosen yet - and saying these things for them?  Or is he trying to help them better understand what the results of his coming will be?  Those who rejected him did so without cause, fulfilling many scriptures, as shown above.  Because of this, because of unwarranted rejection, they are guilty before God in a way none have ever been guilty before.  They didn't need faith, because they beheld by sight, and yet they decided to kill him instead.  Now combine this thought with Jesus saying they didn't know him because the Father had not revealed him to them.  So many of the Pharisees that attacked him were told point blank that it was because God was not allowing them to see him.  They were not his sheep, so they could not come, and for not coming they are the guiltiest generation in the history of the world.  They are even guiltier than us, with all our resources to read and study and convince ourselves of the genuineness of Christ, yet we still reject.  But we did not see the works.  (Jn 15.24).  You know, I think this chapter is finally falling into place in my head.  He IS addressing the 11, but he is TEACHING them, he is interpreting current events for them.  For instance, in 15.15, he is telling the 11 that they are now friends.  They are more than servants because he chose them for the role they will now play.  Those words are JUST to the 11.  Vss 18,19 apply obviously to all who follow Christ.  We are hated by the world.  Do, after going back and dealing with the nagging on Chapter 15, I'm moving on to today's reading in Chapter 16.

John 16-17

Chapter 16

2021-2, Reading on Sunday morning, so time shorter than I'd like.  Read 3 chapters of 2 Chron first.
Yesterday, read 15, about the vine, and about Christians being hated.  

This chapter starts with this:
1 "I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. [Jhn 16:1 ESV]
More controversy.  I think we have to read "falling away" in the context of these two previous verses:
10 Jesus said to him, "The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you." [Jhn 13:10 ESV]
3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. [Jhn 15:3 ESV]
Twice, Jesus has pronounced them clean.  Are we really to believe that even after that, they could lose their salvation?  If so, then fruitful branches can also die.  I didn't get that idea from that analogy.  Those branches were never really attached.
2021-2, Well yes, they were really attached, and they withered and they got thrown away.  That is about Israel, and those who keep to the Law, and so do not produce instead of following Jesus and producing fruit.  I think verse 1 means Jesus is directing the falling away remark to the apostles themselves.  They are about to be tried mightily.  They are about to shame themselves by abandoning Jesus in the garden.  The religious elite are going to search for them and try to kill them too.  They will be afraid, and it will take tremendous courage to maintain their faith, to confess their faith, and beyond that to preach their faith to save others also.  It would be oh so easy to just walk away from it.  To just stop and deny.  THAT kind of falling away.  In NASB, they translate it "stumbling" not "falling away".  The transliteration is "skandalizo".  It is used 30 times in the KJV, and 28 of those it is translated "offend".  To "skandalizo" is to cause to stumble, to be misled.  But it is causing that to happen.  So Jesus told them all these things to NOT cause them to stumble....no, that's not right.  Here is one of the definitions:  to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey.  It is aorist passive subjunctive.  Doesn't that just scream "can't do it in English"!?  Here is one of the statements given about the aorist:  There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense.  So you can't say it correctly in English.  

2024 - This verse:
1 "I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. [Jhn 16:1 ESV] is also this verse:
1 "These things I have spoken to you so that you may be kept from stumbling. [Jhn 16:1 NASB95]
NASB is, in my opinion, a much better interpretation here, especially in light of those two previous verses.  Translated as the NASB95 does it makes it clear that we are talking about the kind of stumbling that Peter will do in the early hours of the next morning.  It is about lapses, from which they can recover, not about permanent falls.  Jesus knows what these men are going to have to endure, what they will go through, and he knows how difficult it will be for them.  He knows because, like them, he is just about to go through many of the very same things.  It will be extremely tempting for them to renounce Jesus in order to save themselves from their immediate circumstances.  That's all this means.

There is a ton more to puzzle through here.  As this is Sunday morning, I just don't have the time.  I have already spent over 40 minutes and I'm on verse 1.  Got to just read it through now....
But one more thing....Look at how vs 4 ends.  This is all to help them when their hour comes.  To give them comfort as death draws near.  How does that tie with falling away or stumbling?  Is Jesus saying this is so they will hold fast to their testimony under torture all the way to the point of death.  To give them strength as they try to remain faithful as they are tortured to deny him at the end?  Does that make all this fit????  But...it says when "their" hour comes.  Hmm...Making progress but not quite there yet.

2022 - 1-4a go with the end of the previous chapter.  Jesus is telling them that the world is going to hate them.  But the Spirit will come - the Helper - and people will know in their hearts that Jesus is the one way, the only way.  The Spirit will "preach" that to all.  And the apostles - the 11 - are also going to preach Jesus in the world.  This is what draws the hatred.  Those who hate do so because they will not give themselves over to God and His teaching.  The Spirit will convict them of this attitude, and they will know their sin is great and their future is hell.  Instead of repentance they will decide on resentment, not only of the teaching of the Spirit but of all who decide to accept that preaching.  These people will truly hate.  These are the people we are seeing in this country today.  True haters, and hate is an emotion that requires no logic, no rationality to support it.  But here is the other side of it...the haters cannot win.  And this just makes them hate more.  The Spirit tells them they cannot win.  

2024 - I don't think this is about us today, except as a generality.  I mean, "we" today, are not likely to be thrown out of any synagogue.  He is obviously speaking to Jews.  Do we think this is meant for all Jews or the 11 Jews looking at him as he says these words?  It is really not that hard.  This continues the "pep talk" he has been giving them.  He is telling the 11 that the Jewish establishment of that day - that decade, that century, is going to oppose them to the point of trying to murder them, just as that same established authority conspired to have Jesus killed.  

Jesus' point to the apostles here is to warn them of the reception they will get.  For them, they are the source of the best news ever to reach mankind.  They do what they do out of love for others, even the worst of people.  Why wouldn't you expect to be welcomed with open arms for bringing such wonderful news?  But that is not what will happen.  In these first verses, Jesus tells them that not only will they be hated to the point of murder, but those who try and kill them will believe they are doing God a favor!  They will believe a greater reward awaits them BECAUSE they have murdered.  Then Jesus makes it plain that the murderers will NOT be rewarded, but are doomed to hell.  And again, Jesus is telling them that his prophecy of these events confirms that he is a prophet of God.  Only true prophets foretell.
Is there a FB post here - focused on that second paragraph, contrasting how those who speak the gospel characterize their work with how they are perceived in the world?  Will need a vs from Chapter 16...

2024 - Here is an interesting connection, an interesting situation that Jesus speaks to them about:
2 "They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. [Jhn 16:2 NASB95].  We can read this as "here's what they'll try to do to you, but an hour is coming for all of them.  And then we connect that to this verse:
4 "But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them. These things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you. [Jhn 16:4 NASB95]
How are we to see "their hour"?  Jesus wants the 11 to take heart in their darkest, most painful hours by remembering that Jesus told them things were going to get really bad.  They need not doubt in this hour that are doing the work of God, even though they are tortured to death for not renouncing Jesus.  Remember how the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus to see if he was really the one.  John, in prison, was having doubts about whether he had done the right thing, whether he had recognized the Lamb.  The 11 would know of this, and understand that though they might meet the same fate as John, they should persevere, because that hour that was coming to them had been prophesied by Jesus.

Beginning in vs 4b, Jesus talks more about the Holy Spirit.  He says it good for him to go, because then the Spirit will come.  Hmm...Jesus physical body limited him to some degree.  The Spirit is not so limited.   Jesus could be one place.  The Spirit, because it is spirit, has no such limitations.  Even angels are limited to one place, but God - the pure original Spirit - is unlimited.  That is only true of Him.

2022 - Why does Jesus have to go BEFORE the Spirit comes?  It is almost like their presence is mutually exclusive, but this cannot be the case.  The Spirit descended from heaven as a dove at Jesus Baptism, and the Father spoke from heaven.  So there is no restriction on both the Son and the Spirit being present on earth at the same time.  Note that it doesn't say the Spirit cannot come, but that he WILL NOT come.  MSB does not shine any light on the possible reasons for this.
Perhaps as long as the light of the world is in the world, all eyes, all commitment, all wisdom should be about the light.  Even when the Spirit does come, He will bear witness of Jesus.  We saw that in so many words at the end of Chapter 15.  The Spirit comes to testify as to the Son...but that is just not needed while the Son is present!  Perhaps that is why vs 5 starts with "I am going...". 
2023 - There is nothing in MSB about the "exclusionary presence" of Jesus wrt the Holy Spirit.

2022 - Here is the verse:
7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. [Jhn 16:7 ESV].
Note also that Jesus says HE will send the Spirit.  As Jesus submits himself to the Father, the Spirit submits to Jesus.  Jesus said the same thing back in vs 26.

The work of the Spirit:
8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. [Jhn 16:8-11 ESV]
At least three sermons there.  Maybe a whole month's worth.  So much contained here.  
Short version of MSB notes:
In 9, sin is singular.  The sin talked about is that of not believing in Jesus.  This is the only sin that damns.  Here is a proof text for unlimited atonement.  All sins paid for by Jesus' death except for denying Him.
In 10, self-righteous religion is in view.  God is not about following the rules and earning a place in heaven, but about loving and worshiping Him.
In 11, the world's "judgment" is unsound as evidenced by their sentencing Jesus to the cross.  
Convicts us of unbelief,  convinces us we cannot help ourselves, and corrects our reliance on earthly justice.  
Um hmm...I thought that would preach.

2022 - Based on the MSB notes, this verse sort of resolves the whole controversy over whether the atonement is limited or not.  It is unlimited in efficacy but limited in application.  The cross does not remove any sin unless and until the sin of rejecting Christ is overcome.  That happens only at salvation.  Only those whom God elects are saved.  If Christ is rejected, then a person will stand before God at the GWT and be accused of each and every sin.  And the weight of the sins will demand a sentence of eternity in hell, separated from God.  But for the saved, the question will not be about heaven or hell, but about rewards.  The heaven part will already be a done deal at the rapture.  For those who lived and died before the Law, there is no real sin, as God had not defined it.  They are judged only on whether they had faith.  Those born after the Law came...will be judged both by whether they had faith, and by whether they obeyed the Law.  The Law will surely convict all these, because no one can obey the whole Law.  But faith can overcome this failure, in the same way it was the key before the Law came.  

