“Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36).
The difficulty of this verse is that it appears to contradict other scriptures of the New Testament that show the Kingdom of God to be something that would be established in this world. Adding to the apparent confusion, Jesus said in the second half of John 18:36 that his kingdom was not “in,” but “from” another place.
The answer to the seeming difficulty is that both aspects of the Kingdom of God are true. On the one hand, the Kingdom of God is certainly in heaven. This seems obvious in the expression “the Kingdom of Heaven,” though that is actually not a proof. Matthew, writing to a predominantly Jewish audience, used “Kingdom of Heaven” because many Jews used that expression in order to avoid unnecessary use of the name of God – just as in English people sometimes say “Good heavens” which is just an indirect way of using God’s name. All the other Gospel writers use “Kingdom of God.” But apart from this detail it is obvious that God rules as King in heaven and in that sense, the “Kingdom of God” is the “Kingdom of Heaven” (see Matthew 5:34, Daniel 4:37, etc.).
On the other hand, a great many scriptures clearly show the kingdom of heaven will be established on earth – something Christ said we should pray for (Matthew 6:10) and a truth at the core of his teaching, as we see in the Gospels: “…Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matthew 3:2). The situation is not unlike that of earlier centuries when the colonial powers were located in their own countries, but took over distant lands. It was equally true to say that the “kingdom of France” and the “kingdom of England” were in their respective areas, but also that these kingdoms were “coming near” the areas they annexed, and that the rule of those kingdoms was finally established in the new lands.
With this background and a little extra information, we can now understand the meaning of Jesus’ words in John 18.36. The Greek word used in John (basileia) and translated “kingdom” can mean not only the physical actual kingdom, but also the “rule” or “authority” of the king. In that sense, it is like the colonial analogy we used. French Canada, called “New France,” was not France, but part of the kingdom of France in the sense it was under the rule of the king of France. Sometimes people say that Christ did not speak Greek, but rather would have said these words in Aramaic or possibly Hebrew. Even if that is true, the Aramaic (malkuta) and Hebrew (malkuth) words have exactly the same double meaning.
So, the words “My kingdom is not of this world” spoken by Jesus can just as properly be translated “My authority is not of this world … my authority is from another place.” Jesus’ words do not refer then to being the ruler of the kingdom in heaven, but to his having authority from the kingdom in heaven.
When we understand the double meaning of “kingdom,” we can see how John 18:36 does not contradict the many scriptures regarding the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, but simply refers to the origin of Christ’s authority as that kingdom’s King.
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:1-2)
Many Christians think these words of Christ mean that we should never judge anyone under any circumstances. But is that what Jesus’ words mean in this case?
The larger context in which these verses occur is that of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), and the statement “do not judge” takes on different meaning when we look at that larger context. Jesus’ very next words, were, in fact:
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? … You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5).
Here, Jesus shows not that it is wrong to admit there is a problem in someone else’s life, but that we should be careful to not be hypocritical if we do judge the other person. In a similar manner, Jesus then continued to say: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs …” (Matthew 7:6), and it is clear that we must judge whether individuals are acting as “dogs” or “pigs” in order to follow this command.
So Jesus does not seem to be saying that judging others is a problem so much as overly harsh (Matthew 7:2) or hypocritical judging (Matthew 7:3-5). This understanding is further supported by the things Jesus continued to say a little later in his sermon: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:15-16). We cannot watch for false prophets without making a judgment of their character and nature based on their actions and deeds – as Christ said, “by their fruit you will recognize them,” a statement reiterated in verse 20, and one which clearly shows there are times when the Christian needs to judge an individual’s behavior.
Given these facts it is clear that Jesus’ words “Do not judge” must be understood in the light of what he continued to say in his sermon – not that we cannot asses and form opinions regarding the spiritual behavior of other people, but that we must be very careful not to judge them unjustly, overly harshly or hypocritically. The Gospel of John shows Christ also commanded his disciples “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly” (John 7:24).
Christians can and must judge in certain circumstances, as the apostle Paul stated: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?” (1 Corinthians 6:2). But Christ warns us that we must always be careful to judge righteously.
Filling the wine jars with water. From an ancient mosaic.
Scripture in Focus: John 2:3-4
In the story of the wedding at Cana when Jesus performed the miracle of turning water into wine, readers sometimes think that he addressed his mother somewhat harshly or even disrespectfully. Look at the exchange:
“When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, ‘They have no more wine.’ ‘Woman, why do you involve me?’ Jesus replied. ‘My hour has not yet come’” (John 2:3-4). Jesus’ words sound perhaps even harsher in the KJV: “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?” But there is no harshness or disrespect here at all. Actually, “woman” was a standard form of address in the ancient world – just as Jesus often addresses males as “Man” (Luke 5:20, etc.) – and the expression carries no lack of respect any more than saying “lady” or “ma’am” would for us today.
Remember that we don’t know the actual words Jesus used in this circumstance. He probably spoke to His mother in Aramaic which was the commonly used language in Palestine at that time, but in the Greek in which the New Testament was written, the word “woman” guné (from which we get our word “gynecologist”) is in the ‘vocative’ case which was reserved for addressing others, even in the most formal speech. Jesus used the same form of address when speaking to other women (Matt. 15:28, etc.). At his crucifixion, when he lovingly delivered his mother into the care of his disciple John as his last act of kindness before his death, this was the form of the word he used in saying to her “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26).
Another detail of the wedding story which might sound harsh to our ears is the fact that Jesus said: “…why do you involve me?” (John 2:4), or as the KJV has it: “…what have I to do with thee?” But in the original Greek, the expression is literally “What [is that] to me and to you?” – in other words he includes his mother with himself in saying, in effect, “Is this our responsibility?” or perhaps even “Does this situation need to involve us?”
