Ever wondered about those narratives that, you
know, don't just tell a story but fundamentally
reshape how we think about life, divinity, our
place in the world? How do we even begin to unpack
a text so dense with meaning, with history, without
getting completely lost? Well, today we're taking
a deep dive into exactly that kind of foundational
document. We're looking at the earliest chapters
of the Gospel according to John. And this isn't
just some ancient historical account. It's a
profound theological narrative. It's brimming
with unique claims, very rich, symbolic imagery,
and frankly, unforgettable personal encounters.
Right, and our mission for you is really to cut
through that complexity. We want to pull out
the core ideas, the surprising moments, the lasting
impact. We want to help you grasp its profound
insights, maybe give you that aha moment, you
know, a shortcut to being genuinely well informed
about a work that's shaped millennia of thought.
And we'll be pulling directly from the source
text itself, staying true to its unique perspective,
focusing on what it says and why it matters.
Okay, so the text opens with this incredibly
striking declaration in the beginning was the
word and the word was with God and the word was
God. Wow, what an opening. It immediately sets
a truly distinct tone, doesn't it? Very different
from other ancient narratives. Why start there
with this cosmic perspective? It's absolutely
foundational to John's unique viewpoint. This
prologue, it introduces a concept of a pre -existent
divine word. Logos in the Greek. And through
this word, all things were made. The insight
here, I think, is that John isn't starting with
a birth or a genealogy like some other counts.
He's establishing Jesus' divine identity in his
creative role before creation even began. This
word is described as the source of life and the
light of men. And that light, it says, shineth
in darkness and the darkness comprehended it
not. That phrase, comprehended it not, is really
key. It suggests the darkness couldn't grasp
it, couldn't understand it, but also, crucially,
couldn't overcome it, couldn't extinguish the
light. So it sets up this powerful theme of spiritual
conflict right from the very first lines. So
this transcendent light is established and then
it enters the world. How does the text introduce
its first major human figure, John the Baptist,
in relation to this divine light? Right. So the
narrative then introduces a man sent from God
whose name was John. And it explicitly states
he came for a witness to bear witness of the
light that all men through him might believe.
And then it immediately clarifies he was not
that light, but was sent to bear witness of that
light. Right. This distinction is absolutely
critical in John's gospel. John the Baptist's
whole purpose here is to redirect attention away
from himself and point towards Jesus. And this
emphasis that he's a witness, not the light itself,
it gets underlined when he's directly questioned,
right? By priests and Levites from Jerusalem.
These were religious officials sent by the leadership
in Jerusalem. Their interest in him really speaks
to his public impact at the time. And when they
press him, who art thou, he firmly denies being
the Christ or Elijah or that prophet. Instead,
he identifies himself using scripture. The voice
of one crying in the wilderness makes straight
the way of the Lord. It's a very public, very
clear, self -definition he gives. Exactly. And
his testimony really reaches its peak, its most
profound point. When he actually sees Jesus,
he declares, Behold the Lamb of God, which take
away the sin of the world. Now that imagery,
Lamb of God, is deeply significant within Jewish
tradition. It often refers to a sacrificial lamb
for atonement. So for John the Baptist to use
this title for Jesus, well, it's a powerful prophetic
insight into Jesus's ultimate mission. He also
recounts seeing the spirit descending from heaven
like a dove and resting upon Jesus. And he identifies
him as the one who baptized with the Holy Ghost.
He stays plainly, I saw and bear record that
this is the Son of God. It's presented as an
undeniable public confirmation. And John's testimony,
it immediately sparks action. It draws people
to Jesus. Two of John's own disciples hear this
declaration and they start following Jesus. And
when Jesus turns and asks them, what's Siki?
It feels like more than just a casual question.
It's like an invitation to think about their
deeper purpose and then comes that simple...
famous invitation, come and see. Yeah, and that
invitation leads to this rapid expansion of Jesus'
first followers. Andrew quickly finds his brother
Simon Peter and he declares, we have found the
Messiah, which as the text points out means the
Christ. And the renaming of Simon to Cephas,
meaning a stone or rock, is also quite telling,
isn't it? It seems to set him up for a foundational
role later on. Then Philip finds Nathaniel proclaiming
Jesus as the one of whom Moses and the law and
the prophets did write. So he's connecting Jesus
directly back to the ancient Jewish scriptures.
And Nathaniel's reaction, that initial skeptical
question, can there any good thing come out of
Nazareth that feels so human, you know, relatable?
But it's quickly powerfully overturned when Jesus
reveals he saw Nathaniel under the fig tree,
something private. The swiftness of Nathaniel's
recognition, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God,
thou art the King of Israel. It's a truly profound
shift in belief, almost instantaneous. What's
the core insight John seems to be conveying about
how belief or revelation works here? Well, it's
fascinating because John... consistently portrays
Jesus revealing his identity through both these
direct statements, but also through profound
insights into individuals, like seeing Nathaniel.
For Nathaniel, Jesus' supernatural knowledge
of a private moment, that's enough. It completely
bypasses his skepticism, and it leads to this
immediate profound declaration, Son of God, King
of Israel. So the insight, I think, is that Belief
in John's gospel often comes not through long
persuasion, but through a sudden undeniable revelation
of Jesus' unique knowledge or his glory. And
that revelation elicits an immediate response.