2022 - This verse:
14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. [Jhn 16:14 ESV].  The Spirit is to glorify the Son.  The Son glorifies the Father.  How was that verse worded though?  That's not really what it says is it...:
28 Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." [Jhn 12:28 ESV].  Even so, I think there are verses where Jesus says his purpose is to glorify the Father.
Hmm...there is a lot more to this concept of glorification than meets the eye.  Here are a few more verses:
23 And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. [Jhn 12:23 ESV]
31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. [Jhn 13:31-32 ESV]
8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. [Jhn 15:8 ESV]
4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. ... 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. [Jhn 17:4, 10 ESV]
NOTE that ALL these quotes are in John.  Does this mean that only John remembered these words?  Does it mean glorification was a concept not understood until after Pentecost when the Spirit taught it to them?  Couldn't be that, or surely Matthew would have mentioned it.  Why only John?  Does it have something to do with the Sect of the Baptist?  Is the Apostle really hammering on some belief of theirs that has to do with this glorification?  The words of Jesus recorded in John 14-17 appear only in John.  They have no corollary at all in the Synoptics.  How can that be...why only John?  And these glorification verses, 2 in John 12, the two consecutive in John 13, and those in Jesus' final instructions in John 15 and 17...NOT ONE of these has a corollary in the Synoptics.  The whole idea/concept/doctrine? appears only in John.

2022 - And in vs 15, once again we have Jesus giving an explanation of why he is saying things the way he says them.  I just think this too is only found in John - perhaps the Synoptics sometimes have an aside where the writer explains something, but do any of them have Jesus inserting an aside to explain his own words to the hearers?  I sure can't think of one.

This verse:
24 Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. [Jhn 16:24 ESV]
This is the third time now that Jesus has told them whatever they ask he will give.  There has to be more to this than just an admonition to pray.  But what???  I do not get this at all, yet I am sure it is important or Jesus wouldn't say it three separate times in these last words to his disciples?  What is this about????
See 14:13, 14,  then 15:7, and now 16:24.

2025 - Here is another observation about this.  Look at what comes before 16:24.  It goes all the way back to vs 17.  They question they want to ASK was "what is he talking about".  It is repeated in 18.  They are STILL ASKING what Jesus means.  In 19, Jesus addresses them and asks THEM what it is that they want to ASK HIM.  He gives them a long explanation about a woman forgetting her labor pains after the child is born as a metaphor for how they will feel after Jesus' resurrection.  And then vs 23:
23 "In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. [Jhn 16:23 NASB95].  From "that day" on, they will no longer ask Jesus questions when they don't understand.  They will ask the Father, and He - the Father - will give them to answers, and I think we can safely add through the Holy Spirit that is coming, since that is what Jesus started off talking about in vs 16.  So this is not about them asking for riches, asking for healing, it isn't about anything like that.  It is about asking for understanding, for clear revelation, for the interpretation of what the word means!  Wouldn't it be something if that's what it meant!?  So check the other two places:
3 "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, [there] you may be also. 4 "And you know the way where I am going." 5 Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" ... 8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." ... 14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do [it.] [Jhn 14:3-5, 8, 14 NASB95].  I have added more context here...note that Jesus, beginning in vs 1, is talking about going away.  He is talking about his departure after his resurrection.  He tells them that after he is gone, they will have direct access to the Father...NOT through the veil and sacrifice...and can ask the Father their questions!
Then last, in 15:7...what is going on there?
7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. [Jhn 15:7 NASB95].  This is about how they will bear fruit after Jesus is gone.  He is the vine, they are the branches.  Much about abiding one in the other, each in the other.  This one...not as clear to me that it is about scripture and interpretation and understanding of the word.  And yet...the words must abide in them, and the Spirit will abide in them, and so Jesus - the word - will abide in them through the Holy Spirit.  And in that way when they ask, they will receive.  Perhaps here it applies to what they will need to bear fruit...to physical things...but it may also be that they will be given the words to preach that lead to salvation, which is the fruit.
Then back to the current passage:
25 "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father. 26 "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. [Jhn 16:25-27 NASB95].  Jesus gave them words that they did not understand because they were figurative, representative, but they repeatedly failed to understand what he meant, and they either had to ask or were afraid to ask.  How many times have we seen them wanting to ask but afraid to do so?  Once the Spirit is present, they could ask anything at all without fear.  This is the power that shook the world, when these poor fisherman could ask anything about scripture and preach it, though they had not training at all!  They could answer the mysteries of centuries!
These verses are NOT about physical things, they are about how their education would continue after Jesus was gone, after only three years of his instruction on a whole new level.  They would still be able to ask, of the Spirit that the Father would send to answer the questions they asked of Him.

Need to look at this verse in more detail also, but time is getting too short:
29 His disciples said, "Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! [Jhn 16:29 ESV]
I don't see anything in the previous verses that is a big change from what had gone before.  So why do they suddenly say "Eureka!"?  

2022 - Vss 25-33.  Jesus first tells them that he has previously spoken in figures of speech.  Jesus says that at some point IN THE FUTURE he won't do that anymore but will speak plainly.  Surely we have to connect this with the Holy Spirit beginning on the day of Pentecost.  (or what about the road to Emmaeus and the other appearances of Jesus after the resurrection.  Hmm...I think I'm going with the teaching that Jesus knew he would do in the 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension.  During those days Jesus spoke quite plainly...and while we have hints of the things he said as the gospel writers show the connections between OT prophecy and the life and works and death of Jesus in the NT, we don't have the kind of record that John is giving us here of that last night.  But...do the rest of those verses make sense with that interpretation?  Because that would say that once Jesus is resurrected and talks to them, they will be able to ask anything they want, and Jesus will not have to ask the Father to reveal it to them, but will be able to answer plainly on his own. )

2022 - After Jesus talks, they say "Aha, now we get it!".  But Jesus response in vs 31b says no they didn't.  So my confusion about how all of a sudden they understood is no more confused than they were.  Why they would blurt out that they suddenly understood when they did not....is typical of the literal response of the apostles when Jesus was speaking entirely spiritually.  Jesus tells them they still have no idea, and because they don't, they will be easily scattered that night.  If they  understood the things that Jesus is soon going to tell them plainly, they wouldn't run away that night, because they would have full understanding of the events AS THEY  UNFOLD, rather than understanding them later.  No.  They still had no clue, despite their Eureka moment.

Chapter 17

Jesus prays...How can I not spend time on this!!?!??
2021-2, Starts with "When Jesus had spoken these words...", so the sense is that the previous chapters, from 13 on when they went into the upper room, have been his last instructions, last encouragement, last declarations to them.  He has said what he wanted to say, and now, in conclusion, Jesus prays for them.  Not some memorized prayer, not a prayer for the public to hear, but a prayer for them in every sense.

2022 - This opening verse:
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, [Jhn 17:1 ESV].  Here we are with the whole glorification theme again.  We saw in 16 that only John relates Jesus' use of this word at the end.  The word is transliterated "doxazo".
Here are the definitions for Strongs 1392.  This word means exactly what we think it means (despite the obviously UK spelling of the words!):
1. to think, suppose, be of opinion         
2.              to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate         
3.              to honour, do honour to, hold in honour         
4.              to make glorious, adorn with lustre, clothe with splendour         
5.                      to impart glory to something, render it excellent                 
6.                      to make renowned, render illustrious                 
    1.                              to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged                         
I do note that it is in the aorist tense, meaning that it's action is not "confined" to any specific time, past, present or future.  Glorification is a fact, but for me to keep trying to figure out at what exact moment it happened is incorrect.  Probably should have checked that in the other references too, and determined whether or not they are aorist.  It is also aorist in vs. 4.  Yes...I need to do a word study on John's uses of 1392 and see if it is pretty much always aorist.  I think in 4, taking the tense into account, that it is the complete work of Jesus, in following, obeying, and living a perfect life - for his whole life - that glorifies the Father.  It is not about right this second, it is about the cumulative effect of Jesus' obedient life that brings glory to the one he was, is, and will serve.  It is the whole we are talking about here, not the parts.

In 2, Jesus says the father has given him authority over all flesh.  2021-2, Beyond that, the Father has given Jesus "people", and Jesus can grant eternal life to those he has been given.  God has chosen those who will be saved.  Jesus has paid the price to save them, and because he died FOR them, it is his to bestow eternal life ON them.  It is interesting this sort of "division" in what each manifestation of the Trinity of God does, and why  it is that person of the Trinity that does it.  But note that always it is God the Father in heaven that bestows authority, responsibility, and so on.  In Him, the Father, all things originate.

In 3, eternal life is believing in BOTH the Father and the Son.
In 4, Jesus says he's done the work he was sent to do.  2021-2, Here again the work originated with the Father, and was accomplished by the Son.

In 5, Jesus says he's coming back to where he was, with the Father, BEFORE the world existed.  2021-2, Jesus was not "invented" to die on the cross.  He was there already.  The Godhead chose to exist as Trinity before the earth ever was.  Why?  God knows.  But that's how it was.  So when the time came, the plan for the redemption of man included God in all his persons, all His existence, so that all of God redeemed man.  It had to include all three persons to be complete.

2022 - Here is vs 5:
5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. [Jhn 17:5 ESV].  A couple of things here.  "Glorify" is aorist again, as in glorification exempt from time.  It does not mean "Ok, I'm finished with the job, so now glorify me...at a banquet."  No.  It means glorified in a time-encompassing way.  Note in the latter part of the verse that Jesus was glorified already, even before the world existed.  This ties right in with the aorist.  This is sort of how we used to view the life of say George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.  But now we only find fault.  I suppose many also try to find fault with Jesus.  The second thing is that Jesus uses the aorist imperative here.  Imperative means that it is a command.  Jesus is "telling God to do something".  How could he use that tense if he were anyone but God incarnate himself?  I think the use of this Greek "mood" is very telling.

