[Sejan]

Thanks for checking out this weekly Bible reading thread. I'll try to keep everything updated well. I'll try to post a new reading in the first half of every week, and I'll try to keep the length of the reading very manageable (5-10 minutes). My goal is to post a reading each Monday, but if life gets away from me it should be no later than Wednesday. Please, comment with your thoughts, important points, or any questions you might have.

Unless someone has another suggestion, I'd like to start with the book of John. John focuses more than any other gospel on Jesus as a human being, as well as how He is the Son of God. The contrast between these two ideas fascinates me. Also, John focuses on God's love for humanity more than any other Bible writer.



This week's reading will be:

John 1-2

Bible Gateway passage: John 1-2 - New King James Version

The Eternal Word - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the...

www.biblegateway.com

There are a lot of different topics in these two chapters, but I'd love to see everyone's opinions.

 

[Sejan]

Spoiler: Thread Rules

• "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:37-39. – This is a Christian reading thread. While we may all believe in the same God, we probably have somewhat different beliefs. This is not a thread for any one specific belief. Share your own beliefs without fear and respect those that might have somewhat different views.
• "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:31. Please treat others in this thread with the sort of respect that you would like to receive from others.
• "Love your enemies." –Matthew 5:44. There are several heated threads with very different opinions on this forum. Please do not bring outside drama into this thread.

 

[mcz117chief]

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" is one of the greatest strengths of Christianity. It isn't some grand story about some distant beings feuding among each other, traveling some unreachable spiritual spheres but it is a reality where God chose to go from being a being of infinite power to become ash and dust like the rest of us to show us that we actually can exist as we were created, to be sinless and divine. Jesus Christ is the ultimate proof of human divinity.

Second thing is the character of John the Baptist, this crazy man described as eating wild honey and berries running around the countryside wearing a piece of camel's skin basically. Absolute legend. I love how he is portrayed in this one manga. Such an incredible character. Just try to put yourself in his place. The Jews in general are a total clown show as is the whole country and he knows, KNOWS, what and who is coming and imo acts completely appropriately. He is totally invested in The Truth and does everything in his power to spread the Good Message and "Make straight the way of the Lord".

It always rubbed me the wrong way how biblical and historical figures are portrayed in art and movies as these kept, proper British gentlemen while the vast majority of them were far more interesting. It isn't always so, of course, many artists depicted the characters properly but you know what I am trying to say.

 

[Sejan]

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" is one of the greatest strengths of Christianity. It isn't some grand story about some distant beings feuding among each other, traveling some unreachable spiritual spheres but it is a reality where God chose to go from being a being of infinite power to become ash and dust like the rest of us to show us that we actually can exist as we were created, to be sinless and divine. Jesus Christ is the ultimate proof of human divinity.

I love the first verses about "The Word" so much. Its a reminder that Jesus is eternal. He was in the beginning with God at creation, and He is still eternal today.


My favorite verse of the two chapters may be a bit of an outlier.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
--John 1:29

There was only one interpretation for "the Lamb of God," in the Jewish world. When John saw Jesus in this verse his first words effectively were, "This man is going to die to take away the sin of the world." John already knew that Jesus was going to die to save the world from its sins.

 

[mcz117chief]

There was only one interpretation for "the Lamb of God," in the Jewish world. When John saw Jesus in this verse his first words effectively were, "This man is going to die to take away the sin of the world." John already knew that Jesus was going to die to save the world from its sins.

Yeah, that kind of happens when you quote Isaiah daily XD Also, he had insider knowledge so to speak.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

thanks for posting the thread! I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts and observations.

A major theme of John for me is how Jesus made the effort to repeatedly reveal himself to the world, but the world did know know him and his own did not receive him (1:10-11). John is full of examples of Jesus giving a challenging sermon or parable and people turning away in confusion or disgust. Many times, Jesus explains who he is and the crowd doesn't grasp it.

On the other half, the book is full of testimonies and witness accounts to support the claims of the Son of God. John seems like he's trying to compile Jesus' most controversial sermons with all the various skeptical objections, and then addressing that body of skepticism with witness accounts and words of Jesus himself.

These first two chapters give the testimony of John, the miracle of Cana, and the first clearing of the temple as testimonies to help the reader begin the book-long comparison between what Jesus said and did against what the world said and did about him. There is a constant demand for Jesus to "prove himself", but Jesus does not have to prove anything. His Word is true whether he lives up to our critical analysis or demands for a sign. Taking Jesus as my center of truth, the paradigm of truth, requires me to humble myself before his claims as Christ, his claims to be one with the Father. Approaching Jesus with a worldly paradigm of stubborn skepticism will keep me blind and frustrated.

It's interesting how Jesus begins his ministry with a clearing of the temple and did so again at the end of his ministry. If the span of his ministry was three years, it means that the people had forgotten or ignored Jesus' initial clearing of the temple, going back to business as usual... identical to how the Father clears out the pagans from among Israel in the Old Testament only for the people to just invite them back in a later generation.

 

[p_banned]

This I like. Thanks!

 

[Zefah]

Thanks for starting up the thread. Not sure how much I will have to contribute, but looking forward to reading everyone's posts!

Here's an excellent full reading of The Gospel according to Saint John for anyone who prefers to listen than read.

 

[Vyse]

In John 2, I really like when Jesus cleansed the temple of merchandise and referred to his body as the temple that will rise again in three days.

