Are you 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 Abraham’s children?

John 8.39-42.

You recall Jesus teaching the Judeans who believed in him how, if they’re truly his students and abide in his teachings, Jn 8.30 they’ll know the truth, and it’ll free them. Jn 8.31 Their response was, “Free?—from what? We’re no slaves,” Jn 8.33 and Jesus replied, “You are when you’re slaves to sin,” Jn 8.34 and “You should do as you hear from the Father.” Jn 8.38 (Jesus clearly meant our heavenly Father, although the Textus Receptus made it sound like he meant Satan, which is what’ll happen when you insert words willy-nilly into the bible.)

Y’know how certain Christians will give knee-jerk responses when you ask ’em questions? I once taught a seventh-grade bible class in which I was trying to teach the kids about atonement, and at one point I asked the kids, “So what saves us?” and their automatic, brain-bypassed response was, “Jesus saves us.” Yes yes Jesus saves us, but I wanted ’em to be more specific. And we kinda see this when Jesus refers to the Father… and the Judeans immediately respond with, “Oh, Abraham’s our father.” Yes, God’s their Father too; they acknowledge that in a few verses, Jn 8.41 but y’know, knee-jerk responses.

John 8.39-42 KWL

39In reply the Judeans tell him, “Our father is Abraham.”

Jesus tells them, “If you’re² Abraham’s children,

you² should be doing Abraham’s works.

40Now you² seek to kill me,

a man who tells you² the truth I hear from God.

Abraham didn’t do this.

41You² do the work of your² real father.”

{So} the Judeans tell him,

“We weren’t fathered by unchastity.

We have one Father, God.”

42Jesus tells them, “If God is your² Father,

you² would show me love,

for I come from God

and I’m right here.

For I never came here by myself;

but by that person who sends me.”

Now, don’t get confused. None of these people are actually talking about genealogy. They’re talking about spiritual parents. Abraham is the biological ancestor of the Ishmaelites (Arabia), the Isaacites (Israel; and Edom, which Israel had absorbed in the first century BC), and the Midianites (Yemen). But more importantly Abraham is the ancestor of justification by faith—of trusting the LORD, which the LORD counts as righteousness. Ge 15.6, Ro 4.3, Ga 3.6 And God is their Father; not just because he rescued the Hebrews from Egypt and made them his people, but because they were meant to abide in him and follow his Law. Much like Jesus said we’re to abide in him, Jn 15.4 and his word. Jn 8.31

Now if Abraham were their spiritual father—if God were recognized as their heavenly Father—they’d act like these spiritual fathers. Right? You’d see faith in ’em. You’d see love. You’d see an entirely different attitude towards Jesus than we see in the scriptures. Heck, you’d see an entirely different attitude towards Jesus than we see among Evangelicals. But we don’t see any of these proper attitudes and responses and lifestyles. We see hypocrisy and sin. So Jesus calls ’em on it.

If you ever wondered why the Judeans wanted Jesus dead, this is one of many reasons.

The truth will set you free.

John 8.30-38.

We Christians love to quote the passage, “The truth shall set you free,” or “The truth will make you free,” or however your favorite translation renders it. It’s a reminder of how truth’s a good, liberating thing. Truth will set us free. Sometimes we aren’t particular about which truth, and figure any truth will set us free. Well, truth is always better than error and lies.

But in context, Jesus was speaking of something more specific. We Christians don’t always care so much about the context whenever we quote it, but today I’m writing about its context: In the verse right before it, Jesus speaks about if μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ/meínite en to lóyo to emó, “y’all might abide in the word, in mine.” The truth will set us free, but we won’t even know what’s true unless we first have a lifestyle of following Jesus.

Yep, a lifestyle. It’s not enough to believe Jesus is Lord, say the creeds, and pay the appropriate lip service. We gotta actually follow him. We gotta do as Jesus says. Christ Jesus’s teachings about loving God and our neighbors have to be the entire foundation for our way of life. When they’re not, we’re gonna know truthy things; they’ll certainly resemble truth, or certainly feel like truth. Won’t always be truth though. They’ll have just enough truth in ’em to help lead us astray.

So when Jesus taught in temple, and talking about how he’s the world’s light, many chose to trust Jesus… and Jesus had this message for those who trusted him. Also applies to those of us who today claim we trust him.

And, sad to say, our reaction to Jesus’s teachings will often be the very same as that of the Judeans who balked at this teaching.

John 8.30-34 KWL

30In saying these things,

many trust in Jesus.

31So Jesus is saying to those Judeans who trusted him,

“When you² abide in my word,

you’re² truly my students.

32You’ll² come to know the truth,

and the truth will free you.”²

33The Judeans answer Jesus, “We’re Abraham’s seed.

We were never, ever enslaved.

How can you¹ say we’ll become free?

34Jesus answers them,

“Amen amen! I promise you:²

Anyone who commits sin is sin’s slave.”

Pharisee synagogues taught by the Socratic method: The teacher would make a statement, and his students would test it by vigorously questioning it. Thats why you see Jesus get so much pushback from Pharisees in the gospels: That’s how they were trained to deal with teachers. Don‘t just take Jesus’s word for it; question him! Most teachers today don’t bother to teach Socratically, and get offended when you challenge them—and we get offended on their behalf when we like the teacher. So this is why Christians get offended on Jesus’s behalf whenever Pharisees responded, “Hold up; what about this?” Jesus could discern whether these were honest questions, or whether they were trying to undermine him any way they could, and this is why sometimes he responded to questions positively, and other times he didn’t. We’re not always so great with discernment.

So yeah, the whole of John 8 is a really good example of a Socratic dialogue gone awry. Jesus said the truth would free his followers; his followers responded, “Wait, we’re not slaves; we’ve never been slaves; what’re we gonna be freed from?” And Jesus’s response: “Sin. If you sin, you’re its slave. I’m here to free you from that.”

Well duh. But we would say, “Well duh” because we’re used to 20 centuries of hearing Jesus and Paul’s teachings about sin and being slaves to it. For these first-century Judeans, this was a new idea… and it offended them, because the Pharisees had taught ’em all the loopholes which meant they could “follow” the Law without actually following it… so they weren’t sinners. Weren’t slaves to sin. Yet that’s kinda what Jesus was calling them.

John 8.35-38 KWL

35“The slave doesn’t abide in the house in the age to come.

The son abides there in the age to come.

36So when the son frees you,²

you² will truly be free.

37I already know you’re² Abraham’s seed,

but you² seek to kill me

because my word has no place among you.²

38I speak of whatever I saw from the Father,

so you² should do whatever you hear from the Father.”

I should point out the Textus Receptus renders verse 38 a bit differently:

John 8.38 KWL (from TR)

38I speak of whatever I saw from the Father,

and so you² do whatever you² saw from your father.

Rather than encouragement to follow our heavenly Father, Jesus appears to already jump forward to his conclusion in verse 44 how these are the devil’s kids. But nope, he’s not there yet. In any event the discussion goes downhill from here.

Deliberately misunderstanding Jesus.

John 8.21-29.

As you know, some insist Jesus is a great moral teacher and nothing more. When they read of him saying “I’m the world’s light,” they skip it; they prefer to ignore any radical statements Jesus makes about who he is, who sent him and why, and why he does what he does. They refuse to recognize him for who he is. When he made parabolic, roundabout statements about it, they deliberately choose to misinterpret him. When he makes blunt, in-your-face statements about it (as he does here), they kinda want to kill him.

