1 After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias.

Chapter six of John’s Gospel follows on the heels of Jesus’ declaration to his opponents in Jerusalem that if they truly believed what Moses had to say, they would believe what he is saying. Jesus is now going to fulfil an act of Moses from the Old Testament.

Jesus leaves Jerusalem and goes to the “other side” of the Sea of Galilee also known as the Sea of Tiberias. The other side would likely be the Northern side as Jerusalem is in the South. It’s double name is a side effect of a multilingual society. If you pay attention to the whole New Testament there are actually a whole variety of names based on the different historical and cultural inputs. If you squint at some Old Testament names you can see how the name changed over time.

In the Book of Numbers and Joshua, we have the “Sea of Chinnereth” or “Sea of Kinneret”. This is the Hebrew/Aramaic name, its origin is either or both of the following explanations. The root of Hebrew “Kinneret” is “Kinor” which means “harp” the Sea of Galilee somewhat resembles a harp. Or the more likely explanation, there was a Canaanite city literally named “Kinneret” and this was the closest body of water to that city.

Kinneret sounds an awful lot like Gennesaret doesn’t it? that’s because it is the Hellenized version of the name. Luke’s Gospel calls this place “Lake of Gennesaret”. That would be the old fashioned name at the time of Jesus’ ministry, Kinneret lost its cultural relevance over the centuries by the time of Jesus so it started to be referred to by the region it was in instead. Making it the “Sea of Galilee”. Matthew and Mark write for a primarily Hebrew audience, so they use the name reflecting the region “Sea of Galilee” and Luke writes for a broader Greek audience that know it by its historical name “Lake of Gennesaret”, remember the Greeks went on quite the conquest throughout this region in centuries previous.

So what about John’s usage of the “Sea of Tiberias”, it’s funny, at least to my autism, this is essentially the modern name when John is writing. Herod Antipas named a city “Tiberias” in honour of the Roman Emperor in 20 AD, ten years before Jesus’ ministry begins and thus the closest body of water became known as the “Sea of Tiberias”.

2 And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.

Jesus is being followed by thousands of people at this point, especially the poor and sick. They have seen the very real miracles of him curing the unwell and they seek this for themselves.

3 Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples.

4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

Jesus goes up a mountain and sits with his disciples, likely seeking a moment of peace and prayer before doing his multiplication of loaves miracle. He does this type of thing before big announcements or signs.

John believes it to be of importance to let his audience know the time of year it is. It is the time of Passover, the most important annual feast that the Jew’s are bound to keep to commemorate their Exodus from Egypt and their covenant with God. This will be the feast that Jesus will alter into his own covenental feast, the Last Supper. This means we should be reading these passages of John in light of the Eucharist.

5 Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?”

6 This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.

7 Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.”

Jesus can see the thousands of people making their way up to him and his disciples on the mountain. Jesus already knows what he is going to do but almost like he is making sure his disciples are paying attention he asks one of them a question, specifically Philip. The question is more like a hint at the miracle Jesus is going to perform but Philip just takes it as a genuine question and answers like a typical person would, bound by limitation of material.

Jesus asks how they are going to buy enough food for the multitudes to eat? Philip responds that two hundred days of wages could not feed these crowds. To the natural, this is a point of boundary but to the supernatural, this is a point to overcome and demonstrate divinity. It is also important to point out at this whole interaction is so personal and specific that it verifies John as a first hand witness to the event itself. Jesus is speaking to a specific disciple, Philip but is actually testing him. Only an eye witness could know these details.

8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him,

9 “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?”

10 Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

Another of Jesus’ disciples, Andrew, an important figure in his own right as an apostle but John makes it of great importance to relate that he is the brother of Peter. There is no need to do this, there isn’t another Andrew to get him confused with. This is done because of Peter’s primary space among the apostles. The first among bishops. Andrew is mentioned in relation to his brother Peter even though Peter is not even speaking.

Andrew informs Jesus that among the crowds there is a boy with five barley loaves and two fish. We’ve seen the material boundary line set with “not even 200 denarii” could feed these people and now we given the opposing side of the material boundary line, all they have is five loaves and two fish. Barley loaves are the poor peoples bread and fish was common sustenance to all. After Jesus tells them to sit on the grass, John tells us the number of people present. Five thousand men, likely not including the children and women so you could probably double this number to get the actual amount of mouths that need to be fed. All the material boundary lines have been drawn, 5000 men, five loaves, two fish and not even 200 days of wages could feed them. Surely Jesus would accept defeat? Of Course not.

11 Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.

