Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

I AM
Another important passage today.  We've see a couple of "I am" passages from Jesus so far, and we'll see more as we go on.  Something sets this one apart though:

"The climax of the entire chapter arrives at 8:58: “ ‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ ” The seriousness of this statement is confirmed by Jesus’ preface (lit.): “Truly, truly [Gk. amen, amen] I say to you,” a phrase Jesus uses some twenty times in the Gospel. This is an absolute claim to preexistence anchored in the absolute “I am” (Gk. ego eimi) language we have already seen in this Gospel (cf. 4:26). “I am” possesses no predicate (as in “I am the bread of life,” 6:35) and so stands alone, no doubt echoing the Greek translation of God’s divine name given in Exodus 3:14. To exist before the birth of Abraham—and yet to stand here today—is the boldest claim Jesus has yet made. It recalls the affirmation of the prologue that the Word existed even at the beginning of time. His existence has been continuous since his life is completely drawn from God’s eternal life." [1] (emphasis mine)

This is Jesus undeniably claiming to be God by taking the divine name "I AM".  How do we know this?  The response of the crowd.  As soon as Jesus makes this statement, they pick up stones to stone Him to death.

So why is this important?  There are many people who like Jesus - they think He was a good teacher or whatnot.  There are many who say that He never claimed to be God.  This is evidence to the contrary.  If you ever need a verse to show that Jesus claimed to be God, this is the one. And so we are left with few options.  As always, Clive Staples Lewis says it the best:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." [2]

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Freedom
Verses 31-38 are very important.  I would summarize the application of them this way:

You can be free and still be a slave.
You can be a slave and still be free.

We tend to define "freedom" as having the ability to do whatever we want.  In the US, we have a pretty large amount of freedom according to that definition.  Others do not.  What Jesus wants us to understand is that how we usually define freedom is not true freedom.  True freedom is the ability to be who we were created to be and to bring glory to God through knowing Him and worshiping Him.  Jesus offers that.  Even though you might be in slavery physically, you can know what true freedom is.  The opposite is true:  there are millions of "free" people in this world that are trapped by sin and death.  Will we offer them freedom?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

The Best Story Not in the Bible
Okay friends.  Today is going to be more intense than usual.  I've seen this passage coming for a long time and have been waiting for (dreading?) the day that I would have to deal with it.

Today's passage is a great story about Jesus - a favorite of a number of people.  Portrayed in several Jesus movies.  The problem?  Most scholars agree that it shouldn't be in the Bible.  The area of study that we'll be talking about today that deals with these kinds of issues is called "Textual Criticism".  Here's the beginning of the entry on Textual Criticism from "The Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms":

"The scholarly discipline of establishing the text as near to the original as possible or probable. Since we no longer have any original manuscripts, or “autographs,” scholars must sort and evaluate the extant copies with their variant wordings." [1]

To summarize a HUGE area of study, the goal of textual criticism is to sort through the large number of copies we have of the NT, check for differences between them, and make decisions on what the original text said.  This is why, when you read a church or Christian organizational doctrinal/belief statement, you will almost always see statement about the Bible refer to "original manuscripts" or "original autographs".  Take LIALC's Statement of Faith for instance, which says:  "The 66 canonical books of the Bible as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible guide in faith and practice." (emphasis mine)

I'm going to take the liberty of summarizing A LOT about this particular passage and it's issues.  There are two main considerations when understanding whether or not a text is "original" in a book like John or not:  external (Is it in early manuscripts?  Is it in many manuscripts?, etc.) and internal (Does it make sense in the book's context? Is the vocabulary consistent with the rest of the book?, etc.).  In the case of this passage in John:

External: Earliest manuscripts do not have it, suggesting that it was added later.  This is usually acknowledged in a footnote or other note in modern Bibles.

Internal:  The passage moves from the Feast of Booths, addressing a crowd, to this scene suddenly, the seemingly back to the crowd.  The transition could be okay, but seems unnatural.  Try removing this section and see how much easier things seem to flow, then read with it back in again.  It seems awkward.  Also, there are some "grammatical anomalies" in the passage, meaning that the Greek writing is slightly off from how John usually writes, also suggesting that this was not original.

