John | Knowable Word

The Titles of Jesus in John

September 11, 2023 By Ryan Higginbottom

All authors employ names and titles to convey meaning in their work. The biblical writers are no exception.

I’m in the middle of a project examining the use of titles and names for Jesus in the Gospels. My first article laid out my methodology and looked at the top 10 titles of Jesus in the Gospels. I have written about the titles of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Today we turn to the Gospel of John.

Top 5 Titles

John uses 129 titles for Jesus, which is 29.1% of all such titles in the Gospels. Since John contains 23.3% of the verses in the Gospels, we might say John contains more titles than expected.

Here are the top 5 titles in John.

Lord (36 times)
Son (18 times)
Son of Man (11 times)
Son of God (9 times)
Christ (8 times)

The title “Son” is used here more than in any other Gospel, making up 18/30 uses in all of the Gospels. Fourteen of these times, Jesus claims this title for himself, and the other four times are by the Gospel author.

In general, the titles in John tend to be clustered. For example, while “Lord” appears most frequently as a title, 32 of these 36 occurrences happen in just five chapters (chapters 11, 13, 14, 20, and 21). Something similar is true for the title “Son”—15/18 of these uses happen in chapters 3, 5, and 17.

Titles Used by John

Of all the Gospel authors, John uses the most titles for Jesus. He wrote titles for Jesus 17 times, calling him “Lord” five times, “Son” four times, and “Word” four times, among others.

Unlike in Luke, none of these titles dominates the others.

Titles and John’s Purpose

As my co-blogger Peter Krol pointed out in his article about the feeding of the 5000 in John, this fourth Gospel leaves no doubts about its purpose.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30–31)

All that John wrote was to convince his readers and hearers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. How do the titles that John used reveal or support this?

John used both the titles “Christ” (8 times) and “Son of God” (9 times). However, the title “Son” (used 18 times) is also relevant here. In context, most of the time “Son” is used it is shorthand for “Son of God.” The title is put in context with “Father” when that title clearly refers to God. Here are some examples.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:16–17)
“The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:35–36)
“So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:19–24)

John walked with Jesus and wrote his words down, and Jesus was not ambiguous about his mission or his power. Anyone reading John’s Gospel honestly will see Jesus presented as the Son of God and Savior of the world.

John’s use of titles in his Gospel doesn’t just support his main point. John used the titles of Jesus as a tool to communicate his main point.

What Comes After Resurrection?

April 10, 2023 By Ryan Higginbottom

Bruno van der Kraan (2018), public domain

We tend to think of Jesus’s resurrection as his last act on earth, the final event in the Gospel accounts. But this isn’t so.

While the empty tomb is the last major episode of the Gospels, we must read on to know what Jesus did afterward. The Gospel writers did not end their accounts with the resurrection!

What Jesus spent his time doing and saying after the resurrection was crucial, both for the disciples and for us. In this article we’ll look at the Gospel of John, and we’ll see that Jesus spent his time confirming the resurrection and sending his disciples on their mission.

Jesus Confirms His Resurrection

I will not focus on the resurrection itself, as Peter has already written about the resurrection as Jesus’s final sign in John’s Gospel.

Jesus’s meetings with the disciples after his resurrection take up most of the last two chapters of John. Jesus took care to reveal himself and show that he was the same man who had recently died and been buried.

When Jesus first appeared to the gathering of the fearful, hiding disciples, he showed them his hands and side (John 20:20). Thomas had not been present, and he (famously) wanted to see the proof for himself. Jesus encouraged Thomas to touch his hands and side—something we are not told he did for the other disciples. Thomas believed, and said “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:24–29)

John understood that Jesus aimed to persuade. He said that Jesus did many other signs for the disciples beyond those which were recorded (John 20:30). John was on board with this mission—he wrote his Gospel in part so that readers would believe Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31).