 

[Bolivar]

Genesis 9:27 provides: "[m]ay God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant." Genealogies were important in the ancient world, and Noah's son Japheth is regarded as the progenitor of the Aegean peoples, whereas his brother Sem, or Shem, was that of the Hebrews. Therefore, this blessing and prophecy speaks of the day when the Jews and the Greeks would be reunited and dwell within the same structure.

John will later tell us that three languages inscribed our Lord's kingship upon his royal throne of the cross: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in that order (Jn 19:20). This collection is peculiar, because Hebrew is the liturgical language of the priesthood and scriptures, not the vernacular Aramaic that many of the regional peoples would have spoken or understood. Indeed, Saints Matthew and Mark both tell us that many of the onlookers did not understand Christ's recitation of the Psalms upon the cross in mixed Hebrew, mistakenly guessing he was calling out to Elijah (Mt. 27:47; Mk. 15:35). I speculate that, like the High Priest who later prophesied Christ's redemptive sacrifice without understanding it (Jn 11:50), Pilate unknowingly commanded that his kingship be proclaimed for all time in the past, then-present, and future liturgical languages of the holy people of God.

At the time of the Incarnation, the Jewish Diaspora throughout the Hellenic world had already prepared a ready flowerbed for Genesis' prophecy of reunification, as the Greek language was becoming ever more important for Jewish religion. Cities like Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, the future three founding Petrine and original Patriarchal Sees of Christianity, had become important centers of Jewish learning. Some of the later books of the Old Testament may have their first manuscripts composed in Greek. Synagogues hosted readings and discussions in mixed Hebrew and Greek and the Jerusalem Temple likewise had signs in the two languages. The Septuagint, the earliest known compilation of an Old Testament canon of sacred scripture, was compiled in Greek. And important philosophers like Philo of Alexandria were synthesizing the two systems of these cultures with important concepts.

The earliest manuscripts we have of the first three gospels are similarly in Greek and Genesis' prophecy of reunification is important in each of them, such as with Christ's activity in the Decapolis surrounding Israel. However, it is here, in the Gospel of John, where we finally reap the rich harvest of the reunification, from the very first line of the very first Chapter:

IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE LOGOS, AND THE LOGOS WAS WITH GOD, AND THE LOGOS WAS GOD.​

The prophecies at the end of the Old Testament have two striking recurring characteristics - the return of the scattered Israelites into one kingdom ruled under David's line and the incorporation of the Gentiles into this salvation:

But I know their works, and their thoughts: I come that I may gather them together with all nations and tongues: and they shall come and shall see my glory. And I will set a sign among them, and I will send of them that shall be saved, to the Gentiles into the sea, into Africa, and Lydia them that draw the bow: into Italy, and Greece, to the islands afar off, to them that have not heard of me, and have not seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory to the Gentiles: And they shall bring all your brethren out of all nations for a gift to the Lord, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and on mules, and in coaches, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as if the children of Israel should bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. And I will take of them to be priests, and Levites, saith the Lord. For as the new heavens, and the new earth, which I will make to stand before me, saith the Lord: so shall your seed stand, and your name. And there shall be month after month, and sabbath after sabbath: and all flesh shall come to adore before my face, saith the Lord. (Isaiah 66:18-23)​

The Gospels begin in the northernmost point of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, a place where Jews and Gentiles had already lived together under Greek culture for hundreds of years. This is the long awaited time of fulfillment, of the blossoming of the universalist seeds of the Old Testament, of the Second Exodus, and of the New Israel.

This is the time of the Christ.

 

[Dr. Farnsgoth]

Let's read the book of Matthew

 

[Sejan]

Let's read the book of Matthew

When we get towards the end of John, I'll put it up for suggestions on where to go next.

Thanks for starting up the thread. Not sure how much I will have to contribute, but looking forward to reading everyone's posts!

Here's an excellent full reading of The Gospel according to Saint John for anyone who prefers to listen than read.

I don't know why, but the Bible always sounds best when it is read by an older gentleman with a British accent. Thanks for the suggestion on a listening link, I may try to post them in future weeks alongside a text link.

In John 2, I really like when Jesus cleansed the temple of merchandise and referred to his body as the temple that will rise again in three days.

It's interesting how Jesus begins his ministry with a clearing of the temple and did so again at the end of his ministry. If the span of his ministry was three years, it means that the people had forgotten or ignored Jesus' initial clearing of the temple, going back to business as usual... identical to how the Father clears out the pagans from among Israel in the Old Testament only for the people to just invite them back in a later generation.

Here's an interesting question that I've been mulling over for the past few years. Did Jesus cleanse the temple twice or just once with John placing it in a different position in his gospel for some reason? Matthew, Mark and Luke (Matt 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48) put this event at the end of the gospels in the week immediately before the death of Jesus while John places an incredibly similar event at the very beginning of His ministry in John 2:13-22. No gospel specifically mentions the temple being cleansed twice. I've heard it argued that John is less concerned about chronology and geography as other gospel writers such as Luke, and that these two temple cleansings may in fact be the same event placed in different positions in the different gospels.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

Here's an interesting question that I've been mulling over for the past few years. Did Jesus cleanse the temple twice or just once with John placing it in a different position in his gospel for some reason?