John 8 definitely contains both these things. Both the parabolic and the blunt statements; both the people who chose to misunderstand Jesus, and the people who wanted to throw rocks at him. So let’s get to those things.

Back to temple, Jn 8.20 where Jesus was teaching yet another lesson to skeptical people:

John 8.21-29 KWL

21So Jesus is telling the Phariseesᴾ again,

“I’m going, and you’ll² seek me.

And you’ll² die from your² sins.

Where I go, you² can’t come.”

22So the Judeans are saying, “He won’t kill himself, will he?”

—because he says, “Where I go, you² can’t come.”

23Jesus is telling the Judeans,ᴾ

“You’re² from below;

I’m from above.

You’re² from this world;

I’m not from this world.

24Hence I tell you² you’ll² die from your² sins,

for when you² don’t believe I AM,

you² will die from your² sins.”

25So the Judeans are telling him, “Who are you?”

Jesus tells them, “What have I been telling you²

from the very beginning?

26I have so many things to say—and judge—about you.²

But he who sends me is true,

and whatever I hear from him,

I say these things to the world.”

27The Judeans don’t realize

Jesus is speaking to them about the Father,

28so Jesus tells {them}, “You’ll² know I AM

as soon as you² exalt the Son of Man.

I do nothing on my own,

but I speak these things just as the Father teaches me.

29And he who sends me, is with me.

He doesn’t leave me alone,

for I always do whatever pleases him.”

As the world’s light, those who follow Jesus get our eternal life from him. Jn 8.12 And those who don’t, who have no intention of following him, can’t possibly go into God’s kingdom with him. Aren’t gonna go; don’t wanna go. Yeah, they might imagine they want God’s kingdom, but they have some radically different ideas about what it’ll be like, which look nothing like Jesus describes in the gospels. (Usually something more political.) So what he’s creating, they’ll want no part of. They’ll reject him, which means they reject God’s kingdom and aren’t going in. Their sins will destroy them.

More than a great moral teacher: The world’s light.

John 8.12-20.

If we skip the Adulterer Story as we read John (as we probably should, ’cause whether it happened or not, it didn’t happen at this point in John), this lesson took place right after the feast of Tabernacles was over. After the Judean senators had decided Jesus isn’t a relevant prophet because, among other things, he’s Galilean.

Which only goes to show they didn’t know anything about Jesus’s family and backstory. They could’ve found it out with some very minor investigation. Talk to any of Jesus’s family members; they knew the entire story. But the senators didn’t bother, and stuck with their fairly superficial observations—which Jesus, in today’s passage, calls judging “according to the flesh.” Jn 8.15 They presumed they knew better, and missed their Messiah.

Since they didn’t realize how significant Jesus is, whenever he made appropriately bold statements about himself, they naturally balked. These statements were way too bold for them. You can’t go making unsubstantiated statements like this. Like “I’m the world’s light.”

John 8.12-20 KWL

12So Jesus speaks to the Judeansᴾ again,

saying, “I’m the world’s light.

One who follows me ought never, ever walk in the dark.

Instead they’ll¹ have life’s light.”

13So the Pharisees told Jesusᴾ,

“You¹ testify about yourself.¹

Your¹ testimony isn’t true.”

14In reply Jesus tells the Pharisees,ᴾ

“And when I testify about myself,

my testimony is true

because I know where I came from

and where I’m going.

You² didn’t know where I came from,

nor where I’m going.

15You² judge according to your flesh;

I don’t judge anyone.

16When I judge, my judgment is true,

for I’m not judging alone;

instead it’s me

and the Father who sends me.

17In your² Law, it’s written

that two people’s testimony is true.

18I’m a witness for myself,

and the Father who sends me testifies about me.”

19So the Pharisees are telling him, “Who’s your Father?”

Jesus is replying, “You knew neither me nor my Father.

If you knew me, you should’ve known my Father.”

20Jesus is speaking these words in the treasury

while teaching in temple,

and no one is laying a hand on him,

for his hour hadn’t yet come.

Y’notice Jesus kinda agreed with them: No, he can’t claim unsubstantiated statements about himself. But Jesus’s statements are substantiated, because they’re backed by the one who sent him to us, his Father. (And the Father had said so in the scriptures.)

Then Jesus made another radical statement: These Pharisees don‘t know his Father. If they did, they’d listen to the Father, and know from him Jesus is legit. They didn’t, so they don’t.

The Adulterer Story… if it even happened.

John 7.53 – 8.11.

Today’s passage is known by scholars as the Pericope Adulterae, the Adulterer Story, about a woman caught committing adultery, whom Jesus was expected to judge, and didn’t. It’s a really popular story in Christendom, and even pagans know the line, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Jn 8.7 KJV It’s used as the basis for a lot of live-and-let-live, “who am I to judge?” beliefs.

Two things though.

• That’s not what Jesus meant by “He that is without sin.” I’ll get to that.
• This entire story isn’t found in the earliest copies of John. Nor the gospels. It got added in the 300s. It’s a textual variant.

That second thing tends to really freak out Christians when I point it out to them. But just about every copy of the bible but the KJV points this out. The whole passage is put in brackets, or prefaced by “The oldest copies of John don’t have this story.” Some more daring bible translations even put the whole thing in the footnotes, and John 7.52 is immediately followed by John 8.12.

The greenish text is a reminder this comes from the Textus Receptus. The UBS6 has a version if it, but since it’s all spurious I figure it doesn’t matter if it includes the Textus’s additions to the text.

John 7.53 – 8.11 KWL

7.53{Each person goes to their house,

8.1and Jesus goes to Mt. Olivet.

2At dawn Jesus again goes to temple,

and all the people come to him.

He sits to teach them.

3Scribes and Pharisees bring Jesus a woman

caught red-handed in adultery.

They stand her in the middle.

4They tell Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught

in the act of adultering.

5In our Law Moses commanded us

to stone such people to death. Lv 20.10

So what do you¹ say?”

6They’re saying this to test Jesus,

so they might have an accusation on him.

Stooping down, not paying attention,

Jesus is writing on the ground with his finger

7while they continue to question him.

Then Jesus stands and tells them,

“The sinless party among you:²

Throw the first stone at her.”

8And again Jesus bends down

to write on the ground.

9One by one the listeners leave,

convicted by their consciences,

beginning with the elders.

Only Jesus, and the woman in the middle, are left.

10Standing, seeing no one but the woman,

Jesus tells her, “Woman, where are they?

No one condemns you?”¹

11She says, “No one, sir.”

Jesus tells her, “I don’t condemn you¹ either.

Go, and from now on don’t sin.”}

The senators dismiss the Galilean prophet.

John 7.45-52.

You might remember a few verses back, the Judean senators sent their ὑπηρέτας/ypirétas, “underlings” (KJV “officers”) to either go seize Jesus, or at least quiet him. Jn 7.32 Instead, to the great annoyance of the senators, the underlings came back empty-handed, too impressed by Jesus to oppose him.