Jesus also appeared to seven of the disciples on the sea shore. They recognized Jesus when he told them to fish on the other side of their boat. He invited them to the shore and made them a breakfast of bread and fish. John emphasizes the importance of these appearances: “This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead” (John 21:14).

In these encounters, Jesus repeatedly confirmed that he was alive. His disciples could see and touch and eat with him. He was not a ghost or a hallucination; the resurrection really happened, just as he had said.

Jesus Commissions the Disciples

Jesus also took time after his resurrection to send his disciples on their mission.

When Jesus greeted his disciples at that first post-resurrection meeting, he said, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” He breathed on them, and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld” (John 20:21–22). John connects the power of the Holy Spirit with the sending of the disciples, just as Luke does (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8).

Jesus commissioned the disciples as a group, but he paid special attention to restore and empower Peter. Three separate times Jesus asks Peter if he (Peter) loves him (Jesus). When Peter says that he does, Jesus points him to his work: “Feed my lambs,” “Tend my sheep,” “Feed my sheep.” Jesus also told Peter directly: “Follow me” (John 21:15–19).

Later, when Peter asked Jesus about John, Jesus cut through the question to remind Peter of what was most important: “You follow me!” (John 21:22)

An Important Connection

After his resurrection, Jesus focused on confirming his resurrection and sending his disciples on their mission. But these are not separate tasks for Jesus.

Jesus’s resurrection confirmed all of his teaching and prophecy. Since the disciples were sent out to proclaim the good news of the Messiah, it was vital that they had this validation for themselves. Because they would face intense persecution and hardship for their message, they needed to be convinced of the truth. Jesus sent them on their mission, emboldened with resurrection hope and power.

What was true for Jesus’s disciples in the first century is true for us today as well. This is, after all, why John’s Gospel was written (John 20:31).

Are you convinced that Jesus rose from the dead? If so, does this give you courage and hope to go on the mission God has for you?

Grammar Crash Course: Clauses

December 2, 2022 By Peter Krol

What makes this paragraph so strange?

Unsteadily wobbling toward me, when my son’s arms stretch out. In my heart of hearts like a flame. Speaking my name—”Papa”—for the first time, but sounding like too many margaritas: “Baba.” Joy to explode in here. Happiness over there. Resounding exultation on all sides. Not a toddler but a teenager-in-training. Flos floridus.

If I treated it like a poem and gave each unit of thought a separate line, there would be no big deal. You could probably follow along.

But as a standard prose paragraph, it doesn’t quite work. Despite hints of comprehensibility, there remains something sorely lacking. The paragraph’s citizens include not a single independent clause.

Distinguishing Dependency

In English, there are two main types of clause: independent and dependent.

Independent clauses contain a complete thought that could function as a complete sentence.
Dependent clauses don’t contain a complete thought and can’t function as a complete sentence.

In the paragraph above, “unsteadily wobbling toward me” is not a complete thought because it has no subject, and -ing verbs cannot stand on their own as main verbs. To make the clause independent, I could add to it (He is unsteadily wobbling toward me) or revise it (He unsteadily wobbles toward me).

The grammatical rules and explanation of dependency can get far more complex than this, but the most important thing to know is this idea of a “complete” thought. Take any phrase or clause and say it out loud. Ask yourself: Could this stand by itself in a conversation? If so, it’s probably an independent clause. If not, it’s probably a dependent clause.

“When my son’s arms stretch out.” That could not stand alone; it must be dependent. “My sons arms stretch out”—that minor omission transforms the dependent clause into an independent one.

Why It Matters

Distinguishing dependent clauses from independent clauses may seem like an obscure and academic thing to do. Not the most thrilling way to occupy one’s morning. But this is perhaps the most important grammatical skill to master for your Bible study to go anywhere. Especially when you study epistles.

One of the greatest challenges of studying an epistle is that the sentences are often so loooooooong. We must have a way to identify which part of the sentence carries the most weight. Or how the parts relate to one another. Without that skill, all we’ve got is gut instinct. So we just camp out on a single word or phrase that strikes our fancy, and we reflect ponderously on the deep things of the universe contained in that word or phrase. And the apostles’ harps pop a string every time someone on earth reads their magnificent works of literature in such a demeaning manner.