12 And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.”

13 So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.

John focuses on the bread, we should not discount that. The focus is on the bread, in the light of the Passover Feast that Jesus will alter and make his New Covenant sacrificial meal, the Eucharist. Jesus takes the bread and “when he had given thanks…” or in Greek eucharisteō. That’s where we get “Eucharist” from, how cool is that? This miraculous bread of Thanksgiving, Eucharist, that man offered only five loaves of, Jesus has taken and multiplied in order to feed five thousand men and their wives and children. He multiplied so much that after everyone was satisfied, they were able to fill twelve baskets. This is not an accident.

Some Gospel critics point to the two feeding miracles as retellings of the same event but there are crucial differences. The five thousand that are fed are in the Jewish parts of Galilee and twelve baskets are filled. Twelve is the number of tribes of Israel and if you know your Hebrew history, there were not twelve tribes at the time of Jesus, ten tribes were long gone. But in the feeding of five thousand Jews, in itself being a fulfilment of Moses feeding Israel the miraculous bread from heaven, Jesus is reconstituting the fullness of the twelve tribes of Israel. It is the number of fullness to the Hebrews and they’re also literally full from the food they’ve eaten. It’s all kind of funny. The other bread multiplication miracle is of the four thousand, in a Gentile region and the leftovers fill up seven baskets. The number of Covenant. The New Covenant itself is a fulfilment of all the promises that came before which includes the invitation to the Gentiles to a Covenant with God.

14 When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”

15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

Following the multiplication miracle which the Jews interpreted correctly as a sign, a divine marker that indicates a truth of God they proclaim that Jesus is “indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”

A lot of Christian Commentaries will point out the similarities between Jesus and Moses but most observers might simply say “Okay, but why does it matter?” Judaism is really a modern invention, they are far from what they were before the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, the Yahwehist religion at the time of Jesus. They were explicitly waiting for a Messiah, the Son of Man figure of Daniel and also the figure prophesied by Moses himself.

In Deuteronomy we read “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen ”

By the time of Jesus, the Son of Man figure, this New Moses were the same guy and we as Christians believe it is Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately (for Jews) it is near impossible to get away from the blatant similarities, typological fulfilments and references that Jesus makes or does. So they simply neglect their own Scriptures and the original emphasis they used to place on this prophecy. The Jews of Jesus time however, have no such neglect, they are at a Messianic fever pitch and can see almost exactly who Jesus is, they then seek to make him King. Their human ideas of Kingship are remotely on par with the divine royal coronation waiting for Jesus so he withdraws from them, he goes back to the mountain.

11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb;

Mary discovered the empty tomb and went to find the Chief Apostle Peter to tell him of what she had seen. Both Peter and John run to the Tomb and see it empty for themselves but after noticing the folded cloths they do not know what to make of it so they go home. Mary is still left in the garden outside the tomb weeping. Many depictions of this scene in both paintings and film have a habit of showing Mary inside the tomb but the text never actually says this. She looks in but does not enter, she weeps but does not go past the entrance.

12 and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet.

From the entrance Mary can see the flat rock that Jesus’ body would have been laid upon, upon this rock to angels are dressed in white. They are sitting on opposing ends of the flat stone. Two are mentioned here, only one is mentioned in Matthew, this is not a contradiction, on many occasions the Gospels take particular focus on individuals without highlighting others present, it doesn’t mean they weren’t there. John just gives us more detail which enables us to read the accompanying gospels in tandem and fill in the “gaps” between them.

13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”

The angels address Mary Magdalene as “woman” this might seem rude or odd but this term although literally translating as “woman” is more like the classical polite address “Lady” or “Madam”. They ask her why is she weeping, her response is interesting as it relates to the rumours spread by the Jewish leadership following the resurrection . “They have taken away my Lord”, an unknown group or person has robbed the tomb according to Mary’s perspective, this is inline with the rumours spread by the Jews who to the day of Matthew writing his Gospel, were saying the apostles took the body but Mary’s statement is somewhat of an embarrassing admission that adds to the authenticity of the resurrection account itself. She thinks someone else took the body, it would be weird to have such a similar yet slightly different perspective to the opponents of Jesus, admit it in the Gospel and then have it corrected unless this is literally what happened. Mary thought grave robbers stole the body. A conclusion only necessary if she came across Jesus’ empty tomb on the Sunday, it doesn’t benefit a “false” narrative of a resurrection to admit this, it hinders it.

14 Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus.