John 7.45-49 KWL

45So the assistants are coming

to the head priests and Pharisees,

and these leaders are telling them,

“For what reason do you² not bring Jesus?ᴾ

46The assistants answer, “No human ever spoke this way.”

47So the Pharisees answer them,

“You² weren’t deceived too, were you?

48Not one of the leaders believe in Jesus.ᴾ

Nor any of the Pharisees.

49But this crowd, not knowing the Law,

is damned.”

The way I translate verse 49 never fails to get a strong reaction from people. “Damned” tends to be used as a profanity, so your average Christian’s knee-jerk reaction is, “You swore.” Not they swore; not the Pharisees. They’re used to bible translations where the Pharisees only said “cursed.” It’s my fault for using the no-no word.

But this is what ἐπάρατοί/epáratí means. When it’s used in ancient Greek literature, it’s to describe how the gods divinely destined certain humans and city-states for destruction ’cause they did something the gods forbade, like desecrating graves or violating a divine command. When the Pharisees said the crowd is epáratí, they meant the LORD was gonna destroy these people for not knowing the Law of Moses; at least not to the level Pharisees did.

Now wait; isn’t the whole point of Pharisaism to teach the general public the Law? To perpetuate the Law and biblical literacy in Israel, lest the cycle start all over again as God’s people slid back into apostasy and idolatry? Of course. So whose fault is it these people don’t know the Law? Who hadn’t been doing their duty to disseminate truth?—or whatever passed for truth among Pharisees, anyway.

Thing is, in every holiness movement we’re gonna find a toxic faction of legalists who forget to be compassionate and gracious to those who haven’t been taught any better. Christianity definitely has ’em too. Some of us treat pagans like crap, like sinners just doomed to destruction. Some of us even claim God wants to destroy them; that the only reason God created ’em in the first place was to show off his greatness by dumping wrath upon them. It’s a totally messed-up worldview, based on out-of-context verses, but really it’s contrary to scriptures which plainly state God wants to save everyone. 1Ti 2.4 But among Evangelicals, it’s mighty common ’cause some of us find it way more fun to be wrathful than gracious. We forget if it weren’t for God’s grace, we’d be just as lost.

These Pharisee senators were in the very same boat. Pride made ’em presume they knew God better than the crowds. And that they knew better than to believe Jesus was Messiah. Certainly none of them believed in Jesus. “Do any of the rulers believe in Jesus? Or any of the Pharisees?”

Well one of ’em did:

John 7.50-52 KWL

50Nicodemus, who is one of the leaders,

who previously came to Jesusᴾ {at night}, tells them,

51“Our law doesn’t judge the person

when one’s not first heard from them,¹

and knows what they¹ do, does it?”

52In reply the leaders told Nicodemus,

“You’re¹ not also from the Galilee, are you?

Study and see that the Prophet

doesn’t rise up from the Galilee.”

Good on Nicodemus for speaking up, but y’notice the other senators’ rotten attitude, and you can see why Nicodemus likely didn’t bother to speak up often. Their immediate response was, “You’re not also from the Galilee, are you?”

Rivers of living water.

John 7.37-44.

The last day of the feast of Taberancles was treated like sabbath. Lv 23.36, Nu 29.35 Every day, God was presented a ritual food offering; on the last day they presented a ritual drink offering. The priests drew water from the Šiloakh pool (where they washed some of the sacrificial animals; where Jesus later sent a blind guy to wash himself) then walked round the temple’s altar with the water. Then the officiating priest lifted his hand to indicate the ritual was over.

This particular year, possibly right after the drink offering, this happened:

John 7.37-39 KWL

37On the great last day of the feast of Tabernacles,

Jesus stood and called out, saying,

“When anyone thirsts,

come to me and drink!

38One who believes in me, just as the scripture says,

rivers of living water will flow from their¹ guts.”

39Jesus says this about the Holy Spirit,

whom believers in him are about to receive.

The {Holy} Spirit has not yet come,

for Jesus has not yet been glorified.

As John said, this is a prophecy about the Holy Spirit, who wouldn’t come Ac 2.1-4 till after Jesus was raptured and glorified. Ac 1.9-11 Come to Jesus and receive the water of life; receive the Holy Spirit.

Jesus’s statement galvanized the people, who were pretty sure Jesus was either the Prophet or Messiah… although as you can see, there was still some debate about his credentials to be Messiah. Some of the crowd believed nobody knew where Messiah came from; others knew Messiah totally came from Bethlehem. Problem is, this was Jesus the Nazarene, and they knew Messiah didn’t come from Nazareth.

John 7.40-44 KWL

40So, hearers of this message in the crowd are saying,

“This is truly the Prophet.”

41Others are saying, “This is Messiah.”

Some are saying, “No!

For does Messiah come from the Galilee?

42Doesn’t the scripture say this?—

‘From the seed of David and from Bethlehem,

the town where David comes from,’

comes Messiah.”

43So a schism came upon the crowd

because of Jesus,ᴾ

44and some of them are wanting to seize Jesus,ᴾ

but no one is laying a hand on him.

We know Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but I remind you this gospel doesn’t include Jesus’s birth story. He just shows up in his 30s to be baptized by John, gather students, and begin teaching. John states multiple times he came from heaven, sent by the Father, which was good enough for John. Not so much for the Jerusalemites, who were looking for any reason to disqualify him.

Still, Jesus is descended from David ben Jesse, Mt 1.1 and wasn’t just born in Bethlehem but had ancestors from Bethlehem; Nazareth was founded by Bethlehemites. His provenance definitely doesn’t disqualify him from being Messiah. But for doubters, any excuse will do. We get the same way nowadays; all humans do.

Can’t follow Jesus where he’s going.

John 7.32-36.

Frequently in John, the author mentions how nobody seized Jesus because his time hadn’t yet come. But it’s not that nobody tried to grab him and do away with him. In the middle of chapter 7, here’s a story where they gave it a shot.

John 7.32-36 KWL

32Pharisees were hearing the crowd

murmuring these things about Jesus.ᴾ

The head priests and Pharisees are sending their assistants

so they might seize Jesus.ᴾ

33So Jesus is saying, “I’m only with you² a little while.

I’m going away to he who sends me.

34You’ll² seek me and you² won’t find {me}.

You² can’t come to where I am.”

35So the Judeans tell one another, “Where is this Jesus about to go,

that we won’t find him?

He’s not about to go into the Greek diaspora,

and teach the Greeks, is he?

36What is this word which he says?—

‘You’ll² seek me and you² won’t find {me}.

You² can’t come to where I am.’ ”

Two people might’ve seized Jesus: Either people who were part of the government, or private citizens who decided to take matters into their own hands vigilante-style. In this case it’s the government. Whenever the gospels refer to the head priests and Pharisees, the authors mean the συνέδριον/synédrion, “senate,” the oligarchs who actually ran the province. It consisted of the head priests (mostly Sadducee) and the wealthier Jerusalem families (mostly Pharisee). If you thought the Romans were in charge, yeah they were, but they didn’t handle the day-to-day stuff; the senate did.

The Judean crowds didn’t have the authority to seize Jesus, but the senate did. So they sent their ὑπηρέτας/ypirétas, “underlings” (KJV “officers”) to go get him. Instead they got an answer from him they couldn’t understand: “I’m going away, and you can’t follow me.”

Not knowing where Messiah comes from.

