Questions that are in more than one Gospel are discussed in the Gospel section or else in first gospel where they appear.

Q: In Jn, what are some of the distinctive elements of this gospel?
A: John emphasizes that Jesus is God. Jesus Christ, God and God the Son, came and died so that his sheep will believe, and believing may have the light and life through the Son. He uses the word "believe/belief" 89 times, which is more than Matthew, Mark, and Luke combined. Christ is the only hope. For those who hope in Christ, He restores the Samaritan woman, the adulterous woman, Peter, and other guilty of greater sins than these.
It is generally agreed that John is the last gospel written, probably even after Clement of Rome wrote in 87/98 A.D. In John 20:30, John indicates he did not write many things that Jesus did. John probably was aware of the other gospels and his gospel has less emphasis on the doings of Jesus and fills in the gaps on the teaching not in the other gospels. A key verse is John 20:31, where these are written that we might believe.
As for cults, John 5:23 and John 20:28 stand out as good verses to use with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Q: In Jn, are the details of Jesus' life quite different from what the first three synoptic gospels have in common as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.952 says?
A: John has different details, but they are compatible. John was most likely written after the first three gospels. He focused less on the historical details, which were already amply covered in the first three gospels, and more on the meaning of what Christ taught.
See the gospel section for a harmony of the four gospels.

Q: In Jn 1:1, should this be translated as "was divine", "was God", or "was a God" as Jehovah’s Witnesses say?
A: It should be "was God". Here is a summary of the linguistic and other evidence.
Not just a god: The same grammar, theos without the ho in Greek, refers to Jehovah-God in Luke 20:38. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not translate the same Greek words as "a God" in John 1:6,12,13,18.
While the Jehovah’s Witnesses from 1962 to 1983 used to quote the translation of Johannes Greber to support their translation, they knew even back in 1956 that Greber’s wife acted as a spirit medium to produce the translation! See Sixty Question Every Jehovah’s Witness Should be Asked p.23 for more info.
Not just divine: The Complete Book of Bible Answers p.108-109 points out that if John had intended merely to say that Jesus was divine, John could have used the adjective theios. However, John emphasized that Jesus is actually God.
The word was God:
Please note that modern linguistic study is not the strongest evidence available to show that John 1:1 meant that the Word was God. There is another approach. What if we could ask Christians who were the native speakers of New Testament Greek what John 1:1 meant? We can do so. See the question after the next for the answers, though you probably might not like how the early Christians understood their own language if you are a Jehovah’s Witness.

Q: In Jn 1:1, what are some other examples of how Jehovah’s Witnesses corrupt their scripture?
A: Here are a few examples.
John 1:1 Added "a" in the Word was a god.
Luke 23:43 "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise." (Made it sound like Jesus was speaking today, rather than the Greek meaning of the repentant thief being in Paradise today.)
Acts 10:36 added the word "other" putting it in square brackets.
Rom 8:32 Added "other" with no italics or brackets.
Colossians 1:16-20 added the word "other" four times.
Philippians 2:9 added the word "other" with no italics or brackets.

Q: In Jn 1:1, what did the early church teach about this verse and the Word being God?
A: It is insightful to hear what modern scholars, 2000 years later, say the Greek meant. However, what is more interesting what church leaders who lived 1700-1800 years ago, many of whom spoke New Testament Greek since they were babies, interpreted what John 1:1, in their own language, meant to them.
Justin Martyr (wrote about 138-165 A.D.)
"for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out; and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same;... The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me..." Dialogue with Trypho ch. 61. See also chapters 55,56,59,62-64,66,74-78.
Theophilus bishop of Antioch (168-181/188 A.D.)
"For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son?" Letter to Autolycus 2:22
Tertullian (200-220/240 A.D.)
"The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, ‘I am in the Father;’ and is always with God, according to what is written, ‘And the Word was with God;’ and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since ‘I and the Father are one.’" Against Praxeas chapter 8.
Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.)
"But that He [Jesus] is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have obtained to even a small portion of the truth." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:19:2).
"Know thou that every man is either empty or full. For if he has not the Holy Spirit, he has no knowledge of the Creator; he has not received Jesus Christ the life; he knows not the Father who is in heaven;..." (Against Heresies 3:16)
"She [the church] also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul.... For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different nor do those in Spain nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East nor those in Egypt nor those in Libya, nor ..."
Hippolytus (225-235/6 A.D.) after quoting part of John 1:1
"If, then the Word was with God and was also God what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods but of one; of two Persons however and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One but there are two Persons because there is also the Son; and then there is the third the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of the harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands and the Son who obeys and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding; the Father is above all, and the Son who is through all and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Against the Heresy of One Noetus chapter 14.

Q: In Jn 1:1, is it true that the doctrine that Jesus was God in human form was not finalized until after 300 A.D.?
A: No. Karen Armstrong categorically stated this in A History of God p.81, and it is amazing what some printed books can get away with saying. There are no Orthodox Christians or Arians who said Jesus was not God, though Arians said Jesus was a different substance, and God in a different and lesser way. Prior to 300 A.D. the five church fathers quoted in the previous question certainly did not think the doctrine of Jesus being God in human form needed any finalizing. Ignatius, who was a disciple of John the apostle, was fond of saying that "Jesus is God". Thomas the apostle did not need any council when he said to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and My God!"
While it is true that Gnostics were heretics who had very strange views of God, they were never accepted as Christians by Orthodox Christians. Regardless, even they accepted Jesus was God, though in a very different and strange sense.
Arians were another heretical group that were condemned at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.. They had a "low" opinion of Jesus, believing there was a time when He was not, and that Jesus was of a different substance than the Father. However, even they agreed that Jesus was God; it was that they wrongly believed Jesus was not of the same nature as the Father.
I suppose a shortcoming of creeds is that some can misinterpret what they are for. The Nicene Controversy over Arianism was not whether or not Jesus was God, but over part of how Jesus was God.

Q: In Jn 1:1, how could the Word both be God and with God?
A: In the same way as the Son could be both God and have a God in Hebrews 1:8,9. Besides referring to false gods, the word "God" has at least four meanings with respect to the true God. "God" can mean just the Father, just the Son, just the Spirit, or the three in Trinity.
Here is what the church father Hippolytus (225-235/6 A.D.) said in Against the Heresy of One Noetus chapter 14, says "If, then the Word was with God and was also God what follows? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods but of one; of two Persons however and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One but there are two Persons because there is also the son; and then there is the third the Holy Spirit."

Q: In Jn 1:1, how could God be incarnated as a man?
A: On one hand the answer is simple: God Almighty can appear however He wishes. On the other hand, this is a profound miracle. Melito the philosopher (160-170-177/180 A.D.) pondered the mystery of the incarnation in his Discourse on the Cross "On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion, appearing as a sheep, yet still remaining the Shepherd; being esteemed a servant, yet not renouncing the Sonship; being carried [in the womb] of Mary, yet arrayed in [the nature of] His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant, yet not discarding the eternity of His nature; being invested with a body, yet not circumscribing the unmixed simplicity of His Godhead; being esteemed poor, yet not divested of His riches; needing sustenance inasmuch as He was man, yet not ceasing to feed the entire world inasmuch as He is God; putting on the likeness of a servant, yet not impairing the likeness of His Father."
Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew chapter 61 gave the analogy of how fire is kindled from fire. The original fire is not lessened in any way.
(Note that early church quotes in this Web Sites are all from the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Post-Nicene Fathers I and II unless otherwise stated.)

Q: In Jn 1:1, how else do we know that Jesus is God?
A: 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.27 says this is proven by seven points.
1. All Old Testament names for God are merged into Jesus Christ.
2. Jesus received human worship. Either He was wrong to do so, or else He was correct to do so.
3. Jesus forgave sins against God.
4. Jesus showed omnipotent power.
5. Jesus showed omniscience (perhaps he did not have this on earth prior to his resurrection though.)
6. Jesus asserted omnipresence.
7. The New Testament says that Jesus is God, and is to be honored as the Father.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.490-492 for more on John 1:1 and the Trinity.

Q: In Jn 1:1, was this concept of an eternal word borrowed from Greek philosophy?
A: No, there is no evidence for this. The Greek philosopher Plato did write of an eternal word "logos" prior to John’s Gospel, and Heraclitus of Ephesus (ca.500 B.C.) used "logos" to represent rational principle. Philo the Jew also used the term Logos. However, there is no evidence that John borrowed from this.
Rather than John borrowing from Greek philosophy, even a secular person could make a case that the concept of a powerful and living Word was borrowed from Old Testament thought, such as Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew.
The Old Testament was not borrowed from Greek thought, as Moses and the Israelites preceded all written Greek literature we are aware of. Theophilus of Antioch, written (168-181/188 A.D.), was the first to point this out in the last chapter of his Letter to Autolychus.
The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.441 says that the Dead Sea scrolls indicate that the Gospel of John, rather than being a second century Hellenistic document, "is shown more clearly than ever to be a product of First Century Palestine by virtue of its many parallels with the Qumran texts."

Q: In Jn 1:1, was there a time before Jesus existed?
A: Most likely not. Ancient Arian heretics thought this, but Orthodox Christians more or less unanimously said that Jesus was begotten of the Father before time began. One exception to this was the early church father Justin Martyr (wrote about 138-165 A.D.) However, even though Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to Justin Martyr to try to support their beliefs, their appeal is deceptive. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin devotes thirteen chapters (55-56,59,61-64,66,74-78) to prove that Jesus is God.
The Bible does not conclusively answer many questions about what it was like before time began. (Even if it did, would we understand the answers?) Titus 1:2 says that God promised eternal life "before the beginning of time". All things were created through Christ (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3). If all things include time (an assumption here), then Jesus existed before there was time.
See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.27-28 for more on their not being a time before Jesus existed.

Q: In Jn 1:2, if all things were created by the Word, does that include time, space, science, natural laws, and mathematics?
A: Probably so, though this verse was not written to prove that. However, a logical truth, like a = a, and a logical contradiction, such as a not equal a, are not things, and this verse is not talking about those.

Q: Should Jn 1:3 (KJV), be translated "by Him" or "through Him?
A: One can legitimately translate the Greek either way.
by is the translation of the KJV, William F. Beck’s translation, and earlier editions of the NASB.
through is the translation of NASB (1973 edition), uNASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, George Ricker Berry’s Translation, and Jay P. Green’s Literal Translation, Williams Translation, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary.
Wuest’s Expanded Translation uses as many words as necessary to bring out the Greek text. He translates it "through His intermediate agency".
This is a moot point, because nobody says Jesus made everything apart from the Father. All say that Jesus had a role, along with the Father and Spirit, or creating everything, as Colossians 1:16 also shows. See also the next question for more info.

Q: In Jn 1:3, should it be "by" (KJV), or have the RSV, NIV and NKJV provided relief by craftily removing the word "by" and replacing it with the word "through", as one KJV-only person alleges?
A: There are six things to consider before making this charge.
1. The Greek word in question here is di, a form of dia. Strong’s Concordance says, "a prim[itive]. Prep[osition]. Denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional): -after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import." Thus "by" and "through" are both legitimate translations.
2. The King James Version itself translates these two letters ("di"), as "through" in Matthew 12:43 and Luke 11:24. In John 3:17 "that the world might be saved through him", the Greek word for "through" is "di".
3. The translators of NASB, NIV, NRSV, and Williams translation probably did not assume Jesus spoke King James English. They translated from the Greek, and "through" is an acceptable translation of the Greek di according to both Strong’s Concordance and the King James Version itself.
4. One could try to argue that "by" meant that Jesus was the sole cause of Creation, and the word "by" neglects the role of the Father and Spirit. One could also try to argue that "through" meant that Jesus had a secondary role, like a postman delivering a letter, without actually helping to write it. The truth of the matter is that the Greek word di, along with the English words "by" and "through" have a wide range of meaning.
5. The King James Version translators did a good job translating the Bible into the English of their time, using the materials they had. However, if in some other passage Jesus’ words in Greek (in all manuscripts) differed from the King James Version, would you exalt this English Translation above Jesus’ word in Greek?
6. Before you accuse fellow Christians of craftily removing a word and inserting another, you should provide some evidence of this accusation, without simply assuming Jesus spoke King James English.