Okay, so from these profound spiritual revelations,
the narrative shifts quite dramatically. It goes
to a very relatable human event. A wedding in
Cana of Galilee, Jesus' mother, his disciples,
they're all invited. What's particularly significant
about what happens when the wine runs out seems
like a mundane problem. Well, it does, but Jesus'
mother simply informs him they have no wine.
just states the fact. And while Jesus initially
responds, mine hour has not yet come, which is
a recurring theme in John about the timing of
his public ministry, his hour, his mother's quiet
instruction to the servants whatsoever he sayeth
unto you, do it. It shows this deep underlying
trust in him. So Jesus then directs them to fill
six large stone water pots. And the text notes,
these were typically used for Jewish purification
rituals. The inside here isn't just the miracle
itself, but it's context. These huge vessels
used for symbolic cleansing are now filled with
water that becomes wine. There's symbolism there.
Right. And then the astonishing transformation
happens. The ruler of the feast, who's completely
unaware of the miracle, he tastes this water
turned wine and he praises the bridegroom saying,
you saved the good wine until now. What does
John want us to understand about this? He calls
it the beginning of miracles. He does. John explicitly
calls this this beginning of miracles and states
that Jesus manifested forth His glory and His
disciples believed on it. So the key insight
is that for John these miracles aren't just displays
of power or even just compassion. They are signs,
S -I -G -N -S. They're public demonstrations
meant to reveal Jesus' divine nature, His glory.
and their primary purpose seems to be to provoke
and deepen belief among those who witness them.
It's a deliberate, intentional unveiling of who
he is. Okay, so following this joyous manifestation
of Laurie, the narrative pivots again quite dramatically
to a scene of intense confrontation. Jesus goes
to Jerusalem for the Passover festival and he
finds the temple area bustling, but not just
with worshipers. It's full of merchants selling
animals, oxen, sheep, doves, and money changers.
Why is the situation so problematic in John's
account? Well, this was the outer court of the
temple, the court of the Gentiles, theoretically
meant for non -Jews to worship. But it had essentially
become a marketplace. The money changers were
there to convert foreign currency into the specific
temple currency needed for offerings. And the
sellers provided the sacrificial animals, often
presumably at inflated prices. And Jesus' reaction
is forceful. He makes a scourge of small cords
like a whip and drives everyone out. The animals,
the sellers, the money changers, he overturns
their tables and he declares, make not my father's
house and house of merchandise. His disciples
then remember the scripture, the zeal of thine
house hath eaten me up. which literally suggests
being consumed or devoured by this passion for
God's house. So the insight is that Jesus is
asserting divine authority over the very center
of Jewish worship. He's challenging its commercialization
and pointedly claiming it as my father's house.
And when the Jewish authorities demand a sign,
some proof of his authority to do something so
radical, Jesus gives this cryptic yet hugely
significant reply, destroy this temple and in
three days I will raise it up. The text then
clarifies for the reader, he's spake of the temple
of his body. Why is this statement so crucial
for understanding John's gospel, especially looking
back? It's a classic example of what John often
portrays as misunderstanding. Characters hear
Jesus' words on a physical level, but he's speaking
spiritually or prophetically. I mean, the temple
in Jerusalem, that was the absolute focal point
of Jewish worship to national identity. For Jesus
to speak of destroying that temple and raising
it in three days, even if he met his body. Well,
to his listeners, that sounded incredibly provocative,
maybe even blasphemous. Right. So the insight
is that John used this moment to foreshadow Jesus'
death and resurrection. He's portraying Jesus'
body as the new temple, the ultimate place where
God and humanity meet. It fundamentally re -denies
worship and access to God, moving it away from
a building to a person. Okay, a truly important
and frankly often debated encounter follows this.
It's with Nicodemus, he's a Pharisee, described
as a ruler of the Jews, and he comes to Jesus
by night. The text highlights he's not just a
religious leader, but part of the ruling council,
the Sanhedrin. So his clandestine visit, coming
secretly at night, that feels like a significant
detail. It signals maybe his cautious curiosity
amidst his peers who might disapprove. And he
acknowledges Jesus saying, we know that thou
art a teacher come from God. Why does Jesus immediately
respond with such a profound statement about
being born again? It seems to come out of nowhere.
It does seem abrupt. But it's a direct challenge
to Nicodemus' whole framework, his understanding
of how one enters God's kingdom. Jesus states,
point blank, and Nicodemus, understandably, struggles
with the literal interpretation. How can an old
man enter his mother's womb and be born a second
time? The insight here is that Jesus is pushing
beyond the external religious observance, the
kind of thing Nicodemus as a Pharisee would have
mastered. He's pushing towards an internal, radical
spiritual transformation. And Jesus clarifies
this, right? He says one must be born of water
and of the spirit, and he compares the spirit's
mysterious work to the wind you hear it sound,
but can'ts not tell when's it cometh and whether
it goeth. That comparison really makes this abstract
idea of spiritual rebirth more vivid, doesn't
it? Absolutely. It speaks to something beyond
human control or full comprehension. And this
conversation then leads into arguably one of
the most widely quoted passages in all of Scripture,
John 3 .16, for God so loved the world that he
gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish but have everlasting
life. I mean, for many, that's the theological
heart of this gospel. And it also presents this
stark contrast. between those who come to the
light because their deeds are wrought in God,
meaning done in alignment with God's will and
those who love darkness because their deeds were
evil. It frames it as a choice, an alignment
of one's inner being with either light or darkness.
So moving from that intense nocturnal meeting
with a religious elite, we shift again. Now it's
a daytime encounter with the Samaritan woman
at Jacob's well. Jesus is tired from his journey,
sits at the well, his disciples have gone off
to buy food. What makes this interaction so unusual,
so impactful for the time, given the social norms?