John 7.25-31.

There are actually people who get outraged when prepositions are what I end sentences with. (Y’know, like the title of this piece.) It’s because they grew up with old-timey rules for grammar—and Latin and Greek are what those old-timey rules are based on. In those languages it’s kinda impossible to end sentences with prepositions; and if you want to maybe split an infinitive, their infinitives are one word (ire) not two (“to go”), so it literally can’t be done. Grammarians wanted to conform our language to theirs, but why?—the “rules” of grammar are meant to make English comprehensible, not tie us to languages we seldom speak. But enough ranting about grammar fascists.

Anyway, in the last John 7 passage, Jesus critiqued his opponents for wanting him dead because he cured people on sabbath. They pretended they didn’t really, Jn 7.20 but y’notice in the very next verses after that passage, i.e. today’s passage, the Judeans debated over who Jesus is, and were fully aware some of ’em wanted Jesus dead.

I should remind you: In the first-century Roman Empire, there was no such thing as freedom of speech and religion. If the local government passed a law against your religion, you could be beaten or killed for it. If the locals thought you committed heresy or blasphemy, sometimes they wouldn’t even wait for due process; they’d throw you off a cliff and throw stones down at you, same as they did Stephen. The only reason they didn’t drag Jesus out of temple and kill him right away, was ’cause a significant number of them realized Jesus is a prophet. If not the Prophet. If not Messiah himself.

John 7.25-26 KWL

25So some of the Jerusalemites are saying,

“Isn’t this the man whom they seek to kill?”

26and “Look, Jesusᴾ speaks openly,

and nobody talks back to him.”

“Perhaps the leaders actually know

that this Jesus is Messiah!”

Speculating the rulers really knew Jesus is Messiah, but were keeping it secret, is typical paranoid conspiracy-theory behavior. Yep, they did it back then too. But to their minds, it’d explain exactly why the leaders wouldn’t touch him. The Pharisees taught those who opposed Messiah would be destroyed with the breath of his lips. Is 11.4 (Paul later swiped this idea for 2 Thessalonians 2.8, and John transforms this into a sharp sword in Revelation 19.11.) In their End Times timeline, Messiah vanquished his opponents, took his throne, and ruled the world. So if the Judean senate suspected Jesus is this Messiah… well they wouldn’t wanna get vanquished. They wanted him to vanquish Rome, not them. So they let him be.

Others weren’t so sure he’s Messiah:

John 7.27 KWL

“But this Jesus—we knew where he comes from.

Messiah, whenever he comes,

nobody knows where he comes from.”

Y’might not be at all familiar with this idea, “Nobody knows where Messiah comes from.” If you know the Christmas story, you know the Judeans totally knew where Messiah comes from: Bethlehem. And they stupidly told Herod where this was, so Herod had a bunch of babies murdered lest Messiah grow up and overthrow him. Heck, later in this chapter we see the Judeans knew Messiah comes from Bethlehem. Jn 7.41-42 So commentators tend to skip this verse, or try to explain it away by saying it’s actually about not knowing where Messiah spiritually comes from—which is also rubbish, because all the Messiahs come from God.

But let’s skip nothing, and answer the question of why some of ’em thought they wouldn’t know where Messiah comes from.

Fair judgment.

John 7.19-24.

Earlier in John 7, the Jerusalemites found Jesus teaching in temple during the feast of Tabernacles, and wondered where he got his education, ’cause he didn’t study in any of their academies. Jesus pointed out if we pursued God instead of our own bright ideas, we’d realize exactly where he got his education.

Then Jesus took a bit of a left turn: He brought up the reason he didn’t really wanna go to Jerusalem in the first place. Jn 7.1 He bluntly called the Judeans out for wanting to kill him.

John 7.19 KWL

“Moses didn’t give you² the Law,

and none of you² follow the Law.

Why do you² seek to kill me?”

Bear in mind there’s no legal reason they’d have for killing him. He never broke the Law. He broke Pharisee customs, and Pharisee interpretations of the Law, like crazy; but never the Law. Occasionally some preachers will claim Jesus did break the Law, because these preachers don’t know their bible. They’ve been busy teaching human-made “biblical principles” based on cherry-picked proof texts, instead of what’s actually in the bible. They’ll teach dispensationalism, and claim the Law was void by the time Jesus came around, so it’s okay if he violated it. Of course whenever they talk about “laws” Jesus supposedly broke, they don’t realize they can flip right to the Old Testament, look for these supposed “laws,” and find out they’re not laws; they’re Pharisee inventions. If Jesus ever did break the Law, that’d be sin. 1Jn 3.4 And Jesus didn’t sin, He 4.15 ergo Jesus never broke the Law. Never. You’re defying your own bible if you say so.

So they had no legal leg to stand on when it came to killing Jesus. But they wanted him dead just the same—because he defied their customs. In John, the reason they wanted him dead was he cured the man at the pool on sabbath. Their custom was to do nothing on sabbath; so much nothing, they didn’t even help the needy. In contrast, Jesus teaches it doesn’t defy sabbath to help the needy, and curing people on sabbath is not only fine, but righteous. It’s why our hospitals don’t close on the weekend!

Of course, teaching this just exposed the whole hypocrisy behind the Pharisee teaching: They forbade helping the needy on sabbath because they didn’t wanna help the needy. And hypocrites hate getting exposed like that. So they wanted Jesus dead.

And when Jesus straight-up called them out about that, they fell right back to hypocrisy. Even tried to gaslight him.

John 7.20 KWL

The crowd answers, “You¹ must be demonized!

Who seeks to kill you?”¹

More precisely, δαιμόνιον ἔχεις/demónion éheis means “You have a demon.” I remind you ancient Greeks believed demons are lesser gods, meant to help people; but the Jews rightly recognized they’re evil spirits and are no help at all. In fact they usually drove people insane, so their accusation doesn’t really mean Jesus has the devil in him; more like, “You’re crazy.”

Yeah, certain Christians claim the Judeans really did think Jesus literally had the devil in him. In the synoptic gospels, the Jerusalem scribes decreed Jesus’s exorcisms were done by devilish power. Jesus never performs an exorcism in John—and this isn’t that kind of accusation. It’s the culture’s presumption about how madness works. Nowadays we’d leap to the conclusion you’re off your medication (or really need some). Back then they’d think you had a critter or two, or a thousand, in you. Anyway we can dismiss the Judeans’ comment as mere hyperbole… for now.

But Jesus wasn’t crazy. He knew they wanted him dead, and had known it since they first started plotting. They’d eventually succeed. But he didn’t want them to think they cleverly slipped anything past him; he knew. They weren’t in control of the circumstances; he was.

Pursuing God’s ideas. Not our own.

John 7.14-18.

After Jesus decided he was in fact going to Jerusalem for Tabernacles, he went privately, (KJV “as it were in secret”) Jn 7.9 and at first people weren’t sure he was there. Till he started teaching in temple.

I need to remind you synagogues were not “Jewish churches.” Today’s synagogues get that way sometimes, but in the first century they were Pharisee schools, created and run by Pharisees to ensure future generations knew the Law of Moses and followed it. Specifically, followed it the way Pharisees taught it; Jesus has his own interpretations. Hence they butted heads.