Q: In Jn 1:4, how is Jesus the life of men?
A: Jesus is the life of men in at least three ways.
Physically, All things are held together by Jesus, according to Colossians 1:17.
Eternally, it is only Jesus through which we are saved, as Acts 4:12 shows.
Life in Christ Today: Jesus gives meaning, joy, and fullness to the life of Christians on earth today.

Q: In Jn 1:4, did Jesus complete His mission even before he was every crucified as Jamal Badawi asserts in his Tape Series 9 table 3?
A: No. John 1:4 was indeed written before the account of Jesus’ crucifixion. However, anyone should see that Badawi cannot be correct here: John 1:4 was even written before the account of Jesus’ birth.

Q: In Jn 1:6,19, is the John mentioned here the writer of this book?
A: No. The John mentioned here is John the Baptist, while the writer is John the Apostle, brother of James.

Q: In Jn 1:9, how is Jesus the true light which gives light to every man?
A: In at least two ways.
For all: The truth and offer of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed to all. Jesus is the only true light. Some choose to live as children of the light, wanting to know what pleases the Lord (Ephesians 5:8-10) and others do not.
For believers: Jesus is the light of our life. He gives us joy, contentment, meaning, and purpose that makes everything worthwhile.
See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.217 for more info.

Q: In Jn 1:13, is it not our will that makes us born again?
A: God is very merciful, gracious, and just. However, these facts should make us forget that the prerogative on us being born again belongs with God, not us.

Q: In Jn 1:14, how could Almighty God, with Everlasting Life, become a mortal man who died?
A: Since the Triune God is Almighty, God can make a distinct person of Himself become a mortal man. When Jesus was on earth, that does not mean Heaven was empty. When Jesus died on the cross, that does not mean the Father or the Holy Spirit ever died.

Q: In Jn 1:14, how did they see the glory of Jesus, since Jesus emptied Himself in Php 2:6-7?
A: Jesus’ glory is not a binary state. Also, Philippians 2:6-7 says that Jesus emptied himself, but it does mention glory.

Q: In Jn 1:14, how could God’s nature be mingled/synthesized/place alongside Jesus’ human nature?
A: Many heresies have answered this incorrectly. Christ was not a God who only appeared to be a man (Docetists), a man instead of God (Ebionites), a phantom (Gnostics), a man upon whom Christ settled (Paul of Samosata), separated/divided (Nestorians), or confounded (Monophysites). There is probably no analogy from life on earth that is really sufficient as an example of the divine nature and human nature of Jesus Christ. Here are two errors.
Nestorianism (two wills): Nestorius taught that Jesus had two separate wills: a divine one and a human one. While Nestorius was merely in error, some of his later followers went further. It is almost as if in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus’ human will and divine will struggled against each other, and the divine will won. The 200 or so bishops at the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorianism in 431 A.D.
Monophysitism (only one nature): The opposite of Nestorianism, Monophysitism said the two were merged as if a drop of honey of human will falling into the ocean of divine will. While the Catholic Church accepts that a person can be a Monophysite and still be a Christian, Monophysitism can lead to some ugly scenarios. At the extreme, Jesus placidly went through life, and all of Jesus struggles, against temptation during the 40 days, at the Garden of Gethsemane, and at the cross, were almost a mere show. Monophysitism was condemned by 250 to 350 bishops at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. In modern times, the Catholic church and the Coptic (Monophysite) church restored their relationship with each other.
The Orthodox Christian position: After these two traumatic councils, the final position was "Jesus Christ, God’s logos made man, is a single person in two natures, which exists in this one Person without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation."
The Bible gives the following clues about Jesus’ human and divine natures.
a. Emphasized that Jesus was the son of man: Luke 5:24; 6:4; 6:22; 8:31; 22:22,69; John 12:34; Revelation 1:13
b. Ancestry: Luke 1:32; Romans 1:3; 9:5; 2 Timothy 2:8; Hebrews 7:14; Matthew 1:1.
c. Physical body: Luke 24:39; John 4:2; Hebrews 10:5,10; 1 John 1:1; 1 Timothy 3;16; 2 John 7.
d. A man (with humanity0 while on earth: Acts 2:22,23; Philippians 2:7,8; Hebrews 2:14.
e. Still man in Heaven: 1 timothy 2:5; implied by Hebrews 13:8.
f. Our brother: Mark 3:35; Luke 8:21; Hebrews 2:11,12,17
g. Suffered like men: Hebrews 2:9,18; 5:8; Romans 8:17; 1 Peter 1:11; 4:13; 5:1.
h. Tempted like us: Hebrews 2:18; 4:15; Matthew 4:1-10; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:1-12.
i. Jesus was a man in every way: Hebrews 2:17.

Q: In Jn 1:15, how was Jesus before his older relative, John the Baptist?
A: While John the Baptist was born a few months before Jesus, Jesus existed in Heaven from the beginning. Jesus was also before John the Baptist in honor, since Jesus is God the Son.

Q: In Jn 1:17, did Moses give the Law, or did God give it?
A: Both. God gave the Law to Moses to give to the people, and that is what Moses did.

Q: In Jn 1:18, since no man has seen God, how could Jesus be God, since people saw Jesus?
A: When Jesus came to earth, as Philippians 2:7 says, Jesus emptied Himself of much of His glory. Jesus prayed that the Father would return the glory to Him in John 17:5.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.492-493 and When Critics Ask p.403-404 for a complementary answer.

Q: In Jn 1:18, since no man has seen God, how could Jesus have seen God?
A: Jesus was not a human being before He was born to Mary.

Q: In Jn 1:18 is Jesus the only Son of God, or can we be sons of God too, as Jn 1:12 says?
A: We can be sons of God, but Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. The Bible gives two metaphors concerning us: we are adopted into God’s family, and we are born again into God’s family. Jesus was neither adopted nor born again. Jesus was God the Son from eternity past, and Jesus was incarnated as a man with no biological father.
See When Critics Ask p.404 for more info.

Q: In Jn 1:21 (KJV), who is Elias?
A: This is Elijah.

Q: In Jn 1:21, why did John the Baptist say he was not Elijah, since Jesus said he was in Mt 11:14?
A: Three points to consider in the answer.
1. If John had simply said he was Elijah, they would have interpreted that he was literally the same person as Elijah, and John would have spoken incorrectly.
2. John could have explained that he was not the literal Elijah, but he came with the role and purpose of Elijah, as was Jesus’ meaning in Matthew 11:14.
3. However, though John knew he was the forerunner of the Messiah, perhaps John himself did not know that he was the fulfillment of the Elijah who was to come. Thus, John might have been speaking only based on what he knew.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 8 p.269 for more info.

Q: In Jn 1:21, was John the Baptist wrong to say he was not Elijah, as the heretic Rev. Moon teaches in the Divine Principle (fifth edition 1977)?
A: First here is what Rev. Moon, who allegedly is Christ returned says, and then the answer.
Rev. Moon’s Divine Principle p.161 "...John the Baptist who had offended Jesus. How did John the Baptist offend him? John failed to carry out his mission of serving and ministering to Jesus."
Refuted: 1. If John failed in his teaching, then why in Matthew 21:32 did Jesus say the people were to believe John the Baptist?
2. John 10:41-42 shows that John’s testimony led many to believe in Jesus. We should be cautious in condemning a martyr who died for God as failing and offending God. Jesus saying the one who is least in the kingdom heaven is greater than [John the Baptist] refers to the fact that Jesus had not opened the way to heaven, and John the Baptist was actually the last prophet under the old covenant.
3. If John the Baptist really was Elijah reincarnated, then of all people, John would know that. Yet, John the Baptist was correct to say that he was not Elijah come back from the dead.
4. John did preach in the spirit and power of Elijah, but Jesus never said that John and Elijah were the same individual.
John the Baptist was great in the Lord’s eyes in Luke 1:15, and the Lord knows the future.

Q: In Jn 1:29, why did God demand a sacrifice to forgive our sins, since we should forgive others without requiring more than repentance?
A: We forgive our brothers without requiring more than repentance, because a sin against us is different in kind than a sin against God.

Q: In Jn 1:31,33, how did John not know Jesus, since their mothers were cousins?
A: The Greek word here, oida, means fullness sof knowledge. John was saying that naturally he would not know. John said he did know because God revealed it to him.
When Critics Ask p.404-405 points out that John knew Jesus by reputation, and perhaps by personal acquaintance, but it was only through the Holy Spirit that He knew Jesus by divine manifestation.

Q: In Jn 1:32-33, how could the Holy Spirit have a localized presence and rest on Jesus in the form of a dove?
A: See the discussion on Habakkuk 3:3 for the answer.

Q: In Jn 1:38-39, why did Jesus not complain when they called him Rabbi (Master), since Jesus said in Mt 23:7,8 to have no man call you master?
A: Jesus, being God the Son, has an authority and honor we do not have. We should not call anyone else our God, Savior, or Lord either, and it is proper to call Jesus all of these.

Q: In Jn 1:39, when was the tenth hour?
A: In their culture, the day started at sunrise about 6:00 A.M. The tenth hour was after 4:00 P.M.

Q: In Jn 1:42, did Jesus first call Simon "Cephas / Peter" here, or later in his ministry at Capernaum, as in Mt 16:18?
A: There are a couple of explanations. The simplest one is that Jesus called him Peter here, but Jesus told him the significance of this name in Matthew 16:18.

Q: In Jn 1:51, when will Nathanael see the angels ascending and descending upon Jesus?
A: While it is possible that Nathanael could have had a dream, it is more likely that Nathanael will see this in Heaven. Jesus imagery here is reminiscent of Jacob’s ladder in Genesis 28:11-13. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.493-494 for more info.

Q: In Jn 1:51, why does Jesus frequently call Himself the Son of Man?
A: Probably for the following reasons
1. To emphasize his common humanity
2. People could agree with this, regardless of whether or not they recognized Him as the Son of God.
3. Jesus had not yet revealed Himself as the only-begotten Son of God.

Q: In Jn 2:3-10, I see always that Jesus never does things without purpose or at random. Why is the first recorded miracle turning water to wine at a wedding? Could it have to do with wine = His blood, ceremonial cleansing, or a new marriage covenant with all who believe in Him? These are things I have pondered and I wonder how off base I am, I don’t want to reach beyond the Scriptures like is soooo popular these days.
A: You ask an interesting question. If Jesus changing water to wine were a miracle to symbolize His blood, death on the cross, or ceremonial cleansing, nobody at that time, after His death, or even in early church writings got the message. Rather, I think this miracle was done because of circumstances, but in that we can see a deeper appreciation of God’s character, and an application for us.
   There was a simple human need, the banquet wine ran out. When Mary asked Jesus to take care of this supernaturally, Jesus' initial response was that "his time is not yet come." In other words, it was not a point of His ministry that He needed to do that to show something. However, there was a need, and He was asked to do so, so He departed from what He originally planned and did that. Likewise, when the woman with the flow of blood touched Jesus' robe, Jesus did not have that on his "to-do" list for that day.
   Many times God meets us where we are at. As a sad example, God had Isaiah tell King Hezekiah to get everything in order because Hezekiah was going to die. Faithful king Hezekiah became so bitter about that, that God relented and granted him 15 more years of life. However, during those fifteen years, King Manasseh, perhaps on of the most evil kings of Judah was born. It is not that God did not know, or that God is fickle or changed His mind. Rather, many times God's perceived will for us changes when our attitude changes (for better or for worse). When Pharaoh was Abraham's wife Sarah, God told Pharaoh in a dream that he was going to die, no if's, and's or but's about it. But when Pharaoh was he acted in ignorance, God said He knew that, and that is why He warned Pharaoh. Pharaoh restored Abraham's wife to him, and Pharaoh did not die. Likewise, Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. However, when they repented, Nineveh was not destroyed.
   When we are busy with our ministry, our plans, and our life, many times people come to us with needs that are important, or sometimes are unimportant, but they think are important. We might think of those as distractions and interruptions, but we too are to meet people where they are at. Playing ball, going to a movie, or spending a little time "goofing off" with someone may not seem very important to us in what we think of as God's scheme of things, and indeed perhaps it might not be. But even so, it might be the one and only thing God wants us to do right now, if we want to be in the center of his will.

