The Day of Vengeance comes after great tribulation to give rest to the persecuted

The 5^th seal of Revelation speaks of Martyrs who ask when their deaths will be avenged.  I think these martyrs refer to those who die during the great tribulation, but if they include those of past times, the reference to more martyrs to come before the expected vengeance would support the conclusion that the great tribulation is not the Day of vengeance but precedes it.  The great tribulation will be a time of persecution unlike any other, and certainly those who will die during the persecutions of that time would be included with these martyrs that are in view.  Those martyrs will be resurrected at the coming of Christ and be given their rest at that time.  The Day of vengeance will come after great tribulation.

Revelation 6: “9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.  10  And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"  11  Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer,

until both [the] [number] [of] their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they [were], was completed.”

This is consistent with Chapter 1 of second Thessalonians: “4 we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure,  5  [which] [is] manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 

6  since [it] [is] a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 

7  and to [give] you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 

8  in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Notice that those who are persecuted will be given rest when Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.  The timing of this has to be after great tribulation.  This Day of Vengeance is when Jesus is revealed from Heaven with his mighty angels.  This “Day” and the revealing of Jesus from heaven follows the same scenario Jesus gave in his “Olivet Discourse.”  Jesus spoke of Great Tribulation, and then after that tribulation, He will be revealed, coming with His angels.  That coming will be like the days of Noah.  It will be the Day of divine judgment, and it will be a more direct judgment of Christ himself coming to earth to make war with the nations. 

Matthew 24: “21  "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.  22  "And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.  …  Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.  30  "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.  31  "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. …   37  "But as the days of Noah [were], so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.  38  "For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,  39  "and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.”

Obadiah 1:  “15  "For  the   day   of   the   Lord  upon all  the nations [is] near;  As you have done, it shall be done to you; Your reprisal shall return upon your own head.  16  For as you drank on my holy mountain,  [So] shall all  the  nations drink continually;  Yes, they shall drink, and swallow,  And they shall be as though they had never been.”

Joel 1: “15  Alas for  the   day !  For  the   day   of   the   Lord  [is] at hand;  It shall come as destruction from  the Almighty.”

Jeremiah 46: “10  For this [is]  the   day   of   the   Lord  God  of hosts,  A  day   of  vengeance,  That He may avenge Himself on His adversaries.  The  sword shall devour;  It shall be satiated and made drunk with their blood;”

Isaiah 13: “6  Wail, for  the   day   of   the   Lord  [is] at hand! It will come as destruction from  the Almighty. …9  Behold,  the   day   of   the   Lord  comes,  Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,  To lay  the  land desolate;  And He will destroy its sinners from it.  10  For  the  stars  of  heaven and their constellations  Will not give their light;  The  sun will be darkened in its going forth,  And  the  moon will not cause its light to shine.  11  "I will punish  the  world for [its] evil,  And  the  wicked for their iniquity;  I will halt  the  arrogance  of   the  proud,  And will lay low  the  haughtiness  of   the terrible. …13  Therefore I will shake  the  heavens,  And  the  earth will move out  of  her place,  In  the  wrath  of   the   Lord   of  hosts  And in  the   day   of  His fierce anger.”

Joel 2: “31  The  sun shall be turned into darkness,  And  the  moon into blood,  Before  the  coming  of   the  great and awesome  day   of   the   Lord.”

Joel 3: “14  Multitudes, multitudes in  the  valley  of decision!  For  the   day   of   the   Lord  [is] near in  the valley  of  decision.  15  The  sun and moon will grow dark,  And  the  stars will diminish their brightness.”

Revelation 6: “12  I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth  of hair, and the moon became like blood.  13  And the stars  of  heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind.  14  Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out  of  its place.  15  And the kings  of  the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks  of  the mountains,  16  and said to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face  of  Him who sits on the throne and from the  wrath   of  the Lamb!  17  "For the great  day   of   His   wrath  has come, and who is able to stand?"

The day of Vengeance and wrath comes in the sixth seal, after the fifth seal which represents the martyrs whose number is complete coming out of great tribulation.  The sixth seal reveals the cosmic events that come after the tribulation and immediately precede the coming of Christ and his direct judgment of the nations, and it is at that time he gathers his elect and gives rest to those who were persecuted by the nations who do not know God.

Prevenient Grace

Some hold to a view called “prevenient grace.”  This word “prevenient” means something like “preceding” or “coming before.”  The idea is that God has provided or provides what is needed for salvation, and one can either receive it or reject it.  

According to the belief of the “total depravity” of man, and according to a particular view of “spiritual death,” there is an inability of the “natural man” to respond to God as needed in order for them to be saved.  Therefore, the unsaved needs some sort of divine enablement, either “regeneration” or something like it (some call it a "quickening") to have faith that results in salvation. This divine enablement is called “efficacious grace” or “irresistible grace.”  God has predetermined whom he wants saved, and he eventually enables them to believe the Gospel by that grace, whether by regeneration or something like it.  

The opposing view doesn’t take man’s depravity to that extent.  The prevenient view would probably say that though man is “depraved,” it doesn’t mean he is “totally” depraved in the sense that he can’t respond to God as in a total inability.  Though the unsaved is spiritually “dead,” it doesn’t mean he can’t respond to God.  It's not to be compared to someone calling out to a physically dead person at the bottom the ocean (I’ve heard it illustrated that way).   

Being “dead” means they don’t have eternal life:  they are alienated from the life of God.   The natural man’s inability to know the things of God are two-fold: 1) he doesn’t intuitively know the mind of God:  no one actually does unless God reveals it; and 2) the things revealed have a progressive apprehension to them:  one can’t discern what he’s not ready for, for even an immature believer can not receive what a mature believer can, and an unsaved person can not receive or appreciate truth that does not relate to him, such as “walk in the spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.” An unsaved person cannot love God or appreciate any spiritual truth until he responds to certain things first, such as to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment.

The “grace” of God can actually refer to different things.    If you look at the Hebrew word for it in the Old Testament, you will find that the word is often translated “favor,” and this is the definition Lewis Sperry Chafer gives it in his book on Grace.  The meaning should be determined by context and usage.  Grace can refer to Divine enablement, but not in every case, especially as the word is used in the Old Testament.  Spiritual gifts are referred to as a grace by Paul, and they are a kind of divine enablement.  

Grace can speak of something someone did freely.  The death of Christ is called grace in 2 Corinthians 8.9 and in Romans 5 in the text following verse 12.  I would say that the death of Christ is provisional grace:  it is by the death of Christ we can be saved, but one has to believe in him for salvation, or his death will not save you.  Some don’t like this view because they say it means Christ died in vain for many.   I just find that a pointless argument.  (There are Calvinists who believe Jesus died for all, not just for the elect—though you need to clarify if they are talking about intent or extent).  Grace seems to often speak of that which is freely done or given, like a gift, or a favor, but it is still often associated with faith being required to receive that grace.    