Oh, this interaction shatters multiple social
barriers of the time. The text explicitly highlights
the huge division. For the Jews have no dealings
with the Samaritans. They despised each other.
So not only was Jesus a Jewish man speaking to
a Samaritan but also to a woman in public and
as we find out along with a complicated past,
a questionable reputation, that was just not
done. He asks her for a drink which starts the
conversation. Then he flips it and offers her
living water. Water that if she drank it would
cause her to never thirst again becoming a well
of water springing up into everlasting life.
The insight here is Jesus immediately moving
beyond the physical need for water to the deeper
spiritual thirst, offering a satisfaction that
earthly things can't provide. And this is where
it gets truly fascinating, really personal. Jesus
then reveals his knowledge of her life. Thou
hast had five husbands, and he whom thou now
hast is not thy husband. She immediately perceives
him as a prophet. But the depth of his knowledge,
knowing her secrets, it completely disarms her,
doesn't it? What's the significance of that revelation
here? It's another powerful moment of recognition,
much like with Nathaniel. This intimate supernatural
knowledge reveals Jesus' divine insight. It stops
her in her tracks, and the dialogue shifts immediately.
She moves from her personal situation to a theological
debate, the Samaritan versus Jewish dispute about
the right place to worship, Mount Jerizim or
Jerusalem. But Jesus redirects again, stating
the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipper
shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
He transcends that whole debate. Right, location
doesn't matter as much as the how. Exactly. Worship
isn't about place, but about spiritual reality
and truth. And then, he gives her one of the
clearest, earliest self -revelations in the entire
gospel. When she mentions the coming Messiah,
Jesus declares blank, I that speak unto thee,
am he. And he makes this incredible declaration
not to the religious elite but to this Samaritan
woman, someone considered an outsider on multiple
levels. The impact is immediate. The woman leaves
her water pot, a symbol maybe, of her original
earthly purpose for being there, and she runs
back to her town and she proclaims, Come, see
a man which told me all things that ever I did
is not this the Christ. Her testimony is so compelling
that many Samaritans initially believed just
because of what she said. But then the text emphasizes
many more believed because of his own word. After
they came out and heard him themselves, what
does this outcome highlight for John's narrative?
Well, it underscores a key theme. While human
witness is important, absolutely vital in starting
the process, it's the direct encounter with Jesus'
own words, his own presence, that ultimately
solidifies belief. And it also powerfully demonstrates
that Jesus' mission extends beyond traditional
Jewish boundaries. He's reaching those considered
outsiders, like the Samaritans. It's a vivid
illustration of the transformative power of his
direct presence in teaching. Okay, so let's talk
about the Bread of Life discourse. This profound
teaching follows two really significant miracles.
Jesus feeding the 5 ,000 with just a few loaves
and fish and then walking on water. But the crowds,
they seek him out again, and it seems they're
mostly looking for more physical food. They're
kind of missing the point of the miracle. Exactly.
They saw the sign, but they didn't grasp its
meaning. Jesus challenges their shallow pursuit
directly. He urges them, labor not for the meat
which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth
unto everlasting life. Don't work for temporary
food, work for eternal food. And then he delivers
one of his most vital, I am statements, I am
the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall
never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall
never thirst. He's drawing this explicit parallel
between physical sustenance, which they desperately
want, and the spiritual nourishment only he can
provide. He's positioning himself as the ultimate
source of true life. But the teaching then becomes
even more challenging, really controversial when
he says, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you.
And that sounds shocking. And the text notes
that many of his disciples hearing this hard
saying just couldn't handle it. They went back
and walked no more with them. This is a significant
moment of defection, people leaving him. What
does John want us to glean from this really difficult
teaching and its immediate impact? I think the
inside here is that John portrays Jesus' teachings
as deliberately challenging. sometimes provocative.
They forced listeners to choose. You either stick
with a superficial understanding, maybe hoping
for more miracles or political deliverance, or
you commit to a deep, radical spiritual identification
with him. This wasn't meant as a literal call
to cannibalism, obviously. It was a deeply symbolic
spiritual demand for complete union with him,
participation in his life, and implicitly his
sacrifice. It was designed to test faith, to
sift his followers. And it leads to this pivotal
moment with his inner circle, the 12. Jesus asks
them, essentially, are you going to leave too?
And Simon Peter's response is so powerful. Lord,
to whom shall we go thou hast the words of eternal
life? And we believe and are sure that thou art
the Christ, the Son of the Living God. It's a
declaration of faith, despite the difficulty
of the teaching. Yet even in this moment of profound
affirmation, Jesus reveals that one of them,
Judas Iscariot, will betray him. It shows his
divine foreknowledge, even of the darkness within
his own group, and it sets his tragic undercurrent
for everything that follows. Okay, moving forward
in the narrative, Jesus goes back to Jerusalem
for another feast, and he encounters a man who
has been sick for 38 years, lying by the pool
of Bethesda. And Jesus asks him this really striking
question, will thou be made whole? Will you be
made well? Why ask that, given the man's obvious
long -term condition? It's an interesting question,
isn't it? Perhaps it probes the man's actual
desire, his will to change, beyond just the physical
ailment, maybe probing for a deeper readiness.
The man explains his predicament. He has no one
to help him into the pool when the waters are
stirred, supposedly by an angel, which was the
local belief about how healing happened there.
