8:3 To ask his opinion on a judicial matter, and not to take her directly to the Sanhedrin, would seem to undercut the Pharisees here.
8:8 was this offhanded? Or did he write something else that is not recorded. This is the only example that I can think of of Jesus writing anything. Of course, his attitude here appears affected, but I can imagine the Buddha really remaining aloof from the situation. Traditionally, this is thought to have been Mary Magdalene, but I have never noticed any proof for that claim.
8:12 Later, or in other accounts, he compares his disciples to the light of the world. Which is it?
8:13 This is a purely legalistic argument, but Jesus turns it into a philosophical one. It was inadmissible for a Jew to testify in his or her own behalf in the Sanhedrin, like a sort of reverse fifth amendment. Jesus does not always recognize their laws however, and answers a higher call.
8:18 But just for kicks, he blows apart their legal argument as well.
8:22 Yes, in a way he is.
8:25 This is a bit rude on his part. He just got done castigating the Pharisees for not knowing where he came from. Then seemingly honest hearted seekers ask the very question, and he rejects, not only their question, but themselves.
8:39 Perhaps this explains a bit. They are not honest-hearted at all. In which case his, "why do I even talk to you," becomes meaningless, for he goes ont o exlain in depth--completely out of character with the Jesus of vss 1-11. This makes a bit of sense, for 1-11 are not universally regarded as canonical. For my part, I rather prefer them to the rest of the chapter.
Jesus speaks very differently in this chapter to the Pharisees in private than in public. His speech to them--seemingly not directed at the am ha'arets (people of the Earth in Hebrew) at all--has a different tone, of course, for he is chastising them. But his tactics are also different, more didactic, more religious, less parabolic--if that word can be used in that way, and I hope it can :)
9:1 Thanks to Robert for helping me remember the word "peripatetic" to describe this verse.
9:3 This seems to be just as unsatisfactory an answer as either of the other two--perhaps more so. As tragic as it would be to be stricken with blindness as a punishment, it is downright cruel for it to be done arbitrarily.
9:6-10 Is the clay a remedy or a metaphor? I would love to know how either one works.
9:15 perhaps it was a taunt, for if he had not made the mud, it would not have counted as work, and no controversy would have been stirred.
9:24, 30 I think this man would make an interesting character study. Two nice little zingers, and then he disappears from the canon forever. Time for some Midrashim!
9:35 This "Son of Man" business is becoming rather a delicate point. Firstly, it is capitalized, indicating some untranslated significance in the Jewish. secondly, the words have the power to convert here, as though Jesus had identified himself as the Messiah. Are the two phrases comparable, at least in gravitas?
9:38 And what might this involve?
9:41 Here's another delicate item. The two statements require some logical acrobatics to reconcile. The extension one would expect from "If you were blind, you would not have sin" is 'you see sin, so you must be blind." Instead we get "now that you say 'We see,' your sin remains." The somersault is obvious upon scrutiny: in the first statement, Jesus refers to the perceived sin--his own. In the second, he refers to the sin of perception--theirs (a nice little antimetabole on my part, if I do say so :). The claim--and even as I'm writing it down, I'm reconsidering, so don't judge too harshly--then turns their condemnation of him into condemnation of themselves. Nicely, and subtly, done!
10:6 They must be obtuse indeed not to understand this one, especially considering the context of the preceding conversation.
10:7 This is unexpected. I expected him, quite naturally I think, to be the shepherd, not the gate.
10:11 Oh, now he's the Shepherd. Is this free associating, or post facto revision?
10:16 I feel like the latter is more likely, as though vss. 7-10 were part of another conversation entirely, added here for convenience.
10:17 The Witness interpretation of this is, of course, that there are two tiers of Jesus' followers. i do not think it implies any such thing--more like a Jew/Gentile distinction.
10:19 Which would explain why the Jews were so upset at an otherwise innocuous statement.
10:24 And he has said it by now, just not to them. For when I read "The Jews", especially in John, I think "The Pharisees".
10:28 Here's a little non-sequitur for you. He seems to spill the beans a bit here, perhaps even going too far. Are they really one? What does he mean? Is he just antagonizing them?