Grace could speak of a provision by God or Christ (like his death for sins) and then from God (like justification), but then faith is required before it benefits an individual.  The role of faith seems true even when grace is seen as a kind of divine enablement as in  some sort of divine help in the time of need:  “Let us come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and fine grace to help in our time of need,” Hebrews 4.16.  Such grace is not automatic.   And when it comes to salvation, there must be a response to the promised provision; that provision is grace, and the divine response is grace, but until one believes, grace does not profit them.

I think instead of “prevenient” grace, it should be called “provisional grace.”  God has provided what is needed, but one must believe (in the right thing) to receive it or receive the benefit of it, depending on what’s needed, whether justification before God or help in time of need.  

The “mystery” of the rapture and the teachings of Christ

One of the arguments against Jesus speaking of the rapture is that Paul spoke of the rapture as a mystery, and therefore, Jesus could not have been talking about the rapture, because a mystery is understood as something previously unrevealed or unknown.

This is typically a pretrib argument, but there are pretrib rapturists who believe Jesus did talk about the rapture, such as in the Olivet discourse concerning “one will be taken and the other left,” Matthew 24.40-41.  Dr. John Hart, who is pretrib, wrote a 3-part article in the Grace Evangelical Society Journal seeking to demonstrate that Jesus spoke concerning the rapture in the words “one will be taken.”  Also, Dave Hunt (Pretrib) in his rapture debate with Marv Rosenthal (Prewrath) seems to have taken that view.  Hunt’s explanation on how Jesus could speak in such contradictory terms about His coming being both unexpected and yet known to be near by the signs was that Jesus spoke of both the rapture and the second coming just like the Old Testament prophecies spoke of both Jesus’ first coming and second coming together, though obviously separated by a significant period of time.

It seems pretty common among all views on the rapture that Jesus did speak of the rapture in John 14.3: “I will come again and receive you to myself.”  Those who believe Jesus spoke of the rapture in his words “one will be taken” make the point that the word “receive” in John 14.3 is the same Greek word as “taken” in Matthew 24.40-41, being “paralambano.”  It does seem doubtful that the disciples had any idea what Jesus was talking about.  But then, the disciples didn’t seem to understand what Jesus talked about with reference to his death. 

There are Prewrath and Posttrib rapturists who believe that the writings of Paul, particularly in the Thessalonian letters, about the coming of Christ and the events preceding and connected with it, were from the teachings of Christ.  When Paul said “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord” in 1 Thessalonians 4.15 concerning the coming of Christ and the rapture and resurrection, he was referencing the teachings of Christ that were already delivered to his disciples.  The parallels between Jesus and Paul are just too striking to be denied.   And this is probably why some Pretribbers seek to explain how Jesus taught on the rapture.

But what about Paul calling the rapture a “mystery?” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15.51-52: “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed…”  Does this mean Jesus did not teach on it?  Aren’t “mysteries” New Testament teachings not revealed in the Old Testament? There is a debate over the exact meaning or extent of what the mysteries are.  Those who call themselves “progressive dispensationalists” don’t define “mystery” to the same extent as classical dispensationalists. Probably posttribbers and prewrathers are becoming more “progressive” in their dispensationalism.  I have read the progressive view, and I am definitely familiar with classical dispensationalism.  I’m probably somewhere in-between both views. 

I define the dispensations differently than the classical view.  Even though the teachings of Jesus could be considered Old Testament teaching, it doesn’t mean he didn’t teach things that pertain to the age of the Church including the rapture.  Though the “church” was a mystery, a truth hidden that God only knew and planned, it doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t know about it.  And it seems to me that the early church didn’t know or discern what was going on and how the teachings of Christ applied to them until many years later.  God had chosen not to restore Israel as a people with the few thousands that believed after Pentecost, but he chose to take believing Jews and join them with believing gentiles to make a new people for his purpose for a period of time.   God could have done things differently, but he didn’t.  Romans chapters 9 through 11 explains this.   What God is doing in this age is connected with the mystery Paul taught, but not only Paul, but Jesus, who taught on the “mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven/ God.”

Jesus taught on the “mysteries” of the kingdom and he also gave us things like water baptism and the “Lord’s supper.”   These things relate to this age and the church.  Jesus spoke of the mysteries in the parables, Matthew 13.11.  The parables tell us of the character of this age, how the word of God will be received, and how there will be believers and non-believers together that are hard to distinguish but will be separated at the end of the age.  This describes the age that we live in.   The kingdom of heaven and God is the authority of God which is represented now in believers, but this authority can be resisted in this age, and that may be the “mystery” form of it—because in the age to come, that authority can not be resisted, successfully.  

The Mysteries involve these things related to this present age, the church and its associated things.  Jesus spoke about these mysteries, even though they were probably mostly not understood.  I believe the rapture was one of those mysteries. It wasn’t for years after Pentecost that believers began to discern what God was up to.  New Jewish believers didn’t know what was going on—pertaining to the nation of Israel or the joining of believing gentiles with believing Jews to form a people of God.    

As far as believing Jews knew, Ezekiel chapters 40-48 could have been soon fulfilled, concerning the restoration of the nation in the land.  Many of them were zealous for the law, which would be expected from a new believer who usually wants to live pleasing to God.  They didn’t know that all this was going to change, but Jesus did tell the woman at the well (John 4) that changes were coming, and Ezekiel chapters 40-48 were not that change.

So Jesus did teach on the Mysteries of the kingdom, mysteries that include the present age, the church and associated things.  To argue that Jesus did not teach on the rapture because it was a mystery seems to ignore that Jesus taught on mysteries.  And even some pretribs recognize that Jesus taught on the rapture.  And the parallels between Paul and Jesus on prophecy are just too striking to deny.

Gospel of John some commentary chs. 1 -9

John 1 -- The Life is the light of men

He “the word” in John chapter one is identified qualitatively as God: The Greek literally says, “God was the word.” This word is obviously Jesus, as verse 14 says the word became flesh and dwelt among us. All things were said to be created through him and with respect to him in verse 3, and “in him was life, and the life was the light of men,” verse 4. This life is obviously eternal life.

The words “everlasting” and “eternal” both translate the Greek word “aionios” which speaks of time as unending duration or time without boundaries, but when used with the word “life” (Greek is “Zoe”), the primary focus is on that life we have and share with God (yet it is of unending duration as well).

This Life is the “light” of men. What does this mean?

“Light” is obviously a metaphor. It can signify knowing and understanding, and in a spiritual sense, can speak of knowing God and Christ in a relational way, which is eternal life, John 17.3. It is the opposite of darkness, which can signify ignorance: to walk in darkness is to be ignorant of God and the life that is in Him: “having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them.” Ephe 4:18

John 1.5: The darkness did not “comprehend” or “overtake” the light.

The Greek word is “katalambano.” The translation of comprehend is based on the meaning as to take hold of in the sense of apprehension (to not apprehend, as in someone telling you something but you have no idea what they are talking about—you are totally in the dark).