So now the question is, "Why is this in the Bible?"  If most scholars think it shouldn't be, why is it there?  The answer is a bit complicated, but has a lot to do with history.  Again, summarizing this issue, an early version of the Bible put together by a man named Jerome included this passage.  The Catholic Church used this version extensively and even confirmed it as the "official" Bible of the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (following the Reformation).  This locked this particular passage (and a couple of other doubtful ones) in for a lot of people.  So why do Protestant Bibles still include this passage with a note?  The best explanation is that people have grown attached to this passage.  Even though we have a lot more knowledge of the Bible than previous generations and I can explain an issue like this (hopefully) without shattering anyone's faith, there are A LOT of people that would be upset about someone "taking something out of the Bible" (even if it shouldn't have been there in the first place).  So....that brings us today, with a passage that there that shouldn't be, and a note about it. 

The NIVAC John commentator, Gary Burge, feels that the passage isn't original but IS a true story about Jesus, meaning that it is something that actually happened and was told about orally, then added to the passage later.  This is interesting, but doesn't really solved any issues. 

We believe that the originals are inspired by God and without error.  So what does this mean about THIS passage, which was not originally there?  Does it have errors?  It possibly could.  We can't know.  What we DO know is that no major doctrine stands or falls on this passage, and it doesn't contradict anything else we know from the Bible.  In the end, I would say that this passage is "useful and helpful".  Does it tell us anything we don't know about who Jesus was? No.  But it is a memorable story that shows us more of what we ALREADY know?  Yes.  I don't think we need to hate this passage or anything, but I truly believe that it would be much easier for everyone if it were removed from modern Bibles.  There would be a lot of upset people for a while, but I simply think that the evidence for it isn't there.  There are a few other of these issues, most notably the ending of Mark.  I would like to reiterate again that NO major doctrine stands or falls on any of these passages. 

This is a complicated issue, both technically and emotionally for a lot of people.  I think this is mostly because generally as churches in America we don't educate ourselves about our faith and can sometimes tend more toward superstitious belief rather than Biblical belief, particularly when it comes to our beliefs about the Bible itself.  My suggestion if you're worried about this  or confused or want to know more is to first of all pray for God to make things clear to you.  Second:  don't be afraid to ask.  I've done a ridiculous amount of summarizing here, so please ask if you're confused or wan to know more.  Last of all, read up on it.  If you really want to know more about textual criticism or this passage in particular, I have some good places to start.  There is a ministry called "Reclaiming the Mind" that has a lot of quality stuff.  Here are some articles:

Text Criticism in a Nutshell - This is a great article that goes through the basics of textual criticism, but much deeper than I've gone here.  Lot of good information about the Bible and the process of textual criticism.  READ THIS ONE!

My Favorite Passage That's Not in the Bible - My title for this post is borrowed from this one.  A brief post that has to do with this passage in particular.  Some good and random thoughts, mostly in response to the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

This last one is a special for all of you.  If you'd like to go super in depth on this passage, check out this PDF of the entire NIVAC John Commentary on this section.

Whew!  Done.  Let the questions come....

[1] Arthur G. Patzia and Anthony J. Petrotta, Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 114.

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

The Feast of Booths, Continued
Today we continue reading about the what happened when Jesus attended the Feast of Booths.  This is some overlap from yesterday, but I thought that the NIVAC John had a good observation in it concerning the conversation that goes on there.  Here's a quick, nifty chart:

A lot of our passage today centers around how people can't decide what they think of Jesus.  As we've seen already, John has certainly not kept any kind of "Messianic Secret", concealing Jesus' identity to build suspense (like the Synoptic writers do).  He has been straightforward:  Jesus is the Son of God.  People don't know what to do with this.  They question and argue and doubt, but in the face of this, Jesus is very clear about where He gets His knowledge, where He's from, and where He's going.  The answers are simple, but difficult.  The facts are there, but the question was (and is today): Do you believe it?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

The Feast of Booths
Today I wanted to cover some of what we call "historical background" in Bible study. If you have any comments or questions on the content of today's reading, make sure you put them in the comments.  Since our passage specifically mentions that these things happen at the "Feast of Booths", I wanted to make sure we understand that that is so we can fully understand what's going on.  Here's the description from the "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia":