Q: In Jn 2:3-10, was this wine alcoholic?
A: It was not like hard liquor, but the wine of this time was alcoholic. Even "new wine" was alcoholic in Acts 2:13. However, as Difficulties in the Bible points out (p.147-149) it does not say the miraculous wine was intoxicating.
The children’s book, Jesus’ First Miracle by Vivian Dede (Concordia 1990) has an excellent summary of a lesson from this miracle: "When something is needed, Be it new life or wine, Jesus solves every problem In His own good time."

Q: In Jn 2:6 (KJV), what is a "firkin"?
A: This King James Version expression is a unit of measure. The jars held twenty to thirty gallons, according to the NIV.

Q: In Jn 2:8 (KJV), was the governor at the feast?
A: This King James expression refers to the emcee, or master of ceremonies, of the banquet.

Q: In Jn 3:1-21, whatever happened to Nicodemus?
A: John 20:39 says that after the death of Jesus, Nicodemus helped Joseph of Arimathea put Jesus’ body in the tomb.

Q: In Jn 3:3, was Jesus teaching reincarnation when He mentioned being born again?
A: No. He was teaching a "second" birth, not hundreds or thousands of multiple births. Jesus was teaching a birth by the Spirit, not physical birth. Reincarnation would contradict man only dying once in Hebrews 9:25-28, and would not make sense for people who are sent to heaven or Hell after their one death. See the extensive discussion on Hebrews 9:25-28, When Critics Ask p.405-406 and When Cultists Ask p.163-164 for more info.

Q: In Jn 3:3, does the Greek say "born again" or "born from above"?
A: The Greek word anothen can mean both, according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.281 and Hard Sayings of the Bible p.495.

Q: In Jn 3:3-8, what does it mean to be born again?
A: Billy Graham wrote an entire book on this subject, called How to Be Born Again. In one sentence though, "Born again" is what God does to you through the Holy Spirit when you put your faith in Him. This means to
1. Believe in the One, True God, that He is the Creator of all, and acknowledge His right over you. Believe that He revealed His truth to us in His word, the Bible.
2. Confess that you are separated from God because of sin, and you are powerless to be reconciled to Him. The problem is not just the external actions we have done or failed to do, but also who we are on the inside.
3. Trust in the true Christ. When it was impossible for sinners like us to come to God, God made it possible by sending Jesus Cross to come to earth in the flesh, born of the Virgin Mary, to live a sinless life. He died on the cross, with His body and blood being an atoning sacrifice for our sin. He was bodily raised on the third day and ascended to Heaven.
4. Call out to God. All who call on the Lord will be saved, and if you repent of your sins and ask Jesus to be the Lord and Savior of your life, you will be saved. He will give you a new life, and will begin the process of making you more Christ-like. After you die, you will go to Heaven and be with God forever.

Q: In Jn 3:5, is it impossible to go to Heaven unless one has the Holy Spirit?
A: No, Jesus did not actually say that. Jesus said that unless one is born of water and the spirit, he is not able to enter into the Kingdom of God.
The kingdom of God and Heaven are not identical. Heaven is where believers go when they die. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.991 says that many teach the kingdom of God refers to the spiritual rule of Christ within the heart of those who are saved. The International Dictionary of the Bible p.568 says that in general, the word "kingdom" can be a) the realm over which the king reigns, b) the people over whom the king reigns, or c) the actual reign itself. The New International Bible Dictionary (1962 IVP) says the Kingdom of God as present as well as future aspects. So clearly, the Kingdom of God is broader than Heaven, as it includes present earthly aspects. Heaven can be broader than the Kingdom of God, as it is possible that infants and others do not join the kingdom of God until they get to Heaven.
Infants do not have the Holy Spirit, yet it is generally agreed that nothing in the Bible says they cannot go to Heaven.
Most Old Testament believers did not have the Holy Spirit, yet they were not permanently barred from Heaven.
Neither group could be said to live on earth as part of the Kingdom of God (with Christ reigning), yet they can still be in Heaven.
In summary, the Spirit is required for someone on earth to be a part of the Kingdom of God. However, "God’s hands are not tied" in regard to Old Testament saints, infants, the severely retarded, and those with no opportunity to hear the Gospel.

Q: In Jn 3:5, very briefly, what is the water here?
A: Five points to consider in the answer.
1. According to Hank Hanegraff on the Bible Answer Man radio program 4/7/1999, the Greek can mean "water and Spirit" or "water even the Spirit. Thus this could mean "water, symbolizing the Spirit" the Aland et al Greek New Testament (3rd edition 1975) says that kai means "and, also, but, even; that is, namely;" Kenneth S. Wuest’s expanded translation also uses the word "even".
2. Water accompanying physical birth is what some, starting with Augustine, have thought. However, Jesus appears to be speaking of only one birth, not two, this metaphor is absent in the rest of the Bible and the Jewish culture up to this time. We do not know of any early Greek-speaking Christians who understood the verse this way.
3. Others say "water" means the word of God, (based primarily on Ephesians 5:26). The only merit of this view is that it avoids any problems saying water baptism is essential. Does this mean Nicodemus and the Pharisees were halfway born again, because they knew the word of God in the Old Testament? - Of course not. This interpretation also opens the door to the error called ultra-dispensationalism, that water baptism is not to be practiced today. Moreover, not a single Greek-speaking Christian is known who understood John 3:5 this way, and this requires Jesus to chide Nicodemus for failing to understand a New Testament that was not written yet.
4. Application to baptism is what early church writers unanimously taught, though complementary meanings were not excluded. The many washing basins in the Temple were there so people could obey the Old Testament rules for washings. Was the powerful ministry of John the Baptist meaningless? -Only in the closed minds of some Pharisees. It could be expected that Jesus would chide Nicodemus, the teacher, for failing to understand the repentance, need for cleansing, and required internal purification represented by baptism, before a person could be acceptable as a part of God’s kingdom.
5. The Kingdom of God is not Heaven, because it includes what believers can be a part of while living on earth. Water baptism is an important part of joining God’s Church on earth today. However, infants, Old Testament saints, the severely retarded, and possibly others should be glad that it is God who sends people to Heaven, not baptismal water.