15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

After her response to the angels, who I think we can assume Mary did not realise were angels, she turns away from the tomb and sees someone she doesn’t recognise. John tells us it is Jesus but something obscures Mary’s vision of him. There are a few suggestions ranging from natural ones to supernatural but the text doesn’t actually tell us why. The natural explanation is that Mary’s eyes are blurred from her intense weeping and a supernatural explanation is that similar to account of the disciples on the road to Emmaus there is a divine cloaking mechanism going on that alters Jesus’ form. It is not until certain things take place that Jesus can be recognised, in the case of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, it is the sharing of the Eucharistic bread.

Jesus, using the same honourable title the angels used for her, addresses her as “woman”, asking her why she is weeping and who is it that she is looking for. It’s important I think to notice that although an honourable address “woman” it is not a personal one. There is a distance in the use of this term. She still does not recognise him when he uses an impersonal address to her.

Mary assumes that he is the gardener, the tomb was located in a garden which should obviously make us all think back to the fall of our first parents where man (adam means man) and the woman (who would only later be known as eve) fell and were kicked out of the garden, inviting death into the world, here is the Son of “Man” and the “Woman” in a garden after death has been conquered (ta dah).

The gardener detail is interesting because many assumed over the past few centuries in anti-christian biblical scholarship that this detail was invented by the authors to enforce a typology that didn’t exist in reality but Archaeologists have discovered remnants of an ancient garden beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which aligns with the Biblical account of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. The findings include evidence of olive trees and grapevines that date back approximately 2,000 years, corresponding to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rab-boni!” (which means Teacher).

Now Mary is going to go from not recognising Jesus to recognising him with only one thing changing. How Jesus addresses her. Instead of the impersonal honourable title, it is the personal birth name; Mary. Now she recognises Jesus calling him “Rab-boni!” which means teacher (kind of) in Aramaic. It is much more than teacher, it adds a sense of personal affection that is hard to translate without missing the point. Think more of how an elder relative is your teacher, that encapsulates the meaning a bit better. We in our own culture have depersonalised teaching and also reduced it to very standardised measures that my autism refuses to allow me to say they mean the same thing, at the time of writing it, John is obviously right but language is not static and things change over time.

17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

John’s text does not actually say she touched Jesus here but Matthews does, despite the clarification, Jesus’ words are not likely to mean “Do not hold me physically” it carries the connotations of “hey, this isn’t over and I’m not the same as I was when i was your Rabboni”, the entire relationship has changed and all must be fulfilled which includes the ascension. A lot of modern man-made christian groups think everything is over at the crucifixion or the resurrection but Jesus is adamant, as are the apostles and their disciples that the ascension is a key part of the redemption narrative. Jesus himself will say the son of man will ascend to the right hand of the power (God), this is the messianic prophecy of Daniel, well that is what the ascension is. Basically Jesus is saying, “Mary, do not cling to what you know, I’m not just back from the dead, greater things are going to happen”.

The Covenant that was ratified with Jesus’ “It is Finished” statement on the cross has taken place though already. This is why Jesus can say these statements “My father and your father, to my God and your God” these are all one and the same now. This is why understanding covenants as marriages is so important. The only natural earthly contract that we can perceive with our own eyes that makes a guy who isn’t your dad, your dad-in-law, is marriage. This is the sign of the covenant, the earthly symbol of the divine hidden mystery of the New Covenant relationship.

18 Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

Mary Magdalene goes off to find the disciples to tell them about his appearance to her. She relates everything that she has heard. This would include the new relational dynamic which to the Jews was considered bizarre and disrespectful, to this day they do. It would also include the necessity of the ascension which also must take place.

31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?”

This follows a long discourse between Jesus and the Jews, he has just declared that him and God the Father are one. As with some of Jesus’ other explicit divine claims they respond by trying to stone him. Stoning was the lawful form of punishment of crimes like blasphemy and adultery, the Romans had attempted to put an end to such things, not because they thought it was immoral but because they believed that they owned this land and by extension the people, the authority for capital punishment belonged to them not the Jews and their weird desert religion, this is why the Passion account plays out how it does. When the Romans are watching, the Jews can’t stone anyone but when they aren’t looking the Jews do as they please. There are Roman records of mobs of people taking part in these punishments in the first century despite the pagans trying to end it. Today’s events are one of those.

The fact that they are attempting to stone Jesus makes it clear that he was making divine claims because they are definitely not accusing him of adultery, they will explicitly state that blasphemy and old Jewish records also state blasphemy so both the Jewish and Christian sides acknowledge the fact that Jesus did in fact make divine claims, the difference is whether or not they are true. Jesus points out to his would be executioners that he has done many good works, divine signs, that come from his Father, God. Jesus’ actions from the Jewish perspective should be “Wow, look what God has done” instead its “kill him”. Jesus asks which one of these miraculous signs is why they wish to kill him.