It seems like it occurs two distinct times (at least), once toward the very beginning and again right at the end. This is based on the reactions surrounding both events, they weren't exactly the same, and different events are tied to the first clearing of the temple and the second clearing. e.g. connected to the story of the clearing of the temple is Jesus' prophecy that he will raise up the temple of his body in three days. So according to John this prophecy was given toward the beginning of his ministry not at the end. I've seen suggestions that John's gospel is not chronological but is instead arranged along the theme of Christ's claim to be Son of Man and Son of God. Putting the clearing of the temple early in the gospel as one of Jesus' major works and major prophecies could make sense, but he does that right after Jesus' first work, water into wine at Gaza. Seems inconsistent for him to mention the first miracle and then to jump suddenly to one of his very last public works (the clearing of the temple).

Jesus doesn't make the same statement in John's account of the temple clearing compared to the other gospels:

"Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade." and his disciples remembered the saying "Zeal for your house shall consume me" [John]

versus

"It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of robbers." [Luke]
He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you make it a den of robbers." [Matthew]
Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers." [Mark]

There are plenty of sermons and miracles that Jesus repeats through his ministry., We have tell-tale repetitions of Jesus pleading "have I not told you...?" to his disciples and to the crowds, implying that the sermon we're reading in this specific account was not the only sermon where these things were preached. We are reading a condensed account of a world changing ministry.

So did John condense the temple clearing down by putting it right at the beginning for a reason? It seems more thematically consistent that Jesus cleared the temple at the beginning of his ministry as a shot across the bow, and then again toward the very end as one final reminder before he went to the cross. The message of not letting money corrupt the operation of God's church is a constant theme in all the gospels.

I could be convinced it was only one clearing, though.

Matthew, Mark and Luke (Matt 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48) put this event at the end of the gospels in the week immediately before the death of Jesus while John places an incredibly similar event at the very beginning of His ministry in John 2:13-22. No gospel specifically mentions the temple being cleansed twice. I've heard it argued that John is less concerned about chronology and geography as other gospel writers such as Luke, and that these two temple cleansings may in fact be the same event placed in different positions in the different gospels.

My possible explanation is above. John's gospel definitely has a sermonizing flow to it, and John doesn't mention a clearing of the temple toward the end of his gospel. What are the arguments for why it was moved from end to beginning, instead of being two distinct events?

 

[Sejan]

It seems like it occurs two distinct times (at least), once toward the very beginning and again right at the end. This is based on the reactions surrounding both events, they weren't exactly the same, and different events are tied to the first clearing of the temple and the second clearing. e.g. connected to the story of the clearing of the temple is Jesus' prophecy that he will raise up the temple of his body in three days. So according to John this prophecy was given toward the beginning of his ministry not at the end. I've seen suggestions that John's gospel is not chronological but is instead arranged along the theme of Christ's claim to be Son of Man and Son of God. Putting the clearing of the temple early in the gospel as one of Jesus' major works and major prophecies could make sense, but he does that right after Jesus' first work, water into wine at Gaza. Seems inconsistent for him to mention the first miracle and then to jump suddenly to one of his very last public works (the clearing of the temple).

Jesus doesn't make the same statement in John's account of the temple clearing compared to the other gospels:

"Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade." and his disciples remembered the saying "Zeal for your house shall consume me" [John]

versus

"It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of robbers." [Luke]
He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you make it a den of robbers." [Matthew]
Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers." [Mark]

There are plenty of sermons and miracles that Jesus repeats through his ministry., We have tell-tale repetitions of Jesus pleading "have I not told you...?" to his disciples and to the crowds, implying that the sermon we're reading in this specific account was not the only sermon where these things were preached. We are reading a condensed account of a world changing ministry.

So did John condense the temple clearing down by putting it right at the beginning for a reason? It seems more thematically consistent that Jesus cleared the temple at the beginning of his ministry as a shot across the bow, and then again toward the very end as one final reminder before he went to the cross. The message of not letting money corrupt the operation of God's church is a constant theme in all the gospels.

I could be convinced it was only one clearing, though.



My possible explanation is above. John's gospel definitely has a sermonizing flow to it, and John doesn't mention a clearing of the temple toward the end of his gospel. What are the arguments for why it was moved from end to beginning, instead of being two distinct events?

1. John, like you said, has a more sermonizing flow to it. He wasn't as concerned about putting things in a perfect order as Luke whose gospel was intended to be an accurate historical account for a Roman patron.
2. Jesus tended to get more pointed with time in his ministry. The beginning of his ministry was larger, more focused on miracles of healing and the like, and generally more about new disciples. He became more aggressive toward the Pharisees and the Sadducees by the end. Cleansing the temple with a whip and flipping tables seems more consistent with His late ministry than His early ministry.
3. In a very real way, a single cleansing is just a simpler understanding than two. The same could be said the other way, but I just haven't decided which actually is the easier answer.


To be clear, I don't think either one or two changes much of anything in the overall message and history of Jesus, but it is a curiosity that I have had.

 

[Franky Family]

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

This verse is difficult to understand. It's about God in the beginning, right?

 

[Sejan]

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

This verse is difficult to understand. It's about God in the beginning, right?

I believe that its talking about Jesus in the Beginning.

John 1:1-5, 10-15

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

[snipped a section about John the Baptist]

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.' "

To start, "the Word" is Jesus as it became flesh and dwelt among us (vs 14). It was also the one that John testified about (vs. 15).

Taking a step backward from there, "He" in vss 10-13 is referring to the same thing as "the Word." Note the similarity in wording between vs 3 and vs 10. Vs 3 "All things were made through Him," and vs 10 "the world was made through Him." Other passages such as Colossians 1:16 link this same creative power to Jesus, also.