But the story itself shows us that there was no tension between Jesus and his mother. Immediately after he answered her, note that “His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you,’” showing that she had not been rebuffed and that Jesus was about to help as she had requested – as, of course, he did.
Although the turning of water into wine is usually said to be Jesus’ first miracle, we do not know that to be the case. The New Testament does not say it was his first, it is just his first recorded miraculous deed. The fact that Mary turned to Jesus and asked him to help in the situation suggests that he may have already quietly done deeds of healing and help before this point. In saying his time was not yet come (John 2:3-4), Jesus may have meant not the performance of good deeds, but that the time for public display of such deeds – as in a wedding before many guests – was not necessarily yet.
The principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is one of the most well-known laws in the Bible, but do we really understand it as we should? Known legally as the lex talionis or the “law of retaliation,” and discussed by Jesus himself in his teaching, most people see the law of “an eye for an eye” as an ultimately fair but cruel principle of revenge and restitution. But is that really what this law is all about?
You can find the surprising answer to this question, and what Christ meant in his comment on the law, in our article uploaded today: “ ‘An Eye For An Eye’: A Law of Revenge or Restraint?” Don’t miss it – it might just change your understanding of something you always took for granted!
“Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ … for each one should carry their own load” (Galatians 6:2-5).
On the surface, these two statements of the apostle Paul – only a few words from each other – certainly seem contradictory, but are they?
First, we should recognize that ancient literature often compares and contrasts opposite situations – just as in the biblical proverbs that say “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him” (Proverbs 26:4) and “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5). The two thoughts are complementary, each giving part of the story. Paul frequently uses this same technique of contrasting opposites in his epistles (for example, Philippians 2:12-13, 2 Corinthians 6:8-10, 2 Corinthians 7:10, 2 Corinthians 12:10), and what Paul states in Galatians 6 is complementary in the same way.
When Paul tells us we should carry each other’s burdens then that we must carry our own loads, he uses two slightly different words. The first word, translated “burdens” in verse 2 (Greek baré), always connotes the weight of the burdens and stresses the “burdensome” nature of what is carried. The word translated “load” in verse 5 (phortion) was often applied to the pack carried by a soldier on the march. It can connote something heavy or light, whatever has been assigned to the individual. It is the word Christ used when he said “My yoke is easy, and my load is light” (Matthew 11:30) and when he spoke of the heavy loads the Pharisees placed on their followers (Matthew 23:4).
We see what Paul had in mind regarding the load each one must carry when we look at the immediately preceding verse: “Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else” (Galatians 6:4). Paul shows here that rather than comparing ourselves unwisely with others, we should look at our own situations and “test” or check our own standing, because we all stand alone before God in terms of His assessment. Paul is stressing – as he states next – that each person has individual responsibilities that no one else can carry. We must prove own standing before God, as no one can perform our religion or fulfill our beliefs for us. That is the “pack” assigned to us for our march. On the other hand, life has many difficulties and problems that weigh us down, and Paul reminds us that these are burdens we can help each other with.
So, Paul’s meaning is clear. We are all given the responsibilities of our faith to bear in life and these are things we must shoulder and bear willingly as good soldiers on the route march to which we have been called. Yet, if we are walking with God and not entirely by our own strength, as Christ showed, those loads need not be oppressive or heavy. On the other hand, every one of us carries the weight of personal problems and difficulties which are just part of life. We can certainly look to God for extra help in times when those burdens become oppressive – and one of the ways He answers that prayer is through help given us by fellow believers.
We all have a burden we are expected to carry, but the more closely we walk with God the lighter it seems – and the more we are able to help those who need help with their own burdens.
“… one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water” (John 19:34).
This small but graphic detail of the crucifixion of Jesus carries more meaning than we might presume, and there are both historical and scriptural reasons why we need to understand it.
John’s account makes it clear that the Roman soldiers wanted to make sure the crucified individuals did not continue alive into the Sabbath day. When they came to Jesus, they found him apparently already dead – so one of the soldiers pierced his side, doubtless with an intent to puncture his heart, to make sure he was no longer alive (John 19:31-33).
John’s account of the event is important in our knowing that Jesus was truly dead and that the imaginative reconstructions of those who surmise Jesus was perhaps not killed by his crucifixion are not based on fact. But what John records is important in another way.
First, we should understand what the blood and water were. Anyone mercilessly whipped by “flogging,” as Jesus was, could go into hypovolemic shock caused by loss of blood. The medical symptoms of this condition are exactly consistent with John’s description of the crucifixion. For example, the victim could collapse due to low blood pressure (John 19:17); the kidneys could shut down and the victim would experience extreme thirst as the body could not replenish lost fluids (John 19:28).
There is also another symptom of the body’s natural reaction to the extensive laceration by flogging that we should understand. The hypovolemic shock Jesus inevitably experienced would cause sustained rapid heartbeat and fluid would gather within the pericardium, the membrane forming a sack around the heart. This gathering of fluid, called “pericardial effusion,” explains why, after the soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side to reach his heart, blood and water came out as John recorded (John 19:34).
But the significance of this careful recording by John goes beyond establishing that Jesus was, in fact, dead. The Book of Hebrews tells us, regarding the establishment of the Sinai covenant between God and ancient Israel:
“Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people…” (Hebrews 9:15-19).
The scarlet wool and hyssop branches were not sprinkled on the congregation. They were the instruments – symbolic of sacrifice and cleansing respectively – used to sprinkle the blood and water on the people. It was the sprinkling of the blood and water that ratified the Old Covenant. In the death of Jesus, the blood and water that flowed from his side were the manner in which the new covenant was inaugurated – a covenant made not just with one nation, but with all of humanity.
Recent Comments