Q: In Jn 3:5, what is the water here?
A: All agree that the spirit is the Holy Spirit which is involved with the new birth, but genuine Christians have various views on the water. Listed are some facts relevant to determining the correct interpretation, and then various views of the water, the pros and cons, and who holds these views.
Relevant Facts:
The Greek indicates only one birth, by water and spirit, not two. However, Jesus probably did not speak to Nicodemus in Greek. The Greek word for and, kai, can mean "and" or "even/namely". Wuest’s the New Testament : An Expanded Translation says, "is born of water as a source, even out of the Spirit as a source, he is not able to enter the kingdom of God.".
No imagery of water for physical birth was used by the Jews until centuries after Jesus.
In Jerusalem, where they spoke, the Temple had many places for ritual washing, called Mikvahs.
John the Baptist was causing quite a stir at this time, with his preaching of baptism for repentance.
Baptism predated John the Baptist, as converts to Judaism were baptized. Thus baptism stood for repentance, purification, and conversion. According to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.441, the Jewish sect at Qumran also practiced baptism by immersion.
Nicodemus already knew all of God’s word at that time, since the New Testament had not been written yet.
All Pharisees, when seeing the Mikvahs, ought to be reminded of the many commands for ritual washing in the Old Testament and the water for cleansing in Ezekiel 38:25-27.
Every early church writing we have that mentions John 3:5, up until c.400 A.D., unanimously understand John 3:5 to refer to washing by baptism.
Titus 3:5 has very similar phrasing to John 3:5, saying "washing of rebirth and renewal of/by the Holy Spirit"
The Kingdom of God is what Jesus is referring to here, not Heaven or salvation. See the previous question for discussion on this.
VARIOUS ANSWERS:
1. Physical birth.
As amniotic fluid from a mother’s womb is involved with birth, the Holy Spirit is involved with the second birth. Nicodemus asked about being born a second time in his mother’s womb, and Jesus used this tautology to lead Nicodemus’ thoughts from the mother’s water of the first birth to the spiritual/baptismal water of the second birth.
However, Jews never used water as an image for birth until at least centuries after Jesus. Also, this would be a tautology; and instructing a person that they need to be born as a person is not particularly helpful.
Also, the Greek grammar indicates the water and spirit are not two items but one, according to the New Geneva Study Bible p.1665 and Hard Sayings of the Bible p.495.
Nevertheless, you cannot make too much out of the Greek grammar, for Jesus probably spoke to Nicodemus in Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek.
This view, combined with the view of baptism, was first advocated by Augustine of Hippo in his sermon on John 2:23-3:5 (c.400 A.D.). (Augustine spoke Latin and said in his Confessions that he disliked Greek, which prevented him from developing overmuch in it.) A reference to physical birth is also the view of the Ron Rhodes in the Complete Book of Bible Answers p.211, and Warren Wiersbe in Nelson’s Quick Reference (p.390).
2. The water stands for the word of God.
Psalm 119:9 mentions that a young man can keep his way pure by living according to God word (no mention here of water though)
Ephesians 5:26 says that Christ cleansed the church with the washing of water through/by/with/in the word.
In John 15:3, Jesus says they are clean through the word Jesus has spoken through them. (no mention of water, though)
James 1:18 says that we are born through the word. (no mention of water)
1 Peter 1:23 says that we are born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God. (no mention of water)
However, exactly how did Jesus tell Nicodemus he was supposed to be "born of the word?" Remember, Ephesians, John 15:3, and 1 Peter 1:23 were not relevant to Nicodemus, as the New Testament had not been written yet. Nicodemus already knew all of God’s scripture that there was. Does this mean that Jesus was telling Nicodemus he was already halfway there because Nicodemus knew the Old Testament? The thought that Jesus was commending Nicodemus for his understanding is far from the meaning of this verse.
In contrast, Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, did not understand. Unlike the Sadducees, Nicodemus and Pharisees were never accused of not knowing God’s word. Jesus referred to the water, he was talking about something that Nicodemus, as a Jewish teacher of the Law, would already know. What was Jesus chiding Nicodemus about? About 200 years before Christ, the Jews under the Pharisees had slipped from understanding the holiness, love, and spiritual relationship with God to a religious legalism. One who had studied the Old Testament should have known more about the repentance and purification associated with ritual washing, and the important role the Holy Spirit would have, as Joel and other prophets said.
If one can take the word "water" contrary to its plain meaning, then why can’t ultra-dispensationalists take the words "water" and "baptism" in other New Testament passages contrary to their plain meanings, too? See also the next question for more discussion on this paragraph.
This view is advocated by 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.225-226, James Boice, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1478 (and p.1948 for Ephesians 5:26)
3. Outward cleansing by water baptism, indicating inner repentance and cleansing
Nicodemus would be familiar with the metaphor of water baptism for cleansing, based on Ezekiel 36:25-27, the Torah, and other passages. See also the views 3a. and 3b.
However, Nicodemus could hardly be expected to understand full Christian baptism, as only Old Testament washings and John’s baptism had been revealed. Jesus expected Nicodemus to have been able to already understand this. This saying this refers to only Christian baptism cannot be correct.
Nevertheless, as Jesus spoke foreshadowing his death and communion in John 6:51-56, Jesus spoke not only foreshadowing Christian baptism, but they were already very familiar with baptism for repentance, thanks to John.
This view is advocated by:
John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.) Homilies of St. John Homily 25
Gregory Nanzianzus (330-391 A.D.) Oration on Holy Baptism ch.8
F.F. Bruce in Hard Sayings of the Bible p.495-496
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
Harper’s Bible Commentary.
3a. The water stands for baptismal regeneration.
The early church fathers held this view.
However, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.281 mentions that this interpretation contradicts being saved by faith alone, as Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 3:16 show.
This view is advocated by
Justin Martyr (wrote about 138-165 A.D.) First Apology chapter 61
Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) in fragment 34
Tertullian (200-220 A.D.) in On Baptism ch. 12
Cyprian (wrote 248-258 A.D.) in Epistle 71.
Gregory Nanzianzus (330-391 A.D.) Oration on Holy Baptism chapter 8.
Basil of Cappadocia (357-379 A.D.) On the Spirit 15:35
John of Damascus Exposition of the Orthodox Faith chapter 9
Ambrose of Milan (340-397 A.D.) Of the Holy Spirit 3.10.63-64
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (c.80-190 A.D.) 6.3.15 (This was a spurious work, which had an early date. Among other things, it also supports infant Baptism.)
3b. Water baptism is an outward sign of inner cleansing by the Spirit.
Most interpreters who deny 3 do so solely on the basis that 3a is not correct, without examining the alternative of 3b. John 3:5 does nothing to show the "mechanism" of how water baptism relates to the Kingdom of God, only that it does. Our water baptism does not save us any more than our repentance, our love, our faith, or our obedience to God save us. However, it would be wrong to deny that all four are related to the Kingdom of God.
The Greek conjunction kai is the common word for "and" but it can also mean "even/namely". Thus while it probably means "water and spirit", it could mean "water, namely the spirit".
When John the Baptist stirred up the people to repent, nobody asked "what is this new thing called baptism that you are doing?". The reason is that the Temple in Jerusalem was filled with Mikvahs, which were similar to baptismal fonts for the cleansing of the worshippers. The immediate audience here was Nicodemus, and Luke castigates the Pharisees in Luke 7:29-30 for rejecting God’s purposes for themselves by not being baptized by John.
However, interpreting John 3:5 this way sounds close to making baptism (whether John’s baptism or Christian baptism) a requirement for salvation.
Nevertheless, John’s baptism was looking for salvation, not something that brought salvation. In Acts 2:38, Peter said the people had to repent and baptized and they would receive the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 4:2 said some were not saved because they did not share the faith (or combine it with faith.) Things such as repentance, faith, and obedience, including obedience in water baptism are evidence of us receiving salvation, not that which saves us.
This view is advocated by:
The Applied New Testament Commentary p.368
Matthew Henry’s Commentary says that "it is probably that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism."
4. Water stands for conversion.
Converts to Judaism went through a baptism ceremony. Jesus was implying that one had to convert to experience the new birth. Thus Jesus was saying "by conversion and by the spirit". This view does not preclude believing other views, too.
However, while Jewish converts were washed, a more common scene was Jews washing for ritual purification. This viewpoint is perhaps not so much false, as too narrow a view of 3.
This view is advocated by:
The IVP Bible Commentary : New Testament (1993) p.270.
5. Water stands for the baptizing ministry of John the Baptist, and the Spirit for Jesus’ ministry.
No one at that time could think of "baptism" and "new things" in the same sentence without thinking of John the Baptist’s ministry.
This view is advocated by F.B. Meyer in The Gospel of John p.64. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.281 gives five views, but commends only this view as having "the merit of historical propriety as well as theological acceptability." The Life Application Bible gives various views, one of which is the repentance that John the Baptist’s ministry signified.
6. Water is an image for the pouring out of the Spirit in Old Testament times.
Jesus said in John 7:38, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (NKJV). The New Geneva Study Bible p.1676 says that while this is not an exact quote of any Old Testament Scripture, it can be a general reference to both Isaiah 44:3 and Ezekiel 36:25-27. Titus 3:5 has very similar phrasing to John 3:5, saying "washing of rebirth and renewal of/by the Holy Spirit" While Acts showed some special cases, the norm was for Christians to be baptized with literal water and the Holy Spirit.
However, water is used for ritual washings, not the pouring of the Spirit in the Torah. Also, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1478 points out that if the water represented nothing more than the ministry of the Spirit, then the verse would seem to say "unless one is born of the Spirit and the Spirit", which would be redundant.
1 John 5:8 speaks of the water, spirit, and blood. Since the spirit and blood are different, the water is different, too.
This view is advocated by the New Geneva Study Bible p.1665.
The Companion Bible says it is "spiritual water" as opposed to literal water. The IVP Bible Commentary : New Testament says that the Greek can either be translated "water and the spirit, or water, that is, the spirit."
MY CONCLUSION:
1. is not particularly compelling. It only makes sense if you downplay the precision of the Greek, and think Jesus was telling Nicodemus one had to be physically born.
2. relies on Jesus chiding Nicodemus for understanding scripture that was not written yet. For some, this view is necessitated by the opinion that if "baptism" has to mean the error of baptismal regeneration, it cannot be baptism.
3a. is unbiblical, as Acts 10 shows that people could be saved and receive the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism.
3b, 4, and 5. can all be tied together. This view has the merit of the plain meaning, as well as the universal understanding of the Greek-speaking early church.
6. has no merit, except as a secondary implication of 3b, 4, and 5.
Perhaps we should focus less on "what this would mean to me" and observe "what this would mean to Nicodemus and early Christians". The most likely answer is a combination of 3b, 4, and 5. While views 2 and 6 are implied symbolism, they would not be recognized by Nicodemus as its main meaning, and were not recognized by any known Greek-speaking Christians.
When Critics Ask p.406 also discusses some of the views, without committing to a particular one.

Q: In Jn 3:5, is "baptismal regeneration" true, the belief that water baptism is necessary for salvation?
A: No. The Gentiles who were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues in Acts 10:44-48, prior to being baptized with water, probably did not think so. Jesus apparently did not think so either when He spoke to the thief on his right. One could try to argue that the thief on the cross was prior to Jesus’ resurrection, but then Jesus’ words to Nicodemus were spoken, and were true, prior to Jesus’ resurrection, too. Of course all of this was prior to the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and there being Christian baptism; John’s baptism and Old Testament washings were all they knew.
However, if an interpretation of a verse makes part of the verse without any meaning whatsoever, then that interpretation undoubtedly is incorrect. So what is the meaning of Jesus’ words here?
The answer is implied in Luke 7:29-30, where it was said the Pharisees and experts in the Law had rejected God’s purpose for themselves. The reason given is that they had not been baptized by John. Water baptism is neither a meaningless ritual nor merely an optional thing, like choir practice, to show special love to God. If a person with full knowledge rejects water baptism, and the truth it represents, they have rejected God. Unless they turn around, they are not going to Heaven.
See also 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.118-119, When Critics Ask p.406, When Cultists Ask p.165-166, and the Complete Book of Bible Answers p.210-211 for more info.

Q: In Jn 3:5, if someone did believe in the error of baptismal regeneration, would that be a soul-perishing heresy?
A: No. This question is important, not to teach us truth, but to give us perspective on the kinds of errors we should and should not divide over. Since we should take seriously the command in Romans 15:7, that we should accept one another just as Christ excepted us, we have to know what kinds of errors people can have and still be genuine Christians.
Early Campbellite groups taught baptism regeneration, and most Church of Christ groups believe in baptismal remission. Other Protestant denominations do not. Both Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican have taught a kind of baptismal regeneration, though very different from the Church of Christ denomination. However, if you thought only unsaved heretics could believe in baptismal regeneration, then you should no longer refer to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Basil, Gregory Nanzianzus, John of Damascus, Ambrose, Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine, Cyprian, and probably Athanasius as Christians. Here is what they said on John 3:5 and baptism.
Justin Martyr, who wrote about 138-165 A.D. in his First Apology chapter 61 "Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also, said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven…. And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason."
Irenaeus in fragment 34 said, "It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’"
Tertullian in On Baptism chapter 12, "When, however, the prescript [true in Tertullian’s view] is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none’ (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless one be born of water, he hath not life’), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, ‘how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom - Paul excepted - we do not find baptized in the Lord? … And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply to them who affirm ‘that the apostles were unbaptized.’"
Cyprian in Epistle 71:1, "…unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". (Also Epistle 72:22.)
Gregory Nanzianzus (330-391 A.D.) in Oration on Holy Baptism chapter 8, "And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body;… For, to say it all in one word, the virtue of Baptism, is to be understood as a covenant with God for a second life and a purer conversation."
Basil of Cappadocia (357-379 A.D.) On the Spirit chapter 15:35 "Hence it follows that the answer to our question why the water was associated with the Spirit is clear: the reason is because in baptism two ends were proposed; on the one hand, the destroying of the body of sin, that it may never bear fruit unto death; on the other hand, our living unto the Spirit, and having our fruit in holiness…"
John of Damascus (wrote after Gregory and Basil) in Exposition of the Orthodox Faith chapter 9 said, "And He laid on us the command to be born again of water and of the Spirit, through prayer and invocation, the Holy Spirit drawing nigh unto the water. For since man’s nature is twofold, consisting of soul and body, He bestowed on us a two-fold purification, of water and of the Spirit: the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of life."
Athanasius, an architect of the Nicene Creed, had a high view of baptism, though he did not comment on John 3:5 per se. I have not yet been able to find if he believed in baptismal regeneration or not.
John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.) did not mention baptismal regeneration, but for reference, here is what he said in his sermon on John 3:5. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on St. John Homily 25. "What then is the use of the water? This too I will tell you hereafter, when I reveal to you the hidden mystery. ... In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once."
Ambrose of Milan (340-397 A.D.) in Of the Holy Spirit 3.10.64 said on John 3:5, "Who is he who is born of the Spirit, and is made Spirit, but he who is renewed in the Spirit of his mind? This certainly is he who is regenerated by water and the Holy Spirit, since we receive the hope of eternal life through the laver of regeneration… For who is he that is baptized with the Holy Spirit but he who is born again through water and the Holy Spirit?"
Ambrose also believed that baptism had power, in that for infants, baptism opens the kingdom of heaven to them (On Abraham 2:79)
Augustine of Hippo also believed in the efficacy of baptism. They believed the error that baptized babies went to Heaven, and unbaptized babies went to Hell.
Prosper of Aquitaine also believed the same error, that water baptism takes away original sin and previous personal sins of both the elect and reprobate. (Answer to the Gauls Articles 2 and 3).
As a final note, the opposite error, that Christians should not practice water baptism, is a part of the error called "ultra-dispensationalism". For more discussion on this, see the three questions relating to 1 Corinthians 1:17.