Colossians 1:16
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

 

[ManofTwo]

Let's read the book of Matthew

'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Yah lets all read that book.

 

[Zefah]

'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Yah lets all read that book.

Quite possibly the hardest command, tbh.

 

[Mickmrly]

Quite possibly the hardest command, tbh.

I do find that pretty hard, especially for teenagers. Imaginations can be pretty wild at that time, and while I understand the intent is to prevent sin, such a command would be a lot easier if hormones did not get so revved up without provocation.

 

[Bolivar]

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

This verse is difficult to understand. It's about God in the beginning, right?

Saint John Chrysostom and Theophylact of Ohrid both say "his own" refers to mankind in general, because he made us, or specifically to the Jewish people, his own particular nation. The latter sense is a continuation of the Old Testament, where Israel disobeyed or turned their back on the Lord, corporately or individually, at every turn, sometimes even after miracles.

Theophylact actually goes even narrower, his own referring to "Judea," what had been the southern kingdom of Israel after Solomon's death split the nation in two. Judea was where the Temple and the royal city of Jerusalem were located, and therefore the kingdom which continued taking seriously the temple and priestly liturgy God commanded in the Torah. Christ's ministry had great results in what had been the northern kingdom of Israel and in Samaria, where foreign transplants worshipped the God of Israel alongside their ancestral pantheon. It was in Judea, the kingly city that he was meant to rule from as the heir of David, of the priests and Levites, the Sanhedrin council of elders, and the high priest, "his own," that Christ was in greatest danger, where he was most rejected, particularly on the cross.

His own may also include specifically the Roman military and administration. In the vision of Daniel, the fourth of the great beasts, the international empires vassalizing Judea, which was Rome, would be given over to "the Saints of the Most High." (Dn 7:27). Roman soldiers were among those who asked John the Baptist for guidance (Luke 3:14), and Christ said a Centurion had greater faith than all in Israel (Mt. 8:10), a Centurion made the first confession of the Gentiles after the crucifixion (Mt. 27:54), and it was a Roman barracks that convinced Peter that the Gentiles had been incorporated into salvation (Acts 10:47). However, at the moment of proving, they scourged him, paid him false and mocking homage with the crown of thorns, and crucified him.

It is important to read it together with the next line, "ut as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." The two verses together, of those who did and did not receive him, ties in with the wedding feast parable of Matthew 22:1-14, where those who were invited to the great feast refused to come, so the King then brings in those who were not among those originally invited, and they are the ones who enjoy the great banquet. The priests and scribes received him not, so it was the poor, the Israelites who had been scattered, and the Gentiles who were invited to take their place.

This substitution has a spiritual connection with the thanksgiving prayer of Matthew 11:25, that what had been hidden from the wise and prudent has been conversely revealed to the "little ones." We are not capable of understanding the Word of God from a lofty vantage point of pride. It can only be understood from a spirit of humility and simplicity. In Psalm 50/51 we pray "to my ears though shalt give joy and gladness and the bones that have been humbled shall rejoice."

 

[Sejan]

This week's reading will be John 3-4. This should be a good reading with as much as people love John 3 in particular.

Bible Gateway passage: John 3-4 - New King James Version

The New Birth - There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Most...

www.biblegateway.com

Audio Bible:
John 3

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Audio

www.biblegateway.com

John 4

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Audio

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Franky Family]

Need a good resource, I've never read the bible in full so my familiarity and understanding of the books and most chapters are still an ongoing process. Where do you guys usually go on the web to find an accurate after summary for each chapter of each book? Something like an in-depth lesson of each chapter or even a brief summary is what I'm trying to look for

 

[Mickmrly]

Need a good resource, I've never read the bible in full so my familiarity and understanding of the books and most chapters are still an ongoing process. Where do you guys usually go on the web to find an accurate after summary for each chapter of each book? Something like an in-depth lesson of each chapter or even a brief summary is what I'm trying to look for

My parents got different kinds of Bible's to help them with their bible study. I think the main one they used was an Amplified Bible that had some extra notes throughout the Bible. They are abbreviated AMP and there are some AMP Bible's online as well. While that isn't a brief summary of each chapter, it does better explain the different verses.

I myself just prefer to ask point blank questions about parts of the Bible. Like recently I've been searching about why Job had to suffer at all. Some explanations have been a bit unhelpful, but eventually I found some good commentaries about it.

 

[Mickmrly]

This week's reading will be John 3-4. This should be a good reading with as much as people love John 3 in particular.

Bible Gateway passage: John 3-4 - New King James Version

The New Birth - There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Most...

www.biblegateway.com

Audio Bible:
John 3

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Audio

www.biblegateway.com

John 4

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Audio

www.biblegateway.com

I do find it interesting how so many different groups were aware of the possibility of the coming of Christ during those days. It's sad how they had similar beliefs but still had those ethnic/political separations. At least they were able to be brought together by their faith in Jesus though.

 

[Sejan]

Need a good resource, I've never read the bible in full so my familiarity and understanding of the books and most chapters are still an ongoing process. Where do you guys usually go on the web to find an accurate after summary for each chapter of each book? Something like an in-depth lesson of each chapter or even a brief summary is what I'm trying to look for

There are a lot of different resources that you can use to help with Biblical interpretation, and a lot of them are free on the internet.

