In-depth analysis of John 8:12-19

Updated: Feb 4

From the Greek Interlinear of John 8:12-20:

In verse twelve, the capitalized “Palin” says “Once more, Further, and Again,” where this shows the importance of follow-up and continued teaching. Prior to this, Jesus had confronted “scribes and Pharisees” about a prostitute they had decided to stone to death. As to when that event happened, the people at Bible Hub place this bracketed disclaimed before the last verse in John 7: “The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.” That says there is evidence that what happened prior to John 8:12-20 is uncertain of the chronology. Therefore, “Again” becomes an important statement that Jesus never let up confronting the illegitimacy of false shepherds. The message of verse twelve is not so much a statement of truth about Jesus of Nazareth, because that truth loses merit in all times subsequent to his death when he would no longer be on the face of the planet shining the light of truth. This means the capitalized “Egō” is more important than a statement of “I.” It is an important statement that everyone who has an “ego” become elevated to the level of that which Jesus of Nazareth had will then become Jesus reborn – as in the name of Jesus brings one the right to speak “I” in his name. This realization is then furthered when Jesus said “akolouthōn emoi” (translated above as “follows me”) the truth is stating that the individual (“ho” as the masculine singular pronoun, meaning “he”) who “accompanies” Jesus, within one’s own self-ego, then is led by Jesus, as he has the right to say Jesus is “me.” This is much more important than someone then that was able to physically walk alongside or behind Jesus of Nazareth, “attending” to his needs. Therefore, the call today is to do the same as all who have followed Jesus, as Apostles in his name, do the same and allow one’s self-ego to be “joined with him.” When Jesus used the terms “phōs” and “scotia” (“light” and “darkness”), this goes beyond the physical conditions of day and night. In the phrase “phōs tou kosmou,” the physical “light of the world” that gives the “light of life” (“phōs tēs zōēs”) is the sun. All on earth that does not face the sun is then cast into shadows or darkness. The symbolism of that physical reality is the sun never ceases to shine life-giving light, while the earth never ceases to rotate and go in circles around the sun. Jesus was then using those terms as metaphor for the “light” of “divine illumination to reveal and impart life, through Christ,” [HELPS Word-studies] with “darkness” being “a brand of moral, spiritual obscurity (i.e. which blocks the light of God when faith is lacking).” [HELPS Word-studies]

In the same way that the “Pharisees” spoke to Jesus (who stood before them in the flesh) in a condescending manner, so too do all “Churches” of Christianity speak down on dead Jesus, as those who have studied the most and have made the most money learning about spiritual matters [not to mention buying all the religious paraphernalia that goes along with being in the profession of clerics that rule over the people’s minds]. By seeing this, any priest, bishop, or pope (et al) who does not stand publicly and state the following is wrong: “The Gospel reading today again tells of the Pharisees confronting Jesus, so please be advised that I reflect one of them as I speak.  I cannot be a reflection of Jesus, because I am led by my brain, not my heart. Without actually being Jesus, anyone who confronts what Jesus said from a position of spiritual ignorance is always and forevermore a Pharisee.  That’s me!”

The “Pharisees” are always reflections of those who profit from understanding Scripture.  Those profits cannot always be measured in financial gain, because wearing clerical garments affords one profits measured in other ways.  Thus, “Pharisees” are those who ‘dress the part’ that demands immediate respect, before they open their mouths. The confrontation the Pharisees made in response to what Jesus said begins with the capitalized word “Sy,” which places an important focus on “You.” By hearing what Jesus said and not understanding the spiritual implications of what he said [i.e.: not filled with the Holy Spirit, thus not Jesus reborn], they ridiculed Jesus by placing his claim that they represented “darkness” as his fault. The capitalization shows the great importance of how all “Pharisees” [i.e.: anyone not reborn as Jesus Christ] never ever attempt to grasp what Jesus said by becoming Jesus, so they always stay separate. Jesus is never “I” because he is always “You.” The translation of verse thirteen (NRSV, but the similar in others) makes the Pharisees out to be masters of logic, as “validity” is a statement of philosophical argument. As masters of Mosaic Law, the meaning was gleaned through such exercises of mental acumen. Because they never could truly understand the spiritual meaning of the Hebrew in the Torah, Psalms, and Prophets (the reason the common Jews beat their chests for not knowing how to stop sinning), they always took a flawed premise and used logic to reach an inevitable false conclusion.

The Pharisees then listened to what Jesus spoke, without discerning it was God speaking to them.  So, they took words they recognized and made flawed assumptions of what Jesus meant.  Their faith in their big brains meant they never once thought, “Maybe we misunderstood what he just said.  think we should ask him to clarify some things?” In reality, the Pharisees stated, “Sy peri seautou martyreis  ;  hē martyria sou ouk estin alēthēs,” being two statements that better translates as: “You concerning yourself giving a good report ; this evidence [from the good report] of you not exists true in fact [or worthy of credit].”