Yeah. Jesus doesn't engage with the pool custom
at all. He simply commands him, rise, take up
their bed and walk. And the man is immediately
healed instantly. But the crucial detail, the
one that immediately sparks controversy, is that
this happens on the Sabbath day. Right. And this
immediately creates a major conflict with the
Jewish religious authorities. They see the healed
man carrying his mat, which they considered forbidden
work on the Sabbath. And when he identifies Jesus
as the one who healed him and told him to carry
it, they begin to persecute Jesus directly. What's
Jesus' defense here and what does it reveal about
the core of this growing conflict? His defense
is incredibly bold. He states, and I work. The
word hitherto basically means up until now and
continuing. So his statement essentially claims
that God is continually active, sustaining the
universe, working even on the Sabbath. And therefore,
as God's son, he also works on the Sabbath. He's
claiming parody with God's activity. Wow. That's
a huge claim. It is. And the text immediately
notes the reaction. Because of this, the Jews
sought the more to kill him. Why? because he
not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also
that God was his Father, making himself equal
with God. That claim of equality with God, this
unique divine sonship, becomes the recurring,
intensifying point of contention throughout John's
Gospel. It's presented as the fundamental reason
they want him dead. It's not just about the Sabbath
rules, it's about his identity claim. Okay, another
powerful healing story follows, and again, it
ignites controversy over the Sabbath. Jesus sees
a man born blind, and his disciples ask a question
reflecting the common belief of the time. Was
this man born blind because of his own sin or
his parents' sin? And Jesus explicitly refutes
that connection. He says neither has this man
sinned nor his parents. But that the works of
God should be made manifest in him. That's an
important insight John gives us. It directly
challenges the simplistic idea that suffering
is always a direct punishment for specific sin.
Instead it can be an occasion for God's work
to be displayed. He then performs the healing
in a very physical, almost earthy way. He spits
on the ground, makes clay from the spittle and
dust, anoints the man's eyes with it, and instructs
him to go wash in the pool of Siloam. The man
obeys, washes, and returns seeing. The reaction
is immediate. Neighbors are astonished. They
can't believe it's the same man. And the Pharisees,
when they hear about it, are instantly divided.
Some argue Jesus is not of God because he keepeth
not the Sabbath day. He healed on the Sabbath
again. But others counter. How can a man that
is a sinner do such miracles? The miracle itself
challenges their condemnation. They even interrogate
the parents to verify he was truly born blind.
The man's own testimony becomes the real focal
point, doesn't it? He's caught in the middle.
Yes. his testimony is incredible. It's direct,
unflinching, even a bit sassy. When the Pharisees
keep pressing him about Jesus, he challenges
their disbelief. He says essentially, here's
a marvelous thing, that ye know not from whence
he is where he comes from, and yet he hath opened
mine eyes. He's a simple man stating an undeniable
fact I was blind now I see, and this man did
it. He refuses to condemn Jesus, and for his
persistence, he's ultimately cast out of the
synagogue. Excommunicated a huge social and religious
consequence huge but Jesus finds him afterwards
and the man worships him Jesus then uses this
moment to connect physical fight with spiritual
understanding He says for judgment I'm coming
to this world that they would see not might see
and that they would see might be made blind The
insight is powerful the miracle isn't just about
physical healing. It's a living parable It reveals
spiritual truth distinguishing those who are
open to seeing like the blind man from those
who are spiritually blind despite the religious
status and knowledge like some of the Pharisees.
Following this escalating controversy over the
blind man's healing and the nature of sight,
Jesus shifts his teaching style. He uses this
beautiful evocative analogy of a shepherd and
his sheep. He describes himself as the door of
the sheep and also as the good shepherd. What
unique aspects does John's gospel highlight in
this extended metaphor? Well, first he says,
I am the door. Buy me if any man enter in he
shall be saved and shall go in and out and find
pasture So he's an exclusive entrance to safety
and true life Then he contrasts himself sharply
with the thief who comes only to steal and to
kill and to destroy and also with the hireling
the hired hand who doesn't truly care for the
sheep and flees when danger comes. The good shepherd,
in contrast, knows his sheep, cares for them,
and crucially, giveth his life for the sheep.
This is another vital IM statement, positioning
Jesus not only as the exclusive way, but also
explicitly foreshadowing his willing, sacrificial
death for his followers. And he also speaks of
knowing his sheep and being known by them, suggesting
this deep, personal, reciprocal relationship.
And he mentions having other sheep. which are
not of this fold, them also I must bring." Which
many interpret as looking beyond his immediate
Jewish followers a more global vision. But maybe,
most importantly, he states his unique power
over his own life. How does this specific claim
further deepen our understanding of his mission,
as presented in John's Gospel? This is a remarkable
assertion of complete sovereignty over his own
destiny. It reframes everything that's about
to happen. It means his impending death won't
be a defeat or an accident or something forced
upon him against his will. It will be a deliberate,
voluntary act. And his resurrection is also entirely
within his own power to accomplish. The profound
insight here is that his sacrifices presented
as a voluntary act of divine power and love,
not a tragic weakness. And it firmly establishes
the resurrection, not as mere resuscitation,
but as an act of divine authority inherent to
who he is. This leads us directly into what feels
like the dramatic climax of his public ministry
in John. the raising of Lazarus. Jesus' friend
Lazarus falls sick. His sister is Mary and Martha,
send word to Jesus. But Jesus deliberately delays
his arrival. He states, this sickness is not
unto death, but for the glory of God, that the
Son of God might be glorified thereby. Why the
delay? And what does that reveal about his purpose
here? The delay is absolutely crucial for the
impact of the miracle. He waits until Lazarus
has been dead and buried for four days. This
ensures there can be absolutely no doubt about
his death, according to the understanding of
the time. Decomposition would have begun. Martha
meets him first, as he approaches the village,
expressing that common human sentiment mixed
with faith. Lord, if thou hadst been here, my
brother had not died. Still believing, but focused
on the past. And Jesus' response to her is perhaps
the theological peak of the gospel. I am the
resurrection and the life. He that believed in
me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And
whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never
die. Another incredibly powerful I am statement
directly linking belief in him not just to a
future resurrection but to present ongoing eternal
spiritual life even in the face of physical death.