2022 - Vs 6:
6 "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. [Jhn 17:6 ESV].  Manifested is aorist.  "whom you gave" is aorist.  "They were" is imperfect, while the following "you gave" is again aorist.  "They have kept", however, is in the perfect indicative.  The perfect tense means the action was completed in the past, and never needs doing again.  It's results are forever.  Note that all these aorists and imperfects are used to describe actions by God and Jesus, but the perfect tense - which is about something in the past - is applied to the apostles - who have kept the word.  How telling is that?  And how absolutely impossible to appreciate in English.  Our language is simply not able to convey the intricacy of what Jesus is saying.  English is an inferior language.  
Also, in what sense did Theos give Christos these people?  This is about a transfer of ownership.  In what sense?  We know that we are in the hands of Christ and that we cannot be snatched from his hands.  We are in him...perhaps in the sense that it is up to Jesus, as King of the spiritual kingdom now extant, to keep the former ruler of this world at bay until the rapture, when Jesus will bring us home to be with him, as promised.  We were previously in the hands of God, to keep us until the price was paid.  But now responsibility - and glory - are transferred to Jesus for his completed work.
(I have to leave and go eat with Bob.  After only six verses in 45 minutes.)

2022 - Back from breakfast.  This verse:
8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. [Jhn 17:8 ESV].  Look at the central importance of believing in Jesus that is contained in this short little verse.  We must realize that Jesus was not just a rabbi, not just a teacher, not just a man.  The things he said are to be understood as coming straight from God.  We have to recognize the source, and believe the words because of the source.  We have to understand that Jesus was not just some random special child, but was sent to the earth as a man.  He was sent by God the Father and to accomplish things and to say things that are move vital because they are spoken by a man.  All these things we must understand about who Jesus was.  And wrapped up in all this is also that the Father and the Son are one, but not one.  

vs 9, Jesus prays for the saved, not for everyone.  Back to limited atonement.  2021-2, Here is the verse:
9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. [Jhn 17:9 ESV].  There are two groups  here, specifically separated.  Jesus prays only for those whom God has given him.  God gave him those who would be saved.  Historically, God gave him those who had been saved.  God gave him Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and so on.  

2022 - This one:
10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. [Jhn 17:10 ESV].  That first "are" is present active indicative.  So it is about the present.  At the time Jesus spoke, all that was the Son's was the Father's AND all that were the Father's were his.  So...all those of the church age belong to Christ, all those before Christ belong to the Father.  And yet, in this verse, the ownership is mutually signed over to the other.  The right side of the equation says that all are now co-owned by both Father and Son.  That second "are" is really implied, not there as a word in the mGNT.  Might read better as "All mine are yours, and yours mine, and I am glorified in them."  It is probably the way it is because the KJV says "All mine are thine, and thine are mine."  Would be a little strange to read it as All thine are mine and mine thine.  See?  So all the translations inserted that extra "are" because it had to fit the KJV.  Then at the end of the verse, the second verb, "glorified", is perfect passive indicative.  Again, the perfect indicates an action completed in the past which does not need to be redone.  Jesus was already glorified.  Passive refers back to Jesus as the subject of the sentence AND receiver of the action of glorification.  Indicative means done deal.  It has already happened, though nothing is implied about when specifically it happened.

2021-2, This verse:
11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. [Jhn 17:11 ESV].  Jesus has not yet died, but surely something has changed.  Jesus says he is no longer in the world.  He came into the world, he's told us he did that.  He has done God's will in the world.  He has glorified God in the world.  He has kept those whom God gave him in the world.  But as of here, he is no longer in the world.  It would be nice to say that he has accomplished all he came to accomplish...but that isn't so is it?  He hasn't died yet, and he hasn't conquered the grave yet.  He still has a very trying time ahead of him.  So...what does this mean?  MSB says his death and resurrection were sure at this point, so sure that Jesus could speak of it as already done.  So...when was it not sure?  Why can he speak of it in this way now, but he couldn't before?  This is pretty mysterious to me.  And I don't think the MSB explanation is sufficient.  MSB does mention that when persecution and such starts against the followers of Jesus, Jesus will be gone.  He is praying for them "in that future time", and at that time, Jesus will be glorified in heaven with God.  He won't be with them.  So perhaps this is what is meant.  Because of the "human events fixed in time" that Jesus is concerned with where his followers are concerned, a "human time" when he will be in infinity with God where it is always timeless, he is conveying to them that he will be with them, but separated in a profound way.  It is because of this separation - a separation in time - that the Holy Spirit must come, and exist in time with us in order to help us, while Jesus remains with the Father in infinity.  
Yes...the tenses leave room for other interpretations, but I think this works pretty well.  At least it does for me!

2023 - This is interesting:  12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. [Jhn 17:12 ESV].  One was "lost".  Jesus is talking about keeping all those that God gave him, and he is asking God to look after them also, and Jesus states for the record that he kept them all...except this one, whom scripture demanded would be lost.  Can we understand this to mean that Judas indeed WAS saved?  How can he have been with Jesus for so long, heard the parables and their explanations - parables only the chosen were given the privilege of understanding - and still not been saved?  Or is Judas the one exception in all of time who actually was saved, but then lost his salvation, to the point that Satan could enter into him and betray the Son of Man?  If we keep this exception in mind, how do the controversial verses that some say show you can lose your salvation read?  Well yes, if losing your salvation is necessary for prophecy to be fulfilled, then yes, but that has only ever happened one time, and we are specifically told when that was and why it was and what it had to accomplish.  Is this what "may his office be given to another" is really about?  That Judas, as saved, had a role - had one of those heavenly thrones where the apostles will judge all Israel - and that office as judge had to be given to another???  Oh my...Wow.  

2022 - Or does it mean that Jesus is going to be very busy for the next few days, and in fact, as far as "present tense" is concerned, he will be dead for three days.  He will not be present on earth to "look after" those whom God has given him.  So he is asking God - in fact, he is using the imperative to demand of God - that during that time he is in the grave, God will need to take care of both his own, and those who belong to Christ.  Perhaps that is the reason for the "co-ownership" from this time.  Jesus "owns" them, and it is his decision to make this co-ownership, since all things are now given to him.  This is Jesus looking ahead to how he will "keep" his own while he is in the grave, and BEFORE the Holy Spirit comes.  This makes a kind of sense...I think it is on the right track.  But I just get the feeling that I am still missing a little something that ties it all together.  If vs 11 started with "when" instead of "And", this way of looking at it would make perfect sense.  Vs 11 starts with that very common little word "kai".  It shows up 18,000 times in the mGNT, and only 9,269 in the TR.  It is worth noting that the word is actually there.  Kai is there.  I read through the usage of this word in BLB, and there are many.  I think the one that best applies here is that kai connects something that went before with that which follows.  So if we see it as connecting the assertion in vs 10 - co-ownership - with the demand that follows - "Keep them in your name", then that part at least makes really good sense.  
And what an argument here that Jesus most certainly knew that he would rise again!  He has this three days when, as a MAN, he cannot effect any action on earth.  He needs God to "hold the fort" during that time.  But he also knows that after a short time, he will be able to resume earthly existence until the ascension, and THEN HE JESUS will send the Holy Spirit!  This is why Jesus is the one who sends the Spirit.  It is his spiritual kingdom, and he sends God's Spirit to implement those things that Jesus wants done...in the SAME WAY that Jesus, sent by the Father, does the physical things that need doing which are not God's to do.
I think when an interpretation ties so many loose ends together, it means that you are very close to the truth of the matter.
2023 - Also, while Jesus was physically here, he was offering the physical kingdom of God to the Jews.  They rejected the physical kingdom, Jesus, in the flesh, as Messiah.  So when Jesus is glorified, his is a spiritual kingdom on earth until all those he has been given are born and saved.  Rather than the physical body of Jesus as God present in what could have been a physical kingdom, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to be present with those spiritually his own and take care of them spiritually as Jesus took care of the 11 physically when he was here.  The Spirit is now here, sent by Jesus, to do in a spiritual way, the teaching, the instruction, the leading that Jesus did physically while he was here.  It is why Jesus sends the spirit.  And before Jesus?  God was in heaven.  There was only faith or direct communication from God to "a man" in all cases except the reciting of the 10.  No wonder it was imperfect!  Man always gets it wrong!  God saw that a physical presence was required, sending Jesus, who recognized that when he left a spiritual presence would be required, so he sent the Holy Spirit.  I think that all works pretty well.

2024 - Many phrases here tell us that Jesus is praying for the 11 that he is leaving behind.  This prayer is not for all who will ever be saved under the new covenant, but specifically about the 11 who will preach the New Covenant that saves the world.  
vs 6 - to the MEN you gave me out of the world.
7 - now they know.  "Know" is perfect tense, meaning it was COMPLETED in the past and continues always.  There was no more to be taught.  They KNOW.  
8 - they received them and truly understood.  These two are aorist.  Unstuck in time.
11 - I am not in the world but THEY ARE in the world.
12 - I guarded them, not one perished but Judas.  Aorist again.  Here is a further proof that back in 16 it was exclusively to the 11 that Jesus was speaking.  That one bore no fruit, and even though Judas was in the 12, he was removed.  But the rest need not worry for they are now clean.  All things are given to Christ, and Satan cannot take away any of the remaining 11 ever again.  Here in 17, Jesus' prayer is that they have the same kind of "perfect fellowship" with Christ as Christ has with the father.  They will speak only what they have heard from Jesus and Jesus speaks only what he has seen and heard from God.  This is not a universal verse for all the saved.  This is about the 11, and again, John is telling us this to show that it is the 11, exclusively, and NOT the Baptist, that are entrusted with the infallible word.  So undeniable.
17 - Sanctify them.  Surely about the 11.
18 - As You sent me I have sent them.  All aorist again!

2024 - I am not the only one who sees this in this way.  Paragraph title for vs 20 is "Christ prays for all believers.  Here, those in view expand from the 11 exclusively to all who will be saved.

2021-2, This verse, in connection with vs 11:
14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. [Jhn 17:14 ESV].
The saved are not of the world in God's view, because in infinity, we are already present with him.  We are "doing a few years" on earth as imperfect human beings, but in eternity we will have perfect bodies and minds and live in the glory of the Father and the Son.  The world hates us not just for what we stand for, but for the destiny we have in heaven as contrasted with their destiny in hell.
2023 - "hated" is in the aorist sense.  The hate is always present.  The saved of all time are hated in their time, across time, through time.