There were also prejudices among Judean Pharisees about the quality of education you’d find among Galilean Pharisees. So when the Judeans listened to Jesus, they immediately realized here’s a guy who knew as much as, if not way more than, any of their scribes. But Jesus grew up in the Galilee, in Galilean synagogues. Not Judean synagogues; not any of the Jerusalem academies of higher learning. Therefore he must surely be “uneducated”—a presumption they’d later make about Jesus’s students. Ac 4.13

John 7.14-15 KWL

14Now at the middle of the festival,

Jesus is going into the temple campus

and is teaching.

15So the Judeans are amazed, saying,

“This person knew the classics? How?

He wasn’t educated in academy.”

“The classics” is how I translated γράμματα/grámmata (KJV “letters”). The word literally refers to letters of the alphabet, but it’s a Greek euphemism for literature. Not automatically Greek literature—they weren’t saying Jesus knew Homer, Plato, Sophocles, and Thucydides—though the Judeans did study that stuff, and the Pharisees used the Socratic method to train their disciples in critical thinking. More likely they referred to Pharisee literature; the teachings of their rabbis which later became the Mishna.

Unfortunately, various anti-intellectual Christians make the very same presumption about Jesus and his students, and will regularly preach, “These were uneducated, illiterate men!” Then use this to justify their own lack of education—and how their ignorance shouldn’t stop them from coming to conclusions about science, economics, politics, or God. You’ve seen Twitter; you know what I mean.

As for “illiterate men”: These guys wrote the New Testament. And no, they didn’t just hire secretaries to make up for an inability to read: Synagogues taught reading. If you were gonna follow the Law, they expected you to be able to read it! Jesus could read, Lk 4.16 and what kind of sucky teacher would he be if he couldn’t? Or if his students likewise couldn’t?

Jesus was educated enough to engage Pharisee scribes on their level. Above their level; he knew more than them, and could quote their own rabbis back at them. Mk 7.11 But the reason he’s smarter and wiser than they, is because he knows his Father. And they didn’t. Claimed to, but didn’t.

John 7.16-18 KWL

16In reply Jesus tells them, “My teaching isn’t mine,

but from God who sends me.

17When anyone wants to do God’sᴾ will,

they’ll know about the teaching—

whether it’s from God,

or whether I speak on my own.

18Speaking on one’s own

seeks only one’s own opinion.

Seeking the opinion of the one who sent him—

this person is true,

and there’s nothing unjust in them.”¹

See, Jesus teaches the scriptures and the Law correctly because he cares about what God thinks of it. (And yeah, since he’s God, it’s also what he thinks of it. But that wasn’t what the Judeans needed to hear at that time.) He seeks his Father’s opinion on the matter. The Pharisees only sought their own opinions.

Like many people, Christians included, they were self-promoting: They wanted to be recognized for their own wisdom and insight, and be lauded as great teachers. And if you wanna stand out, you gotta be different. Not necessarily in a good way. It’s always easier to be weird for weirdness’s sake, to pitch novel ideas for novelty’s sake, to be a naysayer just to trigger controversy and debate, to claim “I’m just trying to be thought provoking” when really we’re just throwing intellectual grenades.

Many bibles translate δόξαν/dóxan, “opinion,” as “glory”—

John 7.18 ESV

“The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.”

—and yeah, there’s overlap in these ideas. People promoting their own opinions so they can become known as wise sages. Problem is, we’re wrong. When we teach our own ideas instead of God’s, we’re gonna teach wrongness. Not necessarily lies. Some of us, like politicians, lie to promote political allies or selfish agendas; the rest are unwittingly wrong, and spreading falsehoods because we never bother to fact-check ourselves. But in general we just promote wrong ideas, which is why I really don’t care for the ESV’s “falsehood” as an interpretation of ἀδικία/adikía, “not right” (KJV “unrighteousness”). It’s not mere falseness. We’re doing the wrong thing instead of the right thing. We’re unjust.

So why’s Jesus the best teacher ever? Because he seeks his Father. And, he points out, everyone else who truly and selflessly seeks our Father who sent us, gets it right.

When Jesus said he wouldn’t go… and did.

John 7.1-13.

When you read the synoptic gospels (meaning Mark, Matthew, and Luke, the three which sync up a lot), you might get the idea Jesus only went to Jerusalem once—to get arrested and crucified.

That’d be historically inaccurate. Jesus obeyed the Law, and the Law decreed every adult male should go to temple three times a year for the festivals. Dt 16.16 Hence Jesus went to Jerusalem a lot, and John—which largely takes place in Jerusalem, at those festivals—fills in the blanks of what happened during those many Jerusalem trips.

Including when Jesus cured that one blind guy. The context of that story was when he went to Jerusalem one year for Sukkót. That trip began a few chapters back; since I skipped that part I figure I’d better backtrack. Here y’go.

John 7.1-13 KWL

1After these things, Jesus is traveling the Galilee,

for he doesn’t want to travel in Judea,

because the Judeans are seeking to kill him.

2Tabernacles, the Judean festival, is approaching.

3So Jesus’sᴾ siblings are telling him,

“Leave here and go to Judea,

so your¹ students will also see the works which you¹ do,

4for nobody works in private

if he wants to get attention.

If you¹ do these things,

show yourself¹ to the world!”

5For not even Jesus’sᴾ siblings are believing in him,

6so Jesus tells them, “My time is not yet now.

Your² time is always here.

7The world can’t hate you.²

It hates me because I testify about it—

that its works are evil.

8You² go up to the festival.

I’m not going up to this festival,

for my time isn’t full yet.”

9This said, Jesusᴾ stays in the Galilee.

10Once Jesus’sᴾ siblings go up to the festival,

then he also goes up—

not publicly, but {like} in private.

11So the Judeans are seeking Jesusᴾ at the festival,

and are saying, “Where is that person?”

12Much grumbling about Jesusᴾ

is happening in the crowds.

On the one hand, some are saying he’s good;

others are saying, “No, but he misleads the crowd.”

13Nonetheless, no one is boldly speaking about Jesus,ᴾ

out of fear of the Judeans.

I’ll admit right now: This story has always kinda bothered me. ’Cause y’notice Jesus initially told his brothers, “You go to the festival; I’m not going.” Then, one verse later, he goes—“as it were in secret,” as the King James Version puts it. On face value, it totally looks like Jesus lied to his brothers and snuck to the festival.

I know, I know: Christ Jesus never sinned. He 4.15 I’m not claiming otherwise. I don’t think the passage is claiming otherwise either. Certainly no Christian is gonna interpret it that way. But anybody who honestly looks at this passage—including skeptics who have no qualms about accusing Jesus of all sorts of things—are gonna come right out and say, “Looks like Jesus deceived his siblings.” (That is, once pagans get over their initial surprise: “Wait, Jesus has siblings? Brothers and sisters? I thought he was an only child!”)

So instead of letting little doubts poke at the back of our minds for no good reason, let’s deal with this bible difficulty today.

John the baptist’s interview in 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯.

John 1.15, 19-28.

The Gospel of John doesn’t describe John the baptist’s appearance like Mark and the other synoptics; John’s just there, doing his ministry. The author assumed his readers would already know who John the baptist was—and already know a lot of the Jesus stories, which is why the gospel was largely written to fill in the blanks in those stories. John skips John’s birth story ’cause Luke already told it; skips what John looked like and preached ’cause the synoptics already told it; he just goes straight to what John taught about Jesus.