When facing those long sentences, the best thing you can do is label the clauses as either independent or dependent. Then, set aside all the dependent clauses for a time to focus your attention on the independent clauses. The dependent clauses are dependent because they are depending on something. That something is going to be the more important part of the sentence. In other words, the independent clauses in a sentence contain the main idea(s) of the sentence. The dependent clauses are either window dressing or evidence for those main ideas. So to grasp the main ideas we must recognize the independent clauses.

If you fail to recognize independent clauses, you will fail to grasp the main point of a sentence. If you fail to grasp the main point of a sentence, you’ll fail to grasp the main point of the paragraph. Fail to do that, and… Well, let’s just say you might as well be looking at the Greek original (or if know Greek, let’s say you might as well be looking at an Urdu translation) for all the good it will do you.

Examples

In the ESV, Ephesians 1:3-4 is one long sentence. “Who has blessed us in Christ” and “even as he chose us in him” and “that we should be holy and blameless” are all dependent clauses. None of them carries the sentence’s main idea. “Blessed be the God and Father”—now we’re talking! That’s independent, containing a complete thought. So the main idea of the sentence is that God is blessed. The rest of the sentence expands on that idea and gives it more detail. But let’s make sure not to focus on the hows and whys of what God did to the point of forgetting Paul’s emphasis on who this God is. How blessed he is.

Or take Philippians 4:8. Every clause that starts with “whatever is” is dependent. The independent clause is “brothers…think about these things.” Now it is crucial to understand the nature of those things we ought to think about (true, honorable, etc.). But a word study on “true,” another on “honorable,” and another on “just” will prevent you from interpreting the sentence. Paul’s point is not to define a whole set of virtues. His purpose is to command his people to think about the right set of virtues.

Though it’s not from an epistle, John 3:16 gives another great case study. “That he gave his only Son” and “that whoever believes in him should not perish” are both dependent. The main, independent clause is “God so loved the world.” The dependent clauses explain how God loved the world (he gave his Son) and why God loved the world (so people could not perish but have life). But those ideas support the main idea that God loved the world. If we shift the emphasis from that main clause, we will struggle to make sense of what else Jesus says to Nicodemus in this passage.

Do What You Wish Your Theological Opponents Would Do

May 20, 2022 By Peter Krol

My sixth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall hold your conclusions (and your theological tradition) loosely enough to allow commentaries to compel you back into the text to discover the biblical author’s intentions for his original audience.

Please understand that I am not opposed to theological traditions. I do not believe it is possible to escape all tradition and construct a perfectly objective theology from scratch. Nor do I think it would be desirable to do so if we could. Theological tradition holds great value as a safeguard and alignment across localities and generations, in defiance of the shifting winds of the world. Theological tradition rooted in faithful handling of the scripture is to be celebrated and encouraged.

As long as we are careful not to replace the scripture in the tug of war with those traditions.

The Problem

The problem is that almost nobody believes they are doing this. Most people with a dearly-held set of theological convictions believe they have derived those convictions from the scripture. Consequently, they believe their theological opponents are the ones who have replaced the scripture with their traditions. And I am not pointing my finger at you, dear reader, but at myself, as I am just as guilty of such presumption toward my detractors as anybody.

I’m sure there are some people in the world who do this—replace the scripture with their tradition—intentionally. It is not to them that I write, for they are outside the pale of biblical Christianity. Anyone who claims to follow the Jesus of the Bible must love and revere the Bible the way he did and not willingly set it aside in favor of manmade religion, however enlightened or modernized that religion may claim to be.

But the chief problem I address is with those inside the pale of biblical Christianity. Those who want to follow Jesus and not their own hearts. Those who honor the Bible as containing the very words of God, to be believed and put into practice. Because too often, in the name of Jesus and the Bible, they willingly impair their vision of Jesus and the Bible with the sunglasses of their theological tradition. And so the tradition becomes primary, and the scripture itself becomes secondary.