An interesting verse here:
15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. [Jhn 17:15 ESV]
We are to continue in the world, we are not protected FROM the world, but from the evil one.  God doesn't promise us an easy life on earth at all.  He promises to keep us out of the hands of Satan in eternity!
FB post?
2021-2, As Satan wanted to destroy Job, as he wanted to destroy Peter, and as he wants to destroy us all in general - that we might curse God and die as failures - is what is in view here.  He cannot remove us from salvation any more than he could remove Job.  But he might certainly make us like dogs returning to our vomit, so broken as Christians that we return to living an un-Christian life, as we did before, yet never, ever content with our lives.  Satan wants to do that to us, and Jesus is praying that God will prevent it.

2022 - Just look how much sense this makes when understood in light of the three days in the grave explanation above.  Jesus wants God to look after all that are his, but to look after them on earth, in the physical, he is not asking God to go ahead and take them all to heaven and look after them there.  

15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. ... 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. [Jhn 17:15, 24 ESV]
If the Father and the Son are one, how did the Father love himself before the foundation of the world?  I think Jesus means that God, in his infinite knowledge, knew all the possibilities of a person's character in the people he created, and God chose certain characteristics as desirable.  It is these characteristics, chosen by God Himself, that Jesus embodied in his time on earth.  Jesus is the perfect man, the "mold" that we are to emulate, to be made from.  Jesus is God, and so these characteristics are in God, and they are the way, therefore, that defines perfection.  Jesus is who God would be if God was made into a man.  And indeed, that is the fact of the whole thing.  But in perfection, God, as Spirit, could not associate with sin....I give up.  I cannot explain the Trinity.  But there might be a nugget or two in this paragraph that moves me a little closer to understanding it.

2022 - 20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, [Jhn 17:20 ESV].  Those yet to come - you and me - are be included in the Kingdom just as those apostles in the upper room.  All those whom Jesus has converted are in view in the prayer, are in view as mutually owned, and as needing God's protection while Jesus is dead.  But then Jesus asks that as God accepts co-ownership of those, he also accept co-ownership of the spiritual children that result from their witness down through time.  This is the "adoption" spoken of so often by Paul.  God also owned the Apostles, as Jesus did.  And God also owns us, in that we have been born of the witness of those men in those days.  Wow...

John 18, 19

John Chapter 18
This picks up at the end of Jesus' prayer for his disciples in the upper room.
2021-2,  At the end of Chapter 14, Jesus says "Rise, let us go from here."  Now, at the beginning of 18, John tells us they "went out" after the prayer.  Why would they have stayed all that time between these two phrases?  Or did they?  Perhaps the Upper Room had a dining room and another room, and they went in there for a bit before leaving.  I guess it really isn't that big a deal...
They go out, cross Kidron, and arrive at Gethsemane.  Judas knows the place, and shows up there with "a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees".  They had lanterns, torches, and weapons.  Here is the verse:
3 So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. [Jhn 18:3 ESV]
2021 - So in John's gospel, the Pharisees are there, too.  John puts them in the Garden at the arrest but he doesn't mention them again after that.  No....it does not say the Pharisees are there.  It says some officers from them are there.  The Temple Guards are a good possibility here, the same guards that refused to arrest Jesus when they were sent to the Temple to get him.  Some officers of that guard.  So after reading this, I don't think any chief priests or elders were there at the arrest either.  It was the Temple guards - all Jewish, some of their officers, a mob of rabble, and Judas.  That is who made the arrest.  That's why Jesus asks why they didn't just arrest him in the temple!  Going back and re-reading about the arrest in all four gospels, they all say that Judas arrived with an armed "multitude" in Mark, with an armed "great multitude" in Matthew, a "multitude" in Luke, and armed "soldiers and officers" in John.  Matthew and Mark say these were sent from the chief priests and elders.   Luke doesn't say who sent them.  John says chief priests and Pharisees sent them.  So there it is all laid out.  I think this is the right way to understand it.  The Chief Priests, Elders and Pharisees (Scribes would have had not authority here) decide the time has come to arrest Jesus - in the middle of the night.  They call some officers of the Temple Guard, and tell them to get some soldiers and go arrest Jesus.  Could have been others around, but it could also be that as the soldiers marched through the streets on their way to get Jesus that a mob fell in behind and went with them, taking up whatever weapons they could, thinking they would "help out" the Temple guards since this must be a matter of importance to the Jews.  Imagine this rabble...they were still out in the middle of the night, likely drunk, with no idea where they were going, but excited about the opportunity to commit some violence.  When they got to the garden, they probably didn't even recognize who was being taken.  Not like they had street lights.  And this is who came to arrest Jesus.  Soldiers and drunks with weapons.  
2022 - Look closely at vs 3...Judas procured those soldiers from the chief priests and the Pharisees.  Since when have Roman soldiers been at the beck and call of ANY Jew?  It was not Roman soldiers who arrested Jesus.  It just could not have been.

2024 - I think it is that word "cohort" that implies Roman soldiers.  I see no way at all that Roman soldiers would have been under the command of the temple guards.  Cohort is used in NASB95. ESV says "a band of soldiers".  That's really my only argument, I don't know enough Greek to argue on that basis.  There are places where we are obviously talking about Roman soldiers - a contingent of Romans about squad size, as in Acts 10:1, where Cornelius is a Centurion over a cohort.  But in context, I don't see that meaning here.  

2022 - This one:
4 Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" [Jhn 18:4 ESV].
Here is another instance of John explaining what is going on to us in a sort of aside.

Well...MSB note on John 18:3 says the soldiers with Judas were a Roman cohort.  Why would the Romans go with him???  The NASB actually translates it "having received the Roman cohort".  Roman is italicized in NASB, perhaps to say that all the original text really says is "cohort".  Why then would we think it was Roman?  They don't even know about this arrest!  I think this was a cohort of the Temple guard.  I looked at the interlinear.  The word Roman is not there.  It says Judas had obtained a "speira".  It is used only 7 times in the KJV and is translated "band" each and every time.  Not cohort.  There's quite a bit more on the word in the BLB interlinear, but I don't see anything there that nails it down as always and only a Roman Cohort.  I will therefore maintain that there were no Roman soldiers present...and move on!

John says nothing about a kiss.  Nothing at all.  In John's description, Jesus goes forward and asks the soldiers who they came for.  They say Jesus of Nazareth.  Jesus answers "I am he".  The power of his words causes them to "draw back and fall to the ground".  2021 - I suspect that the phrase "I am he" correlates all the way back to the OT phrase "I am that I am".  I think only John tells us this.  

2021-2, He says "ego eimi", the very same phrase that caused the Pharisees to pick up stones to kill him earlier.  This is an unmistakable declaration.  
2022 - This is the sentence without a predicate.  All it says is "I am..."  The "he" that we see in English versions is not actually there.  It is only implied.  "ego eimi" without a predicate must be equivalent to the Hebrew phrase "I am" has sent me that God gave to Moses.  

This exchange is repeated after they all stand back up.  Jesus asks that those with him be allowed to leave since it is just him that they came for.  John says this was scripture fulfilled:
9 This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: "Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one." [Jhn 18:9 ESV]
This verse is ONLY about the 11, and though Jesus said it many times (Jn 6:39, 40, and 44; 10:28; and 17:12) all are in the New Testament.  John says this is Jesus keeping his promise to them.  It does not refer back to any OT prophecy.
2023 - So the entry yesterday - or least my thought yesterday - where in Jesus' prayer he says he has kept all BUT ONE - is first about the apostles. About the 12.  And that one had to be lost because OT prophecy said he would be betrayed by one of his own.  And no matter what about perseverance, no one betrays the Son of Man and still gets into heaven.  So this verse confirms that "lost salvation" is only about the 12.  And again, we have to wonder how much of what Jesus has said in 13-18 is about JUST the 12 and how much is for all of us.

2024 - If John tells us specifically, categorically that Jesus asked that the others be allowed to leave to fulfill the prophecy that he would lose none of those given to him, then this is not about losing salvation at all.  These 11 are the "successors" of Jesus in bringing the good news to the world.  God gave them to him for that purpose, and in his own power he has kept Satan from undoing any of the others as he has undone Judas.  Not only does Jesus not lose them here, but they are faithful unto death - all of them - and the "endure to the end".  These 11 do that, as history shows us.  This is not at all about perseverance of the saints in Calvinistic terms.  It is about the 11.  I have never been as "certain" of this concept as now.  I expect a lot of things Jesus said will need to be understood differently once this is accepted as the correct interpretation.

2021 - Reading the MSB notes, Jesus has used this phrase before to indicate that he was God.  The phrase carried power and knocked everyone down.  This should have gotten the attention of everyone present - even the drunks.  MSB says Jesus asked them twice who they were after to establish with certainty that they were not after the disciples.  So he asked them twice, and he demonstrated that they ought to pay real close attention.  Had some or all of the disciples been arrested also, they too might have been crucified or killed by the mob.  So Jesus is making certain that the prophecy mentioned in Jn 18:9 is fulfilled.  This verse was NEVER about perseverance of the saints.

