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.

Jesus has just healed the paralysed man at Bethesda and the Jewish leadership has attempted to rebuke him for doing so on the Sabbath. The Jewish perception of what could be done on the Sabbath was a poor interpretation, although a valid one as those who taught it did have the legal right to “bind and loose” the rules. Their interpretation comes from God’s order of things during the seven days of creation. On the seventh day God rested. Therefore all must rest on the Sabbath, this does not contradict helping ones neighbour or curing the sick. God obviously doesn’t take Saturdays off in an absolute sense because people still die and are born on the Sabbath, that means giving life on the Sabbath which would include curing the sick, feeding the poor and taking care of the needy does not break any laws at all.

17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I am working.”

18 This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

Even though it is the Sabbath, God the Father is obviously still working. Things still exist, people still die and are born. Jesus uses simple language to explain this by referring to it as if its normal work, something people should be able to comprehend. Jesus explains that the reason why he is giving life on the Sabbath (healing the paralysed man) is because his Father in heaven does the same. He as the son always does can only do what his father does. It’s a simple formula but its depths has entire books written on the subject. For the Second Temple Jews hearing this, it is very grating, to us who have been formed by trinitarian thinking we just say “oh yeah, that makes sense” but to them this is extremely painful to deal with, in fact it just makes them more angry at Jesus. By using this father/son language Jesus is of course making himself the same kind as the Father in heaven (God). This would make him God as well or otherwise another god. All very difficult for a first century Jew to understand with his own power and he’s saying this all the while he is “breaking” the rules of the Sabbath, at least to their understanding.

19 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.

Jesus begins with his Aramaic preface “Amen Amen” sometimes translated as “Truly, truly”. He does this whenever he is about to say something extremely important. He is about to explain, as much as you in human words, the mystery of the relationship between the father and son. The Son (Jesus) can do nothing by himself but only what he sees his father do. Like a biological father/son relationship except we know in the non-divine relationship such a mechanism is not absolute.

A son can literally do things by his own accord and can fail in imitating his father, but as Jesus does elsewhere, he uses language we can comprehend to explain what we cannot. We can have faith, live by these words, and it not be a lie because it isn’t one, there is simply no way this side of Heaven for us to comprehend these mysteries except through the model given to us by Jesus. This is what we call “divine condescension”.

In short. Jesus gives life on the Sabbath because his Father does.

20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.

21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

Why does the Son imitate the Father perfectly? Because the Father loves the Son perfect, and shows him all that he himself does. The Son has seen things more marvellous than the miracles the people on earth have witnessed. The Son, again, gives life to whom he will because the Father can raise the dead and give life. His ability is from his partaking of the trinity.

22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

23 that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

All judgement has been given to the Son. This was prophesied by Daniel, the Son of Man who would receive of dominion and power from the Ancient of Days. Jesus is the Son of Man, the Father in heaven is the Ancient of Days. Judgement ultimately rests in the hands of a king, an office given to the Son by the Father. Because a son is a perfect representative of the Father, anyone who dishonours the son is by extension dishonouring the father.

24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Two more “amen amen” statements. Whoever hears and by extension comprehends what Jesus is saying has eternal life. If you hear and understand you will do what is required. It’s not like you can just intellectually assent, Jesus says on far too many other occasions that it doesn’t work that way. So these statements can’t be taken out of that foundational context. Those that understand and therefore do what is required do not come into judgement, that is negative judgement and will pass from death to life.

The dead will hear Jesus’ voice and live. It’s hard to tell whether Jesus is speaking about those in the old covenant who do not have eternal life yet or if he is speaking of those who are literally dead who will receive life in the resurrection, later verses may indicate the latter.

26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,

27 and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man.

All the lifegiving power that Jesus has comes from God the Father because it is from “in himself”. It has been granted to Jesus so may also have the same life in himself. His power is not independent but relational.

28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice

29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

They should not marvel at this “ability” for lack of a better word, because it is something they will all share if they reach the beatific vision, heaven. The dead will see God face to face, as he truly is. Something currently reserved for Jesus the son.

Jesus explicitly says “those who have done good” so again, that statement previously that people misinterpret really shouldn’t be unless they’re purposefully ignoring what comes straight afterward. Those who do good go to the resurrection of life, that is eternal life and those who have done evil go to judgement, specifically damnation.