But if this is talking about the darkness itself, and not the state of an individual, then probably “overcome” or “over take” is the idea. The darkness could not “over take” the light. Now darkness could do this to an individual, as is the warning in John 12.35, using the same Greek word, but it could not overtake that light. The world and the Jews at Large did not believe, but some still did.

Verses 6-13: John was sent to bear witness to that Light so all could believe in Him and receive that Life.

The “all” here could mean “the world.” The text immediately talks about the light coming into the world and its reception of Him. But John’s ministry was to the Jewish people particularly. It could anticipate the aim of the reception by the Jews first who were then to take the message into the world—to the Jew First (as Paul said in Romans). The Jews (His own) and the World (whom he made) as a whole did not receive Him, but of those who did, they were born (again) of God—becoming children of God.

Those who believe in the One who is the “Word of God” for that (eternal) “Life” are born of God (regeneration in contrast to human procreation)—receiving that Life, becoming children of God, and this Life is their “light,” knowing God and living accordingly.

John 1 Jesus identified

John writes about the “Word of God.” We know who he means, especially in the statement that the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us” and that he was the “only begotten of the father.” (John 1.14)  Jesus is the "word of God"; he is the revelation of God to mankind.  Jesus said that "he who has seen me has seen the father." (John 14.9)  The "word" was "in the beginning."  If this beginning is creation, then the "word"  was in existence already.  The word was with God and the word was God.  What God is, so is the word.  As Jesus said: "I and my Father are one." (John 10.29)  

John gives a contrast between Jesus and Moses.  The law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.  There is a contrast here between what came through Moses and what came through Jesus.

Moses was used to give Israel the Law from God, and the Law, though it is good and right, could not give eternal life, because no one can keep it.  Jesus brought the message of grace and truth: he was the means of eternal life (that particular truth) through faith in him for it.  Through His death for our sins (his grace), eternal life is freely given (God’s grace) to those who believe in Jesus for it  (verse 16 says “grace for grace”: see 2 Cor 8.9 and Ro 5.15-16 : these references speak of the “free gift” and “grace" that is the grace of Christ in dying for us which is the basis of that grace of God in justifying us freely who believe in Jesus for salvation from sin.)

The Apostle John (who wrote the Gospel) gives a contrast between Jesus and John the Baptist.  John the Baptist was of lesser status, than Jesus: see verses 15, 27, 30.  John the Baptist acknowledged that his role was to prepare the way: verses 19-23.  His baptism with water was only a ritual, while Jesus’ baptism was a spiritual reality; he would baptize with the Holy Spirit (not water): verses 24-26, 33. The ritual of baptism was not a totally new thing since the religious leaders asked him why he baptized--they asked him as to why he did it, not what is it.  This baptism signified the spiritual reality which Jesus would be the cause of.  The ritual portrays a sanctifying reality caused by the Spirit of God who would sanctify the believer (set them apart onto God) through a new birth ("born again" or "regeneration") and provide "gifts" for service to God.

Jesus is identified by John as the Divine person who came to reveal and provide Eternal Life.

The First disciples of Christ in John 1

Jesus was verified to John B. at baptism, John 1.30-34. Not until baptism did John have Divine acknowledgement that Jesus was the Christ, though he previously perceived who he was, see Mat 3.13-15. Later, while in prison, John needed reassurance. And Jesus worked some signs to reaffirm who he was.

John points out Jesus as the Lamb to 2 disciples, John 1:29, 35-36. But it all seems low-keyed.
John reveals Jesus as the Lamb after the 40 days of temptation--which was after his baptism.  Jesus walked among John's disciples for a few days before disciples were joined to him.  The 2 "next days" are with reference to the witness of John to Jesus.

Andrew and the unnamed disciple were disciples of John. They seek Jesus, 1:37-40 Andrew, 40-42, says to Peter "we have found the Christ." Philip, 43-44, says to Nathaniel, we “have found the one that Moses and the prophets spoke of.” Nathaniel, 45-51, says to Jesus, “You are the Son of God…king of Israel!”

These 3 reveal that Christ's choice was not just for any Jew, but those who had expectations of Messiah. Luke 3:15 says the people reasoned in their hearts whether John B. was the Christ. They were not religious leaders, but they were every day people who had  the belief and kind of character that figured into the Lord's choice.

The Beginning of Signs John 2

Jesus would work miracles that would attest to who he was; these signs would be consistent with God in their midst and be a foretaste of the kingdom. They were not like the miracles ascribed to Muhammad who was said to cut the moon in half with a sickle. Skeptics who believe there was a historical Jesus, dismiss the miracles as added myth to the gospel accounts, believing there was an original source document (they call “Q”) that did not contain these accounts. Apologists will argue early dates for the accounts that did not allow time for such “myths” to become mainstream teaching.

Mary says to Jesus, “They have no wine,” 2:1-12. Jesus has time to go to a wedding with his mom, siblings, and disciples. Mary’s request is revealed in Jesus’ response—she was expecting something miraculous. Her expectation was at least in light of the recent developments around his life—it was the “beginning of miracles,” but what did she learn from the past 30 years of his life? We don’t know. It was really a non-essential need but Jesus fulfills it, and it marks a beginning.

Jesus responded that his “hour has not yet come.” The “hour” would probably speak of his manifestation to Israel, which probably would follow the end of John’s ministry, though he began to have disciples. This miracle did manifest his glory and produced belief among his disciple, vs 11.

After Jesus drives the animal sellers and money changers out of the Temple, the Jews ask him, ”What sign do you show us?” verses 13-22. These Jews didn’t question the need to purify the temple. They wanted proof of his divine authority. Jesus made wine for his mom, and the wedding folks, but no sign for these people. It was a kind of judgment on them, including the cryptic prophecy of his death and resurrection: the principle of “to him who has, more will be given…”

”Many believed in Him when they saw the signs.” Verses 23-25

Jesus would not “commit to them” though they believed. People are fickle. He was selective. I am the same way, if people are not going to put some effort into it, I usually move on.

The signs were a manifestation of who he was, and that God was with him in what he said and did. These signs were helpers to those who did not reject his word and the obvious of who Jesus was. John the Baptist needed verification while in prison, and Jesus did miracles for him, Luke 7.18-23 for his benefit. Nicodemus could not deny the signs that God was with Jesus, John 3.2

Nicodemus John 3

Nicodemus was apparently not alone in his inquiry: “we know that you are a teacher come from God…,” verse 2.

Jesus confronts him on what is needed to see and enter the kingdom of God. This “born again” is a new birth, by the Spirit of God; it brings forth a “spirit,” verse 6, as opposed to what is born of the flesh. The further references to eternal life being received by believing in Jesus for it, reveal that this new birth and spirit are eternal life, received at the moment of faith in Christ. John 1.12-13 supports this.
Nicodemus did not understand. Jesus’ response to him suggests he should have known ( verses 9-13) Jesus said one must be “born of water and spirit.” I believe this is referenced in Ezekiel the water signifies a cleansing, and the spirit is the new spirit that Ezekiel speaks concerning. The new birth has a cleansing aspect, being the washing away of the old self, and the giving of a new spirit creating a new man. Nicodemus probably held the common view that one’s own righteousness would qualify them for the kingdom, but it is the righteousness God gives through the water and spirit of the new birth that gets one into the kingdom.