Mary then arrives weeping surrounded by others
mourning and the text gives us that incredibly
short poignant verse Jesus wept. It's a very
raw human moment of empathy for Jesus. He goes
to the tomb, which is described as a cave with
a stone sealing the entrance. Despite Martha's
practical, almost gruesome objection, Lord, by
this time he stinketh, for he hath been dead
four days, Jesus commands the stone to be removed.
These human details really heighten the drama
and the miracle, don't they? They absolutely
do. They confirm the undeniable reality and finality
of Lazarus' death from a human perspective, removing
any possibility of doubt or alternative explanation.
And then the text says, with a loud voice, Jesus
cries out, come forth, a command directed at
the dead man. And the text describes Lazarus
emerging from the tomb, still bound head to foot
in his grave clothes. He has to be unwrapped.
This miracle is presented as the ultimate sign
in John's gospel, the most dramatic display of
his power over death itself. And the impact is
immediate and divisive. It causes many Jews who
witnessed it to believe in Jesus. But crucially,
some go and report it to the Pharisees, which
leads to an emergency council meeting of the
Jewish leadership, the Sanhedrin. Yes. And the
immediate so -what for the religious leaders
is made chillingly clear by Caiaphas, who was
the high priest that year. He declares pragmatically,
it is expedient for us that one man should die
for the people and that the whole nation perish
not. It's a cold political calculation. Utilitarian,
almost. Sacrifice won to save the many from Roman
intervention, presumably. Exactly. From their
perspective, Jesus' growing popularity and the
immense stir he was causing, especially after
raising Lazarus from the dead, posed a direct
threat to their authority and potentially to
the fragile peace with Rome. Caiaphas' statement
is a ruthless, pragmatic decision. But John's
Gospel adds this incredible layer of interpretative
insight right here. The text clarifies that Caiaphas,
speaking in his official capacity as high priest,
unwittingly uttered a prophecy. He prophesied
that Jesus should die for that nation, and not
for that nation only, but that also he should
gather together in one the children of God that
were scattered abroad. This transforms Caiaphas'
cynical, politically motivated statement into
a divinely ordained prophecy, revealing John's
understanding of the deeper, redemptive purpose
behind the events far beyond Caiaphas' intention.
But the immediate result is clear. The text says,
then from that day forth they took counsel together
for to put him to death. The decision was made.
They even started consulting about how to kill
Lazarus as well, because his very existence was
drawing so many people to believe in Jesus. The
opposition is now fully committed to elimination.
Okay, the final phase begins. Six days before
the Passover, Jesus is back in Bethany, Lazarus'
village. Lazarus himself, the man raised from
the dead, is there at dinner with him. And Mary,
Lazarus' sister, performs this extravagant act.
She anoints Jesus' feet with very costly spikenard
ointment and wipes them with her hair, a powerful
act of devotion. Judas can scarry it immediately
criticizes this. Why wasn't this ornament sold
and the money given to the poor? But the text
adds that stark comment. This, he said, not that
he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief
and had the bag and bear what was put therein.
That detail about Judas is absolutely critical
for understanding his character and motivations
as John presents them. It paints him not as misguided,
but as corrupt. Jesus defends Mary's action,
connecting it directly to his impending death.
Let her alone against the day of my burying hath
she kept this. He interprets her extravagant
devotion as preparation for his burial. Then
the very next day comes the triumphal entry into
Jerusalem. A large crowd meets him waving palm
branches, crying out, Hosanna, blessed is the
king of Israel, that cometh in the name of the
Lord. And he's writing on a young donkey, fulfilling
Old Testament prophecy about. the coming king.
It's a very public, symbolic acknowledgement
of his kingship, albeit a humble one. And meanwhile,
the Pharisees are watching this unfold, and they
lament amongst themselves, Perceive ye how ye
prevail nothing, behold the world is gone after
him. That really underscores the escalating tension,
their sense of losing control, the desperation,
doesn't it? It absolutely does. They see his
popularity surging despite their efforts. This
moment starkly contrasts the public enthusiasm
for Jesus with the hardened opposition of the
leadership setting the stage for the final, inevitable
conflict. Now at the Last Supper, knowing, as
the text says, that his hour was come, that he
should depart out of this world unto the Father,
Jesus does something extraordinary. He performs
this incredibly humble symbolic act. He gets
up, takes off his outer garment, wraps a towel
around his waist, and starts washing his disciples
feet. Peter initially resists, Lord, thus thou
wash my feet. It seems improper for the Master
to do this. But then he swings the other way
and asks for his hands and head to be washed
too. What's the profound lesson John is conveying?