30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Jesus’ position and power is entirely dependant on his relation to the father. This is a mystery of the trinity. His judgement cannot be mistaken as its finalities are in line with the will of God the Father. Perfect son, perfect obedience to the Perfect Father with Perfect power.

43 After the two days he departed to Galilee.

44 For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

Jesus has spent a few days in Samaria, foreign territory and impure land by Jewish standards. Samaria is the land that used to be occupied by the ten northern Tribes of Israel, after being overtaken by multiple Gentile invasions they were intermixed with Gentile populations losing both their religious purity and ethnic purity. The land of Samaria represents a special bad taste for Jews. This was not just a non-Jewish population, they were a living symbol of mixing the sacred and non-sacred. What is curious about this location is that they are very welcoming to Jesus despite him being a Jew by the Samaritan standards, and John recalls Jesus’ saying that “a prophet has no honor in his own country”. This phrasing is mentioned in the other Gospels too but is specifically used as a lament for his rejecting in his hometown of Nazareth whereas here John is using it to highlight the positive of his reception in Samaria and Galilee, both considered “Gentile land” even though Galilee had significant Jewish populations.

45 So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast, for they too had gone to the feast.

46 So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine. And at Caperna-um there was an official whose son was ill.

Upon arriving in Galilee from Samaria Jesus receives the warm welcome that was being referenced before in opposition to the rejection he received in his home town of Nazareth. The Galileans seem to be fully aware of Jesus’ works this early in his ministry so his fame is already before him this is the cause of their excitement at seeing him unlike the Samaritan earlier in the Chapter is sees him as the Messiah. This is quite a big shift in appreciation. “Wow you showed them at Jerusalem” vs “You are the Messiah” is a huge difference and we shouldn’t skip that. He goes into Cana, the village where Jesus performs “the first of his signs” where he turns purification water into wine at a wedding feast. An official is there, this would likely be a lower ranking official of Herod Antipas’ administration.

47 When he heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went and begged him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death.

The Herodian official hears of Jesus’ arrival and goes to him in Capernaum to beg him, in person, for his sons healing. His son as is at the point of death, no explicit reason given. Many people love to point to demonic activity as misunderstood health issues and consider them supernatural rationalisations but the Gospels have zero issue with saying someone is sick, even to the point of death, because they just are. This is one of those moments. For a Herodian official to beg like this is an act of great humility, he also goes in person when he most likely could have sent a servant in his stead. This highlights the mans faith and again, humility. Something that Jesus holds very highly.

48 Jesus therefore said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.”

49 The official said to him, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”

50 Jesus said to him, “Go; your son will live.” The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way.

Jesus says what almost sounds like an external monologue, it sounds like a thought that he is saying out loud for our benefit like a main character in a story. Since Jesus actually is the main character of reality I think this is fitting for him to do. The man will not believe (like those Samaritans to perceived Jesus to be the Christ) unless he sees signs and miracles, so Jesus will perform one.

The man assuming that Jesus needs to actually do something beyond will the boys health to renewal petitions Jesus further to come with him to his son before he dies. Jesus just says “Go; your son will live”. The mans expectations vs Jesus’ healing is kind of less extravagant. We all expect a big show but Jesus as the author of reality itself can simply will something to be. The man accepts that Jesus has done the healing and goes back on his way to his son.

Similar to that of exorcisms, bodily healings were known to happen but just like the exorcists there was a whole preparation, utensils, assistance and medicines. Jesus does not need these things so to his original audience this is shocking, it should be to us as well but we’ve normalised a lot of this language and we forget just how supernatural this is.

51 As he was going down, his servants met him and told him that his son was living.

52 So he asked them the hour when he began to mend, and they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.”

53 The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live”; and he himself believed, and all his household.

Upon his return to his home the man bumps into his servants, he must be quite a wealthy official since he has these, and they inform that his son as recovered from the near death illness. If they did not mention the timeshift in these verses it could read like this is all happening one of the other instantly but its not. He bumps into the servants the next day and his son was healed at the seventh hour the day previous, the moment he was speaking to Jesus. This would be about 1PM.

Now the mans belief changes, he already believed something about Jesus because he went to him to seek his help, but it was that of the Galilean appreciation we mentioned. Kind of like marvelling at a magician, its wonderful and entertaining whereas the faith Jesus received from Samaritans was life-saving. This is the new faith the man has received along with his entire household.