Jesus was the true teacher who knew both the earthly and heavenly things.

The “earthly things” relate to things on Earth, being the need to get right with God.  Jesus speaks of the new birth.  John spoke of the need for repentance.  The "we" being John and Jesus or is it a general-truth-reference that includes Nic’s testimony at the start that “we know you are a teacher come from God.” And yet, the witness of Jesus and John were not believed.   The Pharisees did not receive their --Jesus’ and John’s--witness, you being plural, see John 7.48; Luke 7.30.

The “heavenly things” relate to life in the kingdom of God--Jesus came from heaven, he's qualified to speak on it.  Paul saw things he could not speak about, 2 Cor 12.2-4.    Jesus told his disciples he  had more to tell them but they could not bear it at that time, Jn 16.12. The "natural man can not receive..." We don't intuitively know the mind of God, it must be revealed, 1 Cor 2.9-14.  And it is a build-upon-process.   There's not only problems of understanding, but relating to.  There are things immature believers are not ready for, or the dull of hearing can't receive, Hebrews 5.11-14.  The senses need exercised in the word of God.

The unsaved can understand the law and judgment.  They can understand and believe certain things in Scripture, but condemnation must be acknowledged before salvation. 
I believe Jesus was pointing out to Nic his lack of salvation and unfitness to be a teacher--which would apply to the other Pharisees as well who were guilty loving certain unrighteousness and trusting in themselves, Lk 18.9.  But he still had the initiative to seek Jesus out, responding positively to the miracles, thus putting him in the middle of hating the light and coming to the light. 

In Verses 14-16, Jesus gives the analogy of the serpent on pole, Nu 21.4-9; Isa 45.22-25.  The serpent on the pole compares to Christ on the cross: both are God's provision for sin.  The believing in the promise of salvation is necessary.

In Verses 17-18, Christ came to save, (inclusive language as the "world" of "men") not to condemn.  2 Cor 5:19: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world…” The final issue is belief in Christ.

Verses 19-21: How does one transition from hating the light to coming to the light? So this may be why there must be the work of the law and knowledge of condemnation.  The serpent bite is comparable.  They we're dying.  So when one knows their condemnation, there may be a resolve to get right with God.  This is repentance.  One is not born again, being eternal life received, until they believe in Jesus for it.  In between hating the light and coming to the light (those who do the truth) is where one may be seeking answers and coming to the point of belief in the truth and then the new birth.  Nicodemus was somewhere at the in-between point.  But many Pharisees were mostly in the hate the light stage.

Nic needed to be careful that he not be a light hater, but break from his fellow Pharisees who resisted the light.  Hate is a strong word, and it is used elsewhere where it seems to reflect preference or priority.  Maybe it speaks of avoidance.
The transition is possible through confrontation with the knowledge of one’s condemnation which brings fear.  One may want to avoid that confrontation, but fear of consequence may cause one to seek.

The second basis of condemnation is loving darkness. The first was unbelief in Christ.
But this is connected to the first in that it keeps one from believing in Christ.  This is an explanation as to why people don't believe in Christ.  I tend to believe this is how to understand the extreme statements of Mat 5.29-30.  If a body part causes you to sin (skandalon--offend, stumble).  This could speak just of the serious consequences of sin, but it could speak of how immoral actions keep one from coming to the truth.  If a body part keeps you from coming to the truth, cut it off.

Light is in contrast to darkness. Light exposes.  It must be at least truth from God, especially with reference to the moral will and God's way of salvation (being Christ)--John 1246: to believe in Christ for salvation takes one out of darkness and enables them not to abide in darkness (subjunctive mood).

If you are doing right, then you should want God's vindication, which his word will reveal.  To walk outside God's moral will is to be in darkness, being alienated from God.  Coming to the light is knowing, doing, and identifying will the moral will of God.

Coming to the light is not necessarily coming to salvation in this reference.  However, the 2 classes represented here are probably non-believers who hate the light verses believers who do the truth and come to the light.
I believe there can be believers though who can fail at the latter, and non-believers who from fear of judgment will respond to the gospel--but I don't believe that is the issue here necessarily.

Jesus is speaking to Nic where he's at and pointing out why the Pharisees are not coming to him--the affect of their self-righteousness and hypocrisy.

Nic must make a decision to come out into the day-light and identify with the light.  Many rulers believed and yet did not openly confess Jesus out of fear, John 12.42, cp 7:48. John 12.35-36-- Walk in the light so the darkness does not over take you.

John the Baptist role is about to end.  He had run his course.  He did not join with Jesus or become an apostle.  His role was ending and Jesus' role was moving forward.  John was an example of one who came to the light.  He identified with Christ and God's moral will.

Jesus did not come to condemn or destroy, but the unbelieving are already condemned because they don't believe.  Unbelief keeps one in their sins.  Unbelief may be in ignorance or willful. Those who saw Jesus and rejected were in willful unbelief.

The Diminishing John B John 3

John 3:22-26: After Jesus appears on the scene recognized by John as the Christ, John does not follow him, but continues on his ministry. It appears that even most of John's disciples did not follow after Jesus, but continued on with John.  You’d think they would have followed Jesus at least for awhile to verify who he was, then leave to proclaim him and continue the baptism ministry.

Jesus and his disciples went to the Judea area, and there baptized. The disciples of John get into a "dispute" about "purification" with a "Jew" (not plural).  We don't know the content of the dispute, but I believe it is telling that it relates to baptism, that baptism has this signification to it, being a consecratory significance to it.  The question asked John may have been over whose baptism was valid--if Jesus was baptizing now and everyone was going to him.  Maybe the Jew was questioning the validity of John in light of the prominence of Jesus (there were also the Essenes and Pharisees who baptized converts).

John 3:27-28: "In Jewish Law, one person who represents another acts on his sender's authority but must adhere to the constraints of his mission; the real authority always stems from the sender." Bible Backgrounds commentary NT

29-30:  John makes an analogy with reference to his relationship to the Christ using a marriage ceremony. "The friend of the bridegroom...was much like the best man in weddings today. The most significant emphasis of Jewish weddings was joy."  (Backgrounds)   Jesus is the groom, the church or believers are the bride, and Johnny B is the best man.  His joy was simply in hearing the voice of the groom, which was the expectation of his ministry.

John testifies his role was one to diminish according to who he was.  The focus of attention must shift.  This was the divine design.  Maybe this is why he was allowed to be imprisoned and to die. We each have functions/ roles according to the “grace given to us.” (Romans 12)

It takes grace enabled humility to recognize one's role as a lesser one or diminishing one.  This is not easy if one had a leadership position and now is in a subordinate one.  Some lose their way it seems when they are no longer at the helm.