2022 - This verse:
12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. [Jhn 18:12 ESV].  Hmm...a "band" of soldiers and their captain...and then separately the officers of the Jews.  Once again, it is the word "speira" that is translated "Roman cohort".  Here are the possibilities as found in BLB for Strong's G4686:
1. anything rolled into a circle or ball, anything wound, rolled up, folded together
2. a military cohort
    1. the tenth part of legion
        1. about 600 men i.e. legionaries
        2. if auxiliaries either 500 or 1000
        3. a maniple, or the thirtieth part of a legion
    2. any band, company, or detachment, of soldiers
It looks to me like we have to choose whether these were Romans or not.  The word was apparently commonly used to describe various assemblies of Roman soldiers.  Likely that was even the most common use.  But I still have a big problem with a Roman speira being assigned to the command of the Jews in the middle of the night.  I think we ought to read it as shown in 2.2 above.  ANY detachment of soldiers.  Back is Jn 7.32, they sent "the Pharisee's officers" to arrest Jesus, and when they come back without him, in Jn 7:45, they are still called officers.  You can't (or at least you don't) have officers who command no one.  There had to be soldiers - there had to be "bands, companies, and/or detachments" of soldiers that these officers commanded.  In 7, they were still trying to be low key, so they only sent the officers.  In the garden in the middle of the night, they sent a whole detachment.  After all, Jesus was known always to have the 12 with him, and very often he was surrounded by disciples.  They  had to assume there would be resistance.  These were not Romans.  It is a mistranslation.
But...if I say that, am I not saying there are errors in the Bible?  NO!  God forbid!  There can be errors in translation.  The original Greek text does NOT say Romans, and I do not think it should have been translated that way.  And how about this...here is the KJV:
3 Judas then, having received a band [of men] and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. [Jhn 18:3 KJV].  This is the right translation.  KJV doesn't even "assume" they were men.  What it says is "speira".  Some soldiers.

Later the same day, 2022.  I continued to look at this passage.  There is almost no difference in the TR and the mGNT on this verse.  The works "ek ton" are used twice in the mGNT, and only once in the TR.  The first time they are used in the mGNT, the are translated "from the".  A simple conjunction and a definite article.  So leaving them out certainly does not do away with the possibility that they mean Roman cohort instead of band of soldiers. I found that the NLT, the LSB, and the two versions of the NASB are the only ones who make this a Roman thing.  None of the Synoptics use the word "speira" at all.  They all use some form of "ochlos" which means crowd.  The Synoptics don't tell us that any soldiers were present at all, nor do they specifically say that none were there.  Matthew uses "ochlos" also.  No mention of soldiers, just a crowd.  Same with Mark.  "Ochlos" is the word.  So why am I making such a big deal about this?  Because this is a fine example of the difference between translations and interpretations.  Translations, as much as possible, do a word by word translation, and work very hard at not adding anything to the text that isn't certainly there.  So when the four "interpretive" Bibles referenced above say a cohort of Roman soldiers, they introduce all kinds of things into this story that are not there.  They  have Jewish religious officials ordering Roman troops around in the middle of the night.  That means we have Romans conspiring with Jews to arrest Jesus before the fact.  Certainly Herod's and Pilate's actions and words indicate that there was no love lost at all between these two groups.  Why also did these Roman troops, after arresting Jesus, allow him to be taken to the back yard of the high priest's son, rather than to a Roman holding cell until morning?  Just look at the mess we have put the "Bible" in if we interpret instead of translate.
Now, let's think about what is going on in the SBC since the meeting in Anaheim.  Let's start with what these verses mean?  
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. [1Ti 2:12 ESV].  Interestingly, every Bible available to me, including the four mentioned above, put this the same way.
What does this one mean?
2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [1Ti 3:2 ESV].  Can any divorced man be above reproach?
Did you know that the English word pastor does not appear in the NT in either the KJV or the ESV?  It shows up a lot in the Spanish translation - the RVR60.  It shows up 13 times in 12 verses in this version.  There, it is the translation of the Greek word "poimen", which is a masculine noun meaning herdsman or shepherd.  In fact, everywhere RVR60 has the word pastor, the mGNT has shepherd.  Every time.  Every time it is "poimen".  Every time it is a masculine noun.  It ALWAYS refers either to shepherd as a metaphor, or when specific, it refers to Jesus himself as the Good Shepherd.  There is only this verse that allows for any wiggle room on "pastors":
25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. [1Pe 2:25 ESV].  This is obviously a reference specifically to Jesus, and is not about "qualifications" for any office.  The word here translated Overseer is the Greek "episkopos".  It is also sometimes translated Bishop.  So if you want to debate the meaning of the word "Pastor", as used by the church, and whether or not in might include women, this is the only place you can connect it at all to a discussion of church officials.  You have to take it out of context, where it specifically refers to Jesus and ONLY Jesus, and you have to say that because it is the same sentence with Shepherd and has the word "and" in between poimen (which is Spanish Bibles is the word pastor) and episkopos - and you declare that the two are now equivalent - so poimen means the same as episkopos, and then you have to note that episkopos is sometimes used of church offices, that means that a pastor and an episkopos is the same thing, so we can look at where and how "episkopos" is used in order to determine whether or not it is ok to give women the title of pastor as it applies to women's positions in the church.  And we have to do ignore that the NT NEVER translates episkopos - even in the RVR60, as pastor.  Never ever not even once in any version of the Bible.
This is surely shaky ground.
So what I predict will happen is that the committee studying whether or not the "title" pastor can be given to a woman will say that the Bible does not address it at all.  They will say that Pastor, as a title, is an invention of the early church, and that it came into wider and wider use in some early century AD.  And then they will say that because the early church did it, and they were closer to the source material than we are, then since we have one place where we think that maybe this one church had a woman "pastor", then it is ok for everybody everywhere today to apply the title pastor to women.
In the church that I go to, we already are giving the title of "Teacher" to women in xx classes.  Bot back up and look at 1Ti 2:12, where ALL translations agree on what it says.  If our church will bend that inarguable verse to let women teach men, then just how big a problem do you think they are going to have with women pastors?  And how long until we go from there to women preachers in the SBC.  
This is all about interpretation.  It has never been about translation.  Translations are as close as English can get to the oldest copies of scripture that we have - which are in Greek for the NT.  And even here, "word for word" is often impossible to do in a way that makes any sense at all, and we know the word makes sense.  
(((Note also that the "overseer", the episkopos in 1Ti 3:2, must be the husband of one wife.  So if an episkopos is a pastor, then the episkopos must have a wife.  Pretty sure that doesn't mean it is ok for a woman to marry a woman, and be an overseer.)))
The only way to stay true to the word is to translate, and NEVER EVER to interpret!  In the Bible, women are never to be in authority over men IN THE CHURCH.  At home, we all know what happens, but NOT at church.  If we exclusively translate, and never "add" to what is there by reinterpreting what the word meant when it was written by the original author, and we ALWAYS consider context, and the weight of other translated scripture on the one we are trying to understand, we will not get into any trouble.  We get into trouble when we try to decide how Paul would write it if he were living in our century instead of in the century when he did in fact do his writing.  And that is called interpretation.  We ought to all be pretty informed about how that works since we are not today in a recession!!!!

Jesus is taken to the house of Annas, father-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas who was high priest that year.  But they took him to a residence.  Just a house.  He was not taken to jail or to court at this hour.  He was in the hands of a mob in a rich man's back yard, with no hope of outside help to stop this injustice.  But he knew this when he surrendered to them. 

As I read it, John was recognizable by the high priest.  So he went on into the courtyard with Jesus.  Seems as if the high priest was being careful as to just who got into the yard and could testify to the events there.  Peter was not let in.  But John sent word to a servant girl to open the gate for Peter.  She was being careful not to let anyone in who was loyal to Jesus.  So she asks Peter if he is a follower of Jesus, and Peter says no.  Looked at several other translations.  All make it clear that he would not have gotten inside if he had admitted to being a disciple.  Maybe this is how he justified denying Christ.  He wanted to get in and see what was happening.  To be closer by denying, however, may be a very poor strategy.  To "win some" by joining the other team is not a good strategy.  Think of the implications.  Peter purposely associated himself with the crowd in order to get in and see what was going to happen.  How many churches try to make themselves appear secular in order to reach a larger audience?  Is this the same thing, or is it qualitatively different?  

Then this verse:  
18 Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. [Jhn 18:18 ESV]
This is phrased as if Peter was over by the fire with the bad guys, but John was not with them.  John was standing elsewhere?  Apart, in the cold, exposing himself to accusation or questioning?  Taking a stand apart?

After being questioned by Annas, Jesus is sent bound to the high priest Caiaphas.  As this occurs, Peter is still by the fire, and again he is questioned about his association with Jesus.  Again, in order to remain where he is, Peter denies any association with Jesus.  This time, he is likely thinking that if they find out as he stands among them, they might take direct action against him.  So this denial is not aimed at getting closer to events, but is protecting his own skin.  But then an eye witness, a relative of Malchus, says he actually saw Peter with Jesus in the garden that very night.  Peter's third denial is the most incriminating yet.  He lies to an eye witness.  He is found out at this point.  They had to know he was lying, and that he was in fact a disloyal, cowardly disciple.  He was an abject failure of a disciple at this point.  This is when the rooster crowed.

So he lied to get in, he lied to stay warm, and then he lied to stay hidden.  This will preach.
Also, he lied to get in, he lied to stay in, he lied to stay hidden.  The clear and unmistakable indication is that Peter WAS a disciple, but that he was weak, and concerned at this time with himself more than with eternity.  But there is never an indication at all that he "disowned" Jesus.  He never renounced his citizenship.  He just claimed to be Canadian instead of American.  Maybe that is the key.  Claiming to be from Canada may keep you alive to fight another day.  It feels, it looks cowardly and wrong, but it keeps you alive.  And in Peter's case, it was forgivable.

Jesus is taken from Caiaphas' house to Pilate.  Pilate tells them not to bother him, but to judge Jesus by their own laws.  But they reply that Roman law precludes their putting him to death.  There is a very interesting note in MSB about this.  Jesus had predicted that in death, he would be raised up or lifted up.  If the Jews executed him, he would be thrown down and stoned to death.  They may have preferred that Jesus be crucified because of this verse:
23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance. [Deu 21:23 ESV]  So their plan may have been to bring God's curse on Jesus because he stayed on the cross all night.  But Jesus dies in daylight, and Joseph takes his body down before nightfall.  Every part of their plotting was foiled.

There is a lot of detail in vss 33-38 about Pilate's "private" questioning of Jesus.  This is written as if it was done away from the screaming crowd, back inside Pilate's grounds someplace.  This is verified in vs 38b, where it says Pilate "...went back outside".  So who recorded the private questioning of Jesus?  How do we know what was said there?  John would not have been in there.  Where did John get the information?

Pilate offers Jesus, the people demand Barabbas instead.  What a malleable mob they are.  They accept as fact the lying conspiracies of the elite.  Sound like anything else we know about?