One option is Bible commentaries. Commentaries can vary wildly depending on which one you look at, but they summarize and explain sections of the Bible. Depending on the specific resource, they might explain each verse individually or larger sections. By wary, however, as commentaries are only the opinion of the writer, and they are not always perfect in their explanations.

BibleGateway.com - Commentaries

www.biblegateway.com

Another option is comparing different Bible translations against each other. I've been posting New King James as its a translations that is pretty uncontroversial, but there are tons of options that may be easier or harder to understand for various reasons. Bible Gateway, the website that I've been using to post scripture has a ton of freely available translations in a drop down menu. I like New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV) and New International Version (NIV) among others. You might try comparing versions and seeing what you think. Like commentaries, translations aren't perfect but comparative study is a great way to understand a passage that isn't completely clear in the version that you have read.

BibleGateway.com - 233 online Bibles in 74 languages, in text and audio format.

www.biblegateway.com

Another option is looking at chapter outlines. I don't have a great website to refer you to here with a bunch of different options, but a quick google search should get you results that you are happy with. This is where I normally go to start understanding an unfamiliar passage. Essentially its a map of the passage. If I were to make an outline of John 3, it would be something like this.

John 3
I. Nicodemus Questions Jesus. (3:1-21)

a. Jesus Teaches about the New Birth (3:1-8)
b. Jesus Explains His purpose (3:9-21)​

1. Jesus refers to Moses and the serpent (3:14 cf. Numbers 21:4-9)​

i. Compare the serpent lifted up on a stick in the wilderness to Jesus being lifted up on a wooden cross​

II. John the Baptist Concludes His Ministry in Favor of Jesus (3:22-36)

a. John's Ministry and Disputes with the Jews (3:22-26)
b. John Teaches about Jesus Being the Christ (3:27-36)​

1. esp. John 3:30, "He must increase, but I must decrease."​

Finally, ask questions. If something isn't clicking, I would be more than happy to help, and I'm sure that others on this forum would be more than happy to help as well.

 

[Vyse]

Going to read through these next couple chapters right now.

 

[Bolivar]

Before moving on, I wanted to highlight the wedding at Cana in Chapter 2. In a certain respect, Saint John's Gospel is the most doctrinal. The Gospel opens with Christ's divinity and pre-existence. Later, we will read the necessity of receiving the most holy Eucharist for salvation (Jn 6), Peter's pre-eminence over the other disciples (Jn 20:5-6), and his triple appointment as universal pastor (Jn 21:15-18). At the wedding at Cana, we learn of Mary's mediation and cooperation in mankind's Redemption, inaugurating his signs and wonders (Jn 2:11), when she tells her divine son, out of her own concern for others, "they have no wine" (Jn 2:3).

In the Vulgate, St. Jerome renders his response as asking her, "what is that to me and to thee?" (Jn 2:4). The literal translations render it similarly. He conditions his miracles on what they would have to do with him and his mother, including her within his own divine mission. He continues, "my hour is not yet come," (Jn 2:4) protesting that he was not yet ready, that the sign she requested was not included within the plan for mankind's Redemption. St. Luke's infancy narrative concluded with Christ being obedient to his mother (Lk 2:51), which we can safely assume was according to his human nature, since Saint John tells us that this was the first of his miracles. So it is here at the wedding of Cana where we see his obedience to his mother extends even according to his divine nature. St. John Chrysostom comments that he first wished to remain subject to the appointed time, but that he subsequently went on to honor his mother instead. This contrasts his refusal to provide a sign for the Pharisees who asked of it, except for that which had been appointed (Mt 12:39).

She responds to his hour not yet having arrived by simply telling the servants, "[w]hatsoever he shall say to you, do ye" (Jn 1:5). Venerable Bede notes that it is, "[a]s if she said, 'though he appear to refuse, he will do it nonetheless.'" Her conduct models for us the way we ourselves should pray, with persistence (Lk 18:7) and with confidence (1 Jn 5:14). She also provides to the servants words of encouragement, obedience, and confidence.

The newlyweds do not appear to have known about what she had done for them. We can rest assured that there have already been times in our own lives when when our Mother went to our Lord on our behalf and similarly told him, "they have no wine."

 

[Sejan]

One of my favorite lesser known people in the New Testament is Nicodemus. Only John's gospel has any record of Nicodemus at all, and he is only mentioned just three times in total. In John 3, we are introduced to Nicodemus for the first time. He is described as a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews in verse 1. This is interesting as Pharisees and the Jewish leadership are almost always portrayed as the bad guys throughout the New Testament. In John 3, he is described as coming to Jesus by night. While the reason for this nocturnal visit is never actually explained, many people often assume that Nicodemus was trying to avoid drawing attention to himself. Whatever the case, John reminds us of the timing of this visit in the other 2 times that we read about him.

In John 3, Nicodemus goes to Jesus to seek more information, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him" (3:2). Jesus gives an interesting response in verse 3 that he repeats in verse 5, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (3:3). This idea of being born again appears to be introduced at this point. Its such a new concept, that Nicodemus clearly does not understand what he was just told. I really like Nicodemus's response, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (3:4). Jesus finally explains being "born again," as a spiritual rebirth through submission to baptism. He says, "5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" (3:5-7). The conversation continues for a while, but it ultimately ends with a well loved passage, "16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" (3:16-17). The conclusion to this whole discussion with Nicodemus is the sacrificial love of God and Jesus.