Q: Since Jn 3:13 seems to say that no one has ever ascended into heaven, what about Elijah and Enoch, etc?  Or what about all the saints of the OT?  Where were they, if not in heaven?
A: First let’s observe what the Bible shows about Elijah and Enoch, and then about Old Testament believers in general.
Elijah and Enoch: Genesis 5:24 says that Enoch walked with God, and then God took him away. It does not say precisely where God took Enoch, though I am sure Enoch was very glad to be there. 2 Kings 2:1,11 says that Elijah was taken up to heaven The Hebrew word for heaven here, shameh (Strong’s 8064) means sky as well as heaven. For example, it is used to mean sky in Genesis 15:5; Genesis 26:4 (where the stars are); Genesis 16:4; 1 Kings 18:45 (where the rain comes from). But we know that Elijah left this world to be with God.
The Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1479 mentions that the Bible does not say Elijah and Enoch ascended [on their own power] into Heaven; rather they were taken up into heaven.
Believers Before Christ: All people went to Sheol, which is translated as "the grave". However, the Jews distinguished between two parts: prison and paradise. When Jesus was dying on the cross, He did not say to the thief on the right, "today you will be with me in heaven". Rather, he said, "today you will be with me in Paradise." This is the same place as Abraham’s side in Luke 16:22-26 When Jesus rose from the dead, Paradise was emptied, and Jesus led all of them to Heaven with Him.

Q: Compare Jn 3:13 ("And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man...) to 2 Ki 2:11 (". . . and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven"). Did Jesus err, because 2 Ki 2:11 shows Elijah went up earlier?
A: Jesus ascending to Heaven was fundamentally different from Elijah’s whirlwind and chariots in two ways.
1) A minor point is that the Greek word in John 3:13 (anabebukun, a form of anabaino) means to arise, climb, rise up, etc. Jesus ascended Himself, while Elijah was carried in a whirlwind.
2) More importantly, believers before Christ’s resurrection did not go to the same place Jesus was talking about. When Jesus was on the cross, He did not say the thief on his right would see Jesus today in Heaven; rather the thief would today would be with Jesus in paradise. In Luke 17 Jesus spoke of "Abraham’s bosom" a place of rest. In Ephesians 4:8, when Jesus rose from the dead, He opened the gates of Heaven, so that the Old Testament saints from Paradise went with Him. No one entered Heaven apart from Jesus or prior to Jesus.

Q: In Jn 3:13 and Jn 6:38,42, does Christ coming down from heaven only a spiritual symbolic fact, not a material fact as Baha’is teach in Some Answered Questions p.103-105?
A: No. ‘Abdu’l-Baha claims this because John 3:13f says, "…but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven," at the time that Jesus was on earth. (p.103).
First of all, this last phrase is a manuscript variation that is not present in the earliest manuscripts, though it is in the later Byzantine Lectionary. It is strange to base a doctrine on just one variant.
Second, Jesus’ divine nature can still be considered in heaven as well as earth according to the New Geneva Study Bible p.1665.
Finally, and most importantly, even if you do accept the manuscript variation, within the same verse it says that Jesus came down from Heaven. It is trivial to show from the Bible that Jesus existed in Heaven prior to the incarnation, and that same Jesus "came down" is a material fact.

Q: In Jn 3:14, how did a bronze serpent in the wilderness relate to Jesus?
A: In Numbers 21:4-9, God punished the Israelites for their sins with being bitten by poisonous snakes. However, God made a way for their healing. God instructed them to make a bronze image resembling the snakes they were bitten by. When they looked up to a bronze snake, they would live.
God’s setting up this analogy seems especially excellent here. We suffer the guilt and consequences for our sins. Jesus, who was sinless, took upon Himself the punishment for our sins. When we look to Jesus, we will live.

Q: In Jn 3:16, does God love people who are not saved, or does He hate them?
A: God loves them. However, as a crude analogy, when a baby is feverish, contagious, and about to throw up all over you, you will enjoy holding your cute, adorable baby in the future, but perhaps just not right now.
God can both hate sin and yet be compassionate to all. However, God knows the elect can look forward to eternity with Him, while the non-elect cannot.

Q: In Jn 3:16, is it contradictory that the death of Christ is both a sacrifice and a cosmic event? (Rudolph Bultmann taught this)
A: No. Imagine for a moment, that a tiny ant were suddenly given the body, some of the intelligence, but only a little of the knowledge of a human being. Either the ant would figure out that there are situations and things beyond his former understanding, or else the ant would see contradictions everywhere. For example, how could a beetle eat a person without harming him? And what difference does it make that the "beetle" was manufactured by Volkswagen? How could bugs live inside computer software? - and so forth. If you say something is a contradiction, of course you have to have a basis for why it is a contradiction. What is difficult for Bultmann (or any other non-believer) to show, is that the assumptions and requirements that we apply in our time to everyday life on earth, apply to a timeless, infinite God who fills the Heavens.
Many people have idols that are simply, crude statues. Some modern "theologians" have a more sophisticated idol, who lives entirely within their own mind. When people make up restrictions on God, instead of believing what God has revealed about Himself in the Bible, idolatry is an apt description of the god they are describing.
For another description of how God does not depend on human thinking, Hilary (wrote about 355-367/368 A.D.) said in On the Trinity 1:14 "These deeds of God therefore are beyond the understanding of our human nature and do not fit in with our rational process of thought because the operation of a limitless eternity demands an infinite comprehension of measuring things. So it is not a conclusion of reason but a limitation of power when God became man, when the Immortal dies, when the Eternal is buried. Again, on the other hand it does not depend on our manner of thinking but on the omnipotence that He appears as God from a man, as immortal from one who is dead, and as eternal from one who is buried. Hence we are revivified by God in Christ through his death."

Q: In Jn 3:16, does God love every single person in the world, or just the people who will be going to Heaven?
A: Genuine Christians disagree on this. In my opinion, there are three parts to this answer.
To All: God has love and mercy to everyone, as Psalm 145:9,13 shows. No matter how evil and vile a person might be, God still asks and invites them to believe in His Son, ask forgiveness and cleansing for their sin, and live together in holiness with God in Heaven. As God’s servants, we are messengers sent to communicate this message to everyone.
The Elect: God shows special love towards some that He did not show toward others. This is prior to their being saved. Some examples are Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:10-12, elect and reprobate in general in Romans 9:22-25, and David and Bathsheba’s two sons in 2 Samuel 12:15-25.
Believers?: Does God love a Christian more after he or she is saved than before they are saved? Scripture does not say how this would relate to a timeless God.

Q: In Jn 3:16, since Jesus is not a created being, how can He be begotten of God? Muslims deny that Jesus is begotten of God.
A: Begotten does not mean created, as we can create things but we beget children. Many Muslims have a slight similarity in their belief about the Qur’an being from Allah without being created by Allah. Before the beginning of time, Jesus, who is also called the Word of God, came from God the Father. So, in different ways, both Christians and many Muslims say the Word of God came from God but was uncreated. See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.26-27, the Complete Book of Bible Answers p.109, and When Cultists Ask p.166 for more info.

Q: In Jn 3:16, why can people reject Jesus and go to Hell?
A: Jesus said that all who reject Him will go to Hell, in John 3:36. Why did God give us this responsibility, both awesome and awful, to choose to accept or reject Jesus, and have our eternal destiny determined accordingly? The answer might have to do with the value God places on us. God created us in His image, not as robots. He so values our free agency, that He allows us to choose our destiny and live with our choice. He allowed Adam and Eve to do the same, with the awful consequences for them, and their descendents. Perhaps God could have gone back in time and "uncreated" Adam and Eve, but for whatever reasons, God chose not to and let man’s choices stand.

Q: In Jn 3:18, are all people really born in a condemned or estranged state?
A: An estranged state, yes. A condemned state, not necessarily. While Augustine of Hippo and Prosper of Aquitaine taught that all babies who die before baptism automatically go to Hell, the Bible does not say that, and few Christians today believe that. People are born without the Holy Spirit inside of them, and yes, all are born separated from God. However, in Old Testament times God could choose to save people who did not have the Holy Spirit, and nothing restricts God from saving babies today.

Q: In Jn 3:18, is that justice, that we are born in an estranged state?
A: God is just, but that does not require us to have been born in any particular state. See the discussion on Romans 9:19-22 and Romans 11:8,10 for the answer.

Q: In Jn 3:24, since God is Spirit, how can Jesus be the Son of God?
A: Christians do NOT believe Jesus was the Son of God in a crude physical or sexual sense. Rather this term is an expression of deep meaning of how Jesus is different from every created being. As an example for Muslims, the Bukhari Hadith vol.9 no.543 mentions Allah’s finger. Now Muslims do not believe that Allah has literal fingers. Rather, the term "finger of God" is not meant physically, but as an expression.

Q: In Jn 3:32, since no man received Christ’s testimony, how come John the Baptist and others accepted Christ?
A: Verse 32 is qualified by verse 33. In modern writings, people often write, "No one …. Except …". Ancient writing is similar except that the "except" sometimes is implied.
John’s statement here relates to Jesus’ statement in John 6:44, that no one can come to God, unless the Father draws Him. Without God’s help, people left to their own do not want to seek God, as Romans 3:11 says.

Q: In Jn 3:36, are all who do not reject Christ going to Heaven, or do you have to actually believe in Christ?
A: Two points to consider in the answer.
All who reject Jesus will "indeed die in their sins" according to Jesus in John 8:24. John 3:36 is also very clear, those who reject Jesus will go to Hell. Justin Martyr (wrote about 138-165 A.D.) was an early Christian who also taught that all Jews who reject Christ go to Hell in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew chapter 26.
All babies who die are never said to go to Hell. Of course babies do not have the understanding to accept Jesus, so unless all babies go to Hell, this shows that God is not restricted to working within this limitation. See also the next question.

Q: In Jn 3:36, what about those who have not heard of Christ? Does a just God condemn them to Hell with no chance whatsoever?
A: No. God is just and fair, as well as merciful. God says He does not count sin where there is no law (Romans 4:15; 5:12). We know that God will provide a way to judge them fairly. Excluding Purgatory, Limbo, and some extreme Calvinist positions, here are various speculations on way God might choose to do so.
God ensures that all who would accept hear: People who reject God have greater condemnation, based on greater knowledge (see 2 Peter 2:2:21). A person’s only hope is if they hear the Gospel and accept before death, but God makes sure all who need to hear it do.
Some hear the Gospel and accept after death:
This view hinges on the interpretation of two verses: 1 Peter 4:5-6 and Ephesians 4:8-10. 1 Peter 4:5-6 says that after Christ died he preached to the spirits in prison. Prison is not a term that describes where the righteous dead (like Abraham) went before Christ. Rather it describes either where lost human souls went before Christ or else other souls (some demons and/or Nephilim) were before Christ. Rather than simply informing them of what happened on earth, this view says Jesus preached so they could make the same choice they would have made on earth. It does not mean there is a second chance after death; instead, there is a first chance for those who never had a chance.
Some hear the Gospel accept in the millennium:
This answer is very similar to the Post-Death Salvation View. If you put the question "what happens those who never heard" next to "why will God resurrect people who have not made a decision for him", the two questions appear to answer each other.
Seekers can be saved through a Christ:
Could someone today be saved like Abraham and Job? They sought the Creator instead of a creature, realized their need for forgiveness, sought God’s mercy and salvation, and obeyed what they knew. This view does not say all go to Heaven or that there are many ways to God. It says that even if you are on a wrong road that does not lead to God, God may still honor your sincerity if you are truly seeking the True God and you have not rejected the available truth. This does not apply to those who could have investigated Christ, but they never chose to or thought it important enough.
See also the discussion on John 6:45 for more info.

Q: In Jn 4:1-2, why did Jesus not baptize anyone?
A: Scripture does not say, but we can speculate. In the context of Ephesians 4:3, the foundation is not Jesus but the apostles and prophets, and Jesus is the chief cornerstone upon which the foundation is based. If Jesus had baptized many people, some could think they could bypass the foundation. Spiritually, genuine Christians are all baptized with Christ. However, our faith rests on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. (Of course, these are New Testament apostles, and not unsubstantiated modern impersonators.)