"This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, (Lev. 23:34; Dt. 16:13), Tabernacles (2 Ch. 8:13; Jn. 7:2), or Ingathering (Ex. 34:22), was one of the three major feasts in which all Hebrew males were required to participate each year. It began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Tishri), i.e., mid-October, five days after the Day of Atonement (Tishri 10). It continued for one week, and was associated with the end of the year (Ex. 34:22) when agricultural work concluded. It was a “pilgrim” festival, the intent of which was to emphasize the nomadic character of the wilderness period (Lev. 23:43).
    On the first day the congregation ceased from all normal activities and presented burnt offerings to the Lord, a procedure that was repeated on the eighth day, after the festival proper had terminated. Lev. 23:39–43 describes the ritual procedures that the Israelites were commanded to observe, and that gave the occasion its particular designation. The booths, which were simple shelters made of interlaced branches, were the people’s living quarters during the festival. In each seventh year occurred a special ceremony, a public recitation of the covenant provisions agreed to on Mt. Sinai by the Israelites in time of Moses. This served the extremely important function of keeping at the forefront of the people’s minds the obligations assumed on that occasion, as well as reminding them of the blessings that would follow as long as the provisions of the covenant were honored.
The feast was celebrated against a background of rejoicing for divine blessings, represented by the bounty of the year’s harvest. This was reflected in its occasional designation as the “Feast of Ingathering” (Ex. 23:16; 34:22). The feast seems to have lapsed during the monarchy, so that the observance which occurred in Jerusalem during the time of Ezra was of particular significance. On that occasion a celebration of a character unknown since the time of Joshua took place (Neh. 8:13–18).     The popularity of the feast was maintained throughout the postexilic period, and it became the occasion on which Jews from the eastern Diaspora visited Jerusalem for worship and celebration. In at least one instance Christ Himself was in the city when the festival was being observed (Jn. 7:2). By NT times it had become a custom on that feast for a procession to visit the Pool of Siloam and return with water, which was then poured out as a libation of thanksgiving to God. It may well have been as a result of witnessing this ceremony that Jesus was prompted to make His observations about living water and eternal life (Jn. 7:37–39)." [1] (emphasis mine)

A few simple observations on how this background informs our reading a bit, relating to the parts I bolded:

1.  All Hebrew males were expected to attend, yet Jesus says that He's not going.  This would have been very unusual.

2.  Moses and the Law were an important part of this celebration, and Jesus specifically brings up Moses because this would be on everyone's mind.

Not terribly deep, but I wanted to point out how something as simple as a Bible dictionary or handbook can be helpful in better understanding passages like this.  So.....you should all enter this week's giveaway of Halley's Bible Handbook! 

Questions?  Comments?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

The Words of Eternal Life
"After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." John 6:66-69

The passage we dealt with yesterday was a difficult one - too difficult in fact for many of Jesus' disciples.  Let's face it:  if you've been reading along with us, you already know that Jesus says some very difficult things.  He asks some things of us that we do not want to give.  He is not simply the peaceful, long-haired, big-hearted hippie that a lot of people think He is.

I know many people who once followed Jesus and no longer do.  Some of them didn't want the "rules" anymore.  Some of them liked some of the things Jesus said, but not all of them.  Some of them didn't like other people thinking they were unintelligent for believing in God.  I'm sure most of you know people too.  Following Jesus is hard sometimes.

So what's the response?  Let me tell you, there are definitely days that I feel like what Jesus asks is too much.  When I wonder if it's worth it or not.  I think the disciples that stayed probably felt much the same way.  I'm sure some of them felt EXACTLY the same way as the people who left.  So why did they stay?  Peter's statement is so, so good:  "Where would we go?  You have eternal life and You are God!  How could we go somewhere else?"

And that is the key.  If faith in Jesus was about feeling good, I probably would have been gone a long time ago.  Don't get me wrong:  most of the time following Jesus is a joy, but there are sometimes when it feels like the whole world is falling down around you and you wonder why in the world you're following Jesus if He doesn't stop this kind of thing from happening.  That's when Peter's statement needs to become your own.  Where would I go?  You are God. How could I leave the source of life?  What would I run to?  Jesus never promises that life will be easy, but He is God and He is good.  And that changes everything.

This time for our Friday Giveaway, we have "Halley's Bible Handbook -with the New International Version".  Here's a description:

"Do you need help understanding the Bible? Halley's Bible Handbook with the New International Version makes the Bible's wisdom and message accessible to you. Whether you've never read the Bible before or have read it many times, you'll find insights here that can give you a firm grasp of God's Word. You'll develop an appreciation for the cultural, religious, and geographic settings in which the story of the Bible unfolds. You'll see how its different themes fit together in a remarkable way. And you'll see the heart of God and the person of Jesus Christ revealed from Genesis to Revelation. Written for both mind and heart, this completely revised, updated, and expanded 25th edition of Halley's Bible Handbook retains Dr. Halley's highly personal style. It features:

- All-new maps, photographs, and illustrations
- Contemporary design - Bible references in easy-to-read, best-selling New International Version (NIV) Practical Bible reading programs
- Helpful tips for Bible study
- Fascinating archaeological information
- Easy-to-understand sections on how we got the Bible and on church history
- Improved indexes"

If you're at all serious about studying the Bible (which if you're reading the blog you probably are), you should have a good Bible handbook.  They are incredibly helpful in studying and understanding the Bible.