Chapter 19
2021 - I am just reading right on through this chapter, but for my own future reference, I note that John gives us a LOT of detail about what was actually said during the trials of Jesus on this day.  He tells us a lot about the verbal strategies that went back and forth - on the part of the Jews it was aimed at manipulating Pilate to crucify an innocent man, and on the part of Pilate, to find a path for saving an innocent man that he was somewhat afraid of without inciting a city-wide riot while Herod was in town.  So...that's another good question...why was Herod there at this time if he had no authority over Judea?  There is a lot more to be understood about these events, it is just too much for one morning....so next time....
2022 - I note also that 19 is pretty much an historical narration of events.  There are lessons here, perhaps, but not in the same vein as 14-18.

John says it was now, after the second questioning by Pilate, that they put the thorny crown on his head, flogged him, and mocked him.  Even after this, Pilate tries repeatedly to release Jesus, to dissuade the crowd of their plans, to give Jesus back to them so they can crucify him themselves.  He wants no part of it.  Yet in the end, he agrees.  Jesus had told him that those who delivered him to Pilate in the first place had the greater sin in his death.  Perhaps this eased Pilate's conscience a bit.  But he should have noted that a lesser sin is still very much a sin.  A lesser part of murder is still murder.

2022 - This verse:
5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" [Jhn 19:5 ESV]
I do not note this verse as an apologetic for Pilate, but to understand the dynamics of this interaction between the religious and the civil governments.  Pilate has Jesus brought out dressed up, beat up, and humiliated to show these people that he was no threat to anyone.  Pilate is mocking the claims of the religious elite that Jesus was a threat to take over as King of Judea.  Pilate wants to show them that Jesus is nothing at all.  Especially not a good insurrectionist.  That's what this was about.  That, and John making it clear that it was not Rome that wanted Jesus dead, it was the Jews.  Rome was in this case used as a tool to accomplish the will of the Jewish religious leaders.

2022 - Then this:
8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. [Jhn 19:8 ESV].  Isn't that something.  Pilate was more open to the idea that Jesus really was the Son of God than were those Jesus came to save!  

2022 - This one:
11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin." [Jhn 19:11 ESV].  I think Jesus is pointing at Judas here.  Judas was worse than Pilate.  And I think Jesus has Caiaphus, Annas, and their co-conspirators in view.  They are all guilty.  And I think Jesus has all Israel in view.  He came unto his own...and they had him killed, as so many prophets before him were killed.  Jesus is telling Pilate that these events are directed by God, part of his plan, and that God has empowered Pilate to do what must be done.  Some might see this almost as an exoneration for what is about to happen.  But Pilate is no more off the hook for his actions than was Judas.  These events had to happen.  Just the same, these people were the perpetrators of heinous acts.  No matter the causes and motivations, no matter their actions were pre-determined.  They did these things, as men, and they are guilty before God for all that they did. This is a principal and ought to still apply in our justice system today.  I don't care about where you grew up, how your parents treated you, or what you had to do to survive.  You did the crime, you alone bear the punishment for it.

2021 - This verse sort of sums it all up:
12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar." [Jhn 19:12 ESV].  At the end of the day, civil government is controlled by politics.  Those are the ultimate considerations.  Perhaps only Caesar himself was free of this constraint.  Both Pilate and Herod answered to higher authorities, and had to keep order to stay in power, had to comply at least somewhat with the demands of their subjects or be removed.  No one wants to give up power and authority once they have it.  No one wants to be humbled, disgraced, "removed", fired.  And the higher up one is, the more repulsive the idea of falling, and the more one is willing to do despicable things to stay in power.  It makes people compromise everything.
Possible FB post.

2022 - This verse, with many interesting terms:
13 So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic Gabbatha. [Jhn 19:13 ESV].

The word translated judgment seat is "bema".  Below is a better explanation for the other two labels than I can give.

1.              Gabbatha = "elevated or a platform"         
   1.                      a raised place, elevation                 
       "This place, in the Greek tongue, was called 'Lithostrotos'; or 'the pavement of stones', as the Syriac version renders it: it is thought to be the room 'Gazith', in which the sanhedrin sat in the temple when they tried capital causes; and it was so called, because it was paved with smooth, square, hewn stones: it was in the north part; half of it was holy, and half of it common; and it had two doors, one for that part which was holy, and another for that which was common; and in that half which was common the sanhedrin sat." (John Gill—Comments on Jhn 19:13)
                               "The word for 'Pavement' is found nowhere else in the New Testament [outside of Jhn 19:13],  but its Hebrew equivalent occurs just once in the Old Testament, and it  is evident that the Holy Spirit would have us link the two passages  together. In 2Ki 16:17  we read, 'King Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases, and removed the  laver from off them; and took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that  were under it, and put it upon a pavement of stones.' In Ahaz's  case, his act was the conclusive token of his surrender to abject  apostasy. So here of Pilate coming down to the level of the apostate Jews. In the former case it was a Jewish ruler dominated by a Gentile  idolater; in the latter, a Gentile idolater dominated by Jews who had  rejected their Messiah!" (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, p. 1038)             
Here is an interesting thought though...most explanations of the bema seat judgment say that sin is not in view there, because the bema seat was where athletic events were judged, and things like 1st place, 2nd place and so on were awarded.  No condemnation, just a place of ranking.  But now, we have a bema in a place where no athletic events ever take place.  Gill says that the sanhedrin pronounced death sentences from this seat.  That goes far beyond the concept of ranking.  So wouldn't it be true to say that simplifying "bema" to ranking, without a really good reason to do so, is oversimplification, and may exclude possibilities that ought to still be in there?  There is, after all, no denying that Jesus was sentenced to the cross from a "bema seat".

2023 - Using this reference, Strong's G968 - bema - is used only 12 times in the NT.  All can be accessed here.  I want to do a full on review of each and every time it is used, and compare and contrast the kind of judgment that was rendered there - if such was the case - or what other circumstances prevailed.  The longer I study the "bema seat judgment" the more convince I am that it is NOT separate from the Pre-Millennial and the GWT, but takes place instead at one of those.  And the obvious choice is the GWT.  I just do not see anything but "very stretchy" indications of a separate bema seat judgment.  

John says four women were standing near the cross - not at a distance observing as the women in Luke were described.  These four were Mary his mother, Mary's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
2022 - Actually, he does not say "four".  Here is the verse:
25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [Jhn 19:25 ESV].  It could be that Jesus' mother's sister was the wife of Clopas, in which case there were only three women.  And John.  He was standing there with them.  No other disciple, so far as we know, was down there at the very foot of the cross.

2024 - If three, all three were named Mary, and Mary had a sister named Mary.  This seems unlikely to me.  I say four, and Mary's sister is unnamed.

2023 - Remember also that John is writing about a "moment".  About a time when it was just himself and these women.  That does not preclude that some of them left to talk to other women further away and perhaps some of these, and others, came down later to comfort Mary, but could not bear to stay very long.  You have to "feel" the horror of the foot of that cross.  There were three naked men nailed to crosses down there.  Naked means naked.  The thieves were cursing and shouting in their suffering, using language no one wants to hear.  There were Roman guards there - common guards - who were likely used to dishing out cruel treatment for no reason at all.  It would have been a hard, a brave thing to be down there at the foot of the cross...and if you got yourself down there in empathy for Mary and grief for Jesus, you might not stay long.  Just like it is difficult to stay in the room with someone in the hospital, when you know that each breath may be their last.  It's a hard thing.

2023 - Looking at the Greek, I think one would be hard pressed to be sure who was here.  We can be sure there were at least three, and at most four women.  I don't know Greek, but it looks to me like either of the other two Mary's, or the fourth woman, the only one NOT named Mary, might have been the wife of Clopas.  The Greek word "kai" meaning "and" appears twice in this verse.  So that might mean Mary Jesus' mother and her sister, Mary Clopas' wife and Mary Magdalene.  To get it down to just three, Mary Jesus' mother has to have a sister also named Mary.  I don't know enough about how they did things back then to assign a probability to this.  It didn't happen with men that I can tell, but I am not sure it can even be evaluated accurately.  I'm going with four women, remembering that not all had to be there at the same time, and all of them might have been there at different times, maybe just one at a time to comfort Mary.  I would bet there are papers written advancing reasons to believe it is this way or that way, and still, we cannot know precisely how it went.

2024 - I wonder...Could it be that Clopas was in fact Mary's brother, and Clopas' wife, Mary's sister-in-law, was also named Mary?  I don't know if they did such things in Greek...but that would make it three women, all named Mary, and no weirdness with two Mary's in the same family.
       
John says Jesus left bearing his own cross.  Simon comes in later apparently.  But John does not mention Simon at all.  

Only John tells us what Jesus said to Mary and John from the cross, and only John tells us he said "I thirst", and that it fulfilled scripture.  After all, John was standing right there at the foot of the cross.  The other writers were far away at best.

John describes the breaking of the thieves' legs, but notes that Jesus was already dead.  John also tells us about the spear.  He would surely have heard this part from Mary, since he took her into his own house after Jesus died.  John may have gotten a number of details from Mary over the years.  And, even more obviously, John was standing right there with Mary, right at the foot of the cross, when all these things happened.  Maybe he and Mary were allowed into Pilate's inner chambers also, as Jesus was questioned.  This would make some sense.

John says that Joseph asked for the body, took it down, and wrapped it in linen.  But he also adds that Nicodemus came and brought 75 pounds of mixed myrrh and aloes, and bound Jesus in the linen with the spices.  None of the others imply that this happened.  Mary and John, though, may have been right there and known first hand how the body was handled.  As John's gospel is written much later, this may have been the first time these details were repeated.