33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

The Jews attempt to separate actions from persons and from words. This is important to acknowledge. A judgement of stoning requires an action of infringement. They are saying there is no action and in fact don’t judge any of his good works at all but for the words in isolation of Jesus’ actions or his person. They accuse him of blasphemy, despite his good actions which is actually kind of analogous to their accusation of his “casting out demons by the power of demons” it’s irrational. He’s doing good works of God but think he can simultaneously be blaspheming God. Saint James will say in his epistle “But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.”. You can’t actually disconnect these things. They also deny Jesus’ divine identity as they only see with their eyes, so presume Jesus to be just a man that is making divine claims. This would be blasphemy if Jesus wasn’t God. It might seem like I am going on a bit here but it is because many non-Christians and Christians with a poor understanding of the trinity will misinterpret Jesus’ response to this accusation so we must correctly understand what they are saying. The sticking point for them is explicitly the word that Jesus uses, from their perspective a person can be separated from their actions and be judged on a single word choice.

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),

36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;

38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

Jesus now uses a minimal facts-style argument, appealing to a premise His opponents accept to defend His divinity without requiring them to first believe in His full divine nature. He does so by pointing to a phrase found in Psalm 82. “I said, you are gods”. The original word translated as “gods” is the Hebrew Elohim, which can be used for the big “G” God but it is much more of a species identifier than a name. Depending on the construction of the sentence we can tell if it is plural or singular, much like the word “Sheep”. In the context of Psalm 82 it is calling something other than Yahweh “Elohim”. If this is scriptural and true, even if they do not believe that Jesus is God they must accept that it isn’t unlawful to use this term for things that are not Yahweh.

Jesus then applies the Lesser-to-Greater argument, if these entities which are lesser, an exegetical analysis of Psalm 82 reveals these are literally fallen angels being called “gods”, then how could it possibly be blasphemy for someone consecrated by God and sent by him to be called a son of God. Jesus is not just referencing the singular line but the whole Psalm, ancient Hebrews didn’t cite scripture by chapter and verse, that wasn’t invented till the 13th Century, they used to cite the Title or Name of the author, it was common for citing a whole psalm with one excerpt. In Psalm 82 these fallen angels are literally called sons of Elohim as well as being called Elohim. If they can be called that then even from the Jews incorrect perspective they must accept that Jesus can lawfully say the same about himself even though they do not fully grasp the gravity of Jesus’ meaning. Since they are claiming to only be stuck on the wording of Jesus and not its meaning, Jesus has committed no crime.

They do not doubt his good works, they even claim that they are only judging him for his words. But if they do not doubt this they should not doubt him. They should only doubt him if they doubt his works. To put it all rather short, the entirety of their opposition to Jesus is logically inconsistent. If they were to be consistent they would believe what he has to say about himself and his relation to God the Father.

39 Again they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

As with their other attempts, Jesus escapes unscathed. This happens enough times for us to infer a supernatural preventative being used though we do not know what that is specifically. Whatever it is, it works to prevent any judgement being laid upon him until the hour of his Passion.

40 He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized, and there he remained.

41 And many came to him; and they said, “John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true.”

42 And many believed in him there.

Jesus leaves for Perea, modern day Jordan. This was where the bulk of John the Baptists ministry took place. Like John, many come out to the wilderness in order to see and hear him. They comment that unlike John, Jesus does miraculous signs but they acknowledge that every John said about Jesus was true, they noting a continuity with John despite the vast differences. Many of those out in wilderness believed in him, in contrast to the large portion of city dwellers who vehemently opposed him.

51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.”

Jesus is speaking to a mixed crowd of both believers and dissenters, it also includes the Jewish leadership. He begins this section with “Amen amen” sometimes translated as “Truly truly” or other variations but the Greek rendering of “Amen amen” adds a layer of authenticity because the word is actually Aramaic in origin, the language Jesus actually spoke, it is just transliterated in Greek.

Jesus is repeating an aspect of something he has recently previously said, keeping his “word” which entails his way of life and commandments but he now supplements it with the reward of not seeing death. The Second Temple period held a mixed view on death, some held to a shadowy passive existence in Sheol prior to the resurrection, this was the typical Pharisaic view and was inspired by the revelations of the Prophets, The Qumran community also known as The Essenes generally believed in something similar but also believed in a much more active afterlife in Sheol before the Resurrection and groups like the Sadducees believed in neither an afterlife or resurrection, when you’re dead you’re dead and that’s it. Considering Jesus’ location (the Temple) and the responses of his audience we can assume these are most likely Sadducees who were the most dominant group of the Sanhedrin.