31-32:  John says basically what Jesus said to Nic in 11-12.  Jesus is from heaven, having both the authority and the knowledge to testify of both earthly and heavenly things.

John makes a general reference that the testimony of Christ not being received.   This applies to Jewish religious leaders and some of the general population.  This is similar to 1:11-12.
He then say those who receive the word of Jesus in effect certify God is true.  The words Jesus spoke are the words of God--not the words of a deceiver or madman. Rejecting his words is to reject God, calling him a liar.

John's reference to the Spirit indicates that Jesus has received unlimited access to the Spirit of God, unlike the prophets who received the Spirit in limited portion for limited periods (think of how even the Spirit came upon Saul for a time and he prophesied).
I think that Jesus in his incarnation set aside the exercise of his divine attributes and became totally dependent on God.  If he did signs and wonders by the Holy Spirit, then so he knew things by the same.  He in all points were made like us, but without sin. The son has the Spirit without limit, and He has authority to give eternal life to all who believe in him for it.  Those who don't believe remain in the state of condemnation.

Two things John 4

Saving faith requires knowledge of 2 things: the gift of God and the Giver of this gift. To believe Jesus is the Christ is to believe he is the guarantor of eternal life to those who believe in him for it.

John 4. 1-9: Maybe to avoid too much attention, the decision is made to travel to Galilee. Going through Samaria was not the only route, but here it is said a necessity. This may be due to a needed encounter with certain Samaritans who count as the “other sheep” Jesus spoke about John 10.14-16. It was a *strategic* move. Samaria was the capital of the Northern kingdom, though also the name of the region.

Samaritans were at best “half-breed” Israelites, a result of the division of the kingdom after Solomon and the intermarrying from the Assyrian captivity. They had their own “Pentateuch” and at one time temple on Mount Gerizim. Jews considered them unclean, and probably especially the women—this woman even more so, because of her lifestyle. But Jesus s not hindered by these things.

Verses 10-15: The “gift of God” here is identified as “living water.” He draws attention to a spiritual need that she should want, using some analogy with reference to the well and water.

She doesn’t understand the nature of this offer. Notice she calls Jacob the father of the Samaritans.

Jesus makes a distinction. His water quenches the thirst forever. He is obviously speaking of eternal life, the new birth—spoken about to Nic in John 3. She still doesn’t fully grasp the “living-water,” but she understands the once-for-all enduring nature of the gift, vs 15.

Verses 16-26: The giver is the Messiah. Jesus addresses her marital status, maybe its not so much to reveal her need than it is to move the conversation along to who he was. She “perceives” he is a prophet.

She then discusses the conflict of belief and practice between the 2 groups. Some might say this is a tactic by her to avoid discussing her status.

Jesus responds to her in a way to identify who he is. He speaks of a change coming with reference to worship, but he states that Jews have the correct worship. This seems like an insult similar to the calling a Canaanite woman a “little dog” in Matthew 15.21-28, but the Messiah will come through Judah by whom salvation will come. Not sure of what exactly Jesus intended by that response.

The intended attention is then reach, because the woman said that “Messiah” is coming who will “tell us all things.”

Jesus then responds that he is him.

This was what she also needed to know. She needed to know the gift and the giver. He gave her reason to believe that he was the giver. He had the gift of everlasting life to give to those who believe in him for it. There is reason to believe she became a believer and received the gift.

The Other Sheep of Samaria:

John 4:27-42:  Jesus breaks away from cultural norms and neglects his personal needs to do the will of God and to teach spiritual truth.

Jesus travels through Samaria so he can reveal himself to some "other sheep" that he was the one they waited for, John 10.16.

The Christ had the "gift of God," for he was the "savior of the world."  To believe  that Jesus is the Christ is to believe he is the giver of eternal life or the savior from sin.

Verses 27-38: before it was known that Jesus was the Christ, one could believe in the Christ to come who would be savior of the world.   One had to learned that Jesus was the one.  

Because of how Jesus would be savior and the giver of the gift of God, it was important that they believed he was the one, so that after his death, they could make sense of it and continue to believe and proclaim him.

Jesus said to the woman "salvation is of the Jews."  The word "of" is the Greek preposition "ek" meaning "out of."   Though out of Judah the savior would come, and he would come to save his people, the promise was to all nations, and the Samaritans of that village understood that: see Gen 22.18 and Gal 3.8,13-16.  They could believe that and be saved, but the presence of Jesus and the correct associations would be new revelation.

The woman was impressed by Jesus' knowledge of her, but he also claimed to be Messiah. She may have believed when she left.  She presents Jesus as the Christ as a question--maybe as not to force her new found faith on the men of Sychar.  The Samaritans were ready to believe he was the Christ--they were the result of others' labors and "white unto harvest"--ready to be picked.

Jesus uses 2 analogies, one of eating and the other farming.

Jesus used the analogy of food as doing the will of God.  What could this mean?  The doing of the will of God is essential to life--as is food.  It is fulfilling.  This may also correspond to "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."  He refrains from eating to use an analogy to impart spiritual knowledge.

These people were "white for harvest":  people who were the result of others who sowed. 

The reapers receive "wages." Together with the sowers, they receive wages being reward.

Verses 39-42: Though it seems they were already believers--had anticipated the coming Christ, they had new revelation of who the Christ actually was being Jesus.  They would be the "other-sheep" to spread the news to those outside the people of the Jews.  

Jesus came to them to bless them with his presence and so their expectation realize, Mat 13.16-17.

Jesus was an example of making the priority of doing the will of God in the harvesting of people for God.

Two more signs (John 4 and 5)

John 4:43-49:   Jesus and Co. arrive in Cana of Galilee.

Verse 44: A prophet having no honor in his own country seems oddly placed.  This is referenced more fully in Mark 6.1-6.  His home country is not Judea but Galilee, though more specifically Nazareth.  Because people know your background, they are more skeptical of your new role.

Verse 45: We are told the Galileans "received him." Is this a contradiction?  The rule of non-acceptance is a general one, but the reception may not be anything more than as a prophet.

Jesus had done other "signs" in Jerusalem, John 2.23: these were seen and word had spread.

Verses 46-47:  The royal official at least believed in Jesus' ability to do miracles.  It's all he cared about for the moment.  A desperate parent isn't concerned about theology.

Verses 48-50:  Jesus' response about signs seems harsh, but it fits with the verse 44 assessment.  The man believed Jesus could heal, but was not concerned about who he really was.  "Sir, just come and save my child!"

Jesus simply informs him that his son lives.  He is able to believe that Jesus' word is enough without going to Capernaum (25 mi NE).

Verses 51-54:  The official's son is healed.  He connects the timing--Jesus did the healing.  The outcome is that he and his whole family become believers. I take this to mean that they believe Jesus is the Christ.  Surely he knew what others had claimed about Jesus (and knew he worked miracles), but before this, he didn't take it that far—that he was the Christ.