54 This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.

John records seven signs during Jesus’ ministry in his Gospel. The first being the Wedding Feast at Cana, now we Jesus saving a boy from death itself as his Second Sign. Signs are wonders and miracles by themselves but when lined up, paint a larger picture of what Jesus came to do. John’s Gospel is what we call supplementary. He is purposefully writing for his disciples who have already read the Gospels and listened to his oral tradition he taught in Ephesus when he was Bishop there. By highlighting the signs he’s adding a dot-to-dot image for his disciples of something they may not perceive on their own.

Chapter 2 of John’s Gospel follows his Prologue, the Witness of Saint John the Baptist and the introduction of the first few disciples to Jesus after the Baptist had pointed him out as the Lamb of God. John begins his Gospel referencing Genesis, “In the Beginning…” but the connections do not just end there. He narrates the days, very reminiscent of the days of creation in the Genesis as well. John is writing history but he is layering with several degrees of profound theological recapitulation to the creation account and the following story of the Hebrew people in the Old Covenant, highlighting how Jesus is the a reflection of these past events but also a greater fulfilment of them.

1 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;

Before the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, as we understand it in the synoptic gospels, on the third day, from the starting narrative point of John’s Gospel, Jesus is invited to a wedding feast. The location of Cana is disputed between two locations one being five miles from Nazareth and the other being nine miles north of Nazareth called Khirbet Qana. Archaeological evidence and tradition puts more weight on the second suggestion. It’s proximity to Nazareth explains the invitation extended to Mary, a native to Nazareth and would have friends and relatives living within the vicinity.

It’s important to note that a wedding in first century Judaism was not a single event occupying a few hours but a week long feast, hosted by the bridegroom. It was to imitate the seven days of creation, with the marriage being consummated on the seventh day, the Sabbath.

2 Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.

Jesus as the son of Mary and likely also known by the bride and bridegroom of the wedding was also invited to the feast. Jesus brings along his first few disciples, John’s gospel records five of them at this point, Simon, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel and the unnamed disciple; John himself. As residents of Capernaum and the further regions of Galilee they were not likely to have known the hosts of the feast, they seem to come on Jesus’ invitation, he likely does this because he is already planning to do the miraculous sign that this scene is so famous for.

John’s recording of signs is a Jewish concept of supernatural events that act as a witness to a claim. Pharisees, scribes and priests will ask Jesus for “signs” to prove his teachings, they were not against the supernatural but were sceptical of anything that did not have a witness to it. This goes for correspondences as well, or legal claims as pertains to the Mosaic Law, you needed two or three witnesses, so Jesus uses miraculous signs as his witnesses, they are not just “magic tricks” as some people believe. They are evidence of his identity and mission.

3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

The wine at the wedding feast failed, this means that they had run out of it. Referencing back to a previous comment, wedding feasts in their culture were to last a whole week. Considering the amount of people at wedding, it last seven days and its all feasting; you need a lot of wine. The responsibility of supplying the wine and the food and the establishment itself was on that of the bridegroom, it was like a public declaration of “look how well I can support my wife and family I can supply all this stuff” kind of deal as well as it being a celebration.

What is peculiar is how this problem is resolved, the bridegroom does not do it, nor does the steward bring it to his attention in fact we are not even told their names. Mary knows of the problem and informs her son, Jesus. Mary was told by the archangel that Jesus would be great, Simeon in the temple would proclaim great and terrible things that would occur to herself and her son. She knows at least somewhat of Jesus’ power but she does not have perfect knowledge of it. For whatever reason, she is aware that it is his responsibility to supply the wine. Considering how the supplying of the wine is the job of the bridegroom, here we see Mary acknowledging her son as the divine bridegroom.

4 And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

Jesus responds to his mothers declaration of the problem at hand with “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” Initially, to our modern ears this sounds kind of rude, who would call their mother “woman?” but considering John’s Genesis theme again, the Greek word used for “woman” is gynai the vocative form of the noun gyne which can mean “woman” or “wife”. This is the same word used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures used by the disciples, for Eve before she receives her name. More importantly it is the word used in the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15. The promise God made of the Seed of the Gynai that will crush the head of the serpent.

Considering this primary, penultimate prophecy that everything kind of hinges on for the redemption of our nature when death is destroyed by the seed of the woman, Jesus is born of a virgin and will later conquer death and so on, this passage becomes the grand opening of salvation history in John’s narration. Jesus is already here but he has not begun the mission yet, his hour is the consummation of salvation in his death on the cross, once the first sign is done, him acting as the divine bridegroom at the wedding then everything else can play out.