The concept of “validity” is replaced by the argument of logic (based on their abilities to memorize Mosaic Law) that they thought meant they must reject anything stated by one person, because the concept of “truth” was based on how many people believed something else. It is the logic that creates ‘stay in the box – stay between the lines – thinking.’  Jesus made a statement that none of them knew to be a fact. In this rejection by the Pharisees, without anything said about “light” or “darkness” or “life,” the focus is placed on “ho akolouthōn emoi” (“this following me”). This says there were no disciples standing beside Jesus to say, “Yeah! What he says I agree with.” The only one who was present (as evidenced by his being the only one to report this conversation) was John. This lone author of this event speaks volumes, silently.

The fact that John’s opinion did not matter, was not sought by either Jesus or the Pharisees, nor would it have been seen as “valid” had he opened his mouth in support of Jesus, says John was a child (he wasn’t a woman); and as such, he was seen as being of no consequence. As a child, he could not attest to an adult’s abilities.  John was simply allowed to watch and mentally remember, as that was the “Children should be seen, not heard” philosophy. Therefore, the Pharisees were able to reject Jesus’ claim as truth because he had no followers present to support that claim. This leads to verse fourteen, where two capitalized word begin it: “Apekrithē Iēsous.” It is wrong to overlook the importance of the word that means “Answered, Replied, or Took up the conversation.” Certainly, syntax says to begin a sentence with a capitalized word, which means nothing more than “Look! A new sentence has begun.” That is not the case in Scripture [New Testament variety, as Hebrew has no capital letters]. To combine “Answered” with “Jesus” says this reply is not simply to the Pharisees, but to all who live by the model that “truth” requires witnesses. The “Answer” given by “Jesus” is Jesus. The truth of God can only be seen by oneself, alone, through one’s inner mind [mind’s eye], when one has given up the ego’s big brain and no longer seeks external opinions of truth. Opinions of others do more to elicit doubt than faith. Therefore, the truth of what Jesus said cannot be proved as fact by other external witnesses, unless those too have “Taken up the conversation” within, having been reborn as “Jesus,” knowing the truth, regardless of what anyone else has to say. Following a mid-segment use of “kai,” which is always a marker that introduces importance, the importance marked is in what Jesus then “said to them” (“eipen autois”). That statement begins with the capitalized “Kan,” immediately followed by the word “egō,” where the importance of capitalization is realizing the elevated meaning of “And if, Even if, Even, At least, or If only,” relative to “I” or “ego,” as self-importance. This makes it important to see the conditional being established, where a duality of meaning can result, based on the conditions met or rejected. Therefore, the capitalization introduces a statement with “If only ego” [the maximization of I] or “At least ego” [the minimization of I]. It is that condition establishing the value of the good report that was given by Jesus “concerning myself.” The Greek word “emautou” [“myself”] is a statement as to what is the source of one’s “own initiative” or one’s “own sake.” [meanings from NAS Exhaustive Concordance]. The statement that is “Answered Jesus” says the question of truth can only be found from oneself, as to who “I” is. That debate is stated in the first segment of words stated by Jesus. The debate goes beyond the ears of the Pharisees who were present, to the eyes that are reading this today. The question is who “You” declare the truth of your faith comes from: either oneself; or, Jesus. Because the Pharisees had declared what Jesus said was not true, because he had no one else to support his claim, Jesus then said “true is the testimony [or good report] of me,” where “me” has to be any and all who have become Jesus. That says the truth can only come from surrendering one’s own initiative [“myself”] and being reborn as Jesus Christ. That truth is then based on the “fact” [viable translation of “hoti”] of personal “awareness” or “knowledge” (from “oida”) of “where I came,” which is a statement about oneself knowing: “This knowledge within my brain did not come from me.” It is from that inner source that one also [“kai”] importantly knows “where I am going,” based on “I” no longer being self-ego, but the presence of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ leading one’s actions. That self-awareness from a divine source can only be known by those reborn with the Christ Mind, meaning all Pharisees [including anyone playing their role today] cannot “know from where “I” comes or to where “I” goes.” The same truth applies to all, at all times, as the real proposition of mortal death still does not know what body of flesh a soul will fill in the future, if one believes in an afterlife or not. Only those reborn as Jesus Christ can know for certain “I am going to eternal life because [a fact] Jesus is me.” Jesus then made the important distinction of the collective “You,” as seen through the capitalization of the word “Hymeis” – the second person plural personal pronoun, meaning “You.” He addressed all who choose the option of self as whose “own sake” or “own initiative” came over the option of self-sacrifice, choosing not to serve the Lord. Whereas the Pharisees (“You” as “Hymeis”) stood opposed to Jesus (“You” as “Sy”), as the collective versus the individual, Jesus then told “Them” that “day-by-day the flesh judges” where they will go (from “kata tēn sarka krinete” – translated by the NRSV as “judge according to the flesh”). That says the collective will all find where his or her soul will go, based on judgment certain to come to the soul, when the flesh falls away. When Jesus then stated, “egō ou krinō oudena,” that says, “I not judge nothing,” where “egō ou” places focus on the condition “I not.” This is confirmed many times in the four Gospels when Jesus said he spoke for the Father, not for himself. Jesus was the role model for self-sacrifice of ego. Thus, with that understood as the condition met [self-sacrifice], Jesus said “judge nothing” or “judge no one” is not his role to play. Because the Pharisees [et al, all times] love themselves more than God [the true Judge], “They” [the collective “You”] love to think they have the power of a god [the self-ego god] to judge anyone and everyone, however “They” choose. Verse seventeen then begins with a capitalized “Kai,” which increases that word’s value of signaling importance to follow. Here, the importance is focused on the “law” (“nomō,” written in the lower-case) is addressing the adjustments made by the Jews, which was why they had so quickly rejected Jesus’ initial claim of being the light of life.  “They” based their rejection on him not having witnesses beyond himself.