52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, ‘If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death.’

53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?”

The Jew’s are so perturbed by Jesus’ stance against death being conquerable that they immediately accuse him of being possessed by a demon. They use their material understanding of what has happened in the past to both Abraham and the Prophets as their basis for death not being conquerable. Basically if Abraham couldn’t do it and neither could the Prophets then how could Jesus? They probably do not believe that Jesus is actually possessed but are saying that he is crazy to believe that he is capable of offering something more than Abraham and God’s other messengers. This prompts them to ask Jesus if that is the case, “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?” they also include the Prophets in the questioning but end it with the penultimate question they have.
“Who do you claim to be?”

54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God.

Jesus’ response here might sound disconnected from their question but it isn’t. Their question is inferring that Jesus’ claims are self made but Jesus has made it very clear that it is God the Father who is his witness and that he himself only does what the Father has shown him. This is why Jesus responds with ““If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God.” He is telling them quite clearly that God is the root of his claim, he is just saying it out loud. If they truly were believers of God they would believe everything he is saying. It’s basically a divine litmus test.

55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word.

Jesus displays the contrast between himself that is opponents. He knows him (God the Father) they do not. If he was to say otherwise he would be a liar, he can’t lie, it would be like the impossible question of “Can God made a square circle?” it contradicts truth itself, since Jesus cannot lie he has to say that he knows God, this obedience to the truth is an example of “keeping to the word” instead of it us keeping to Jesus’ word, this is Jesus keeping to his Fathers word. Same mechanism, different scale.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.”

Jesus now uses what his opponents think is their witness as his witness. Abraham rejoiced that he would see Jesus’ day, he did in fact see it and was glad. This relates most likely to Genesis 15 where God reveals to Abraham the future of his people. Some Jewish and Christian interpretations perceived Abraham to be told much more than the text tells us. This is most especially expressed in the Aramaic Targums, the Aramaic paraphrasing’s and commentaries of the Hebrew Bible. This was how Jesus’ human nature learned the Scriptures. In those expanded writings, Abraham is told about a future King Messiah and Jesus is saying “Hey, that’s me!”

Also in Jewish tradition, God’s “word” (davar) could be personified (cf. Memra in Targums). Some later Christian readings saw this as the pre-incarnate Christ speaking to Abraham.

57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”

58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Jesus is clearly claiming to transcend time in some way, the Jews are baffled by this and point out he isn’t even fifty years of age yet but claims he saw Abraham. This adds credence to the Christian interpretation of the Jewish personification of “davar” or “Memra” in Hebrew/Aramaic because they take what Jesus was saying as being present at the time of Abraham like the “davar” or Word of the Lord was in bestowal of future events.

Jesus gives another “Amen, amen” statement before saying what is probably his most famous divine claim outside of the Passion account. “Before Abraham was, I am”. He is not just claiming he was there at the time of Abraham, he is saying he was there before Abraham was even born. The gravity of “I am” is hard to encapsulate in English or even the Greek until you realise this is the name that God gives to Moses when Moses asks him who he should tell his people who sent him. This is how God defines himself to Moses. Yahweh. Literally “I am” but its meaning is more like “He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists” or “He Causes to Exist”. Jesus is claiming explicitly that he is that entity.

59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Some people try and cast away even this statement of Jesus as not being a divine claim because you could technically interpret it as him just saying “I am here” the issue is obviously that the context of that interpretation does not lead anyone to stone you. The Jew’s absolutely interpret this as a divine claim because they attempt to punish him with stoning, something you did to blasphemers and adulterers.

Jesus hid himself, this could be some supernatural hiding or he could simply of left the Temple with pure aura, I prefer the latter personally.

31 Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,

32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

Jesus has been trying to explain to the Jews the nature of his relationship with God and his mission and it has fallen on deaf ears. John now tells us that Jesus has directed his attention to “the Jews who had believed in him”. John’s usage of “Jews” typically refers to the Old Covenant people who resided specifically in Judea, not all members of the Tribe of Judah but it depends on the context, here it is referring to a particular geography.

To the Judeans that believed in Jesus, he tells them that if they continue in his “word” they are truly his “disciples”. This is an example of where “logos” does not simply mean a collection of letters, Jesus’ “word” is his commandments which entail and entire turn around of ones life (repentance) and living like him. This is also what a disciple is. A disciple is not a fan of Jesus, a disciple is a student and in the ancient context that Jesus lived, both Hellenic and Judaic, a disciple was expected to eat, sleep and live like their teacher, not just call him “Lord”.