I don't know how Nicodemus ultimately responded to this discussion, but the next time we see him is in John 7. By this point, more people are starting to believe in Jesus much to the Pharisees chagrin. John 7:40-41 shows us this growing belief, "40 Therefore many from the crowd, when they heard this saying, said, "Truly this is the Prophet." 41 Others said, "This is the Christ."" The Pharisees really don't like this growing faith so they begin fighting against it a little more forcefully. " 45 Then the officers came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, "Why have you not brought Him?" 46 The officers answered, "No man ever spoke like this Man!" 47 Then the Pharisees answered them, "Are you also deceived? 48 Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him? 49 But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed"" (7:45-49). Finally after all this, Nicodemus speaks up and offers a technical defense of Jesus, ""50 Nicodemus (he who came to Jesus by night, being one of them) said to them, 51 "Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing?"" (7:50-51).

The final time we see Nicodemus is immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus in John 19. Following His death, Joseph of Arimathea offers his own tomb to bury Jesus. Less known is Nicodemus as he gives burial herbs and spices for the burial of Jesus, " 39 And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. 40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury" (19:39-40). Not only did Nicodemus help fulfill this Jewish funeral right for the man that the leaders of the Jews (including the Pharisees) just had killed, but he offers a significant and very expensive amount of them.

We don't have a Bible reference to Nicodemus after this, but in these three passages we see a man that appears to have a growing faith. A man that may have been afraid to be seen with Jesus in chapter 3 comes to his defense by chapter 7. By the death of end, Nicodemus appears to have fully committed to Jesus. He seems to be no longer afraid to be associated with Jesus and is even willing to donate a significant sum to His care by the end. While I can't prove it with scriptures, I like to think that Nicodemus continued to have a growing faith and was an important leader in the early church.

 

[Sejan]

This week's reading is a little longer, but I really would like to cover John 6. It is a turning point for the book in a lot of ways, and it should still be able to be read to oneself in less than 10 minutes. Audio version will be a bit longer though.

John 5-6

Bible Gateway passage: John 5-6 - New King James Version

A Man Healed at the Pool of Bethesda - After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed...

www.biblegateway.com

Audio Bible:

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Audio

www.biblegateway.com

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Audio

www.biblegateway.com

Chapter Outlines:

John 5
I. John 5:1-15

a. Healing of the Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda​

II. John 5:16-18

a. The Pharisees Begin Seeking to Kill Jesus​

III. John 5:19-30

a. God, Jesus and Judgment​

IV. John 5:31-47

a. Four Witnesses​

b. The Witness of John the Baptist​

1. John 5:31-35​

c. The Witness of the Works of Jesus​

1. John 5:36​

d. The Witness of God the Father​

1. John 5:37​

e. The Witness of Scriptures​

1. John 5:38-39​

John 6
I. John 6:1-14

a. Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand (cf. Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:30-44, Luke 9:10-17)​

II. John 6:15-21

a. Jesus Walks on the Sea of Galilee​

III. John 6:22-59

a. "I am the Bread of Life"​

IV. John 6:60-71

a. Jesus is Rejected by Many​

1. John 6:66-67​

b. Peter's Confession of Faith​

1. John 6:68-69​

 

[Sejan]

I wrote previously in a question about the cleansing of the temple about a turning point in the ministry of Jesus. John 6 is, in my opinion, that turning point. Jesus just fed 5000 people in John 6:1-14, and He attempted to get away from them. When the people insisted on following Him to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus taught them a particularly difficult lesson. Jesus's discourse on the His role as the Bread of Life is tough for a number of reasons. Finally, Jesus accused the people of only following Him for the free food (John 6:26). After an even more difficult teaching, the people ultimately abandon Jesus. John 6:60-67 is among the saddest passages in the Bible. The people are clearly having a difficult time understanding the lesson being taught, and ultimately they abandon Him. John 6:66 reads, "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more." Seeing the abandonment Jesus turns to His closest friends and asks a difficult question, "Do you also want to go away?" (John 6:67). Passages like this serve as a reminder that while Jesus was God and equal to God (John 1:1-4, 14, Philippians 2:6), He was also Human. You can almost hear His hurt in those words to the twelve disciples.

Thankfully, the disciples did not leave Jesus. Peter confidently responded with a beautiful confession of faith, "68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"" (John 6:68-69). Unfortunately, Jesus still knew that there was a traitor in His midst as we see in verses 70-71, "70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve."

I believe that this passage marks a turning point in the ministry of Jesus. His popularity was beginning to decline as former disciples began to leave Him. Jesus became more pointed in His discourse with the Pharisees, and overall we see the beginning of His ultimate journey to the cross.

John 6 is a beautiful teaching, but it is difficult to see the disciples struggle with this teaching. It is hard to see Jesus struggling with His coming betrayal. Its tough to see so many leave Jesus never to return. This chapter might be the lowest point that we see Jesus in for His entire ministry.

 

[Mickmrly]

I do wonder sometimes why Jesus talked about the physical flesh and blood (John 6: 53-58) when he could have just focused on talking about the spiritual flesh and blood instead. The use of metaphors/more indirect ways of saying such important teachings does complicate things, but then I do prefer things to be more straightforward in general. Perhaps Jesus wanted the people to question him further for clarification?

 

[DonDonDonPata]

Bread meant power in the ancient world. Bread is what kept all the major cities from starving, and bread (or at least grain) is what ancient armies took along on campaign. Romans required bread to be stamped. So when Jesus gives the multitudes bread and they want to make him king, it is another example of people misunderstanding what sort of kingdom He was going to bring about.