through this act of service. It's presented not
just as an act of humility, though it certainly
is that, but as a foundational example for them
to follow. Jesus explicitly says, If I then,
your Lord and Master have washed your feet, you
also ought to wash one another's feet. The insight
is that true leadership, true discipleship in
the community Jesus is forming is, it really
does. It's clearly meant as more than just the
time of day. It signifies Judas leaving the light
of Jesus' presence and entering into the darkness
of his betrayal under satanic influence. After
Jesus is gone, the atmosphere changes. Jesus
gives his disciples what he calls a new commandment,
that you love one another as I have loved you
that you also love one another. The newness isn't
just love one another but the standard as I have
loved you referencing his sacrificial love. He
then begins to comfort them. preparing them for
his physical departure. Let not your heart be
troubled. You believe in God. Believe also in
me. In my father's house are many mansions. I
go to prepare a place for you." And during these
farewell discourses, he makes that astounding
foundational claim. I am the way, the truth,
and the life. No man cometh unto the Father,
but by me. Exclusive and absolute. He also promises
he won't leave them orphaned. He'll send another
comforter, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth,
who may abide with you forever. This spirit,
he says, will teach you all things and bring
all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have
said unto you. These promises are absolutely
central to the disciples' future, aren't they?
Enabling them to continue without his physical
presence. Absolutely central. They ensure that
his presence, his teaching, his guidance, will
continue through the Spirit even after he has
ascended. He uses another powerful I Am analogy
here. I am the true vine and his father is the
husbandman, the gardener. His disciples are the
branches. They must Abide in me, remain connected
to him to bear fruit, to have spiritual life.
Separation means fruitlessness. He then gives
them stark warnings. The world will hate them
and persecute them just as it hated him first.
Though he cast out of synagogues, people will
even kill them thinking they are doing God a
service. He prepares them for intense opposition.
But despite predicting these intense tribulations,
he offers them a profound sense of peace, a peace
the world can't give. He says, in the world,
you shall have tribulation. But be of good cheer,
I have overcome the world." And he concludes
these discourses with a long, intimate prayer,
not just for the disciples present, but for all
future believers. He prays for their unity, that
they all may be one, and for their protection
from the evil one. It's a remarkable transition
from teaching to intercession. It is. These farewell
discourses found only in John are his way of
ensuring the disciples, and by extension all
future readers like us understand the spiritual
resources available to them after Jesus' physical
departure. The peace he offers isn't the absence
of trouble, he just promised trouble. It's a
deep inner calm, a steadiness rooted in his ultimate
victory over the forces opposing God. The narrative
then moves swiftly inevitably to the arrest.
Jesus goes with his disciples to a garden across
the Kidron Valley, a place Judas knew well. Judas
arrives, leading a detachment of soldiers and
officials from the chief priests and Pharisees
carrying lanterns, torches, weapons. Jesus steps
forward, knowing everything that was about to
happen. And when he says, I am he, using that
powerful I am phrase again, the text says they
drew back and fell to the ground, a moment of
involuntary awe or fear. Peter, in a moment of
impulsive misguided loyalty, draws his sword
and cuts off the right ear of the high priest's
servant. Melchus. Jesus immediately rebukes Peter
and heals the servants a year. Though the healing
is detailed in other Gospels, John focuses on
the arrest. Jesus is then bound and led away,
first to Annas, the former high priest and father
-in -law of Caiaphas, a powerful figure behind
the scenes. Then he's taken to Caiaphas, the
current high priest, where the council presumably
condemns him. And finally, early in the morning,
he's taken to Pilate, the Roman governor, because
the Jewish council didn't have the authority
in a Roman law to execute anyone. Pilate questions
Jesus. He immediately states, I find no fault
in him. He clearly sees this as an internal Jewish
religious dispute and things reluctant to get
involved. He tries various ways to release Jesus.
He even offers the Passover custom of releasing
one prisoner, suggesting Jesus, but the crowd,
spurred on by the chief priests, shouts for Barabbas,
a robber or insurrectionist instead. Not this
man, but Barabbas. So Pilate, seemingly trying
to appease the crowd perhaps, or maybe hoping
a lesser punishment would suffice, has Jesus
scourged. flogged brutally. Then the soldiers
mock him, weaving a crown of thorns, putting
it on his head, dressing him in a purple robe,
a cruel parody of royalty. They salute him, hail,
king of the Jews, and strike him. Pilate then
brings Jesus out again, beaten and mocked, and
presents him to the crowd, saying, behold the
man. Eche homo. Perhaps hoping sight would evoke
pity, but the chief priests and their officers
just cry out louder, crucify him, crucify him.
And the Jewish leaders press their case, revealing
their core accusation to Pilate, we have a law
and by our law he ought to die because he made
himself the son of God. They invoke his central
claim. There's such powerful dramatic irony here,
isn't there? Pilate finds no legal fault, yet
is being pushed towards execution based on a
religious charge he barely understands. Absolutely.
And hearing that phrase, son of God, makes Pilate
even more afraid, according to John. He takes
Jesus aside again, asking, where do you come
from, but Jesus gives no answer. Pilate tries
asserting his authority. Don't you know I have
power to crucify you and power to release you?