10:36 Ah, but that's not what you said!
10:38 Why not just say it this way to begin with? Thanks to that earlier verse, now we have to deal with millennia of nonsense from the council of Nicaea.
10:40 Rather a poetic place to end the chapter.
11:1-6 So, Jesus is more concerned with his own glory than his friends? Since when?
11:16 One of the rare glimpses into the character of one of the Apostles. Thomas is a small, but well defined character in this narrative.
11:20 A contrast between the two that matches up with the other account of their different approaches to Jesus. Both of them are clearly mad at Jesus, but they express it in different ways. Martha comes out looking better in this account, and she may be the only one at this point who really believes in Jesus power to raise the dead.
11:32 Or was she simply to grief-stricken? She says the same thing that her sister does.
11:51 I don't think this counts as a prophecy when he himself arranges for it to come true . . .
This whole chapter irks me. It just seems so arbitrary for him to have consciously allowed his friend to die just to have another chance to perform a miracle. Were there no other dead people available? Was it somehow important that the victim of his sacrifice be a friend? Does it have something to do with his declaration in vs. 42 that even his words were choreographed? Was the faith of the disciples faltering as things got very dangerous for them in Jerusalem, and he felt the need to perform a miiiiiighty theatrical lesson to shore them up? The whole thing feels muddy.
12:1 It feels from this verse that the thing was not written all at once, or together. Why remind us of something that happened less than a page ago?
12:3-5 I had neglected to remember that this event was after the resurrection of LAzarus. This makes Judas even more of a douche; of course she would do this. He raised her brother from the frickin' dead!
12:7 This is cryptic. Obviously, she was not keeping it at all. On a side note, this sort of oil was purchased mainly for investment. To use it like this seems a bit like purchasing a rare stamp, and then mailing something with it, negating its value.
12:10-11 I see a major flaw with this plan. To kill someone who won't stay dead seems like a losing enterprise.
12:23 What does this have to do with the Greeks?
12:42 This feels a bit like the Mormon's submitting for fear of losing their Temple Recommend
12:44-46 This fits nicely with my Christology, which I would not call Christian. To me, Jesus was simply transparent to the light of God. We are as humans mostly opaque to that light, and at best we can reflect it. In Jesus case, the light passes through him unimpaired. That is why he could say these things here.
12:47 This verse pulls apart many of the ideas of mainstream Christianity. I like it. Jesus judges no one. Special note to The Witnesses: this includes any perceived appearances in the Revelation to John, who wrote these words also.
This verse is a nice return to the reflective, calm and loving Jesus that was absent in Ch. 11
13:3 I like this verse for some reason. It's very matter of fact and almost Zen: a trait John doesn't exhibit very often. " . . . he had come from God and was going to God."
13:7 How did Peter not get it, even as Jesus was explaining? Is there something deepere here than "Be least to be first"?
13:10 I smell a double meaning. "Not all of you" here means both "Not all of your body" and "Not all of you present".
13:18 "I know whom I have chosen" here seems to indicate that Jesus had at least some agency in Judas' betrayal, giving a bit of leverage to Flannery O'Connor.
13:24 A nice bit of characterization here. John comes across as not only Peter's sidekick, but closely in tune with what the other is thinking.
13:26 Another indication of Jesus' agency in this choice. The bread may have been just a symbol, or it may have had some sort of effect on Judas; it seems as if the bread was a catalyst for Satan's entry.
14:6 This doesn't exactly answer the question, but it certainly does give people something to put on bumper stickers for the next 2,000 years.
14:10-11 This may very well be true, but put this way it feels self-aggrandizing. It does not seem that someone who is the very image of the father would feel the need to make such a big deal out of it.
14:15 Capitalizing Advocate begs the question "who?" It has been taken for granted that it is the Holy Spirit, but I am not convinced.
14:22 We have heard from three so-called lesser apostles in this chapter, but all of them are MacGuffins, only serving to pose the questions so that Jesus can answer them.
14:25 Oh. Never mind.
This chapter feels muddled, as though John doesn't quite succeed in making his point. Jesus says the same thing four times: I am going to the Father; keep my commandments. It still feels like some bigger truth fails to be imparted here.