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Mary tells the servants at the wedding feast to do whatever Jesus says. This phrase has been a focus of many in Marian devotion, some outside the true Church assume that devotion to Mary is a distraction from Jesus but she is merely the purely human conduit that tells us to do whatever her son says.

6 Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.

There are six stone jars standing at the property where the wedding feast is held, holding twenty or thirty gallons each. These are for the Miqvah purification rites, a requirement laid out in the Torah. The physical washing with water was not just a hygiene thing, it was deeply spiritual and religious. Returning back to Genesis, our first parents fall and all those descended from them have this fallen nature thus every person has to be purified before certain acts ritually for the cleansing of their sin. A type of the baptism given to us as a sacrament by Jesus. Since it was a wedding feast lasting so long with what must be quite a few guests, a lot of water is required.

7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.

8 He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.” So they took it.

9 When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom

Jesus tells the servants to fill the jars with water, very simple, and they fill them up as far as the jars allow. He then tells them to take it to the steward of the feast. This is the individual responsible for the allocation of the food and drink at the event, in charge of the servants telling them when to bring things, when to clean them away and so on. After taking the jars to the steward, who inspects it before it is to be drunk by the guests, it has become wine. He is not ware of where it came from but simply calls to the bridegroom, as we have said a few times already, it was actually the bridegroom’s job to supply the wine for the feast so the steward naturally turns his attention toward him.

10 and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”

11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

The steward is shocked because of what he perceives as a reversal of norms in dealing out wine at a party. Typically you have a little good wine and then when people are drunk you can give them the cheap stuff because they wouldn’t notice but here we are where the best wine is served later because Jesus made it himself miraculously. This is considered a sign and most people leave it at that, there was no wine, he turned water into wine, wow what a cool trick that Jesus has done, that is not why his disciples “believed in him” after this event.

The deeper notion to this goes back to what the water was originally for. The water was for the purification rites, the Miqvah. This was necessary because of the fallen nature of people and the introduction of sin into the world. If you wanted to do anything good like, lets say, a wedding feast before God, everyone had to be ritually pure, especially the bride and bridegroom but also all those serving the food. The purity from sin and death was held at bay, in a sense, by these water washings. This makes the water itself a symbol of death, it is the sign of their fallen humanity, something external to themselves they require because they are unclean, dead, otherwise. Jesus takes this symbol of death, of uncleanness before God and turns it into wine. The drink of life and celebration, the very drink said to be drunk at the divine heavenly banquet in the presence of God. Jesus turns death into life as the divine bridegroom, it is an encapsulation of the entire Gospel. We are lacking so he comes in, takes charge and our nature and redeems it through the very thing that we perceived to be holding us back, death itself.

What follows is the Prologue to Saint John’s Gospel. It is one of the most extensively written about sections of the Gospels because of it extremely deep theology and spirituality. It has been the fount of many contemplatives and theologians through the millenia. It is read several times throughout the liturgical year, especially around Christmas, it was the Christmas day Mass reading and the Gospel reading for the seventh day in the octave of Christmas. John’s prologue is sometimes considered a hymn of sorts, it has the components of both Canticle, Creedal statement and refutation to the earliest of the Churches heretics, the proto-gnostics , who by no coincidence, were VERY active in Ephesus, where John’s See was located. His Gospel and especially its introduction is a love letter to Christ and a rebuke to all those who hate him.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John mirrors the beginning of the Bible itself. Genesis 1:1. In the Beginning, En Arche. John is establishing Jesus as the beginning and the end of all, he does this by calling him the Logos which can made just mean “word” and is translated as such but as we can see we ,typically capitalise it as Word. In the beginning was Logos, Order, a Command, a Way. This Logos was with God and it was God. This is John’s expression of what would come to be known as the Trinity, he does not have the language just yet to articulate it and it would take a few centuries to develop fully but what John is clear about is that it is somehow simultaneously “With God” and “Was God”.

2 He was in the beginning with God;

The Word is now personified by John, it is not actually an “it” but a “He” and He was was in the beginning with God. A person, not an idea or concept as a Logos was typically considered by Greek philosophy.

3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Everything that has ever existed was made through this Person, this “He” who is with God and is God. Nothing that exists was made without him saying so. A person who is with God and is God allows and causes all things to exist.