An Example

To give only one example, consider the following scriptures:

John 6:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
1 Tim 2:3-4: “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

We can tie ourselves in knots trying to reconcile these two verses. But when doing so, many first presume that one of the verses is a universal truth about the character of God, and the other is a particularized truth for a given context. But which one is universal and which one is particular depends on your tradition. Is he an irresistable-drawing God with particular salvation-desires, or is he a salvation-desiring God with particular-drawing behaviors?

But what if we could rest ourselves content in uncovering, in all its fullness, what Paul meant by the second statement in its context, and what Jesus (or more precisely, John recording Jesus) meant by the first statement in its context? Would you be willing to stand on both truths, unfiltered by tradition and unadjusted by preconception? And if your tradition didn’t have a clear place for both truths to coexist, such that one had to be given primacy over the other, would you be willing to allow the scripture to replace that tradition in this matter? Can you hold your tradition loosely enough to allow each text to speak for itself, such that the meaning it would have had for the original audience drives the meaning you assign to it today?

Application to Commentary Usage

I imagine you wish your theological opponents would hold their tradition more loosely, so they could truly observe and receive what the scripture teaches. And I am sure they wish the same for you. This is where commentaries can be a great benefit to us.

Commentaries give you an opportunity to poke and prod your tradition with the insights and observations of others who are not as beholden to that tradition. Insofar as a commentator’s commitment is to proclaim a particular tradition, the value of his commentary may be reduced for those outside his tradition. But insofar as a commentator’s commitment is to proclaim and parade the text in all its glory, the value of his commentary is increased for those of any theological tradition.

Find those commentaries, and let them inflame your delight in the word of God. Then you can set the commentaries back down and gaze anew on the living and abiding word of God with sharper sight.

Context Matters: In the World, but Not of the World

July 19, 2021 By Ryan Higginbottom

Perhaps you’ve heard that Christians are (or ought to be) in the world but not of the world. You’ve learned that those who follow Jesus should interact with their friends and neighbors (the world) but they should also be distinct, with different priorities and standards.

This phrase is common in Christian circles, but many may not know where it comes from. Is this a biblical saying? If so, are we using it correctly? If we read the Bible as a whole and not as an inspirational-motto jukebox, we’ll see that some familiar expressions take on a deeper meaning than we originally thought.

Within the Gospel of John

Let’s dispense with one thing first. “In the world but not of the world” does not appear in the Bible. Rather, it is a simple phrase that joins two sayings of Jesus together in a memorable way.

We find the pieces of this phrase in Jesus’s “high priestly prayer” in John 17. Jesus prays this prayer at the end of his last meal with his disciples, after Judas leaves to betray him (John 13). Jesus addresses the remaining disciples for three chapters (John 14–16) regarding his departure and the coming of the Holy Spirit. At the beginning of John 17, Jesus turns from talking to the disciples to praying to his Father for those same disciples.

In the World

My hunch is that “in the world” was pulled from John 17:11.

And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. (John 17:11)

Jesus was thinking about his departure from earth, contrasting where he will be (“no longer in the world”) with where the disciples will be (“in the world”). By “in the world,” Jesus means that the disciples are walking around on the earth like other living humans. This conclusion follows from the beginning of Jesus’s prayer.

I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (John 17:4–5)

Not of the World

The second part of this saying occurs a few verses later in Jesus’s prayer.

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. (John 17:14–16)

Whereas “in the world” was used by way of contrast between Jesus and his disciples, the phrase “not of the world” is used to show similarity. The disciples are not of the world just as Jesus is not of the world.

Jesus spoke of this idea in John 15:19. The disciples are not of the world because Jesus chose them out of the world. Put differently, the disciples are “the people whom [God] gave [Jesus] out of the world” (John 17:6). There is a fundamental difference between the disciples and other people now. Instead of being of the world, they are of Jesus.