2022 - This verse:
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. [Jhn 19:41 ESV].  Does this not imply that Golgotha was very near the tomb?  Did a quick search on Google maps and then Duck Duck Go.  Not much available on where Golgotha was.  So hard to say it was near Gethsemane.  We always picture Golgotha as a hill.  Why?  Do we know that?  "A hill called Mt. Calvary"?  Where did that come from?  
In the Harmony, there is a footnote that says Golgotha means "skull" in Aramaic, and Calvary means "skull" in Latin.  The Harmony footnote goes on to say that the "Church of the Holy Sepulchre" cannot have been Golgotha, because it is well within the city walls.  It goes on to say that there is growing agreement that it was the north end of the Temple hill, whose rounded summit and southern face with holes in the rock, looks at a little distance much like a skull.  "This place fulfills all the conditions".  And I suppose it would, since Gethsemane is just right there.  So that would mean that Jesus died very near the place where Abraham laid Isaac, where the death angel stopped in David's Day, and where Solomon built the Temple.  That would be very...satisfying...if all those things happened at that same place.
But why do we think it had to be on a hill?  I didn't find anything in any of the gospels that indicate it was on a hill.  I would think it more likely to be near a road so passersby could see and respect the authority of Rome because it was in their power to crucify.

2023 -


I found this map, and many others, by Googling "Jerusalem in the Time of Christ", and choosing "maps".  This one was at https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Jerusalem+in+the+time+of+Christ&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conformingtojesus.com%2Fimages%2Fwebpages%2Fjerusalem_in_jesus_time_map_1.jpg
Note that two places are identified as possibly the site of the crucifixion.  One on the west, the other on the north.  No one put Calvary on the east side between the temple and Gethsemane.  I don't know where the "Garden Tomb" they show tourists to Jerusalem is located.  Jesus was the scapegoat.  The sins of all mankind were laid on him, as on the scapegoat, and he was "run out of camp" to the wilderness.  No scripture says Jesus was crucified on a hill.  This seems to favor the west or north location, both of which are in sight of a nearby road.  I would really like to go there, and decide for myself based on first hand information, which spot seems more likely to me, realizing that we really do not know.  
Here is another thing.  On the east side of Jerusalem is the Kidron Valley.  That is where all the false gods, idols, Asherim and so forth were taken to be burned and discarded.  I don't think that's where they'd have taken Jesus to be crucified.  More as the scapegoat than as an idol.

​

2025 - Let's put a few items together...First, John tells us that this new tomb was "nearby".  Since there was a tomb there - and it was meant for someone's burial - it would have been part of an existing cemetery.  Were Gethsemane and the Mount of Olives already a cemetery at that time, or did that come later, after the NT was written?  Here is another interesting verse:  47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. [Mar 15:47 ESV].  Why would Mark tell us this?  Why was it important?  Perhaps because Jesus was laid in a tomb of nearby convenience and not in a tomb in the "usual" cemetery.  Because he wasn't put to rest in the cemetery where those of the 1st Quarter, or even the second, were buried, but in a place where the outliers of that city at that time were buried.  A secondary cemetery, near the road where crucifixions took place.  I don't think it tells us anywhere that the tomb belonged to either Joseph of Arimithea (why would he have had a tomb in Jerusalem anyway, he was from Arimathea?) or to Nicodemus, who was a rich man, part of the council, and who would have had a nice central spot in the main cemetery of Jerusalem.  There is much to say that Jesus was never buried in the "garden tomb" that so many are shown these days.  That is not where I would go and look.
2025 - Hmm...I pulled up Google Earth and looked at the locations of both the Garden Tomb, popular with tourists, and of the Church of the Sepulchre.  Neither of these places is East of the Temple on the Mt. of Olives.  So I had that completely and utterly wrong.  No one apparently thinks the Tomb was over there.  Comparing the map above with Google Earth, matching scales and then measuring from the current Temple Mount to the two sites shown as possible locations of Jesus' tomb on the map above, I would say either could be correct.  We might really  know...which is amazing to me.  We really might know where he was buried, and it really does fit with what we know today about the Temple Mount, the Mt. of Olives, and where crucifixion would likely have taken place.

John 20, 21

John Chapter 20
The Morning of the Resurrection
19 ended at Jesus burial.  20 starts at dawn on the first day of the week.  John only mentions Mary Magdalene going to the tomb, seeing the stone moved, and running back to tell Peter and John.  No others are mentioned.  And remember that it is John recording these events.  When she tells them, she said "we" don't know where the body has been moved to.  

2024 - In my NASB95 there is an asterisk before was and another before saw in the phrase "was still dark and saw".  There is no explanation for these marks.  In BLB, these asterisks show up again, but again there is no explanation for why they are there???   Both these verbs appear in exactly the same form in the mGNT and the TR.  Why then are the asterisks there?  They asterisks do not appear in the ESV.
2024 - Found it!!!  Pages xxxi through xxxiv, at the beginning of the MSB, have explanations I should have already known and memorized as to italics, superior numbers, superior letters and so on.  Here is what it says about asterisks, and they are sort of a big deal:
Asterisks are used to mark verbs that are historical presents in the Greek which have been translated with an English past tense in order to conform to modern usage.  The translators recognized that in some contexts the present tense seems more unexpected and unjustified to the English reader than a past tense would have been.  But Greek authors frequently used the present tense for the sake of heightened vividness, thereby transporting their readers in imagination to the actual scene at the time of occurrence.  However, the translators felt that it would be wise the change these historical presents to English past tenses.
SO...after all that...the way it reads in Greek is "Mary Magdalene shows up at the tomb while it is still dark."  It is quite difficult to use present tense here, so I see the problem for the translators.  But I also appreciate this explanation.  John is sort of "setting the scene" in real time.  As in:  As the scene opens, we see Mary arriving at the tomb.  It is still dark.  Suddenly, she sees that the stone is no longer over the tomb!"  So John is "putting us there as spectators".  This  continues into vs 2:  "Next, we see her running back to town.  She finds Peter and tells him, then John and tells him."  Like a play.

2024 - It is clear as I read vs 4 that Peter and John were together as they ran toward the tomb.  So they were likely together when Mary came banging on the door before sunup to tell them what she had seen.  Vss 5 and 6 also have historical presents rendered as past tense.

2021 - My my.  It occurred to me a few minutes ago that they maybe didn't all arrive precisely at the same time, and look what John tells us.  Mary Magdalene got there while it was still dark.  She was first, and very early.  So possibly the stone hadn't been rolled until about the time she got there.  When the stunned soldiers woke up, and saw the tomb empty, they took off to tell the chief priests what had happened.  Only then did a second group of women show up.  Mary M may or may not have still been there.  John says "she ran", singular, and told Peter and John.  Doesn't say they were all gathered up someplace.  Maybe she went to the house where just these two were staying?  Peter and John run to the tomb.  They see the grave clothes, but they do not see any angels.  The angels have departed for now.
John says he and Peter both went, and both were running.  John says he got there first.  John looked in and saw the linen, but he didn't go in.  Peter arrives second, but goes in first.  He sees the linen he'd been wrapped in in one place, and the facecloth in another place, folded up.  Even upon seeing this, they still did not understand what was happening.  They thought the body had been stolen.  This verse:
9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. [Jhn 20:9 ESV]

2022 - Vss 1,2 are pretty specific that it was only John and Peter that MM told what she'd found.  She went to them first.  They ran to the tomb, looked things over, and "went back to their homes".  So this seems to say that MM had gone two places - first to Peter's, then to John's, and though John was told second, he either passed Peter on the way, running, or was in a different part of town, and took a different road.  Either way, John got there first, but I don't think there was any race.  No mention of earthquakes or angels in John's account to this point.  In vs 10, scene 1 is completed.  John and Peter are back home.  

In vs 11, Mary Magdalene is weeping outside the tomb.  Only MM is mentioned.  She had gone and informed Peter and John, they'd come and gone, and now she was back.  Still alone so far as we can tell.  She looks in and sees two angels, in white, sitting on the ledge where the body had lain.  They ask why she's crying, and she says because she doesn't know where the body is.

2022 - She is now all the way up at the tomb.  In the first scene, she sees the stone rolled away, but it does not say that she went in to check.  She saw the stone moved and ran and told Peter and John, and they were first to note that the body indeed was gone.  There is also another possibility.  This may be a different Mary.  MM may still be in town, or on her way back, or some other place, and this could be another Mary.  After all, there were three "Marys" at the foot of the cross.   If this is MM again, she has gone back for the second time.  But this Mary is weeping, indicating that she is upset that the body is gone.  It is a bit of a stretch to think one of the other Marys got here, saw the stone moved, and reached the same conclusion as MM.  
2022 - In any case, Mary looks into the tomb and sees two angels.  She must have recognized that they were angels and told the story that way.  They ask her why she's crying.  She answers, then turns around and sees Jesus.  She does NOT recognize him.  We have to conclude that he did not look like the angels.  Something was different enough that she saw him as just another person.  The gardener in fact.  Why did she not wonder why angels would be sitting in an empty tomb?  
2022 - The first time he speaks, she still doesn't recognize him.  Only when he calls her name does she realize who he is.  Wow.  What a lesson there is there!
2022 - Was she fluent in Aramaic?  Why would she use this?  Is this a clue that it was MM and not one of the other Marys, or should we see this as an indication that it WAS Mary of Magdala.  The town is believed to have been on the coast, a fish processing town, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee.  Why would they be speaking Aramaic?

2025 - Those two angels were apparently not there when Peter and John went in.  They only show up after those two have gone back home.  They ask her why she is crying.

She turns around, and Jesus is there, but she doesn't recognize him.  Again, either our resurrected bodies are going to look different enough to make us hard to recognize, or for some reason, Jesus is keeping people from knowing who he is.  I don't see why this would be so.  She thinks he's the gardener!  So he must have looked completely human, but not like Jesus...2022 - And not like an angel.

Jesus calls her by name, and then she recognizes him.  Hmm...my sheep hear my voice?  The sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd?  All that works here, but it was different on the road to Emmaus.  Jesus says this to Mary Magdalene:
17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" [Jhn 20:17 ESV]
Don't cling to me might mean don't get too used to seeing me, because I am leaving soon.  He tells her he will be ascending.  I wonder if the Greek tense means it is something he will do and the action will continue.  As a completed thing, or as a continuous thing?

2022 - The verb "ascend" is present active indicative.  Nothing mysterious about it.  When he tells her not to cling, that verb is present middle imperative.  Nothing unusual there either.  Both are present tense.  Don't cling, because I "have not yet ascended".  So that moment, in the present, Jesus was yet to return to heaven.  He had not been there during the time in the grave, nor since he had resurrected that very morning.  But I still think it makes sense that he meant he wasn't going to be there long.  He was telling this Mary not to think he was back for good.