The importance of “Kai” can then be seen as going beyond any local “laws written” in Jerusalem, in order to govern Jews;  this means including any and all who would later write laws that were morally based, specifically those found in Christian nations. While eyewitness testimony does hold more weight in legal trials around the world, the importance of what Jesus spoke was based on the Laws of God (Yahweh) being written on the hearts of the faithful, not written on scrolls, papers, computers, or chiseled in stone monuments. According to the Wikipedia article entitled “Testimony in Jewish law,” there is stated: “The Torah says (Deuteronomy 19:15): “One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand.” Thus, two witnesses provide conclusive proof of reality, but one witness does not.” The NRSV states this verse as: “A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained.” The operative words stated, based on the Hebrew text, are “chatta’ah” and “chet,” which have been translated as “any sin or guilt” and “any crime or wrongdoing.” The text of Deuteronomy 19 focuses more on what happens if someone is falsely accused and if one is found to have made false accusations against another. That should have come into the minds of the Pharisees (as they were men who studied Mosaic Law), when Jesus began to speak about his own knowledge of the Law, by stating “hoti dyo anthrōpōn,” which can translate as “because two men.” However, Jesus did not go on to quote the Torah, choosing not to focus on what is false, but what is “true.” For Jesus to say he was the light of life was not a sin, because it was the truth – as God is the light of the world and the light of life. The Pharisees were judging Jesus as a sinner, because they did not believe Jesus was illuminating them with anything that would remove them from the lack of darkness that they could not perceive surrounding them. While Jesus importantly (“Kai”) began by telling the Pharisees that he knew their law was based on what was written [the Torah], he then veered to state, “hoti dyo anthrōpōn hē martyria alēthēs estin,” which literally states, “fact two human beings who testimony truthful exists.” This becomes Jesus beginning a lesson as to the true meaning of “two” [and even “three”] in the Torah, by using it at that time to the Pharisees. Taking the word “hoti” as Jesus stating a “fact,” that “fact” became relative to “two men.” This is then not one man plus another man, but one man who becomes “two men” (“dyo anthrōpōn“) rolled up in one. [I wrote about this recently, when I explained the meaning of Jesus sending out the seventy disciples “dyo dyo.”] This then leads such men [Jesus was one] to give “testimony” that is “truth.” They confirm the “truth” of Scripture, because in “fact” the only ones who can glean the “truth” from Holy texts are those who are “two men,” where one man is the soul-flesh plus ego, joined with another who is the Ego of God. In those cases [such as Jesus], the self-ego takes a backseat and lets God do all the thinking and speaking. This is confirmed by Paul, who wrote of the talents of the Holy Spirit being both to prophesy [write Scripture] and speak in tongues [interpret Scripture]. Therefore, Jesus said it was written in the Torah that he was bringing them only the “truth,” but their inability to decipher the Law kept them ignorant. In verse eighteen, Jesus first said, “egō eimi ho martyrōn peri emautou,” which begins with a focus on “egō eimi,” or a statement about who Jesus identified as “I.” Jesus told the Pharisees [et al, all times] that he was a human being (like them, et al) that walked, talked, breathed, and did normal human functions, so in that way he was just like all of them (“You”). Therefore, when he had said, “I am the light of the world” (again using the word “Ego,” only capitalized), it goes without question that his words relative to “I” were “testimony” (“a good report”) “concerning myself.” This statement of truth then made it necessary for Jesus to importantly add (“kai”) that “the good report concerning me” (another form of “I”) was “this having put forth” as “me” (a repeat of this form of “I”) was actually the “Father.” Here, “Patēr” is capitalized to show that the “Father” was more than a father, as the capitalization means “Yahweh.” Here, again, is Jesus making a statement that he spoke for the Father, not for Jesus. Therefore, while Jesus was a human being and a “self” like all other human beings are selves, his “self” (“myself”) had been sacrificed to do the will of the “Father.” Verse nineteen then has the Pharisees [et al, all times] retort to Jesus, thinking what he had just said was, “I speak for myself, and what I say is what the father tells me to say.” What they heard is what everyone hears when they read this Scripture, at all times. Thus, the first word written in their retort is “Elegon,” which (due to capitalization) places importance in “They were saying.” The capitalization places importance on the difference between “Them” and Jesus, as the “Father” was not opening their mouths and making His Word flow forth. This is also important in an indirect way, as “They were” (the third person plural active indicative, with each also as “He was” in the first person singular) not able to call Yahweh “Father.” Jesus stood before Jewish men of the Law, each and all saw G-d as his benefactor, as the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (aka Israel). None of them ever considered God to be their “Father.” This unstated truth is then where everyone in the world – past, present, future – who is not Jesus reborn, as what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees [et al, all times], equally cannot claim God as his or her “Father.” One can only make that claim when the ego of “I” has been set aside (willingly sacrificed), so God can also speak through him or her, as His Son resurrected in human flesh. Seeing that, the Pharisees [et al, all times] asked Jesus, “Where is the Father of you?”