Jesus’s Requests

The context of words and phrases in the Bible always matters. Both parts of this little saying are located within Jesus’s prayer. How are they connected to his requests?

With regard to the disciples being “in the world,” Jesus asks his Father to “keep them in your name…that they may be as one, even as we are one” (John 17:11). Jesus wants God to guard them, so that none will be lost (John 17:12). The end goal of this preservation is a divine unity.

Part of what identifies the disciples as not being “of the world” is that Jesus has given them his word (John 17:14). Jesus prays that his Father would not “take them out of the world,” but that he would “keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15). A related request falls two verses later: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).

A Helpful Phrase

Sometimes in these Context Matters posts, we correct a popular understanding of a verse. In this case, “in the world, but not of the world” is not found in Scripture, but the phrase is a helpful summary of biblical truths.

How much greater the reminder this phrase can provide, therefore, when we remember its components lie at the heart of Jesus’s prayer for his followers. Jesus still (and always) prays for his people, so we might conclude he prays these things for us now.

Those who follow Christ are in the world in a way that Jesus no longer is. Because we are still in the world we should ask God to keep us in his name that we might be one.

Those who follow Christ are, like him, not of the world. For this reason the world may hate us. So we should ask God to keep us from the evil one and sanctify us in his truth.

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

What makes the Bible different – According to the Bible

January 1, 2021 By Tom Hallman

Like many Christians, I have a lot of Bibles. Most of them sit on my bookshelf next to all kinds of other books. However, the Bible could not be more different than those other books. Here are several reasons why, according to the Bible itself:

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17 ESV)

The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63b ESV)

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 ESV)

Let’s observe several things about those texts. The Bible is…

Truth: Not just true, but truth. Many books on my shelf may be true, but the Bible alone is truth.
Spirit: There are powerful things happening in the spiritual realm that we usually can’t see, and that is where God’s Word resides. The fact that the Bible exists in the physical realm at all is a great grace to all God’s people.
Living: Most of my books are made from dead trees. While the Bible may also be printed on paper, it is just as alive, if not more so, than you and I are. I don’t claim to fully understand that, but I do marvel greatly at it!
Active: When I read the Bible, it is not full of passive words on a page. Unlike my other books, the burden of changing my life when reading the text does not rest on me, but on the Scriptures themselves.

The next time you hold your Bible and open it, take a moment to thank God for the very nature of His Word. It is truth, spirit, living and active – terms that do not apply to any other words that have been or ever will be written. This is why we not only do observation and interpretation of Scripture, but we seek to faithfully apply it as well!

May our response be like Simon Peter’s, who saw Jesus’ words for what they truly are:

After this many of [Jesus’] disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:66-68 ESV, emphasis mine)

Context Matters: To All Who Received Him

November 25, 2020 By Peter Krol

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
John 1:12

How much of our evangelistic effort roots itself in this verse, asking people to “receive Christ,” inviting him into their hearts? Is that what John meant when he wrote these words?

Jim Elliff argues that no, John did not have such a practice in mind. And Elliff shows us from the verse’s context a better understanding. Here is one place it takes him:

Our main work is not so much to explain the sinner’s response to Christ (that is important mainly for pretending believers), but to labor on the gospel itself. When we are brutally honest with people about their sin, and lucid about the only answer being in Christ, His death and resurrection, then we have preached the gospel. We have done what is necessary to cooperate with the Spirit in their conversion. We will actually work against the Spirit when we get caught up in a formulaic approach to the gospel as opposed to a content-filled proclamation. Get the message right and depend on God to convict and convert. You will know someone is saved, not when they “pray the prayer,” but when they repent and believe in Christ, with the evidence of truly following Him. Ask, “Do you believe?”

Elliff observes the text closely, in its context, and he argues, from John’s larger message, a better way to think about evangelism. This is terrific.

Check it out!