Jesus replies that Pilate would have no power
unless it were given him from above, subtly pointing
to divine sovereignty over the event. Despite
Pilate's continued efforts to release him, the
Jewish leaders play their trunk card, the political
threat. If thou let this man go, thou art not
Caesar's friend, whosoever make himself a king
speaketh against Caesar. That accusation of treason
against Rome forces Pilate's hand. Fear for his
own position overcomes his sense of justice,
and he finally gives in, delivering Jesus to
be crucified. The insight John consistently emphasizes
is Pilate's reluctant participation and the relentless
pressure from the religious leadership, framing
Jesus' death not as a tragic failure, but as
a sovereignly controlled, willed act unfolding
within a divine plan. Jesus then bears his own
cross, as John emphasizes, to the place called
Golgotha, the place of a skull. There he's crucified
between two others. Pilate writes an inscription,
a title to be put on the cross. Jesus of Nazareth,
the king of the Jews, written in Hebrew, Latin,
and Greek. The chief priest's object, wanting
it changed to say he said, I am king, but Pilate
refuses what I have written I have written. A
final assertion of his authority, ironically,
proclaiming Jesus' true identity. The soldiers
divide his garments among themselves and cast
lots for his seamless tunic fulfilling Old Testament
prophecy, which John points out. The text notes
that near the cross stand his mother, Mary, her
sister, Mary, the wife of Clopis, and Mary Magdalene.
John emphasizes the presence of these faithful
women witnesses. Jesus sees his mother and the
disciple whom he loved, traditionally identified
as John himself, standing nearby. He entrusts
his mother to the care of the disciple, woman,
behold thy son, then to the disciple, behold
thy mother. After this, knowing all things were
now accomplished to fulfill scripture, Jesus
says, I thirst. He's given sour wine on his branch.
And then his final words in John's Gospel are
incredibly concise, packed with meaning. It is
finished. Tetelesta, completed, paid in full.
He bows his head and gives up his spirit. To
ensure death before the Sabbath begin, the soldiers
break the legs of the other two crucified men,
but seeing Jesus already dead, they don't break
his legs. Another fulfillment of Scripture, John
notes. Instead, one soldier pierces his side
with a spear and immediately blood and water
flow out. John emphasizes this detail, stating
he saw it and his testimony is true. Afterwards,
Joseph of Arimathea, described as a secret disciple
for fear of the Jews, bravely asks Pilate for
Jesus' body. And Nicodemus, the Pharisee who
first came to Jesus by night, also comes forward
now, bringing a large quantity of myrrh and allows
for the burial. Together, these two prominent
men take Jesus' body, wrap it in linen cloths
with the spices according to Jewish burial customs,
and lay it in a new tomb in a nearby garden where
no one had ever been laid. Each of these details,
John includes, is significant. The fulfillment
of specific prophecies, the solemn reality of
his death, the care shown by these formerly secret
disciples now acting boldly, the witness of the
women, the finality of it is finished. It all
reinforces John's theological message. This was
the completion of his redemptive work, not an
end in despair, but a purposeful sacrifice. Then
early on the first day of the week, while it's
still dark, Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb
and finds the stone rolled away from the entrance.
She immediately runs to find Simon Peter and
the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved.
She tells them, They have taken away the Lord
out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they
have laid him. Her immediate assumption is grave
robbery. So Peter and the other disciple rush
to the tomb. The other disciple outruns Peter
and gets there first. He stoopes down, looks
in and sees the linen wrappings lying there,
but he doesn't go in yet. Then Simon Peter arrives,
goes straight into the tomb and sees the linen
cloths, and also the mapkin, the burial cloth
that had been around Jesus' head, not lying with
the linen cloths, but folded up neatly by itself
in a separate place. Then the other disciple,
who reached the tomb first, also went inside,
and the text states very simply, he saw and believed.
This is a really significant detail, isn't it?
What does John emphasize about the nature of
belief at this specific moment? It's presented
as a belief based not on seeing the risen Jesus
himself. But on the silent, compelling evidence
within the empty tomb, the absence of the body,
and particularly the orderly arrangement of the
grave clothes, the folded napkin suggests deliberateness,
not a hasty robbery or mere resuscitation. It
suggests a rational deductive step towards faith
based on the evidence he saw. Mary Magdalene,
however, remains outside the tomb, weeping, completely
overwhelmed by grief and confusion. She still
thinks the body is missing. She looks into the
tomb again and sees two angels in white sitting
where Jesus' body had lain. They ask her why
she's weeping. She turns around and sees Jesus
standing there, but incredibly, she doesn't recognize
him. She mistakes him for the gardener. It's
a moment of profound spiritual blindness even
in his presence. And then when he simply says
her name, Mary, everything changes. She instantly
recognizes him turning towards him and exclaiming
an Aramaic, Rabboni, which means teacher or master.
He instructs her, touch me not for I'm not yet
ascended to my father. But he gives her a commission,
go to my brethren and say unto them I send unto
my father and your father and to my God and your
God. It's a very personal emotional encounter
followed immediately by a mission. Indeed. And
later that same day, the first day of the week,
in the evening, the disciples are gathered together
behind locked doors for fear of the Jews. Suddenly
Jesus appears, standing in their midst. His sumptuous
words are, Peace be unto you, Shalom. He then
shows them his hands in his side, the marks of
the crucifixion, confirming his identity and
the physical reality of his resurrection. And
the text says, Then were the disciples glad when
they saw the Lord. Their fear turns to joy. He
says peace be unto you again and then commissions
them as my father have sent me even so send I
you and Then in a unique scene in John's gospel
he breathes on them and says receive ye the Holy
Ghost Whosoever sins you remit they are remitted
unto them and whoever sins you retain they are
retained This is John's distinct portrayal of
the bestowal of the spirit symbolizing new spiritual
life and granting them authority for their mission
But then comes that truly important episode addressing
belief and doubt head -on. Thomas, one of the
twelve, also called Didymus, the twin, was not
with them when Jesus appeared that first time.