2025 - So resurrected bodies are difficult to recognize by the unresurrected.  In heaven, all will be in resurrected bodies, and it is not too big a jump to think that we'll have trouble recognizing each other.  But a husband and a wife?  You would think they'd recognize each other still.  After a lifetime with each other?  

She goes and tells them.  Before, she had gone only to Peter and John.  Now Jesus sends her to the rest of the disciples, to let them all know that he is back.  John says she went and told the disciples.  Does not say any apostles were there.  Doesn't say Peter and John had gotten there first.  Peter and John had gone back to their homes - not to a group.  Yes...this timeline can all be worked out.  

2025 - In fact, we might ought to consider the timeline in John as the primary, backbone account, and hang the accounts in the other gospels on John's.  The reason is that it had been at least 50 years when John wrote his account and very possibly all of the witnesses of the various events of that first day of the week had been compiled and worked out and assimilated in the proper order.  This idea makes good sense to me and would be worth testing to see if it results in a completely harmonious assembly of the facts related in each gospel separately.

That same evening, the evening of the first day of the week, Jesus appears inside their locked doors.  He appears to the disciples.  This implies more than the 11 were there.  They were cowering behind locked doors as if those doors will stop the Jewish leadership from taking them.  Jesus appears and they seem to immediately recognize him in this account, yet it has to be the same appearance as in Luke - which also happened that very night.  The night after the Road to Emmaus.  Peter and John surely would have recognized him and told the others.  Set their minds at ease.  John just doesn't give us those details.

2024 - Look at this verse!:
21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." [Jhn 20:21 ESV].  This ties right back in with the previous idea that in his last words to the 11 he tells them that they and they alone will assume the role of Jesus in continuing to carry the gospel to the world.  AS THE FATHER SENT, I AM SENDING!  This is not just a sort of passing thought, this is authority being turned over to the 11 in their unique role, their unique historical place in the world.  It was only them!  Jesus sent no one else, he left no rules of succession...The 11 were to take up where Jesus left off.

I have not previously noticed vs 22, and verse 23 has always confused me as it seems Jesus is delegating his new authority over all things to those in the room.  Remember, it wasn't just the 11 that were in there...(2024 - or was it?  In light of the note above, it WAS just the 11).
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld." [Jhn 20:22-23 ESV].
This is not Pentecost.  Pentecost was a different thing, a different manifestation.  The 11 received the Holy Spirit BEFORE the church did - when there were 120, not just 11, in the room.  And Jesus IS giving these 11 a delegation of power and say so that no one since then has EVER had!  They can forgive sins, as Jesus did.  ON THE EARTH, they can decide, and in heaven it will be so.  Imagine this power!  Jesus knew who to choose because the Father told him.  Now, we see that with the Holy Spirit indwelling, the 11 will ALSO discern who is called and who is not called!   

MSB says they did not receive the Holy Spirit until the Day of Pentecost, so this must be understood as Christ's pledge that it is coming, as promised.  Hmm...John was there.  MSB was not.  I am not sure I agree with this way of looking at vs 22.  Seems more likely that those assembled were granted the peace that the Holy Spirit brings - perhaps the presence of the Holy Spirit to sustain them until the indwelling of the Holy Spirit came 40 days later.  They still had a long wait, and maybe this was to strengthen them.

2022 - Sure enough, "receive" is in the aorist, so it almost certainly did NOT mean they received the Spirit at that moment.  "Breathed on them" is also aorist.  Hmm....perhaps John's message is that Jesus' own breath gave them some kind of "boost" that helped them get to the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit fully indwelled.  Perhaps at this time, it was more like the OT Prophets on whom the Spirit rested.  He was there with them, but not indwelling them.  

MSB says vs 23 means that Christians can now absolutely say - because of the now completed work on the cross - that believing in Jesus and his resurrection results in forgiveness of sins.  They can also say with certainty that those who do NOT believe, will NOT be forgiven.  Both these things are now complete, no longer future, as in the days of the prophets.  One could then ask how one actually knew one was saved before the cross, and before the Holy Spirit...We could go on and on.  But to me, this explanation of 23 does make sense.

John tells us about doubting Thomas.  Jesus appears to them again 8 days later.  Either he was doing other things during that time, or John is keeping this timeline about Thomas and his convincing, not about the overall sequence of events.  You could look at it either way.

2022 - John tells us that the appearance when Thomas was present was 8 days later.  Where had Jesus been, and what was he doing for that time?  Perhaps this is when he did return to the Father, and when he went down to hell as we read about elsewhere.  Maybe that's why Mary wasn't to cling yet.  

Vss 30 and 31 almost seem like the end of the book.  But there is yet another chapter.  Maybe John wrote the last chapter later than he wrote the bulk of the book.  Or maybe what he is referring to is not the whole book, but the miracles Jesus did between his convincing Thomas that he was God and his ascension.  Maybe John is just saying that this is not to be considered a complete account of everything that Jesus did between his resurrection and his ascension?

2025 - Or not a complete account of Jesus' entire life and all the miracles he did during his ministry.  Maybe John is forestalling those who would attack the veracity of the gospels by noting that some things are in one gospel, other things in another, and none of them cover all the events, therefore, a lot of the events were probably made up by that one gospel writer.  John preempts that by saying "Hey, nobody could write it all down, there was just too much.  But there is enough here for anybody with half a brain to recognize that this Jesus was sent by God and did these supernatural things by the power of God to accomplish God's own pre-determined purpose."  I think that's what these two verses say.  You can look for holes in the story, but you're just nit-picking what is obviously the truth, and you are dissembling instead of addressing the central idea - Jesus was God's only Son, and he was born, he lived, he was crucified and rose again.  Quibble about which miracles he really did if you want, but these gospels were not written to document all the miracles, but to convince you of the good news of substitutionary death and the eternal life that bought you if you will only believe!

2022 - Still looks very much like the book was to end after chapter 20, and John added 21 later.


John Chapter 21
Starts with "after this", and recounts the appearance of Jesus to seven of the eleven, who were in Galilee fishing.  Why would they go here if they'd been told to stay in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came?  So this event must have come BEFORE that command.  This also fits with the implication that Jesus gave the great commission in Galilee on a mountain, but didn't ascend from there.  Sometime after that, they were all back in Jerusalem, and went to Bethany, and Jesus ascended from there - AFTER telling them not to leave Jerusalem.

2021 - Seems that John 21 tells about the time in Galilee.  The after this seems to refer to the appearance when Thomas was there,  so I would think they have all seen him.  But he went away again, and maybe they took the time to go on to Galilee and are wondering when/if they will see him there.  
2022 - Yes, 21 is after the appearance when Thomas was present.  And that means that 21 is not just "tacked on" in any sense, but is a continuation of the recounting of Jesus' appearances to the apostles after the resurrection.  We do not know what else may  have been said the night Jesus appeared to them all, including Thomas.  I don't think we can make a good case that he said he'd meet them in Galilee in 4 days or 9 days or anything like that.  But you do have Mark 16...7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." [Mar 16:7 ESV].  It is an angel that says this to the women AFTER SUN UP come with spices to anoint him.  I don't think MM was exactly with them.  John specifically says she was there before sun up.  This timeline...still needs work.  Easy to do.  Make a list of events as described in each gospel, and then figure out how to put them in order - to fit them in - so that everything happens in sequence.
(I also note that in Mark, the angel said to go tell is disciples...and Peter...As if at this time, Peter was excluded.  But we could also take it that the angel is sending these other women not to the apostles - MM has already told some of them - but to the disciples in general.  But...Peter had already been there and seen the empty tomb...but may not yet have heard that Mary had seen Jesus.  Because when Mary does, she goes and tells "disciples", not "apostles".  In any case, Mark mentions that they were supposed to go to Galilee...but that night Jesus appears in Jerusalem, and 8 days later they are apparently STILL in Jerusalem, but eventually...some of them at least...mosey on up to Galilee.

After Jesus revealed his hands and side to Thomas, after they all knew he was resurrected, here in Galilee by the shore, they again do not recognize him.  Not even his voice when he calls to them.  They throw the net on the other side of the boat, and catch a LOT of fish.  This is the second time this has happened.  You have to believe that Simon and Andrew, and James and John, immediately connected this with Jesus.  John tells us that he is the one who figured it out first.  

They bring the fish to shore, and they all have breakfast.  Then John says this is the third time.  So there was the night of the first day of the week, when they were pretty much all there, then 8 days later when Thomas was there, and now this is the third time.  This is certainly a timeline to work with.  Emmaus was before the first appearance.  The great commission seems logically to have come after this, as did the scene in Jerusalem before he went to Bethany.  It all fits.

2021 - So...if this is in Galilee, and the ascension is from Jerusalem, then they will all go back there, then Jesus will appear to them there, lead them out to Bethany, and ascend from there.  That's the end of the timeline.

Jesus asks Peter if he loves him three separate times.  This is John telling us about this - not Mark, who perhaps wrote Peter's own memoirs.  One time for each denial.  And Jesus says that Peter will be a different man from here on, not the impulsive man he has been up to now.  Peter has changed after coming through the denials.  

2022 - Vs 19, John explains to us what Jesus meant by these words to Peter.  Does so again in vs 23.

2021 - No ascension in John.  You would think they would all tell about a man rising up into the clouds and disappearing there.  Flying was not common back then.  But they don't.  So after John's account ends, they all go back to Jerusalem and we get Luke's account of the ascension.  Only Luke, who wasn't there, and was traveling with Paul, who wasn't there.  Matthew and John were there...they don't mention it.  Matthew doesn't even mention the Galilee part.  I really need to work out these timelines, along with who says what - who tells which story and which stories are told by more than one writer - and so make better sense of this.  I think it is supposed to be difficult so that you have to dig.  I think when I unravel it all, it will be even more amazing than it already is because of the way it fits together.  That has already started today as I find that MM did indeed arrive alone, and much earlier than anyone else.   I need to get this timeline study on my list!