John 1.15 KWL

John witnesses about Jesusᴾ

and when he cried out, he’s saying,

“This is of whom I say,

‘The one who comes after me

came into being before me.’

Because he’s first over me.”

The author only cared about that.

So the gospel leapfrogged all John’s other teachings, and the first we see of John is verse 15, and his testimony to the Judean leadership who wanted to know who he was. As told in this part here:

John 1.19-28 KWL

19And this is John’s testimony,

when the Judeans of Jerusalem

send priests and Levites out to him

so they could ask him, “Who are you¹?”

20John is in agreement with them,

does not resist them,

and agrees with them:

“I’m not Messiah.”

21They ask John,ᴾ “So… what, are you¹ Elijah?”

He says, “I’m not.”

“Are you¹ the Prophet?”

He answers, “No.”

22So they say, “Who are you¹?—

so we can give an answer to those who sent us.

What do you¹ say about yourself¹?”

23John is saying, “I’m

‘a voice crying out in the wilderness:

Straighten the Lord’s path!’ Is 40.3

like the prophet Isaiah said.”

24Those who were sent are from the Pharisees,

25and are questioning John,ᴾ

and are telling him, “So why do you¹ baptize,

if you’re¹ not Messiah nor Elijah nor the Prophet?”

26John answers them, saying, “I baptize in water.

In your² midst, one has stood among you.²

You’ve² not known him.

27{He’s} the one coming after me,

{who has got in front of me}.

I’m not worthy to loose his sandal strap.”

28These events happen in Bethany-beyond-the-Jordan,

where John is baptizing.

Now y’might notice the three people John said he’s not:

• Messiah.
• Elijah.
• The Prophet.

These three are major figures in the Pharisee End Times Timeline.

Back then, same as now, people figured the End was coming, and might actually be upon us. And since John was getting a lot of attention, Pharisees wanted to know whether John considered himself any of these End Times guys. They likely had their doubts. But John silenced those doubts by quickly saying nope, he’s none of those guys. He’s just a voice in the wilderness, like Isaiah described, telling people to get ready ’cause the Lord is coming.

And no, this “voice in the wilderness” is not a specific prophecy about John the baptist. It’s just a verse John borrowed to describe what he was up to. Because anybody who speaks up for God in a lawless, fruitless, godless culture is a voice in the wilderness. Any Christian can be such a voice. Many Christians have been.

Likewise anyone who tells people to get ready for Jesus’s second coming—especially to a culture who’s more interested in looking like they follow God instead of bearing actual good fruit—is a similar voice in a wild, undeveloped, untended land. Wouldn’t hurt to have more of them.

Jesus steps out of public.

John 11.54-57.

After raising Lazarus from the dead, after the Judean senate and head priest decided maybe Jesus oughta die to keep the Romans pacified, Jesus decided maybe he ought not be where the Judeans could easily grab him.

John 11.54-57 KWL

54So Jesus is no longer walking boldly among the Judeans,

but is leaving from there to a region near the wilderness,

to a city called Efrém.

He’s staying there with the students.

55It’s getting near the Judean Passover,

and many are leaving their land

to Jerusalem for Passover

so they might purify themselves.

56So those who are seeking Jesus

are also saying to one another

as they stood in the temple,

“What do you² think?

Might he choose to not come to the feast?”

57The head priests and Pharisees gave a command,

that when anyone knows where Jesus is,

they should make it known,

so they might arrest him.

“Purify themselves” in verse 55 refers to the people who’d traveled to Jerusalem from far away, and because there was no way of traveling long distances without becoming ritually unclean, they gave themselves an extra week to get ritually clean. So, lots of washing and baptizing. As soon as all the local pools are full of dusty diaspora Jews, you know Passover’s coming.

When I taught on this passage previously, one of the kids in the study said, “What’re they arresting him for, raising Lazarus? Was raising the dead illegal?” I had to remind him ancient Judea didn’t have any Fourth Amendment; only a command against kidnapping, Ex 21.16 which supposedly they weren’t doing because they were immediately gonna try him, condemn him, then have the Romans kill him.

And they expected to have him in their clutches fairly soon, since Jesus had to come to Jerusalem for Passover, because the Law said every adult male had to come to temple for Passover. Dt 16.6 Add to that they “gave a command” that if anyone knew where Jesus was, they had to tell them.

The Judean leaders plot to kill Jesus.

John 11.45-53.

In the other gospels, we read of Jesus annoying the Pharisees of his community to the point they start conspiring with the Herodians to kill him. Mk 3.6 But that’s in Herod Antipas’s province; that’s in the Galilee. Judea’s a whole different province.

In Jesus’s day, in the 30s CE, Judea was run directly by Rome, who sent a procurator—at this point in time, the prefect Pontius Pilate—to keep the peace, and make sure the Romans got their taxes. But day-to-day stuff was handled by Judean nobles, who mimicked the Roman senate by creating their own senate. They called it a συνέδριον/synédrion (Syriac ܣܢܗܕܪܝܢ/sanhedrín), “sit-together, council,” and people get the idea this was a legislative or judicial body. It really wasn’t either of them: It was an oligarchy, same as the Roman senate. These were the noble families, the rich families, the “important” people of the province, presided over by the temple’s head priest. (Until the Romans took over, the head priest was also the king of Judea; now he was just appointed by the procurator.) Bound by the Law of Moses—although they certainly bent it every which way—but yeah, they ruled the province wherever the Romans didn’t.

And Jesus’s raising of Lazarus threw ’em into a panic.

John 11.45-48 KWL

45So, many of the Judeans coming to mourn with Mary,

upon seeing what Jesus does,

believe in him.

46Some of them go off to the Pharisees

and tell them what Jesus does.

47So, the head priests and Pharisees gather in the senate

and say, “This person does many miracles.

48When we leave Jesusᴾ free to do so,

everyone will believe in him,

and the Romans will come,

will take us away,

plus the land and the nation.”

Well that escalated quickly: “If everyone believes in him, the Romans will destroy us!”

As I said, the senate consisted of all the important people in the province. Many of ’em were Pharisees, and Pharisees had a whole End Times Timeline which told of a Messiah coming to overthrow the Romans. Of course if you don’t believe Jesus is that Messiah—and they didn’t, ’cause Jesus didn’t act at all like they wanted—it means his overzealous followers might try to overthrow the Romans anyway, and you wind up… well, with what actually happened in the year 70. This fear the senators articulated in the last three lines of verse 48? Spot on.

The head priest, Joseph Caiaphas, then stepped in and shrewdly said no, things don’t have to be that way.

John 11.49-50 KWL

49A certain one of them, Joseph Caiaphas,

being head priest that term,

tells them, “You² don’t know anything,

50nor do you² consider this:

It is better for you² that one person might die for the people,

and the whole nation might not be destroyed.”

If it sounds a little bit like a mafia don trying to quiet the agitated members of the other crime families by saying this could easily be solved by whacking the troublemaker… well yes it does. Oligarchs are oligarchs, you see.

Jesus weeps for Lazarus.

John 11.28-37.