When the others tell him we have seen the Lord,
Thomas is completely skeptical. He declares very
emphatically, except I shall see in his hands
the print of the nails and put my finger into
the print of the nails and thrust my hand into
his side, I will not believe. His need for physical
proof is so explicitly stated. And John highlights
this doubt, perhaps because it resonates with
the experience of many readers. Eight days later,
the disciples are inside again, and this time
Thomas is with them. The doors are locked. Jesus
appears again, stands among them and says, Peace
be unto you. Then he turns directly to Thomas.
He invites him, Reach hither thy finger, and
behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and
thrust it into my side, and be not faithless,
but believing. He meets Thomas exactly where
his doubt was expressed. Thomas' response is
immediate and profound. No indication he actually
touched the wounds, the sight, and the offeror
enough. He exclaims, my Lord and my God. That's
arguably the highest Christological confession
in the entire Gospel, isn't it? A full acknowledgement
of Jesus' divine identity. It is a complete turnaround
from profound doubt to profound faith. And Jesus
replies to him, Thomas, because thou hast seen
me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that
have not seen and yet have believed. This statement
resonates powerfully down through history, doesn't
it? It speaks directly to all future generations
of believers who wouldn't have the chance to
physically see the risen Christ. It really does.
It's a blessing pronounced on faith that relies
on testimony and spiritual conviction rather
than just physical sight. It validates the faith
of John's readers and ours. Exactly. It's the
profound takeaway from the Thomas story for John's
intended audience. It frames belief as a valid
choice even without direct physical proof. The
narrative then concludes with one final resurrection
appearance, an epilogue perhaps, to a group of
disciples back in Galilee by the Sea of Tiberius
or Sea of Galilee. Peter decides to go fishing,
and several others join him. They fish all night,
but catch absolutely nothing. As morning breaks,
Jesus is standing on the shore, but they don't
recognize him at first. He calls out, asks if
they've caught anything. They say no. He tells
them to cast the net on the right side of the
ship, and ye shall find. They do so. And suddenly
they enclose such a massive catch of fish, 153
large fish, the text specifies that they can't
even hold the net in. At that moment, the disciple
whom Jesus loved recognizes him and says to Peter,
it is the Lord. Another moment of recognition
triggered by a miraculous sign. Yes. And the
impulse of Peter immediately throws on his outer
garment. He's been stripped for work and jumps
into the water to swim ashore. The others follow
in the boat, dragging the net full of fish. When
they get to shore, they find a charcoal fire
going with fish already on it and bread. Jesus
invites them, come and dine. After the meal,
Jesus turns to Simon Peter. Three times he asks
him a variation of the question. Simon, son of
Jonas, love is thou me. Using different Greek
words for love, perhaps, those scholars debate
the significance. Each time Peter affirms his
love may be grieved by the third asking, perhaps
reminding him of his three denials. And each
time Jesus gives him a commission, feed my lambs,
feed my sheep. It's a moment of restoration for
Peter, reaffirming his leadership role despite
his earlier failure. Jesus also predicts the
kind of death Peter would die. glorifying God
through martyrdom. And the book then ends with
that famous concluding statement, noting that
Jesus did many other signs in the presence of
his disciples, which are not written in this
book, but these are written that you might believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that believing he might have life through his
name. And then a final almost hyperbolic coda.
And there are also many other things which Jesus
did, the which, if they should be written every
one, I suppose that even the world itself could
not contain the books that should be written.
Amen. This just implies an unending depth of
the story rate. It's a powerful final statement.
It underscores the inexhaustible nature of Jesus's
life and work far beyond what any single account
could capture. And it emphasizes again the selective
nature of John's own account chosen specifically
for the purpose of leading the reader to faith
and life. So after journeying through this truly
foundational text, what does it all mean for
us? We've gone from the cosmic word at the beginning
through these intimate personal encounters, these
monumental signs, the profound teachings, and
ultimately to a world -changing sacrifice and
resurrection. Well, this deep dive, I think,
really reveals a narrative that consistently,
relentlessly emphasizes identity who Jesus is,
and the crucial nature of belief in response
to that identity. It's a text absolutely saturated
with the contrasts of light versus darkness,
truth versus falsehood, life versus death, and
it presents this unique, direct, intimate relationship
between God the Father and Jesus the Son. And
alongside all that, the profound promise of eternal
life for those who believe. It's a gospel that
asserts Jesus' nature and mission in remarkably
direct often startling terms, which frequently
provoke misunderstanding and intense conflict
precisely because of those claims. Yeah, it's
packed with these dramatic events, really challenging
statements, powerful claims about his identity.
And as you just mentioned, it explicitly states
its own purpose near the end. These are written
that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that believing you might
have life through his name. The invitation is
embedded right there in the text itself. Exactly.
and absolutely central to this unique picture
that John paints are those repeated, profound,
I am statements woven throughout the narrative.
You know, I am the bread of life. I am the light
of the world. I have the door of the sheep. I
am the good shepherd. I am the resurrection and
the life. I am the way, the truth and the life.
And even that startling claim made to his opponents
before Abraham was, I am echoing God's own name.
Each one is a direct revelation of his divine
identity and authority. So, this deep dive into
the Gospel according to John really invites you,
the listener, to consider not just a historical
narrative, but the profound, life -altering claims
and the direct invitation to belief contained
within its pages. And perhaps a final thought
to leave you with. If, as the text itself concludes,
the entire world could not contain the books
describing all the things Jesus did, what does
that truly imply about the depth of the narrative
we've just explored? Even this deep dive has
only scratched the surface. How might one continue
to deepen their understanding of such a multifaceted,
endlessly rich story? What part of this deep
dive maybe truly sparked a new connection or
a new question for you?