Enter by commenting below by next Thursday.  Only REAL entries this time (Andrei - I'm writing to you).  The winner will be drawn at random from REAL entries (Andrei) next Thursday.

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

I Am the Bread of Life
Some interesting things going on in this passage today.  First I'll deal with the obvious stuff, but I also want to take a moment to related this statement to another issue.

The first key to understanding this passage is to not forget that it immediately follows the feeding of the five thousand miracle.  What Jesus says here is in response to the expectations of the people after that miracle.

"The full force of Jesus’ sermon comes alive if we keep in mind certain details. Jesus is in the Capernaum synagogue (6:59), and it is Passover. At this time the Jewish community has been studying the Scriptures that pertain to the departure from Egypt (through the sea) and the flight into the desert...
    ...Judaism understood that there was a storehouse or “treasury” of manna in heaven that had been opened to feed the people during the era of Moses. The Israelites had been fed with 'bread from heaven.' This treasury would be reopened with the coming of the Messiah: 'The treasury of manna shall again descend from on high, and they will eat of it in those years' (2 Baruch 29:8). This would be a messianic second exodus, in which blessedness would rain down from on high. An early Jewish commentary on Exodus 16:4 says, 'As the first redeemer caused manna to descend … so will the latter redeemer cause manna to descend' (Midrash Rabbah Eccles. 1:9)...
    ...Jesus’ interpretation of the manna follows rabbinic lines perfectly. First, the true source of the manna was not Moses but God. It is God who sends bread...If God is truly the source of true heavenly bread and if Jesus has been sent by God, the shocking turn in 6:33 should come as no surprise. The bread of God is a person (“he who comes down from heaven”), a person who gives life to the world. With a stroke of genius, Jesus has done precisely what he has done throughout the Gospel: He [uses] some feature of Jewish belief and ritual and reinterprets it to refer to himself. He is the manna from God’s treasury for which Israel has been waiting. He has been sent by God as manna descended in the desert." [1] (emphasis mine)

And so Jesus reaches the killer point:  I am the bread of life.  This is a very difficult teaching that many people CANNOT accept (v. 52).  People will leave Him because they think that He is advocating cannabalism.  We'll get some of that feeling in tomorrow's reading. 

Now that we've dealt with the basic meaning of the passage, I wanted to deal very briefly with a second issue here.  When we last covered the "Last Supper", I dealt with three basic views of what goes on during our celebration of the "Lord's Supper".  This passage here is one of the key passage in understanding the difference between views, particularly "Transubstantiation" (Roman Catholic) and "Memorialism" (LIALC and most evangelical protestant churches).  It all comes down to this question:  is Jesus using a literary device in this passage or not?  Is Jesus making a straight out statement that should be taken at face value, or is He speaking in metaphor?  Those that believe in transubstantiation would say that there is no metaphor here:  we are truly being commanded to actually eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, hence they believe that the bread and wine are actually transformed into those things and that doing so is a means of obtaining grace and attaining eternal life.  I disagree.  We believe in "memorialism", which would see that reading of this passage as being overly literal.  Jesus is using metaphor here.  Why do I/we think that?  Let's take a look at the "I Am" statements that Jesus makes throughout the Gospel of John:

    •      I am the bread of life (6:35; 41, 48, 51)
    •      I am the light of the world (8:12; 18, 23)
    •      I am the gate for the sheep (10:7, 9)
    •      I am the good shepherd (10:11, 14)
    •      I am the resurrection and the life (11:25)
    •      I am the way and the truth and the life (14:6)
    •      I am the true vine (15:1, 5)

I've bolded the statements that we would most likely NOT take to be literal.  We could see Jesus perhaps as a literal shepherd.  We could (depending on what exactly you mean by it) see Jesus as literally being the resurrection, life, way, and truth.  We would NOT generally take the other ones that way.  Is Jesus actually made of light?  Is Jesus actually a literal gate?  Is Jesus a vine?  Unless we do some semantic gymnastics, I don't think any of us would say so.  Jesus is clearly speaking metaphorically in several of these "I Am" statements.  I would also add that John chapter 4 relates very directly to this issue as well:  Jesus offers the woman the "water of life".  Does He actually give her water?  No. I believe it is VERY reasonable to take the statement in today's passage this way as well.  I know this is a slightly tangential issue, but I think an important one as we seek to understand the Bible as a whole.

So what does all of this mean for us?