 

[AJUMP23]

I do wonder sometimes why Jesus talked about the physical flesh and blood (John 6: 53-58) when he could have just focused on talking about the spiritual flesh and blood instead. The use of metaphors/more indirect ways of saying such important teachings does complicate things, but then I do prefer things to be more straightforward in general. Perhaps Jesus wanted the people to question him further for clarification?

He is clearly using metaphor here to talk about spiritual ingestion of the nature of Christ. Not canabalism.

Metaphor is used here to understand or simplify what the indwelling.

He said that saying is easy compared to what he follows up with.

"When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭61‬-‭65‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Zefah]

I think all that matters is that Christ's body and blood, having both human essence and divine essence, are clearly not the same as that of any other human being. The mystery of the Eucharist is just that: a mystery. I don't think there's any need to consider it canabalism, even assuming the bread and wine truly do become Christ's body and blood.

 

[AJUMP23]

Jesus offers us heavenly bread for eternal life, but we must eat it. Faith in Jesus is not compared with tasting or admiring, but with eating. Jesus says that we must have Him within us, and we must partake of Him.

• Seeing a loaf of bread on a plate will not satisfy our hunger.
• Knowing the ingredients in the bread will not satisfy our hunger.
• Taking pictures of the bread will not satisfy our hunger.
• Telling other people about the bread will not satisfy our hunger.
• Selling the bread will not satisfy our hunger.
• Playing catch with the bread will not satisfy our hunger.
• Nothing will satisfy our hunger and bring us life except actually eating the bread. He who eats this bread will live forever.

 

[Bolivar]

Awful in truth are the Mysteries of the Church, awful in truth is the Altar. A fountain went up out of Paradise sending forth material rivers, from this table springs up a fountain which sends forth rivers spiritual. By the side of this fountain are planted not fruitless willows, but trees reaching even to heaven, bearing fruit ever timely and undecaying.
- Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 46 on the Gospel of John
​

One of the best free online resources to study Christianity is New Advent, especially for its extensive collection of writings by the Early Church Fathers, who can help us immensely to contemplate the mysteries of sacred scripture. They have the entirety of Saint John Chrysostom's homilies on the Gospel of John. Venerated as a Saint by both Apostolic and Protestant Christians, he was an Archbishop of Constantinople in the 4th century, credited as the most prolific author in ancient Greek, and his collation of the Divine Liturgy is still celebrated today as the Eucharistic rite in many Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches.

His commentary for John Chapter 6 highlights the connections it continually creates between a few important doctrines. The first is Christ's divine sonship, that he was sent by his Father from Heaven. Just as they were unable to understand how he could give them his flesh to eat, neither could they understand how he could have come down from Heaven (6:42).

We know from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians that the Eucharistic celebration was a point of contention for the original Christian communities. There, Paul confirmed that this celebration really manifests the redemptive death of our Lord (1 Cor. 11:26), that unworthy reception incurs guilt for his death (1 Cor. 11:27), and that those who do so do not understand that it really is his body (1 Cor. 11:29). When Saint John the Evangelist connects unbelief in the Eucharist with unbelief in the divine sonship, he tells us that the real presence is fundamentally a question of faith. Saint John Chrysostom further connects these doctrines to the mystery of the Resurrection, writing:

"'Verily I say unto you, Except a man eat My flesh, and drink My blood, he has not eternal life in him.' Since the Jews had before asserted that this was impossible, He shows not only that it is not impossible, but that it is absolutely necessary. Wherefore He adds, 'He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood, has eternal life.'"
- Homily 47​

And also, to the mystery of the interaction between predestination and free will:

"'No man can come unto Me, except the Father which has sent Me draw Him.' The Manichæans spring upon these words, saying, that nothing lies in our own power; yet the expression shows that we are masters of our will. 'For if a man comes to Him,' says some one, 'what need is there of drawing?' But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implies not an unwilling comer, but one enjoying much succor.​

It is not merely a historical misfortune that the doctrine of the Real Presence divides Christians today - it is the continuation of a biblical reality: "After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him" (Jn 6:67). Saint Alphonsus Liguori wrote in the History of Heresies and their Refutation that had Luther been willing to completely abandon the doctrine of the Real Presence, there might have been one unified so-called "Reformed" Church, not the innumerable divisions we see only continue to multiply today. It is a dividing line that our Lord himself has fashioned.

"This saying is hard, and who can hear it," is not merely a rhetorical question (6:61) - at the end of the Chapter, Saint John the Evangelist provides the answer. "Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God." (6:68-70). It is the Apostles, his consecrated hierarchy to whom he gave the ecclesial power to authoritatively define doctrine (Mt 18:15-18), who believe and remain with him. Again, it is not a historical coincidence that all of the Churches that have maintained Apostolic Succession have likewise maintained the doctrine of the Real Presence; it is, again, a biblical reality.