Q: In Jn 4:1-2, did Jesus ever baptize anyone?
A: Scripture does not actually say. We have only two places in the New Testament where it said Jesus did or did not baptize. John 3:22 says that Jesus and His disciples were out in the countryside and baptized without specifying who was doing the baptizing. John 4:1-2, clarifies that though the Pharisees heard that Jesus was baptizing, it was actually the disciples following Jesus who were doing the baptizing.
Perhaps Jesus did not personally baptize anyone because He did not want someone to be tempted to think they were "better" in the faith because they were baptized directly by Him instead of someone else. This might also be the same reason why Paul had others baptize instead of himself (except that he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas’ household). Others could handle the baptism, but Paul was to do the preaching (1 Corinthians 1:17)

Q: In Jn 4:4, did Jesus really have to go through Samaria?
A: Samaria was on the most direct route from Judea to Galilee, but most self-respecting Pharisees would go out of their way to take a detour to bypass that land. Jesus did not have to take the most direct route, but He chose to do so. Of course once he started by the most direct route, then He had to go through Samaria.

Q: In Jn 4:4, why was the Samaritan woman surprised that Christ spoke with her?
A: Jews did not associate with Samaritans, because Samaritans
1. Believed the center of worship should be at Mt. Gerazim in Samaria, not Jerusalem.
2. Were half-breeds and not of pure Israelite descent. Since they were not true Jews, Jews would not eat with them.
3. Did not accept any of the Old Testament except for the first five books.
4. Resented Jews.
Samaritans resented Jews because
1. Nehemiah, Ezra, and others excluded them from helping build the wall of Jerusalem and from worship at Jerusalem.
2. Jews resented Samaritans.
See Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.57-59 for more info.

Q: In Jn 4:6, since Jesus got tired, and God does not get tired in Ps 121:4, does that mean that Jesus was not God?
A: No, it means that Jesus voluntarily gave up some of His power when He came to earth, as Philippians 2:3-4 and John 17:5 show. Jesus had to be human like us in every way, according to Hebrews 2:14-17. Psalms 121:4 was written when Jesus was in Heaven. On earth, Jesus experienced tiredness, suffering, learned obedience, and did not know everything, such as the time of His second coming.
Here is what the Christian writer Hilary (353-368 A.D.) said: "The deeds of God therefore are beyond the understanding of our human nature and do not fit in with our rational process of thought because the operation of a limitless eternity demands an infinite comprehension of measuring things. So it is not a conclusion of reason but a limitation of power when God became man, when the Immortal dies, when the Eternal is buried. Again, on the other hand it does not depend on our manner of thinking but on omnipotence that He appears as God from a man, as immortal from one who is dead, and as eternal from one who is buried. Hence we are revivified by God in Christ through his death." (Trinity 1:14)

Q: In Jn 4:9, how did the woman at the well know Jesus was a Jew?
A: Scripture does not say, but there are three possible reasons?
1. A traveler passing through Samaria would likely be a Jew.
2. Apparently people from Galilee had a distinctive accent (Matthew 26:73), which Jesus likely had.
3. Perhaps by his clothing, though there is no evidence of this.

Q: In Jn 4:14, since whoever has drunk Jesus’ water of eternal life will never thirst, how come some Christians do not live contentedly like they should?
A: Three points to consider in the answer.
1. Christians can always be content and never "thirst" in this life. However, Christians who are not abiding in Christ might be discontent. As a famous Christian hymn says, "Oh what peace we often forfeit, oh, what needless pain we bear, all because we do not carry, Everything to God in prayer."
2. One can debate whether this verse includes an implied condition of the Christian choosing to abide in Christ or not.
3. Point 2 is a moot point for the truthfulness of this verse. Regardless of how a Christian abides in Christ on earth, this verse is unconditionally true of believers in Heaven.

Q: In Jn 4:23, what does it mean to worship God in "spirit and in truth"?
A: Jesus here was contrasting this with both Samaritan worship and Old Testament worship.
Samaritan worship: The Samaritans were descended from a mixture of Israelites and other peoples who lived in the land after the exile. Samaritan worship was based on tradition, including Mount Samaria being the most holy mountain. They had many errors, including not accepting any of the Old Testament except the Torah. Tertullian (200-240 A.D.) says Dositheus was the first to repudiate the prophets in Against All Heresies ch.1 p.649.
Jewish worship: The Jews were following the rituals God instituted in the Old Testament, but they too did not have the Holy Spirit, who was not poured out yet. While the Jews had the truth from the Old Testament, even they did not have the complete truth that Christ came to reveal.
See Now That’s a Good Question p.353-354 for more info.

Q: In Jn 4:24, since God is Spirit, and Jesus is God, how could Jesus really have a physical body? Did Jesus just seem to be a man, as the early heresy of Docetism taught?
A: No. Jesus wept real human tears in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus’ suffering was for real on the cross. God being spirit does not restrict Christ from being incarnated as a man, any more than we being flesh and blood restricts us from wearing clothes. While there is no earthly analogy that quite fits the incarnation, perhaps the analogy of an artificial organ is as close (and as far) from an accurate analogy as wearing clothes.

Q: In Jn 4:25 (KJV), was does the word "Messias" mean?
A: This word means Messiah.

Q: In Jn 4:26, is it impossible that Jesus could proclaim He was the Messiah for almost three years without being arrested (The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.968 asserts this)?
A: Even without appealing to God’s protection, it is not at all impossible. Jesus was often surrounded by sympathetic crowds. The Romans did not care about a Messiah as long as He did not challenge the political structure. He did miracles, and the cautious leaders, though he wanted Him gone for a long time, did not want to risk alienating the people. Finally, it was hard for the Jewish leaders in Rome to extend their reach to cosmopolitan Galilee.

Q: In Jn 4:34, is Jesus saying he was supernaturally fed here?
A: Probably not. Rather, his mission and purpose was concerned with doing God’s will. In this case, talking with the fallen Samaritan woman was a higher priority than his hunger for his regular meal. Will you be willing to miss a meal in order to do God’s will?

Q: In Jn 4:44, since a prophet has no honor in his own country, what about Moses, Ezekiel, and Daniel?
A: None of these three prophets lived in their own country while they were prophets, but that is actually not the point. This verse is saying that prophets are not universally respected in the place they came from, and Jesus was no different in this regard.
In Jesus’ cases, He is not saying that not a single person in the region of Galilee respected him. (After all, the disciples did.) Rather, the majority of the people had difficulty in believing a common-looking man from their own region could be a great prophet of God, much less the Messiah.
Even today, we should not forget that God often uses ordinary Christians to do great things.

Q: In Jn 5:1, which feast was this?
A: John did not say, perhaps because John himself did not remember. While we can speculate which feast it was, there is not much point in doing so. The Bible is the word of God written down by men. God was under no obligation to have them remember every detail, only the details He wanted them to remember and communicate.

Q: In Jn 5:2, is there any archaeological evidence for the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem?
A: Yes. This was actually twin pools in the northeast portion of the Old City. This section was called "Bezetha", or "new town" in the time of Christ. The Dead Sea scrolls mention the pools, a Christian pilgrim described them in 333 A.D., and modern archaeologists found these in 1888. See the New Testament Documents : Are They Reliable? P.94 by F.F. Bruce (IVP 1943) for more info.

Q: In Jn 5:3,7 (KJV), who were these folk?
A: This King James Version expression means handicapped.

Q: In Jn 5:4; Acts 14:12; 2 Thess 2:10; Rev 16:9,11, since God is Almighty and His decrees are irresistible, how can people refuse to come to Him. Either the offer was insincere (there was not given enough grace for all) or else God was unable or unwilling to ensure the people would accept this offer.
A: God permits: there is a vast amount of meaning in these two words. Yes, Almighty God certainly can make all His puppets perform their script perfectly and on cue. But He did not make us as puppets. God can do anything He wants, as He sees fit. God can control everything, even Himself. If God can do anything, then God can permit.

Q: In Jn 5:10, was the healed man breaking the Sabbath, since he was obeying Jesus in carrying his mat?
A: No. He was only disobeying the Pharisees’ added restrictions to the Sabbath. The Old Testament says people were not to work on the Sabbath. It never said someone could not carry their mat, and it was on the Pharisees who interpreted that as work.
I knew of a non-Jew who was paid by strict Orthodox Jews to live with them. On Saturdays, they believed they could not do anything that created something. Turning on a light switch completes a circuit and creates a current flow. So, among his other duties, he had to turn on light switches for them on Saturdays.

Q: In Jn 5:18, when Jesus called God His father, how was this making Himself equal with God?
A: Yes. Within a family, a father and son have different roles, and the son obeys the father, but the two are equal in nature. A good father does not consider his life more valuable than his sons, and vice versa. Within the Trinity, the same is true. God the Son is subordinate in role, but not inferior in nature.
The Nelson Study Bible p.1991 also gives the example of the wife not being inferior to the husband but having a different role.

Q: In Jn 5:18, is it OK for us to call God our Father, since we are not equal with God?
A: Not unless God gave us permission. God does give us permission to call Him our Father, in reverence. It was a great privilege Jesus gave us, when He started the first two words of His prayer as "Our Father".

Q: In Jn 5:19-20, since Jesus had free agency, why was Jesus unable to do anything except what He saw the Father do?
A: Jesus chose to obey everything the Father had Him do. On earth Jesus learned obedience, according to Hebrews 5:8. Jesus said He came not to please Himself but His Father in John 5:30. By the way, the word for "love" in John 5:20 says the Father has brotherly love/ friend love (phileo) toward the son

Q: In Jn 5:19-22, exactly how did the Father first do everything Jesus did?
A: While Jesus said the Father dwelled in Jesus, that is not the main point Jesus was making here.
Obviously, everyone understood that the Father was not born on earth, and the Father was not baptized by John the Baptist. Rather, Jesus is saying He would only do the kinds of works that His Father would plan for Him to do.

Q: In Jn 5:22, does Jesus judge us, or the Father?
A: Jesus said that the Father has entrusted all judgment to Him. This fits well with Acts 4:12, where there is no other name under Heaven by which men may be saved.

Q: In Jn 5:23, how are we to honor the Son just as we honor the Father who sent Him?
A: The followers of Jesus honor him in the following ways.
1. We worship Jesus, as angels do in Revelation and Hebrews 1:6.
2. We pray to Jesus, as Stephen did in Acts 7:59.
3. We call Jesus God as it says in Hebrews 1:8,9.
4. We call Jesus "my God" as Thomas did in John 20:28.
5. We believe and obey what He taught, as well as what His apostles taught about God and about Himself.
Following these verses of the Bible is one of the key things that separates the cults of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Way, and other cults on one side, from modern and early Christians on the other side. Here is what the early Christians said.
Hilary (wrote about 355-367/368 A.D.) remarked on John 5:23, "Since unless things are of the same nature they are never accorded equal honor, and equality of honor does not bring about a separation in those who are being honored. But the mystery of the birth demands equality of honor."
Justin Martyr (wrote about 138-165 A.D.) said in his Dialogue with Trypho: "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped as God and as Christ." (chapter 63).
Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, Hippolytus, and others also spoke on the honor of Jesus being God.

Q: In Jn 5:26, what does it mean "to have life in Himself"?
A: While we have eternal life in Heaven, it is a derived eternal life that was both made possible and sustained by God. However, Jesus does not have derived eternal life, but intrinsic eternal life.

Q: In Jn 5:27, how does being a "Son of Man" provide a reason for the Father to give Jesus the authority to judge us?
A: Scripture does not explicitly say, but it does imply an answer. Hebrews 2:14-17 says that since we have flesh and blood, Jesus had to share in our humanity so that his death would atone for us. Jesus had to be one of us to become our high priests.

Q: In Jn 5:28-29, since those who did good will be resurrected to live, does this mean salvation by works is true?
A: No. It does not say the good works caused them to live. The good works of believers, limited though they may be, are evidence of being one of God’s children who will live forever in Him. See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.369-371, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.496-498, and When Cultists Ask p.167-168 for more info.