Context Matters: Apart From Me You Can Do Nothing

April 13, 2020 By Ryan Higginbottom

Perhaps you’ve heard that no one can do anything apart from Jesus. You may have been told this saying refers to our complete reliance upon God. Or, you may have read this phrase during leadership or evangelism training, urging your frequent communication with Jesus.

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible in context—not just as a collection of memorable phrases—we’ll find that some familiar verses take on richer and deeper meanings.

The Vine and the Branches

The phrase “apart from me you can do nothing” is just a portion of John 15:5. This is part of a long conversation Jesus has with his disciples on the evening of the Last Supper, after Judas departs (John 13:30). Jesus tells them he is the vine and his father is the vinedresser (John 15:1); God takes away branches that do not bear fruit, and he prunes every fruit-bearing branch (John 15:2).

Because of their parallel nature, we need to read John 15:4 and John 15:5 together.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:4–5)

In the immediate context, “you can do nothing” is related to “bear[ing] fruit” and “apart from me” stands opposite to “abide in me and I in him.” We cannot know Jesus’s full meaning in John 15:5 without understanding “abiding” and “bearing fruit.”

Abiding

In one way, the metaphor of the vine and branches makes clear the meaning of “abide.” Branches draw nourishment and life from the vine; without that connection, they die.

Abiding in Jesus is not an extra level of discipleship—it is essential! He is life itself; anyone who does not abide in Jesus is thrown away like a branch from the vine and burned (John 15:6).

Abiding in Jesus is also connected to both Jesus’s words and his love. If anyone abides in Jesus, his words abide in them, and their prayers will be answered (John 15:7). Jesus tells the disciples not just to abide in him but to abide in his love (John 15:9). He then explains what this means—if the disciples keep Jesus’s commandments, they will abide in his love (John 15:10). Jesus teaches this not as a burdensome duty but so their joy will be full (John 15:11).

We should also notice the similarity between the words “abide” and “abode,” or dwelling. Unfortunately, some translations obscure this link. Jesus is going to prepare a place for his disciples in his father’s house (dwelling); he wants them to be where he is (John 14:2–3). He speaks of his connection with the father as “the father abiding in me” (John 14:10, NASB). Throughout this discourse, Jesus’s relationship with his disciples shares many features of his relationship with his father.

Any disciple that wants to bear fruit must abide in Jesus and Jesus must abide in them (John 15:5). This mutual abiding, along with the other context summarized above, points to a unity, knowledge, obedience, and love that is life-sustaining and supernatural.

Bearing Fruit

As with abiding, bearing fruit goes hand-in-hand with following Jesus. Jesus says that bearing fruit is the way a person proves to be a disciple (John 15:8). In the metaphor of the vine and branches, bearing fruit is what normal, healthy branches do.

If anyone loves Jesus, they will keep his commandments (John 14:15), and thus we see a connection between bearing fruit and keeping Jesus’s commands. Jesus knows that we need help in this calling, which is why he promises to send “another helper”—the Holy Spirit (John 14:16). The Spirit abides with the disciples and will be in them (John 14:17, NASB).

We see this essential link between love, obedience, and the presence of God in John 14:23.

Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.” (John 14:23, NASB)

So bearing fruit is a Spirit-powered yet normal part of being a disciple of Jesus. And it happens as we abide in, love, and obey Jesus.

Abide in Him

Apart from Jesus we can do nothing. When we read this verse in context we see that Jesus is not primarily warning against self-reliance nor dismissing the contributions of non-Christians. Yes, he is drawing a sharp line between those who follow him and those who do not. But this is a call to life.

Those connected to the vine are animated by the life-giving Spirit, and they are fruit-bearing by nature. Apart from the vine, there is no nutrition, no life, no fruit.