Verse 54:  This was his second sign in Galilee, but not second over all.  Two great signs of who Jesus was: He had power over nature and could heal from a distance.

John 5.1-4: Jesus returns to Jerusalem, for a feast, and it was on a Sabbath. He is at a pool where physically disabled people lie.

This pool was believed to be a place of divine healing.  The added text about the angelic activity may have been the popular belief.  If it was in the text, then it was so, but in either case, the stirring of the water is referenced in verse 7.

Verses 5-9:  This man has been  disabled for 38 years, and too slow to the healing he believed was there, and no one to help.

Jesus asks the obvious question. Surely he wants to be made well. The man knows nothing about Jesus.  Jesus simply heals him and the man walks. Why this particular man?  Maybe he picked the one who had waited the longest.

Verses 10-15: This healing allowed some other issues to be addressed.  One concerning the Sabbath, and probably with that, what people believe. "The Jews" were probably John's reference to the religious leaders and not Jews in general.  Besides the common belief that they were righteous, was their view of the Sabbath and legalism. A miracle has happened, and yet they only care about formality.   Anything that challenged this was wrong to them.  Not mentioned here, is the Divine truth, in Matthew 12.1-8: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice."

Verse 14.: “Sin no more”:   One view says it is with reference to a particular sin that he is committing, and maybe this is Jesus saying to this man something like with the woman at the well--He knows about his life.
This statement may be to create concern within him about his sin problem.  Did he want to be made entirely well?  Would he see his greater need and that Jesus would meet it?  There appears to be a dullness in the man, as we see no response of gratitude or humility.  The kind of attitude that is only concerned about meeting my physical need.

The Bethesda Miracle Engagement (John 5)

John records only 8 miracles.  The second one in Cana was the official's son though John indicates he did more between the two in Cana. 

I suspect that the account recorded in the Byzantine text is the common belief held to at the time.  The Byzantine text states it as the reality—not as merely a common belief.

A multitude lay at the pool in want of a miracle, and yet Jesus chooses only one individual.

I wonder why he chose to heal him.  I suspect it was to leave a witness to the "Jews" (religious leaders), so they were without excuse and to challenge their theology, particularly about the sabbath day.  

Because he healed on the Sabbath, they wanted to kill him.  They had changed the intent of that day so to put them in control and receiving honor from men, and Jesus challenged their control and honor.   Only those who recognized such signs were from God like Nicodemus could question their beliefs.

The man who was healed did not know who Jesus was that he might ask for healing.  He still did not realize who he was afterwards. Jesus' statement about sinning no more may have been to challenge him in some way.  Some think it was with reference to a specific sin that caused his disability, but he was that way for 38 years.  I think it was more like the Rich Young Ruler episode, to challenge the man about his true need. 

Verse 17-18: The miracle creates the opportunity for Jesus to engage the Jews on who he was, being equal to the Father.  And so even more they wanted to kill him.

Jesus’ works are the works of the Father.  To reject Jesus is to reject God, Verses 19-23.

Verses 24-29: Because of who Jesus is, he has authority over the eternal destiny of all.  That destiny depends on hearing Jesus' word, 5.24. 
There is a correlation between John 5.28 and 1 Corinthians 15.2.  Everyone dies because of Adam, but everyone will be resurrected because of Christ, but only believers will have eternal life.

Verses 30-38:  Jesus had the witness of the Father--being the signs that he did.  He did not need a human witness, but for their salvation, there was the witness of John B.  Many were willing to accept John’s witness, but they did not respond to Jesus as the Christ.

Verses 39-47:  They think by pouring over the Scriptures they will gain eternal life, and yet it is those Scriptures that testify of Jesus.
The pursuit of honor from men keep them from coming to Jesus for that life. They love this honor over God. They claim to honor the Law, but the Lawgiver Moses will condemn them because he wrote of Jesus and they do not believe he is the one.

Jesus’ witnesses John 5

The “Jews” thought they were righteous and despised others, Luke 18.9. Their righteousness was in their careful observance of the Law, but they were both extreme and hypocritical in their keeping of the Law, to be comfortable in their-righteousness and to secure the honor of and authority over others.

When Jesus healed a man and told him to take up his bed and walk on the Sabbath, this produced persecution from the Jews of Jesus who held this a violation of that day’s observance. When Jesus said he was doing the works of the Father, the Jews wanted to kill him, because he was claiming to be equal to God.

Jesus then goes into a monologue concerning his works and authority are he same as and from God. He has authority to give life, both eternal and physical life.

His monologue to the Jews continues in John 5.30-47 in revealing that they are not right with God, because they reject the witnesses of God concerning who Jesus is.

It is believed that Jesus gives 4 witnesses to his identity in the following Scripture, but I would categorize it as 2, one is human, the other divine.

John 5.30-35: John the Baptist was a witness to Jesus as the Christ, the son of God.

Jesus said he did receive testimony from man, vs 34, but this is that they might be saved. God raised up a human witness, who was mostly accepted by the people. John had a ministry that in character and message met general approval among the people, vs 35. The leaders mostly did not participate in it, because of their self-righteousness, but it met general approval among the people, Luke 7.29; Mark 11.27-33

This John was esteemed a prophet of God, and his message was one of preparation for the soon arrival of the Christ, and he pointed to Jesus as he.

36-40: The other witness is Divine. There are 2 modes of witness here that are divine.

The works Jesus did was one mode. If the witness of John was not persuasive, then the works should have been. And as the Jews were prone to seek the honor of men and be self-righteous, which were obstacles in believing who Jesus was, the works should have goaded them—like it did Nicodemus.

The other mode was the Scriptures. Jesus said they had not heard or seen God, but he knew they esteemed the Scriptures as the word of God. But that word they did not have abiding in them because it spoke of Him, and yet they did not believe him.

The Jews poured over the Scriptures probably to make sure they were observing the Law requirements so that they might gain eternal life, but they missed or ignored what those Scriptures said about the person through whom eternal life would come.

Vs 40 speaks of a volitional aspect of coming to faith. Whatever one might think or feel, if there is divine attestation to the contrary, you need to seek it out—as Nicodemus did.

41-47: The Jews though they were right with God, but they did not have God’s word abiding in them—for if they did, they would have believed in Jesus.

They also did not have the love of God, vs 42. This would be a love for God. Instead, they had a love for the honor of men—Jesus here was making a contrast here, love for God over honor from men, which along with their self-righteousness, kept them from believing God’s way of salvation through the Christ who was Jesus.

Love for God is not the terms of eternal life, but the lack of it revealed they were not right with God as they would have claimed to be.

One can not really love God until after they are saved. Loving God is not the terms of eternal life. We may say that the unsaved do not and can not love God, and this is true, but it is not the terms of eternal life. This love is really a priority of commitment, not really an emotion or feeling. When Scripture says that God love Jacob and hated Esau, or that we are to hate our parents in order to be disciples, its talking about priority of commitment. One could be saved and not have that priority of commitment.