In that question, the capitalized “Pou” asks importantly “In what place?” This question, relative to “Where” the Pharisees [et al, all times] can find “the Father of you” (Jesus’ Father – God), says, “I have no clue where God lives.” The reason why Pharisees [et al, all times] do not know where God is, is they all think Heaven is some invisible “place” in the sky or outer space. This means the importance of all who question, “Where is God?”, they are asking because “They” do not know that God is everywhere, but most importantly (for those who can call God “Father”) He is within oneself. Therefore, their question is like the axiom, “If you have to ask, you’ll never know.” We then read again, “Answered Jesus,” where once more this dual capitalization becomes a statement in response to the question of “Where” is God. The truth is then God is in “Jesus.” Because “Jesus” stood before the Pharisees, the “Answer” stood right before their eyes. However, they were blind to that presence, because none of them truly knew God. Jesus then spoke to the Pharisees [et al, all times], beginning with the capitalized “Oute,” which says “Neither.”

While our language ears hear the word “neither” with the anticipation of hearing “nor” (which does come afterwards here), the capitalization makes one focus on the importance of the single word “Neither.” According to Oxford Languages dictionary, “neither” is defined as: “not the one nor the other of two people or things; not either.” Therefore, the important immediate statement by Jesus is one of a dual being within him – himself and Yahweh – “Neither” of which the Pharisees could fathom. Jesus said “Neither” before the word “eme” or “me,” which is a statement of two within his one being. “Neither” “ego” of Jesus was “known” by those who were not like Jesus, a soul joined with God’s Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Pharisees [et al, all times] could not “know” this same duality of being, because “They were” too self-involved to know God was the Father of Jesus, with both Father and Son standing before their eyes. When Jesus then said, “ei eme ēdeite” or “if me you had known,” the conditional is then stated. More than simply saying, “If you had become my friends and got to know me better,” the conditional statement reflects back on those who have to question “Where is God?” Therefore, the condition says, “if” one is able to say God is within “me,” then one would “know” the answer to that question, without any need to ask. Jesus then began a follow-up statement by using the word “kai,” meaning more important information is following.  That importance focuses on those who “know me” (i.e.: self). Here the importance states the “Father” (“Patera”) “of me you would have known.”

Again, the capitalization of “Father” becomes the importance of one having “come to know” God in a most personal way – as one’s “Father,” and not simply as God. When God has become one with “me” (a form of “ego”), then one knows not only “Where” God is, but one “knows” God is my “Father,” as “I” have become His Son (Jesus Christ). At this point in John’s eighth chapter (verse 20), he concluded this conversation by stating it took place “in the treasury,” which was in a covered area by the north and south gates to the Court of Women.

This would be where people would enter and immediately release offerings to the Temple, before entering the courtyard and finding teachings on the Temple steps (Nicanor Gate). This is significant, as that was “Where” Jesus and the Father had an exchange of words with the Pharisees. The symbolism of the “treasury” is material value. Thus, the Pharisees [et al, all times] are those who place so much importance in personal wealth and possession of things that “They” keep themselves from knowing God as the Father.

The symbolism should also be seen that Jesus telling “Them,” “I am the light of life,” was God calling to “Them” to stop focusing on wealth, power, and influence (the lures of darkness) and walk into the light – to be reborn as Jesus Christ. As long as anyone hangs out at the “treasury” of “life,” then one is in “darkness.”


1 view0 comments