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Thanks for visiting Knowable Word! If you like this article, you might be interested in receiving regular updates from us. You can sign up for our email list (enter your address in the box on the upper right of this page), follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Context Matters: Jesus Came to Give Abundant Life

March 2, 2020 By Ryan Higginbottom

Perhaps you’ve heard that Jesus didn’t just come to give life, he came to give abundant life. You may have seen teachers urge that Christians should not be poor, should not be sad, should not be sick, should not be lacking in any blessings God can give. After all, how does a less than existence match up with an abundant life?

When we learn to read the Bible properly—not as a series of isolated words and phrases—we find that some familiar phrases take on entirely new meanings.

The Audience

Jesus uses the “abundant life” phrase to a group of Pharisees in John 10. Importantly, these Pharisees gathered after a controversy surrounding Jesus’s healing of a blind man.

In John 9:1–7, Jesus comes across a man born blind. He anoints the man’s eyes with mud, tells him to go wash in the pool of Siloam, and the man comes back with sight. This starts several rounds of questioning from the Pharisees directed at both this man and his parents. No one wants to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah for fear of the Jews (John 9:22).

However, the man’s life has been changed so dramatically, he cannot help himself. He tells the Pharisees that this man is clearly from God, and the Pharisees cast him out (John 9:33–34). Jesus seeks out the man again, and he confesses Jesus as Lord (John 9:38). The purpose of the healing is realized; the miracle points back to Jesus.

Jesus, the Good Shepherd

Jesus launches into an extended figure of speech that leaves the Pharisees confused.

Jesus first tells the Pharisees about the shepherd of the sheep. The sheep will follow the shepherd, because they know his voice. But they will not follow a stranger with a strange voice (John 10:1–6).

Since this first use of a sheep/shepherd metaphor is confusing, Jesus reloads. He uses different metaphors.

So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.” (John 10:7–9)

And then we arrive at the verse in question.

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10)

It’s quite natural, after hearing this, to ask: What does it look like to have life abundantly? John (and Jesus) anticipates this question, because the answer comes quickly.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:11–15)

Having an abundant life means having a good shepherd!

Plenty of employees can perform simple tasks for the sheep, but they don’t care for the sheep at all. They will save their own skin when the wolf howls. But Jesus is so, so different. He is the good shepherd. He knows his sheep, and he lays down his life for his sheep.

Notice that nowhere in this passage do we see a discussion of money, large houses, swimming pools, or everlasting youth. The way Jesus uses this phrase has nothing to do with material possessions or anything doctors or therapists can offer. He intends something much better.

The Greatest Treasure

Jesus came to give himself for his sheep. He calls his sheep, and they perk up their ears and follow him because they recognize his voice. With the good shepherd the sheep will find pasture, shelter, and safety.

Jesus is quite comfortable at the center of this metaphor. Both his healings and his figures of speech point people back to him.

Many sheep are used to thieves and wolves in the field. But with a good shepherd, the sheep have a guide and friend who loves them. He knows them, and they know him. And this—this is abundant life.

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

What Does It Mean to Be Born of Water and the Spirit?

August 7, 2019 By Peter Krol

Here is a cogent and brief article from D.A. Carson on the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5. Carson observes the text in light of Jesus’ argument to Nicodemus. He compares and contrasts the statement with another statement in the same discussion. He explains why some common interpretations don’t fit the context. And he explains the Old Testament imagery that Jesus draws on, and which Jesus expects Nicodemus to have understood.

The question is important, because it lies at the heart of Jesus’s explanation of “born again,” of new birth, of regeneration…
Many people think the question Nicodemus poses shows that he is a rather dimwitted literalist. But that’s almost certainly too harsh. You don’t get to be called “the teacher of Israel” (John 3:10—possibly a title) if you can’t spot the odd metaphor. When he hears Jesus say that to enter the kingdom one must be “born again,” I suspect Nicodemus understands Jesus to mean that we are not good enough to enter the kingdom: we must start over, have a different origin, spring from a different life. Nicodemus thinks Jesus is going too far: people can’t really start over or claim a new life, boast of a new birth, or enjoy a new beginning.

This is world-class Bible study. Check it out!