Q: In Jn 5:31, if Jesus bore witness of Himself, would that make His witness untrue?
A: No, that is not what Jesus is saying here. Jesus is answering the Pharisees’ charge, that if Jesus is the only one bearing witness of Himself, in a court of Law that would not establish his authenticity.

Q: In Jn 5:34, is Jesus using an ad hominem argument, that He Himself did not accept?
A: No. First we will discuss what an ad hominem argument is, and then what Jesus said.
ad hominem in Latin means "to the man". It is an argument the speaker himself does not believe, but the speaker mentions it to persuade the listeners. For example, if a politician goes back on a promise, then someone who cares nothing about broken promises might mention this to persuade people who do care about keeping promises, in order to get them to vote for him. (Presumably this other guy would keep his promises better, but that is only an unstated assumption)
Jesus did fully accept what John the Baptist said. However, Jesus basically said He was using an ad hominem argument, in that while the Pharisees wanted multiple witnesses before believing something was true, Jesus did not agree with that approach. But, if they were going to use that approach, John the Baptist’s did corroborate Jesus’ testimony about Himself. John’s words did not "make" Jesus’ testimony true; his words only showed that it was true.
Today, people often can lose this distinction in a court of law. A judge or jury can pronounce the defendant "not guilty". Actually the verdict does not make the defendant guilty or innocent. They are guilty if they committed the crime, regardless of the correctness of the verdict. In the United States, in a criminal trial, if the jury thinks the defendant probably did it, but there is reasonable doubt, they are instructed to find the defendant "not guilty". Does that make the defendant innocent? -no.
See When Critics Ask p.410-411 for more info.

Q: In Jn 5:39, do we have eternal life from believing the Bible or not?
A: Actually, no. Eternal life is given by God. However, the Jews were part-way correct, in that the Scriptures show us the way to God, to have eternal life. It is possible for a person to be more concerned about the scripture, than they are about God, as the Pharisees were in Jesus’ time.

Q: In Jn 5:43, since Jesus came in His Father’s Name, does that mean that Jesus has the same name as the Father, and thus Jesus is the Father?
A: They do share a number of titles. However, I happen to have the same last name as my parents, but that does not prove we are all only one human being. When Cultists Ask p.168-169 says that some Oneness Pentecostals, such as Campbell, 1975 actually say this. If they were consistent in this, then Oneness Pentecostals would never preach in the name of Jesus, because they would think that doing anything "in Jesus’ name" would make them Jesus, too.

Q: In Jn 5:44, how does receiving honor from others relate to not believing?
A: Jesus is not saying they are not pleasing God, Jesus is saying something even worse. They are not even trying to please God. And as bad as this is, it looks even worse, given the effort they put out to try to please men.

Q: In Jn 5:45-46, how do all who believe Moses believe Jesus? Many Jews today would disagree.
A: Perhaps Jesus had in mind Deuteronomy 17:18-19. If anyone does not listen to the word of the coming prophet (Jesus), God Himself will call that person to account. John 5:46 says something similar.

Q: In Jn 6:5-6, why did Jesus ask a question, since he already knew the answer?
A: John 6:6 says that Jesus asked the question to test Philip. Using what today is called the Socratic method, and asking a disciple a question to which the teacher already knows the answer, is fine. Apparently, the disciples were not unfamiliar with this, as when Peter answered Jesus’ question in John 21:17, saying, "Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you." (NIV)
Specifically Philip could have answered with an attempt to feed the people, his answer (hopelessness to naturally meet this need), or faith in that Christ could supply them.

Q: In Jn 6:5-6, why did Jesus ask Philip instead of one of the others?
A: While scripture does not say for certain, it might give a hint. John 1:44 says that Philip, as well as Andrew and Peter, were from Bethsaida, which was in this region.

Q: In Jn 6:19, how 6:19, how could Jesus walk on water?
A: Three points to consider in the answer.
The Sea of Galilee was very deep, so Jesus was not playing some kind of trick, by walking on stones.
Jesus was a real person with flesh and blood, so it was not some kind of phantom with no weight.
God, who created natural law, can supersede natural law whenever He chooses. We call that a miracle, but perhaps to God it is merely an alternate method of operation.

Q: In Jn 6:23, what do we know about the town of Tiberias?
A: It was a new town in Jesus’ time, since Herod Antipas built it between 16 and 22 A.D. as his administrative capital. It was a Gentile town, Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.822-823 says Jews avoided it because it was built on a cemetery.
However, the Encylopaedia Britannica and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1704 say that in the second century the editor of the Mishnah (c.200-220 A.D.), Judah hak-Kadhosh came from there. Also, the Talmud was edited there about 400 A.D.. Famous rabbis buried there include Maimonides, ‘Akiba (Akiva), Yohanan Ben Zakkai, and Eliezer the Great.
See The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.1014 for more info.

Q: In Jn 6:31-36,48-51, how is Jesus the bread (or manna) of life?
A: Jesus is the bread of life in at least two ways.
For all: Jesus sustains everything in the universe, according to Colossians 1:17
For believers: It is sweet to have life in Jesus, who nourishes us, protects and preserves us, and prepares us to dwell eternally with Him.

Q: In Jn 6:37, since all the Father gives to Jesus come to Jesus, and since some do not come to Jesus, then does that mean the Father did not give them to Jesus?
A: Yes. The Gospel of salvation is sincerely offered to all. However, Hebrews 4:2 says the Gospel is of no use to those who do not combine it with faith. Luke 7:30 is a second example, and see the discussion on Luke 7:30 for more info.

Q: In Jn 6:39, did Jesus have a distinct will from God the Father or not?
A: To rephrase the question as a fourth grader asked, how many brains do the Trinity have? Except for the fact that God is not limited to cells, one could say they have their own brains. Jesus had a distinct will, as shown by His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. However, Jesus always chose to have His will be in accord with the Father’s will, as also indicated by His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Q: In Jn 6:42, is the virgin birth true, since the Jews said they knew Joseph, the father of Jesus?
A: This does not deny the virgin birth.
First, since Joseph was the husband of Mary, Joseph was the legal father of Jesus in the eyes of the law.
Second, many Jews assumed Joseph was also the biological father of Jesus. Every assumption that people make is not necessarily true.

Q: In Jn 6:44,65 and Jn 6:37,39, what does it mean that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him?
A: The Greek can mean compel, draw as in draw water, or woo/persuade. See Now That’s a Good Question p.27-29 for more on the Greek. Since the Greek word has a range of meeting, various Christians have this verse as a part of their theology in various ways.
Non-Calvinists say that Jesus draws all externally, and the offer of salvation is available to every individual. Internally, the Holy Spirit (also called the Spirit of Christ), convicts the world (both elect and reprobate) of sin. However, all the Father predestines are drawn to Heaven, and those who are not the elect do not come to God. Some non-Calvinists would say that predestination and foreknowledge work hand-in-hand, and other non-Calvinists would say that foreknowledge precedes predestination, since the two times they are mentioned together in scripture foreknowledge is always mentioned first.
Calvinists do not deny that the Gospel is to be offered to all, but the Father draws only the elect, and neither the Father nor Holy Spirit work in a salvific way for the reprobate, since Jesus did not die for them.
Hyper-Calvinists believe the same as Calvinists here, except that they teach the Gospel can be proclaimed to all, but it is wrong to offer to all.
See also the next question for more info.

Q: In Jn 6:44,65 and Jn 6:37,39 does the Father draw some people, or does Jesus draw all to Himself as Jn 12:32 says?
A: In the Greek, it simply says that Jesus draws "all". It does not actually say that Jesus draws "all men" or "all people". There are three views.
The Father draws every individual: We are so sinful that no one can come to the Father unless the Father draws him (enables him). However, the Father draws everybody. When John 6:37,39 say that all the Father gives Jesus will come to Him, the Father draws all, but only gives to Jesus those he foreknew (and thus predestined) to come to Jesus. However, this interpretation violates the plain sense of John 6:64-65, which indicates the Father must draw people was a reason why some did not believe.
Jesus draws externally and the Father chooses internally: Jesus draws both elect and reprobate to Him. Both the elect and reprobate make a decision to trust Jesus or not. However, the Father predestined the elect, and thus only the elect are drawn by the Father.
All kinds of people, the Father and Jesus both draw only the elect. Not drawing every individual is the Calvinist view, advocated in the New Geneva Study Bible p.1688.
See also the previous question for more info.

Q: In Jn 6:45, since everyone who is taught of God comes to Jesus, does that mean all who never heard of Jesus had no opportunity to escape Hell?
A: The Bible never says that. On the contrary, Hebrews 11 shows that Abel, Enoch, Noah, and many others apparently never heard of Jesus (while on earth), yet they presumably went to Heaven. There are two other points to consider in the answer:
2. Babies who die never hear of Jesus. The Bible never says that those below the age of accountability go to Hell.
3. Jesus did say that all who reject Him will indeed die in their sins. (John 8:24)
See also the discussion on John 3:36 for more info.

Q: In Jn 6:50-51, since one who eats the bread of heaven (Jesus) will live forever and not die, why do Christians still die?
A: There are two ways this can be understood.
1. Christians will live forever in Heaven, and so we will reach a state where our glorified bodies will never die. See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1505 for more on this point.
2. In addition, while our bodies die once, from the time we first believe, our spirits never die. Revelation refers to the Lake of Fire as the second death.
Physical death is "only a small detail" compared to either eternal life or the second death. This verse is important in telling us that once a believer goes to Heaven, there is no fear that he or she will sin and fall.

Q: In Jn 6:51-56, what did Jesus really mean here?
A: There are at least three views.
1. Jesus gives believers spiritual nourishment
The Believer’s Bible Commentary : New Testament p.297 points out that since the Lord’s Supper did not come until a year later, this refers to the spiritual food and drink Jesus would give believers.
2. An illustration of spiritual union
Jesus was speaking to the crowds, who at this time would know nothing of the Lord’s Supper, as the New Geneva Study Bible p.1673 points out. Hard Sayings of the Bible p.498-500 clearly says it is this view, while also suggesting a combination with the third view, too.
3. In addition to both of the previous, a foreshadowing of the Lord’s Supper
When Jesus said "…my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world", Jesus was foretelling his death on the cross. Likewise, Jesus was foretelling their remembrance of that in the Lord’s Supper.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1505 for more on this view. Hard Sayings of the Bible p.498-500 suggests this view plus the previous because John does not record the Last Supper, and this would be his counterpart teaching on the importance of communion.
The issues here are somewhat similar to the interpretation issues of "water and spirit" in John 3:5.

Q: In Jn 6:52-56, why did Jesus not clear up the crowd’s confusion?
A: Jesus apparently wanted to say these words this way, and Jesus showed no surprise that some left at this point. To speak to a Jew about drinking blood would sound offensive to them.
Scripture does not give all the reasons why Jesus spoke this way, but here is a speculation. People who saw the miracles might believe in Jesus whether they wanted to follow God or not, because they have living proof right in front of them. Jesus spoke this way so that those who wanted to follow Jesus would later understand, and those who did not want to follow would have an excuse for leaving.

Q: In Jn 6:60-66, why does Jesus seem almost fatalistic here? - If they come, they will come. If they do not, they do not.
A: Jesus was not a fatalist, but He knew well the limitations of speech. If someone never wants to trust their life over to Christ, he or she will never be accepting of the things they cannot show to be true or false. If people do not want to follow the truth, they will almost always be able to find some excuse for not doing so.

Q: In Jn 6:70, since Jesus chose the twelve disciples, and Judas was one of these, was Judas one of the elect chosen by Jesus?
A: No. Like other men, Jesus had the freedom to make many choices. Jesus’ choice to eat a certain fig does not make that fig one of the elect. Likewise, Jesus choosing the twelve disciples was different from choosing the elect who go to Heaven. See Now That’s a Good Question p.133-134 for more info.