4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

In this person is life, this notion of life is the light of men, that means the light of men known as life finds its very source in the Person of the Logos.

5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

This light that proceeds from him and is the light of men shines in the darkness, evil, the absents of good, has not overcome this light. John is writing this after all the atrocities that have occurred including the crucifixion itself, darkness did not win against this light that is the life that was in the Him of the Logos.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Now John introduces the Baptist as a man sent from God. This officially qualifies John the Baptist as a prophet as the evangelist tells us that God has sent him specifically. He tells us his name is John.

7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.

The evangelist establishes his purpose, to be a witness to this light that has come into the world. He would act as a stepping stone for all others to believe in the light. He would be a human link, like all the Saints are, that connects people to the Christ.

8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.

Clarifying again so there should be no confusion, He is not the light that has been previously described that finds its source in a different “He” that is with and is God. This figure of John the Baptist was sent to bare witness to the light but he is not the light. This may seem like a lot of unnecessary clarification but St John the Evangelist and Apostle, is most likely writing from Ephesus where tradition holds that he lived with the Virgin Mary after Jesus bestowed her upon him at the crucifixion. Ephesus will be a hotbed of proto-gnosticism that found it’s roots in the disciples of John the Baptist that rejected Jesus, they exist today in modern times under name “Mandaeans”. They still reject Jesus but see John the Baptist as the penultimate prophet of God. John the Apostle is making a painstakingly clear rebuke to his audience that this belief is wrong and is actually taking away from the Baptists actual mission.

9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

John the Baptist is a light in a sense but the true light that enlightens every man will be entering the world, people should not see John as the true light as that is someone entirely different.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.

11 He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.

Jesus came into the world, the very world that was made through him but that world does not known him as he is. He was born into a homeland and the people he was born into did not receive him as who he really was. They rejected him,

12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;

All those that do receive him and believe in his name, which is not just agreeing with him. To believe in a name is take the person into your heart in its entirety to live exactly as they instruct, his name is a symbol of the covenant, to believe in his name is to submit and enter that covenant. By doing this Jesus gives them the power to become children of God. Adam was the last true Son of God, his children would be made in his image but he was made in God’s image. This was lost in the fall. This relationship of sonship to God is being reintroduced in the person of Jesus. This is one of the main reasons for the incarnation, we were too broken so the Word descends to raise us up.

13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

No longer are promises like the old Covenant which were dependent on being born of the right blood or will of men and flesh but a New Covenant through a divine being, through the God-Man, we become born of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

The Word, who is with God and is God and is also a Person, a “he” became flesh and dwelt or tabernacled among us. The witnesses to this, his disciples including the apostle John beheld this glory, the glory that is of him because of his true sonship to the Father in Heaven.

15 (John bore witness to him, and cried, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.’ ”)

The Apostle John now quotes the Baptist directly, the entire prologue of John’s Gospel might seem like high theology couched with what seem like desperate distancing between Jesus as the Messiah and John the Baptist as the witness to him and that can seem odd to us because we already know this very clearly but as I have previously stated we have to understand the context of who John the Evangelist is writing for. The Evangelist is himself a previous disciple of the Baptist before he follows Jesus, based on the Baptist’s own instructions. John the Evangelist and Apostle sits at the crossroads between those who accepted Jesus and those who thought the Baptist was the Messiah himself. He now directly quotes John to indicate to his audience just how clear this distinction is, John himself says he ranks lower than the Word who became flesh, Jesus Christ.

16 And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace.

The Evangelist, his fellow Apostles and the other followers of Jesus have all received grace and the full of the Word by direct contact. They received his fulness from him in the flesh.

17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

The Mosaic Law was given by God through the mediation of Moses, they were guiding points toward the fullness of the future Messiah but now grace and truth itself has arrived and not through stone tablets but through the person of Jesus the Anointed One.

18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

John makes clear to his audience that no one has ever seen God, this means all theophanies of the Prophets, what Moses saw when he was “face to face” with God was still just a dim shadow of what God really is. He was condescending to them in these “appearances”. The only Son however, in some manuscripts “The only begotten Son” who is in the bosom of the Father or in the heart of the Father has manifested in his person the appearance of God on earth. When you see Jesus, you see God in fulness that we can comprehend with our senses. It is greater than all other theophanies and manifestations that have occurred.