These Jews would have claimed to be right with God, but they were not, because of their mishandling of Scripture, to support their self-righteousness for eternal life, instead of believing in the Christ for it in the person of Jesus, and because of their seeking honor of men, over a love for-priority of commitment to God.

In John 6, we have Jesus performing miracles that reveal his authority over nature, being the feeding of the 5000 and his walking on water.

The aim of the miracles is not only to testify to who he is but his authority to give eternal life.

This last point seems to be what people are missing--maybe even his disciples.

They may acknowledge him as a prophet and look to him for no more than meeting temporal needs, mainly food.

If they look to him to be a temporal deliverer, then Jesus must avoid such associations--this was one of satan's temptations, for this was not his purpose.

People were to believe in him for eternal life, not as a temporal ruler and deliverer and food supplier.

In John 6, Jesus is again in the Galilee area. We have him going back and forth between Galilee to Jerusalem in John.

A very large crowd had followed him due to the signs. He has done healings and taught them, Luke 9.11, and being late in the day, suggests feeding them, John 6.5-6.

We are told this was a test. But they just look at the impossibility of it, in cost and lack of sufficiency.

All 4 Gospel accounts record this event giving different details. There were 5000 men, not counting women and children. So the count was probably more than double.

6.11-13: We read that from 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes, everyone eats to satisfaction, and 12 baskets of fragments are gathered up--he not only provides them food, but there is an over abundance. How this manifested itself would be interesting to observe. The analogy is that eternal life is free and all sufficient.

Again, the aim of the miracle is to believe in his authority to give eternal life. Consider what Jesus says to the religious leaders when he tells a cripple that his sins are forgiven: Lk 5.23-26.

The people call it "strange things." The feeding of the thousands seems even stranger.

6.14-15: the people conclude he is "The Prophet who is to come into the world." Whether they equate that to the Christ, they are looking to make him a temporal ruler. This is not what Jesus wants from them. Later, Jesus reveals they seek him for the wrong reasons, and maybe they are limiting the authority he has.

Mark 6.52 indicates that the feeding did not even have an impact on his disciples, but the next miracle does. It is Jesus walking on the water to their boat in the sea of Galilee.

Jesus sends his disciples away on boat as he seeks to deal with the crowd.

Later, he sees the disciples struggling in a storm and walks out to them on the water, 19-21. This is bizarre stuff. Their response seems understandable.

Mark 6.52 says they did not understand about the feeding and their hearts were hardened.

This condition is revealed again in Mark 8.14-21 in their response to Jesus warning them about the "leaven" or yeast of the Pharisees (pride and selfish ambition ).

They were still concerned about trivial, temporal matters, even though Jesus had authority to meet every need, physically, and more importantly, spiritually, that they should trust and serve without such concern.

Wrong intentions (John 6)

It could be that the walking on water episode was a test just as was the feeding of the multitude.   They were doing what Christ said, and yet an obstacle came that kept them from their goal.  Christ shows up and delivers them.  In one account, he would have walked on by.  Like feeding the multitude, they need to trust him to provide.

Jesus avoided the people because of their intentions.  When they could not find him, they got in boats to seek him in Capernaum.  His presence there was a mystery to them.  He does not explain it, but addresses their wrong motives in seeking him, John 6.25-26.

Not all the people believed the same, Luke 9.18-19, and we don't know how many of the multitude made the trip, but surely it was not tens of thousands.

Jesus said they sought him for the wrong reason.  He is saying the signs were not the reason they sought him but for the food.  For it to be the signs, they would be seeking him for spiritual reasons.

Jesus states what they should seek using an analogy, vs 27.

They should not work for the temporal but the eternal.  The word "labor" or "work" is used as an analogy.   Later, Jesus will speak of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to receive eternal life, verses 53,54.  These are used as analogies.  Here he says to work for that food that endures for eternal life.  Both analogies are used to signify the same thing, but they don't understand.  The "work" signifies what they need to do, and it could speak of striving for something--as seeking the narrow gate.

Verses 28-29: They ask what works of God should they do then.   The  NET Bible interprets this as "what  must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires?"
Jesus had said they should work for the food that endures..."  So they must think there are works of God Jesus has in mind, that is, works God requires of them, like a sacrifice or fasting or alms, etc..

Jesus answers with the one work they are required to do and that is to believe in Him.  Their present belief in him came up short.  Which was evident in that they only sought him for the temporal things to be provided.

Jesus was saying they should seek the eternal thing he can give them which is eternal life.  This he would give if they believed in him for it.

They did not believe in him for it.  They perceived he was asking for a belief in Him that they did not have as is evident in their response, vs 30.  The previous signs were not good enough, at least for these folks.  Maybe they wanted a sign of a 40 year supply of bread.

The dialogue that follows shows they are still obsessed with just temporal bread, and Jesus seeks to direct the conversation to the "bread" they really need, and that he is that bread, 31-35.  But they don't get it.

He makes it clear in his words that follow that the issue is believing in him for eternal life.  They don't believe in him as that one from God who can give eternal life.   That they know his parents is only part of the problem; the bigger issue is that they have not been taught by God so that he may draw them to Christ.  There are prerequisites of learning from God that have not happened to them--which must take place  before one can come to Christ to believe in him for eternal life, 36-47. 

The drawing of God (John 6)

A group of people who were of the multitude who ate of Jesus' miracle feeding are confronted by Jesus concerning  their motives in seeking him.  They should not seek Him for the temporal food but eternal food.  That food or bread is eternal life which Jesus will give to them who believe in him for it.
Their problem is not just being concerned about the temporal but not recognizing Jesus for who he fully is and has to offer.
John 6:30-31 has them asking for a sign to believe Jesus.  They must want a Manna type miracle, a temporal provision, but probably continual supply of food, vs 34.
Jesus says he is the bread of life for the world, vs 33, but they are still thinking in temporal terms and not eternal life terms.

Why does Jesus use figurative language and not just speak plainly?  It could partly be a teaching method, but I suspect it is also a means of separating those who believe in him from those who don't. 

Jesus points out that they don't believe in Him, vs36.

In vs 37, Jesus said those the Father have given Him will come to Him.  Is he telling them that they can't come to Him no matter what, because the Father has not given them to Him?  Who has the Father given to Jesus? 

In Verse 37-40, Jesus speaks of the Hope and security of those who come to Him and believe in Him for who he truly is (the Son).

The problem of the unbelief of the people becomes more evident in that they know Jesus' parents, verses 41-42.   This is an obstacle for them.  But then, the signs should change their minds.  But there is more.

Verses 43-46: Jesus says, "no one can come to me unless the Father Draws Him."

One must be drawn by the Father.  Who does God draw?  And How does he draw?  Does the text explain this?