The benefit of living like Jesus, imitating him in everyway and abiding by all his commandments is that you will know the “truth”, spoiler: Jesus is the truth so if you imitate him perfectly you will know him and he will set you free. This presupposes a position of bondage, which we all understand to be sin and to the devil but Jesus’ original hearers would be confused at what they are to be freed from which is why they go on to say in the next verse.

33 They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to any one. How is it that you say, ‘You will be made free’?”

He is still talking to those that “believe in him” so we should keep that in mind thattheir questions are not likely to be hostile but honest confusion. Their response to his declaration of their freedom is basically “We are of Abrahams house, nobody owns us, so what do you mean?”. The Hebrews understood the “nations” (everyone other than themselves) as being enslaved to demons, they as descendants of Abraham are of Yahweh and are therefore not slaves. Obviously for a time they were in bondage in Egypt before the Exodus so it is likely they Jesus’ audience are referring to their current lives, not the history of their people. They right now are a (perceivably) independent people that serve God and no one else, so how could they be set free?

34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.

They might be of Abrahams House but they aren’t perfect and there is no offer from God to make them so that they have received as of yet. They are not free from sin, therefore they are still slaves to sin despite their membership of the Abrahamic Covenant.

35 The slave does not continue in the house for ever; the son continues for ever.

36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

When it comes to inheritance, slaves get nothing. There are also no promises extended to them. The Hebrews had assumed that the current covenant they enjoyed was the pinnacle of the relationship with Yahweh. They saw themselves as already being sons and worthy of an inheritance. Jesus is making it clear that currently they are more like slaves in a household, yes they’re in the household but they do not have a relationship with the father of that household like his children do. A son as a representative of the father also shares the fathers power, because of this he has the ability to make the slaves share in his inheritance. This is how ancient households worked, if they choose to, and that is how God the Son is explaining it to them. He has the perfect representative of the father can make them sons and enjoy the same inheritance that he enjoys.

37 I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you.

Jesus is fully aware of their lineage, but he points out that their actions say otherwise. Basically if you were true sons of Abraham, true inheritors of his faith, you would accept Jesus but they don’t, they in fact seek to kill him. What’s interesting here is that John has specified that these Jews that Jesus is speaking to are ones who believed in him, yet Jesus here makes it clear that simultaneously they seek to kill him.

Is Jesus confused? No. Jesus is not wrong, he is abiding by what we call the “Natural Model”. When a group of people are unified in a covenant, a divine contract ratified by God. They are like a cosmic body, a body has limbs, organs and a head. We use the same language to describe the New Covenant. When a person chooses to commit a crime, their head has made a decision but we do not say that only the head is guilty and their hands are innocent. If your right hand steals something we don’t incarcerate only your hand and allow the rest of your body to be free. The head of the Old Covenant people was in the teaching and priestly authorities. The same way that Jesus as our head can win our victory despite our failures, the failures of the head of the old covenant apply to all of the old covenant people. You can whine and complain about how unfair that is if you want but its on the same level as arguing with gravity.

38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

Jesus again refers back to his Father being the focus of his actions and what he teaches. Everything he speaks about is because he has seen it from it his Father. He relates this into their natural understanding of how they know what they know from their own fathers. The difference is obviously the scale but Jesus regularly uses natural forms to explain divine ones since the divine forms are invisible to the human senses.

39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did,

40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did.

41 You do what your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”

In the same way that Jesus uses God the Father as his witness, his audience speak to who they think their father is as theirs, Abraham. Jesus points out again that if they were truly imitating what Abraham did they would accept Jesus as a whole people. Jesus now hints at who their father really is which he will say more explicitly outside of these readings. They reject him as a people because the head of the people, the head of that apocalyptic covenant body, rejects Jesus which is rejecting God which is the sin of Satan and why he fell. This is also a subtle accusation of idolatry which goes hand in hand with adultery and fornication but they perceive Jesus as only saying they are not biological descendants of Abraham which is not what Jesus meant. They go further, not only are they definitely biological children of Abraham but they say God is their father. Some assume this was a notion that was unheard of until Jesus but the truth is that the Hebrews perceived this spiritual sonship to God but they were wary of saying it since it is very bold to claim and felt like an undignified way to talk about God.

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

They moved from claiming to being freemen, to sons of Abraham to sons of God and they are wrong on all counts. If any of this were true, they would love Jesus as he proceeded and came forth from the Father. This is all very rich trinitarian language that you might think is limited to theological treatise but its all here in John’s Gospel. Jesus comes from the Father, in obedience.