"If bread is what we need to survive in order to feel well and wholesome, the pursuit of bread becomes complicated when people determine that their needs include things unnecessary for true life. It would be as if the crowd asked Jesus for an ice cream break. Would he serve this too? Christians in the West are familiar with this theme, but we have difficulty diagnosing it in ourselves. Living in a consumer society fueled by sophisticated advertising and relative affluence, we have been given the means and the motivation to pursue countless forms of bread. If I simply possess this car or that cologne, my self-image will be healed and my sense of safety and well-being renewed. Once we possess these things, of course, their seductive appeal evaporates, and we move on to new targets of gratification.
Christians are not exempt from the seductions of the material culture around us. We define the “bread” we need with lives of remarkable indulgence." [2]

Life is found in only one place:  Jesus Christ.  Will we seek to find life there, or will we believe the promises and lies that will only come up dry and full of death?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Jesus Walks on Water
"While Jesus leaves for the mountains of upper Galilee, the disciples set sail, heading for the lake’s northeast shore. After rowing three or four miles, a storm catches them in the middle of the lake. As noted above, such east/west winds are common on this sea, and fishermen watched for them carefully. Their fear of the rough water, however, was surpassed by their terror at seeing Jesus walking to them on the water (6:19). Again, we have another motif from the Old Testament—a water miracle—that reminds us of the moment when Moses led Israel through the water (Ex. 13–15). Psalm 77 describes this moment in Israel’s life and explains that it was in fact God who led them.

    The waters saw you, O God,
      the waters saw you and writhed;
      the very depths were convulsed.…
    Your path led through the sea,
      your way through the mighty waters,
      though your footprints were not seen.
    You led your people like a flock
      by the hand of Moses and Aaron. (Ps. 77:16, 19–20)" [1]

Jesus has already offered proof that He is God:  the approval of the  Father, the witness of the Old Testament, miracles of healing, and more.  Here is yet another proof:  He is in command of creation.  Who else is in command except Him who created?  No one.

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Witnesses
I didn't mention this yesterday, but a common way to understand John 5 is in the context of an informal trail. Jesus heal on the Sabbath and is brought before accusers that ask Him to justify His actions.  Yesterday is what we would call Jesus' "defense" in this informal trial, that He was doing the work that His Father already does and does nothing without the Father's desire and approval.  Today Jesus brings "witnesses" forth on His behalf, hence His statement "there is another who bears witness about me..." (vv. 31-32).  Jesus actually brings forth SEVERAL witnesses:

"Jesus therefore identifies five witnesses whose words and deeds buttress his claims.

(a) The first witness is God, even though 5:32 does not say so explicitly (though cf. 5:37). The thought is not necessarily that God provides an audible voice of testimony, unless John has in mind the baptism of Jesus (1:32–34; cf. 12:28). Rather, here Jesus may be pointing to the inward presence of God that gives him confidence about his mission (17:1–6). God’s word and power are within Jesus, he has been sent by the Father, and these data point to the truth of who he is.

(b) The next witness is John the Baptist (5:33–35). John preceded Jesus, identified him, worked with him, and directed his followers to become Jesus’ disciples. Although his ministry was enjoyed (or indulged) for a time, in the end, it was rejected.

(c) Jesus points to his own works (5:36), which demand some explanation. These are not simply powerful miracles, but signs, culminating in the great works of the cross and resurrection. These point not merely to Jesus’ identity but to the Father, who alone can enable such things.

(d) Jesus adds the Scriptures to his list of witnesses (5:39–40). First-century Judaism was zealous in its study of the Scriptures. Yet, Jesus says, his contemporaries do not see the central message about Jesus and how he fulfills the Scripture. Luke shows a fascinating story about such use of the Scriptures in Luke 24 when Jesus comes to Emmaus. There he opens “Moses and all the Prophets” to these two disciples (Luke 24:27), who understand for the first time.

(e) The final witness is contained in the next element of Jesus’ defense. It is Moses (5:46–47), who is represented in Scripture, but his words about the Messiah are unequivocal (Deut. 18:15). Moses is the “patron saint” of Judaism, the defender of its people, an advocate on their behalf before God (see Moses’ farewell, Deut. 33). But, Jesus remarks, even Moses’ words have gone ignored." [1]

Jesus turns the tables on His accusers in verses 41-47.  He has provided witnesses in His defense, and He uses the final witness to switch things up.  Jesus says that He will not be the one that condemns them, but that Moses will.  Jesus offers eternal life, but His accusers cling to the Law (given through Moses).  They seek to be justified by Moses, rather than the One Moses spoke of, and are therefore accused by Moses instead.