One of the answers to the popular trivia question, “What’s the shortest verse in the bible?” is found in today’s passage. The shortest verse in the King James Version is the 9-letter “Jesus wept,” Jn 11.35 which I translate “Jesus weeps”—one letter longer—because aorist verbs aren’t always past tense.

Thing is, in the original texts, the 16-letter sentence ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς/edákrusen o Yisús, is not the shortest verse. That’d be the 9-letter עֵ֥בֶר פֶּ֖לֶג רְעֽוּ/Evér, Pelég, Rev in 1 Chronicles 1.25; three of Abraham’s ancestors. And in the New Testament it’d be the 12-letter καὶ ὁ δεύτερος/ke o dévteros, “and the second.” Lk 20.30 Thing is, the Textus Receptus added seven words to this verse, so it’s not all that short in that particular NT. But there’s still a verse in the NT shorter than edákrusen o Yisús, and it’s the 14-letter πάντοτε χαίρετε/pántote hérete, “rejoice always.” 1Th 5.16

Enough bible trivia. Everybody remembers Jesus wept, but now let’s get to why. Because it tends to dumbfound people. Why’s he crying? Why’s he mourning the death of Lazarus? Didn’t he go to Bethany specifically to “awaken” Lazarus from the dead? Jn 11.11 Why’s he grieving a death that he’s about to undo within the next 15 minutes?

I’ve got a ridiculously simple answer to that question, and it’d occur to you immediately if you share that trait. Unfortunately too many Christians don’t, don’t care to cultivate it, and even consider it an undesirable weakness. And it’s not; it’s a fruit of the Spirit. It’s empathy, the knowledge of what others are feeling—and feeling it too. The people were mourning—and kinda angry because they felt Jesus could’ve prevented Lazarus’s death. So Jesus was mourning—and, believe it or not, also kinda angry.

It’s all right there in the text:

John 11.28-37 KWL

28Martha, after saying this,

goes and secretly calls her sister Mary,

saying, “The Teacher is here and calls for you.¹”

29When she hears this,

this Maryᴾ quickly rises up

and is going to Jesus.ᴾ

30Jesus hadn’t yet come into the village,

but is still in the place where Martha met him.

31So the Judeans who are with Maryᴾ in the house,

comforting her,

seeing how Mary quickly rises up and goes out,

follow her,

thinking she goes out to the sepulcher

so she might weep there.

32So when Mary comes to where Jesus is,

on seeing him, she falls to his feet,

telling him, “Master, if you¹ were here,

my brother would never have died.”

33So when Jesus sees Maryᴾ weeping,

and those Judeans who came with her weeping,

he’s outraged in spirit

and stirred up within himself.

34Jesus says, “Where did you² put Lazarus?ᴾ”

They tell him, “Master, come and see.”

35Jesus weeps,

36so the Judeans are saying,

“Look how he loves Lazarus.ᴾ”

37And some say back to them, “Wasn’t this Jesus,ᴾ

who opened the eyes of the blind man,

able to do something

so that this Lazarusᴾ might not die?”

As it says in verse 33, when Jesus sees Mary and the crowd, he ἐνεβριμήσατο/enevrimísato, “snorts with anger.” The KJV has “groaned”; the translators skipped why he groaned, but they knew from their Latin bibles it was because Jesus fremuit spiritu, “raged in spirit.”

Why was Jesus angry? Like I said, empathy: The crowd of Judeans wanted to know why Jesus could cure the blind, but couldn’t’ve cured Lazarus. Jn 11.37 So, some of them were frustrated with him. And Jesus felt that, in his spirit. Not in his guts, which is where the ancients believed emotion came from; he spiritually knew there was anger in the crowd. They wanted to know why he hadn’t done anything. They expected he’d better do something now.

As for why he wept: Mary was weeping. So he wept with her. Because Jesus isn’t a compassionless, unfeeling dick. He’s a human being with the very same emotions we have, but he’s in full control of them and doesn’t use them as an excuse to sin. He rejoices with us; he mourns with us. And because he’s our example, we should do likewise.

Jesus is resurrection and life.

John 11.17-27.

Lazarus’s sisters Martha and Mary come up elsewhere in the gospels. It’s in a story where Mary sits at Jesus’s feet during a lesson, which was not appropriate for women in their sexist culture, and Martha tells Jesus to shoo her away and make Mary help her. But Jesus tells Martha to leave her be; that’s exactly where Mary belongs. Lk 10.38-42 As a result Christians have preached many a sermon where Martha’s the bad example, and Mary’s the good.

Although they don’t always realize why Mary’s the good. Often these sermons only talk about Mary worshiping at Jesus’s feet—as if Mary was only fangirling over Jesus while he was at the serious business of training apostles. That’s not how rabbinic lessons worked. The rabbi makes a statement; the students challenge the statement based on their bible knowledge; the rabbi defends his statement based on his bible knowledge. Those at the rabbi’s feet actively participated in this. Meaning Mary was challenging Jesus, quoting bible, and showing an intellectual capacity that impressed Jesus so much he wanted her there. Valued her there.

Generally the lessons go: Martha frets about so many things which are ultimately irrelevant, but Mary sits at Jesus’s feet. Let’s all be like Mary. Martha bad, Mary good. But no, Martha wasn’t bad—she just didn’t realize she likewise had the right to sit at the Lord’s feet, same as Mary, and learn from Jesus, instead of doing busywork like her culture expected her to.

Anyway, by the time Lazarus died, Martha apparently had learned from Jesus, ’cause she makes some of the more profound faith statements in the bible. Her faith didn’t go heave-ho after her brother died, like we see in so many people; it was strong as ever. When she met with Jesus, she didn’t scream at him about not being there to save Lazarus, as some of the lousier Jesus movies depict her. She still trusts him. She knows the Father listens to him; she still believes he can do something. She still calls him Christ, God’s son.

John 11.17-27 KWL

17So, on arriving, Jesus finds Lazarusᴾ

is already four days in the sepulcher.

18Bethany is near Jerusalem;

like 15 stadia. [2⅓ km]

19Many of the Judeans came to Martha and Mary

so they might comfort them about their brother.

20So Martha, once she hears Jesus arrives, meets him.

Mary is sitting in the house.

21So Martha says to Jesus, “Master, if you¹ were here,

my brother never would have died.

22{But} I now know whatever you¹ ask God,

God will give you.¹”

23Jesus tells her, “Your brother will rise again.”

24Martha tells him, “I know he’ll rise—

in the resurrection, on the last day.”

25Jesus tells her, “I’m the resurrection.

I’m life.

One who trusts in me, if they¹ die, will live.

26And everyone who lives and trusts in me

ought never, ever die in the age to come.

Do you¹ believe this?”

27Marthaᴾ tells him, “Yes, Master.

I’ve believed you’re¹ the Christ,

God’s son coming into the world.”

Other Christians despair at their great losses, yet Martha still totally trusts Jesus. That’s huge. Let’s all be like Martha.

Losing students—and keeping the good ones.

John 6.66-71.

Growing up, I’ve heard many a Christian claim the worst verse in the bible was John 6.66. I suspect most of that is because of the address. Plenty of Christians are superstitious about the number 666, forgetting it’s only a hint of what the Beast’s name is; it’s not an inherently evil number. And there are much worse verses. But here’s how that verse goes:

John 6.66 KWL

Because of this,

many of Jesus’s students are going back,

and are no longer walking with him.