21 Again he said to them, “I go away, and you will seek me and die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”

Jesus is still speaking to the Pharisees who co-occupied the leading head of the Old Covenant people. He has just been establishing, although to the Pharisees confusion, that God is both his father and his witness to his mission and works here on earth.

Jesus is now talking about future events, referring to his death at the hands of the Jews but more specifically where he will go after his resurrection and ascension. He does so without explicitly stating the location in these readings and instead describes aspects of it. This place he is going to is away from earth, the Pharisees and others like them will seek him but they will die in their sin. The circumstances that the Pharisees are in which isn’t the Old Covenant per se but their limited understanding of the Old Covenant mean they will not be redeemed, they will die in their sin, separated from God. This circumstance prevents them from going to where Jesus is going, Heaven. Basically he is saying that they are damned if they remain this way, they cannot go to Heaven how they are. Whether Jesus is predicting their future or is explaining the concreteness of their current mode of existence unless they change is up for interpretation.

22 Then said the Jews, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”

Since the eternal beatitude of Heaven is somewhat of a revelation to the Old Covenant people and the Pharisees presume themselves to receive whatever possible positive reward after death, they can only interpret Jesus’ words as a declaration of suicide and therefore damnation upon himself. In their minds, the only place that Jesus could go that they couldn’t go to is the dark, suffering side of Sheol. They couldn’t possibly go there because they are so holy, according to themselves. Jesus is talking about his own death but they can’t quite get the angling right.

23 He said to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.

Although Adam was a son of God, he was also made from dust. That from above component of his being that made him a son of God was severed following his fall along with his wife and all their descendants. So all people are “from below” from the perspective of divine beings, not in the context of space but in the context of divine hierarchy. Jesus although having a human nature also has a divine nature, this makes him “from above”. The supernatural can contain the natural but the natural cannot contain the supernatural. This is why Jesus can be in the world but not be of it, people however are of the world but cannot be apart of the heavenly unless their nature fundamentally changes. This is why transubstantiation is so important in the Eucharist, its not something invented by medieval Catholics, a coherent Eucharistology goes hand in hand with a coherent coventology.

The separation that Jesus is describing here between himself and the Jews is the wound that his covenant fixes.

24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.”

Now Jesus is explaining that the division is mendable but it is dependant on the Jews recognising who he is. Although most translations render the phrase as “that I am he.” it is important to note that the Church has always seen this as “that I am.” It is one of Jesus’ divine admissions. Referring to himself as Yahweh.

25 They said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Even what I have told you from the beginning.

This verse is widely debated and because the original Greek has no punctuation Jesus’ response can be translated many different ways, even in this translation we see here the phrase doesn’t flow very nicely at all. The Pharisees clearly ask Jesus “Who are you?” this question follows Jesus’ repeated explanations of him being from above, his father being God, his father being with him.

Typically the phrasing is considered to mean “I am what I have been telling you from the beginning.” But its possible that since this is the basically the end of multiple explanations that the Pharisees fail to comprehend, Jesus is actually saying

“‘I am the Beginning—what I have been declaring to you all along.’”

This would correspond with John’s other writings in Revelation where Jesus tells him that he is “the Beginning and the End” and Paul’s letter to the Colossians “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.”

26 I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.”

27 They did not understand that he spoke to them of the Father.

Jesus now circles back to his original point, everything he is saying is true, the qualifier is the fact that his father has sent him to do it and his father cannot be wrong because he is God. He himself is with the father and by being his son shares that nature and is therefore God also. This is all falls on deaf ears as the Pharisees cannot understand what he means, John as a little editorial informing the reader that Jesus’ listeners do not understand.

28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.

29 And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.”

30 As he spoke thus, many believed in him.

Now Jesus is most likely referring to his crucifixion as the ones doing the lifting are his audience, not God who raises Jesus from the dead and is the cause of his ascension. At this point his listeners who do not understand or believe, will know that Jesus is “I am”, another divine identification statement. Everything that Jesus does is a part of his relationship with the father who sent him. John then concludes the interaction by tells us that many did believe him after these statements but it is likely not those previously described as not understanding but onlookers who observed the conversation.

Jesus has just arrived at the Temple when scribes and Pharisees had brought to him the woman caught in adultery. So his audience in todays readings are the disgruntled members of the crowd who were looking for the capital punishment judgement upon the woman but did not get to see because Jesus did not allow it to occur. Previously in John 7 we are told by John that it is the Feast of Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. The particulars of this feast help us understand the literal meaning of Jesus statements here in John 8.