Verses 45-46 speaks of being “taught by God.”   How is one taught by God?   Verse 46 takes us back to John 5.37-39.  One is taught by the Scriptures, and Galatians 3.23-26 says “the Law is our tutor.”  Did any of you have an experience with condemnation under the Law before you were saved?  I certainly did.  By the law, I was convinced of sin and my guilt before God.

Jesus plainly states that eternal life is from hearing his word and believing in Him, vs. 47. 

Yet he uses figurative language as he teaches in the synagogue in Capernaum, vss. 48-59.  

The most difficult part is that his flesh is food and his blood drink, and eternal life is by feeding on him, vss. 53-54.  He has already plainly said  eternal life is by believing.

So why the figurative language?  I believe he is thinning out those who don't believe in who he truly is, even among his disciples, vss. 60-66.

Those who have been persuaded that he is the Christ are not dissuaded by his figurative language and are those who have been taught by God through the signs and through the Law, vss. 67-71.

Jesus wanted people to seek him for the right reasons, and He wanted those who followed Him to believe in who He truly was and what he had to give. To seek Him and believe in Him had to be according to the teaching of God from the evidence and the Law.  This is how God draws and who He draws.

Jesus’ methods (John 7)

Jesus knew how things had to happen.  His relationship to the responses of people was according to how things had to happen.
People had to respond to him in the right way, or he had to remove himself from them or speak to them in a way to cause them to leave. 
His mission and the outcome of his existence was unalterable, Mk14.49;  Me 26.55-56. This was  not understood by nearly everyone.
The people who sought him for temporal benefits, the Jewish leaders, his disciples, and his siblings we're pretty much unbelieving in who he was.  Yet some of these would later believe, knowing about siblings, James and Jude.

John 7.1-9:  The brothers' suggestion is followed by a statement of unbelief, seeming to indicate criticism or at least a questioning in his methods.

Jesus' response is in light of the treatment of the world (those who seek his life) and his divine mission.  They can go any time but he can't, because of how the world treats him, as he is on a specific mission and outcome: his death will come at the right time. 

10-13:  Jesus goes to the festival later, but privately, without a large group.  People are anticipating him.  There is mixed opinion, and the good opinion was short of who he was.  People feared the leaders to express the good opinion--probably not wanting to be put out of the temple, John 12.42. The leaders expected him, hoping opportunity to seize him.

14-27: Jesus' teaching amazed them, not being formerly taught.  He identifies his divine source and origin.   His handle on divine truth is enough to cause a stir.  But there is a divine claim in it as well.  Miraculous signs are further attestation.  If one chose to know God's will, he can know that Jesus' teachings were of divine origin.

The Law says you shall not murder.  They reject the accusation, though earlier, the Jews sought to kill him for healing on the Sabbath.  They say he is demon possessed.

28-36:  Jesus cried out that they knew him and where he came from.  How should we understand this? His works were evident, but they still rejected Him. It had to be—it had to take it’s course.

Divine Providence kept them from apprehending him at the time.  Many believe in him because of the signs.  The Pharisees seek his arrest.

Jesus speaks of his short time before going back to God, and they will see him no more.  They don't understand.

37-52:  On the last day of Tabernacles, Jesus identifies himself as the source of eternal life.  The giving of the Spirit here is a good argument against OT regeneration.  It could be looking beyond that to enablement for every believer in service to God.

Responses are mixed--questions about his origins.  The temple guards are affected by his words, but the Pharisees are generally unmoved, accept for a plea from Nicodemus.

Jesus acted and spoke in a way so that even those who did not believe when he was alive might later reflect and believe after he was gone. But many were persuaded he was the Christ. 

Jesus’ methods (John 8)

Jesus taught in a way the was polarizing and offended those who thought they were righteous in themselves and sought the praise of men. John 8 starts with the questionable account of the woman taken in adultery.  It's not in the older manuscripts, though maybe it actually happened.  The account shows the attempt of those who rejected Jesus to find reason to find fault with him.  He was able to negate that attempt by revealing they had fault with themselves.

By the Law, they were right, and some sins by the Law were punishable by death.  Jesus was not showing here that only sinless people can carry out the Law.  But they must have suspected that he would not call for her execution.  He had not vindicated their way of law-keeping-righteousness.  He spent more time with those they despised and teaching things they could not accept regardless of the divine-attesting-miracles, because they believed they were righteous and sought the praise of men.

Jesus did not come to make sure the Law of Moses was being executed.  He came to save men's lives, John 3.17; 2 Cor 5.19. He did not come to condemn though-- to reject him was condemnation-- he says to the woman, "I do not condemn you." John 8.11. Yet he did respect the Law here: "go and sin no more."

To reject Jesus' words about eternal life would bring condemnation in the judgment.  To believe in him for eternal life is salvation and the light of being right with God as opposed to darkness, John 12.46-48; 8.12.

There is a mixed group of people who hear Jesus, and mainly the religious leaders, among them, look for reasons to find fault.  They accuse Jesus of a false claim, based on the need to have 2 or 3 witnesses to a claim.  But they know that he is making divine claims which they won't consider (due to their status and desires). 

In John 5.31, Jesus said if he bore witness to himself, it's not true, but now he says if he does it's still true.  He can say this because of who He is and his relationship to God the Father, John 8.13-18. 

The 2 or 3 witnesses have to do with accusation of a crime, Deut 17.6.  It doesn't really seem to apply in the case of Divine claim--who Jesus is and what he offers.  Yet the witnesses were already addressed early in chapter 5.  God must provide such witnesses, and he did in John B. and in the works, John 5.32-36.  Jesus now is just saying he bears witness to himself, because of who he is and his origin.

Jesus points out that they don't know the Father.  They may think they do and believe they are right with God, but if they do not know who Jesus is, then they do not know the Father, John 8.19-20.

8:12: Jesus is the "light" of the world. Through Jesus one have eternal life and know God. To not believe in Jesus for eternal life is to not know God and to walk in darkness.

A man was born blind (John 9.1-3)

Who sinned?

Jesus' answer reveals bad things happen as not a result of personal sin.

It's always tempting to try and find a reason, something I/ we did that something bad happens.

Jesus' answer is simple and dispels the thinking that bad things always happen because someone must have sinned.

Vs 3: he does give a more specific reason, but he turns a negative into a positive. He doesn't go into a discussion on the issue--which surely he could have.

"That the works of God should be revealed in him."

Well yes, he gets healed by Jesus. Fortunate for him.

Yet this answer could look to the future Glory to be revealed in us: the miracles by Jesus and in the early church were a kind of foretaste.

It's also possible Jesus had in view the works of God in the life of such a person who believes and is transformed without physical healing. So maybe the works of God could have either transformation or physical healing in view.

For Now, we, along with this creation, suffer, physically, in varying degrees--some more than others, some sooner than others. Life is not fair.

We suffer along with this world, affected by original sin; but some day the works of God will be manifested in us who believe and count as children of God. Romans 8:18-21