You remember a crowd came to Jesus hoping he’d give ’em free bread, and maybe overthrow the Romans, and instead he tells them he’s living bread who wants to save us, and expects our response to be a deep commitment—we gotta eat this living bread. And no, this isn’t actually about holy communion; Jesus is not making statements about how eating and drinking the communion elements literally work. He’s talking about abiding in him. Jn 15.4 About being one with him. About really following him.

He didn’t just weird out the crowd; this was too much for some of his own students. And if this freaks you out, Jesus pointed out, wait till you see Jesus get raptured.

Jesus had already pointed out the people didn’t trust him, Jn 6.36, 64 and the radical stuff he was saying—much of which affirms he’s actually God. It broke them. So they quit. They followed him no more.

Christian apologists love to point to this, and claim it’s part of the “trilemma,” John Duncan’s claim (which C.S. Lewis popularized; no, he didn’t invent it) that Jesus is either a fraud, self-deluded, or divine. Or, as Josh McDowell rephrased it, a liar, lunatic, or Lord. (Pagans typically choose a fourth option: Jesus never said any of these things, for overeager Christian fanboys made ’em up.) So the students who quit figured Jesus was either phony or crazy, and the students who stayed figured Jesus is Lord. In other words a good old-fashioned di-lemma: Jesus is either wrong, or right.

As for those who stayed:

John 6.67-71 KWL

67So Jesus tells the Twelve,

“You² don’t want to leave too?”

68Simon Peter answers Jesus,

“Master, to whom will we go?

You¹ have the sayings of life in the age to come,

69and we trusted you

and knew you¹ are God’s saint.”

70Jesus answers them, “Don’t I choose you² Twelve?

And among you is an accuser.”

71Jesus is saying this

of Judas bar Simon Iscariot,

for Judas is about to betray him,

despite being one of the Twelve.

Jesus goes too far for some of his students.

John 6.59-66.

The first time I heard this story, I thought, “Wait, some of Jesus’s students left him? I thought the Twelve always stayed with him.” And in fact John’s very next verses say the Twelve stuck with him. But somehow I had the idea Jesus only had the 12 followers. The fact he’d been teaching 5,000 followers in the beginning of this chapter, kinda skipped my notice; I didn’t think of these followers as students, but as fans. Fans love what you’re doing, and wear your merchandise, but you shouldn’t expect them on the training field with you. Same deal with “Christians” who love being Christian, and heartily approve of Jesus, but don’t obey him any, never plan to, and never produce good fruit.

And yeah, the people who followed Jesus to Capharnaum looking for him to give ’em more bread: A lot of them were nothing more than fans. Jesus starts talking about serious dedication with all his “living bread” talk, and they’re all, “Nope, I’m tapping out,” and the fans scatter. But apparently the living bread stuff was too much for some of his legitimate students, the ones he was teaching along with, and same as, the Twelve—the ones Jesus designated apostles. The ones we Christians usually call “disciples.”

In Acts, Luke identifies two of these students, who were nominated to take Judas Iscariot’s place in the Twelve after he died—Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias. Ac 1.21-26 These two guys, among others, had been with Jesus from his baptism to his rapture. No doubt there were others who joined them along the way, who were just as much disciples as Matthew—both men and women, ’cause Jesus had no problem with women students like Mary the Magdalene. We really don’t know how large Jesus’s class was.

Here’s where it gets smaller.

John 6.59-66 KWL

59Jesus says these things

while teaching in the Capharnaum synagogue.

60Upon hearing it, many of Jesus’s students

therefore say, “This is an outrageous lesson.

Who can listen to it?”

61Having known within himself

his students are bellyaching about these things,

Jesus tells them, “This trips you² up?

62So what’ll you do when you² see

the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

63The Spirit is making you alive.

The body benefits no one.

The sayings I spoke to you²

are of the Spirit, and are life.

64But there are some of you²

who don’t trust me.”

For Jesus knew from the beginning

some are unbelievers,

and some will betray him.

65Jesus says, “This is why I told you this:

No one can come to me

unless the Spirit was given to them¹

by {my} Father.”

66Because of this,

many of Jesus’s students are going back,

and are no longer walking with him.

Wait, we gotta 𝘦𝘢𝘵 Jesus?

John 6.47-58.

Jesus is the living bread. It’s a metaphor for how we gotta commune with him. And in this passage, Jesus gets a bit graphic with the metaphor: The living bread is his body, and if we wanna abide in him, we gotta eat his body. The living drink—he doesn’t specify here whether this drink is living water, or the wine we use as part of our ritual of holy communion—is his blood, and if we wanna abide in him, we gotta drink his blood. (Since drinking blood is a no-no in the Law, Lv 17.10 that got their attention.)

This is where Jesus goes way too far with the Galileans who came to him hoping for free bread. They wanted Jesus to feed them like Moses (properly, the LORD) fed the Hebrews in the wilderness with manna. They didn’t expect him to make profound divine statements, and tell them if they wanted life in the age to come (KJV “eternal life,” because the coming age of the kingdom of God lasts forever) they’d have to eat and drink him.

And like I said, Jesus gets graphic. In verses 54, 56, and 58 he uses the word τρώγων/trógon, which doesn’t merely mean “eating,” like we see in a lot of bibles; it means chewing. Not necessarily loudly, but yeah, like livestock chews on its grain or cud. You gotta chew on the Son of Man. We’re meant to get the idea of rumination—or meditation. We’re meant to turn this food over and over in our mouths—or turn Jesus’s word over and over in our minds, and really work on abiding in Jesus.

Of course, since Jesus is talking about eating and drinking him, it immediately brings to mind the ritual of communion which Jesus introduced in his last supper. Mk 14.22-25, 1Co 11.23-26 Which is likely why bibles don’t translate trógon as “chewing,” but simply “eating.” You know how a lot of churches discourage us from chewing on the communion wafers, because they represent Jesus and they consider it disrespectful to chew Jesus? Yeah, Jesus doesn’t share their hangup. He says trógon. Which is why “chewing” is in my translation.

John 6.47-58 KWL

47“Amen amen! I promise you²

one who believes has life in the age to come.

48I’m the living bread.

49In the wilderness,

your² forefathers did eat manna,

and did die.

50This is the bread

which comes down from heaven,

so one might eat it,

and might not die:

51I’m the living bread

which comes down from heaven.

When anyone eats of this bread,

they¹ will live in the age to come.

Also, the bread which I will give you,

my body,

is for the life of the world.”

52So the Judeans are debating one another,

saying, “How can this man

give us his body to eat?”

53So Jesus tells them, “Amen amen! I promise you²

unless you² eat the body of the Son of Man,

and drink his blood,

you² don’t have life in you².

54One who chews on my body

and drinks my blood

has life in the age to come,

and I will resurrect them¹ on the Last Day.

55For my body is really food,

and my blood is really drink.

56One who chews on my body

and drinks my blood

abides in me,

and I in them¹.

57Just as the living Father sends me,

and I live because of the Father,

one who chews me—

that one will live because of me.

58This is the bread

which comes down from heaven.

It’s not like the forefathers did eat

and die;

One who chews on this bread

will live in the age to come.”