The Feast of Tabernacles or Sukkot, commemorated the desert wanderings of the Israelites when they lived in tents and God led them with a pillar of fire by night. During the Feast of Tabernacles they would dwell in tents made from branches like their ancestors in the desert and large candelabras/ menorahs were lit to symbolise the pillar of fire that God used to light their way during the night.

12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

In the context now given by the festivities, Jesus’ statements do not seem so ethereal or random, Jesus is in the presence of the lights that represent God the Fathers pillar of fire that the Israelites would follow in the dark of night. Jesus is saying “Hey, I’m that”. The fire was not just to illuminate the dark but was God’s presence, therefore it was a light of life. Jesus is saying that he is that light, both of illumination to guide the way and also of life itself.

13 The Pharisees then said to him, “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.”

The Pharisees, the rightful teachers of the Mosaic Law, despite their failures in holding to it acknowledge this claim that Jesus is making. Again without the context of the feast it could be quite confusing why they respond this way.

The Mosaic law required witnesses for claims, divine or not. Two or three witnesses is the standard but this articulation most likely means, a person needs two witnesses which would be a total of three. Jesus appears to be by himself when he claims to be the pillar of fire that leads the Israelites in the darkness, it is throw this human lens that Pharisees see Jesus, he is just one man making claims but that is because they are blind to who Jesus actually is.

14 Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going.

Jesus responds by saying with a hypothetical which allows us to presume that this isn’t actually the case but he is highlighting the way the Pharisees perceive him in order to point out that what he is saying would still be true regardless. Even if Jesus was alone as they think he is, his testimony would still be true, he says that is because he knows where he comes from and where he is going. This language might be confusing because we think of witnesses as temporal entities who are present at the time a claim is made but that is not how the ancients considered these things, there were valid ways of having witnesses without them physically being there and Jesus hints at how.

It was a typical custom among older cultures to introduce oneself by lineage, how can you trust me? I’m the son of the guy you find trustworthy. Especially amongst nobility this was a type of witness, we see remnants of this even today in peoples names that end in “son”. That’s their qualifier or witness for why you should hire them or whatever. Jesus says that even if he was alone, his origin by relation, his lineage (God the Father) would be enough. If the Pharisees could see that, I think we can all agree they would not dare disagree with him.

15 You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.

The reason why they cannot perceive where Jesus is from or where he is going is because they judge according to the flesh, implying a limited scope of materiality. Jesus however does not judge…that way. Some misunderstand Jesus here as if he is contradicting himself by saying he doesn’t judge but the text is implying that this is in response to the paradigm at the start of the sentence. Jesus does not judge according to the flesh. He of course is the judge of everything though.

16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.

Similar to his previous statement about witnesses, Jesus says even if he did judge in this way that the Pharisees do, he wouldn’t make a mistake like them, he doesn’t do this but he is highlighting the perception of the Pharisees again and how he would still be in the right and they should not be arguing with him. This is because his judgement is aligned with God the Father, the one who sent him. If God the Father is the alignment of the judgements made by God the Son, they literally can’t be wrong.

17 In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true;

18 I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.”

Now Jesus makes his earlier hint more explicit, he refers to the Mosaic Law, the requirement for two witnesses to make a claim true and he says that the Father bears witness to him. What is interesting is that earlier in the Gospel of John, Jesus says the same about the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit. The trinity itself is the 3 persons that make something true, a little bit of the divine sense of humour there.

The perception of the Pharisees is incorrect, he isn’t alone, he has the correct amount of witnesses to verify his claim.

19 They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

Because Jesus is pointing to his lineage as his witness, particularly God the Father they ask the human question, “Where he at”. Jesus informs them of the unpleasant aspect of their blindness. They do not know Jesus, because they do not know the Father. The issue is, both these persons are God. The Pharisees as the occupiers of the seat of Moses are meant to be the guides of the Jewish people. They are meant to be the lights in the darkness that lead the Israelites to God but they do not even know who they claim to serve.

20 These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.

John tells us that Jesus said these words “in the treasury”. This loops back to our mentioning of the Feast that is currently going on. The treasury was right by the Court of Women, therefore could be accessed by all Jews. This was the exact place that the candelabras were lit up during the Feast of Tabernacles to represent the pillar of fire or “light of the world” that led the Israelite people in the wilderness. Another little dash of the divine sense of humour.

Despite all these now unveiled divine claims, none could arrest him “because his hour had not yet come”. Reality is authored by God and although we get to make freewill choices there is a predestination going on regardless. The Pharisees are prevented from arresting him here and now through such a mystery, when his hour does arrive though he will hand himself over willingly without any defence.