Q: In Jn 7:1 (KJV), what is "Jewry?
A: This King James Version expression refers to the Jews.

Q: In Jn 7:3,5,10 (KJV), who were the "brethren" of Jesus?
A: These are the biological half-brothers of Jesus. Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:4; Galatians 1:19; and Jude 1 also record that Jesus had brothers. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (c.360 A.D.) 2:23 and 3:20 also says that Jesus’ four brothers were James (called the Just, Joses (or Joseph), Judas (same as Jude), and Simon. See 1 Corinthians 9:5 for who for more discussion.

Q: In Jn 7:7, did the world not hate the disciples, or did the world hate them in Jn 15:20-21?
A: Two points to consider in the answer.
In John 7:7, the disciples were still learning, and the world did not yet hate them, because they were not yet consistently preaching to turn to Jesus. The Jews and Romans had not reached to point of wanting to persecute Christians, yet.
In John 15:20-21, Jesus prophesied that the time would soon come when the world was going to hate them because they belonged to Christ.

Q: In Jn 7:8, why did Jesus say that He was not or not yet going to the feast?
A: Five points to consider in the answer.
1. Some manuscripts say "not going". These manuscripts include Sinaiticus, Cantabrigiensis, Bohairic Coptic, Armenian, and the Diatessaron.
2. Other manuscripts, such as Bodmer II (125-175 A.D.), Bodmer 14,15 (third century) and Vaticanus says "not yet".
3. Even if one knew the exact Greek, one cannot make too much out of the precise words, as it is not known whether Jesus was speaking here in Greek or Aramaic.
4. Regardless, Jesus was not making a promise, but stating his intentions, so either manuscript reading is fine.
5. Perhaps manuscript variations serve God’s purpose. They might show us the ways we are not to take the words of scripture at too high a level of precision.

Q: In Jn 7:8, why did Jesus say here that His time was not yet come?
A: It was not yet time for Jesus to start His public ministry, culminating in Him dying on the cross for our sins.

Q: In Jn 7:10, why did Jesus apparently change His mind and go to Jerusalem, after Jesus told his brothers He was not going?
A: Jesus did not break a promise, rather Jesus changed his mind on what He intended to do. However, behind this simple answer is an important point to learn. There is a difference between an expression of intent and a promise.
When Critics Ask p.414 gives a different answer. Jesus’ brothers wanted Jesus to go to Jerusalem and "openly show Himself as the Messiah." Jesus did go later, but not in the way His brothers suggested He go.

Q: In Jn 7:13, why did the people "fear the Jews"? They were all Jews!
A: The people here feared the Jewish authorities. It often makes sense to distinguish the beliefs and practices of the common people from the official religious teaching.

Q: In Jn 7:17, are all who choose to do God’s will going to Heaven? -even Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
A: As Adam’s son Cain learned, God does not accept all sacrifices made to Him. As 1 Corinthians 10:20 shows, you have to at least offer your sacrifices to the True God. Many people focus on how other religions teach wrong doctrines and "mess with a person’s head". Equally important is that they anesthetize people to desiring what is best and "mess with their heart".
1. In some religions, including some forms of Hinduism, doing good is not a goal. Rather, a goal is to experience both good and evil. See the next question for proof of this.
2. In some religions, including Buddhism and Hinduism, they do not want to live forever in Heaven. Their goal is to escape the undesirable cycle of rebirth and go to Nirvana, or in other cases, be joined to the eternal flame.
3. In some religions, truth does not matter. Hinduism is noted as a religion where the "law of non-contradiction" is not a great concern.

Q: In Jn 7:17, what does a false religion, Hinduism, teach about doing good?
A: It teaches at least two very different things.
It is blessed to do good. "The good is one thing; the pleasant is another. These two, differing in their ends, both prompt to action. Blessed are they that choose the good; they that choose the pleasant miss the goal." Katha Upanishad p.16
On the other hand…
1. "Know that all states of being-be they of goodness, passion or ignorance - are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything, but I am independent. I am not under the modes of material nature, for they, on the contrary, are within Me. Deluded by the three modes [goodness, passion and ignorance], the whole world does not know Me, who am above the modes and inexhaustible" Bhagavad Gita 7.12-13 p.379-380.
2. "Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service, he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination." Bhagavad Gita 9.30 p.494
3. "It is written: ‘He who knows the joy of Brahman, which words cannot express and the mind cannot reach, is free from fear. He is not distressed by the thought, ‘Why did I not do what is right? Why did I do what is wrong? He who knows the joy of Brahman, knowing both good and evil, transcends both." Taittiriya Upanishad p.58.
4. "My sons kill their enemies and my daughter is an empress, and I am completely victorious. My voice is supreme in my husband’s ears. The oblation that Indra made and so became glorious and supreme, this is what I have made for you O gods. I have truly become truly without rival wives. Without rival wives, killer of rival wives, victorious and pre-eminent, I have grabbed for myself the attraction of the other women as if it were the wealth of flighty women." This wonderful little combination of worship and early Hindu "family values" is from the Rig Veda 10.159.3-5.

Q: In Jn 7:18, is Jesus saying there is no unrighteousness in all people who seek the Father’s glory?
A: No, rather, Jesus is obliquely referring to Himself, saying there is no unrighteousness in Him.

Q: In Jn 7:28, why did Jesus preach in the Temple, since He went to Jerusalem secretly in Jn 6:10 in order not to be noticed?
A: If Jesus went openly as an individual, the authorities could arrest him easily. However, once there, while Jesus was in the middle of a large and sympathetic crowd, they would not be able to arrest him. They would want to wait until there were as few other people as possible. Jesus and the disciples spent the night outside of Jerusalem in a spot where they would never be found, - that is, unless they were betrayed.

Q: In Jn 7:38-39, "where in scripture does it say "streams of living water will flow from him"?
A: Ancient literature did not distinguish between an exact quote, a paraphrase of one sentence, and a paraphrase of the common concept of multiple sentences. The New Geneva Study Bible p.1676 says that while this is not an exact quote of any Old Testament Scripture, it can be a general reference to both Isaiah 44:3 and Ezekiel 36:25-27.

Q: In Jn 7:38-39, how do streams of living water flow from Jesus?
A: Just as water gives life, growth, cleansing, and quenches thirst, Jesus gives us that spiritually.

Q: In Jn 7:39, was the Holy Spirit in the world prior to Jesus coming to earth?
A: Yes, but in a more limited way. In Old Testament times, the Holy Spirit was with the prophets, but the average believer then did not have the Holy Spirit.

Q: In Jn 7:51-52, I am not sure, if I lived back in the time of Christ, I would have been able to figure everything out that I was supposed to do. Is that necessary?
A: While you might not have figured out everything on your own back them, who says we can figure out everything on our own today, either? This is why we need to ask for God’s help, and we need the help of each other. Everyone, left on their own, can come up with some foolish and boneheaded views. We need God’s help and each other to provide help and correction.

Q: In Jn 7:52, was Jesus from Bethlehem in Judea, or Nazareth in Galilee?
A: Both; Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judah, and he was raised in Nazareth in Galilee.

Q: In Jn 7:52, why did they say a prophet never came from Galilee, when Jonah came from that region, Gath-Hepher, about three miles from Nazareth? (The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.971 brings this up.)
A: Notice the speakers are unbelieving Jews. The Bible does not say "no prophet ever came from that Galilee". Rather it says "they said, no prophet ever came from Galilee." The speakers who rejected Jesus were incorrect here.

Q: In Jn 7:53-8:11, what do English Bible translations today say?
A: The KJV has it with no comment.
The NKJV has it in the text with the footnote, "NU brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss. of John."
The NASB has it in brackets with a footnote saying, "Most of the ancient authorities omit John 7.53-8.11. Those which contain it vary much from each other."
The uNASB has it in brackets. A footnote says, "Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7:53-8:11"
Wuest has it translated with no comment.
The NIV has it set up by lines and a comment saying "[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11]"
The RSV has it in the text with a footnote "Some ancient authorities insert 7.53-8.11 either at the end of this gospel or after Lk 21:38, with variations of the text. Others omit it altogether."
The NRSV has it in brackets with a footnote saying, "The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful."
Williams translates it with two footnotes at the bottom both saying that the best mss. omit it.

Q: In Jn 8:3-4, why did the Pharisees bring the woman caught in the very act of adultery to Jesus and not the man?
A: That is a good question, especially since Deuteronomy 22:22-24 says that both were to be brought. It seems they were less interested in the man seeing justice than the woman. Or, perhaps they were not interested in justice at all, only in trapping Jesus. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.372, When Critics Ask p.415, and Josh McDowell (in a talk) noticed this illegality, too.

Q: Does Jn 8:3-4 show that Jesus did not accept capital punishment?
A: No, but the proceedings were not proper, as the man was not also brought. See the previous question for more info.

Q: In Jn 8:3-4, where in the Old Testament does it command that the woman be stoned to death for adultery (a Muslim brought this up)?
A: Execution was proscribed for adultery in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22-24. The form of execution, stoning, is given in Deuteronomy 22:24 in the example of a man who sleeps to a virgin betrothed to a husband in the city.

Q: In Jn 8:6, in the story of the adulterous woman, what did Jesus write in the sand?
A: Six points to consider in the answer.
1. Most Bible manuscripts say "wrote on the ground" These include Cantabrigiensis, the Byzantine Lectionary, Bohairic Coptic, and others.
2. However, the Armenian manuscripts (5th and 9th century) say, "wrote on the ground the sins of each of them".
3. However, other manuscripts and authors do not have this part of John. These include: Bodmer 2, Bodmer 14,15, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sahidic Coptic, Gothic, Diatessaron.
4. Assuming most manuscripts are correct, Scripture is silent on what Jesus did with the stick on the ground. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.371-373 says that whatever it was, it convicted them of their own sins. Some speculate that Jesus was writing their sins, or the names of the girlfriends of some of them.
5. They only brought the woman caught in the act; they never brought the man. Perhaps some of the men the woman had committed adultery with were in the crowd.
6. On the other hand, Now That’s a Good Question p.586-587 says that not only do we not know, but we do not know for sure that Jesus wrote anything. He might have just been doodling while he was thinking. However, there was something that caused all the men to abruptly leave.

Q: In Jn 8:11, since Jesus followed the Mosaic Law, why did Jesus not condemn the woman?
A: There are two points to consider in the answer.
Jesus was not compelled to bring punishment on the woman he knew was guilty, because 1) Jesus was not a government authority here, 2) Jesus was the one who gave the law, and 3) the procedure was not proper, as the man was not brought also.
However, Jesus actually did follow the Mosaic Law. There had to be an accuser, and there were no accusers. In addition, the whole situation was strange, as she was caught in the act, and yet there was no man brought forth.

Q: In Jn 8:12, how is Jesus the light of the world?
A: Light is indispensable to our life. Not only does it attract people, it keeps people from stumbling in the dark, let’s us examine ourselves, recognize each other, and enjoy beauty. Even back then, people could figure out that without light, indoor plants do not grow. Jesus is more important to us than even physical light.

Q: In Jn 8:13-14, why did the Pharisees claim Jesus bearing record of himself meant his record was not valid?
A: If someone made a claim with no evidence, the claim would be suspect. Jesus thought that it would be strange to try to apply to Him. After all The Father in a sense testified to everyone about Jesus, by the prophecies written hundreds to a thousand years before, and by having Jesus perform many miracles at that time.

Q: In Jn 8:14-18, why did Jesus answer the Pharisees the way He did?
A: There probably are a variety of reasons.
1. Being a part of that culture, Jesus understood the preconceptions of the Pharisees in general.
2. Jesus understand these Pharisees individually.
3. Jesus often spoke figuratively by choice (John 16:25,29).
4. It could be merciful not to say to