But the Apostles do not give their answer together, or successively in turn. As with so many other times in the New Testament (Mt 16:16, Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14; Acts 15:7), it is Peter alone who can give their collective answer ("we have believed and have known") by his own declaration. Therefore, any apostolic ecclesiology that does not have the Petrine preeminence, who can render the final verdict of the Church with a singular, unequivocal voice, is a biblically incomplete ecclesiology. For even our Saint John Chrysostom himself, when writing to Innocent to resolve an inter-ecclesial dispute among the bishops, as so many of the Greek Fathers of the early Church, addressed him as "my lord" and "most honoured and holy master." With nowhere else to turn, he writes, "I beseech your Charity to rouse yourself and have compassion, and do everything so as to put a stop to the mischief at this point," asking that he and the Roman clergy, "be induced to exert your zeal on our behalf; for in so doing you will confer a favour not upon ourselves alone but also upon the Church at large, and you will receive your reward from God who does all things for the peace of the Churches."

"[W]e are not a little encouraged and comforted by the constant and abiding nature of your disposition and confidence, and by revelling in your abundant and genuine love. This is our wall of defense, this is our security, this our calm haven, this our treasure of infinite blessings, this our gladness, and ground of much joy. And even if we should be carried off again to some spot more desolate than this, we shall carry this love away with us as no small consolation of our sufferings."
- Correspondence of Saint John Chrysostom with Innocent, Bishop of Rome​

 

[Sejan]

I do wonder sometimes why Jesus talked about the physical flesh and blood (John 6: 53-58) when he could have just focused on talking about the spiritual flesh and blood instead. The use of metaphors/more indirect ways of saying such important teachings does complicate things, but then I do prefer things to be more straightforward in general. Perhaps Jesus wanted the people to question him further for clarification?

Jesus often spoke in ways that were not completely clear at the time. A good example of this is His use of parables in His teachings.

Matthew 13:10-17 records:

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"

11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.'

16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

In verse 11, Jesus clearly shows that the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" had not yet been given to everyone at this point. This was prophesied as He quoted from Isaiah 6:9-10. The question we need to ask is why?

Did Jesus want people to ask questions? Did He want to keep the truth from those that weren't ready to receive it? Perhaps some people simply did not want to understand His teachings, or their biases and prejudices kept them from understanding. In this case, it may be as simple as the fact that He was speaking to an audience that only cared about bread (John 6:26) with little to no concern about His teachings. When the physical bread ceased, they lack interest in the spiritual food that He offered. Jesus taught that those that hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled (Matthew 5:6), but what about those that have no such interest?

 

[Rock And Roll]

I'm not so sure if it has much to do with the topic at hand, but regarding the way Jesus spoke and seemingly tested his audience. One thing that struck me when I first read the Bible last year was Jesus' use of the phrase "truly". It's different in other translations, as seen in other examples in this thread (right above in @Sejan post he says "for assuredly"). He would often lead phrases about important topics with this.

Now some of us will know that one way people tell lies is by beginning their lie with "truthfully" or "believe me" or other statements. I'm not accusing Jesus of lying, I believe everything he said. But I do wonder if this bit of psychology was known back in his time, and if it was, it was certainly only known by the more educated, who I guess doubted Jesus the most. Was this another way of Jesus subtlety testing the faith of those who heard him speak? If this was known at the time, then I'm sure Jesus knew it. Did he intentionally choose his words this way? Because he seems to do it repeatedly throughout his ministries.

 

[Mickmrly]

I'm not so sure if it has much to do with the topic at hand, but regarding the way Jesus spoke and seemingly tested his audience. One thing that struck me when I first read the Bible last year was Jesus' use of the phrase "truly". It's different in other translations, as seen in other examples in this thread (right above in @Sejan post he says "for assuredly"). He would often lead phrases about important topics with this.

Now some of us will know that one way people tell lies is by beginning their lie with "truthfully" or "believe me" or other statements. I'm not accusing Jesus of lying, I believe everything he said. But I do wonder if this bit of psychology was known back in his time, and if it was, it was certainly only known by the more educated, who I guess doubted Jesus the most. Was this another way of Jesus subtlety testing the faith of those who heard him speak? If this was known at the time, then I'm sure Jesus knew it. Did he intentionally choose his words this way? Because he seems to do it repeatedly throughout his ministries.

I guess it was just a way to get people to focus on what he was saying. The bible also has some things where God speaks three times if something is important, and "truthfully"/"believe me" is probably another way that Jesus was trying to highlight some important teaching.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

I'm not so sure if it has much to do with the topic at hand, but regarding the way Jesus spoke and seemingly tested his audience. One thing that struck me when I first read the Bible last year was Jesus' use of the phrase "truly". It's different in other translations, as seen in other examples in this thread (right above in @Sejan post he says "for assuredly"). He would often lead phrases about important topics with this.

Now some of us will know that one way people tell lies is by beginning their lie with "truthfully" or "believe me" or other statements. I'm not accusing Jesus of lying, I believe everything he said. But I do wonder if this bit of psychology was known back in his time, and if it was, it was certainly only known by the more educated, who I guess doubted Jesus the most. Was this another way of Jesus subtlety testing the faith of those who heard him speak? If this was known at the time, then I'm sure Jesus knew it. Did he intentionally choose his words this way? Because he seems to do it repeatedly throughout his ministries.

Jesus was speaking only what the Father had told Him (later in John: "So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.") yet Jesus was more than just a messenger passing along a message. He is the message and the Truth, and His audience was amazed that He "spoke with one who has authority, not as one of the scribes". This dual nature of obedient messenger and message, both in one, was lost on his listeners, who couldn't comprehend that they were listening to the very Word of God instead of just another wise teacher. The emphasis of "truly" and "assuredly I say to you..." is to reinforce that Jesus spoke concrete truths to his disciples, not speculations or nice-sounding ideas, but heavenly truth.