John Chapters 18 to 20, Part 4
by Karl Kemp
Free to Share
Free to Share
SEND A PRIVATE MESSAGE
HIRE THIS WRITER
We continue this verse-by-verse study of John chapters 18-20 here in Part 4, starting with John 19:13.
(13) Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat [cf. Matt. 27:19] at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew ["I.e. Jewish Aramaic" (margin of NASB); cf. John 5:2; 19:17, 20], Gabbatha. [Pilate sat down on the judgment seat to render his final judgment and turn Jesus over to be crucified (cf. Matt. 27:24-26; Mark 15:11-15; and Luke 23:21-25).] (14) Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover [cf. John 18:28; 19:31, 42]; it was about the sixth hour. [["Perhaps 6 a.m." (margin of NASB). See the detailed discussion under John 18:28. I believe (in agreement with the suggestion in the margin of the NASB) that John reckoned the hours from midnight (or, when applicable, from noon) in his Gospel. Apparently the sixth hour in the morning began about the time of sunrise (at the time the sun rose above the horizon). As I mentioned under John 18:28, I believe John's "about the sixth hour" was probably something like 6:30 to 7:00 a.m.]] And he said to the Jews, 'Behold, your King!' [[See John 19:12 and the references cited there, and see John 19:15, 19, 21. It seems clear that Pilate spoke these words (and the words of verse 15) mostly to antagonize the Jews. Notice the Jew's negative response to the inscription that Pilate had written on the cross, "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews" (see John 19:19-22).]] (15) So they cried out, 'Away with Him away with Him [cf. Luke 23:18] crucify Him!' Pilate said to them, 'Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king but Caesar.' [[As I mentioned, this was an amazing statement for the chief priests to make. For one thing, they believed that God was the King of Israel, and they believed that the Messiah, when He came (even today the Jews don't believe that Messiah has come yet) would reign as a king. They were goaded into this statement by Pilate's repeated attempts to release Jesus and then his mocking them by calling Jesus their King in verses 14, 15, when they had just so strongly denounced Him as a blasphemer who needed to be put to death - He certainly was not their King! See under verse 14. Jesus was/is the King, the King of Israel, the King of true Israel, the King of all men, and the King of this world. For one thing, all beings (angels and men) and things were created by Him and for Him (cf. John 1:1-4; Col. 1:16, 17), but neither the Jewish rulers nor Pilate believed it. Jesus kingship will be manifested before all when He returns to begin to fully reign on the earth (reigning includes judging).]] (16) So he [Pilate] then handed Him over to them [or, "for them"] to be crucified [or, "that He might be crucified"]. [[Compare Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:25; Acts 2:23; and 3:15. It seems clear (in context with verse 15) that "them" here in verse 16 refers to the chief priests and other Jews who were clamoring for Jesus to be crucified. Luke 23:25 says, "he [Pilate] delivered Jesus to their will." (Luke 23:13-25 show that "their" refers to the "chief priests and rulers and the people" [Luke 23:13].) "Then at last, to satisfy them, he handed Jesus over to be crucified" NEB. It is also clear that Pilate handed Jesus over to the Roman soldiers to crucify Him. John 19:23 says, "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus...." "They," the first word of the following verse (John 19:17) undoubtedly refers to the Roman soldiers.
I'll quote a sentence from what Merrill C. Tenney says under verse 17 ("Expositor's Bible Commentary," Vol. 9 [Zondervan, 1981], page 180). "Under Pilate's orders, Jesus was turned over to the execution squad, which normally consisted of four legionnaires and a centurion." (On the four Roman soldiers, see verse 23; on the centurion, see Matt. 27:54; Mark 15:39; and Luke 23:47.)]] (17) They [the Roman soldiers] took Jesus, therefore, and He went out [Jesus went out of the city, outside the city wall (cf. Heb. 13:12).], bearing His own cross [[The most common view in the commentaries is that Jesus just bore the cross-member (the horizontal beam) of the cross, and that the vertical beam would have been left at the place of execution, probably being permanently fastened in a vertical position. Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; and Luke 23:26 speak of the Roman soldiers pressing into service Simon of Cyrene, a "passer-by coming from the country" (Mark 15:21), to carry Jesus' cross. Apparently Jesus carried His cross for a while, but eventually He gave out physically because of the extreme trauma He had endured, very much including the Roman scourging, which in itself could, and sometimes did, kill people.]], to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew ["I.e. Jewish Aramaic" (margin of NASB)], Golgotha [[Compare Matt. 27:33; Mark 15:22 ("they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull"); and Luke 23:33. ((I had a lengthy footnote here, going on for five paragraphs: " 'Golgotha' is gulgolta, the Aramaic word for 'the skull,' with the second 'l' assimilated to the following 't' ([The word "Hebrew"] in this Gospel, as in verse 13, includes Aramaic; the Hebrew form of the word is gulgoleth). The familiar designation 'Calvary' is derived from Latin 'calvaria' ('skull') and has come into Western European languages from the use of the Latin word in the Vulgate text of all four passion narratives. The origin of the name 'Skull-place' remains a matter of conjecture. As for its actual location, it lay outside the city wall [at that time], presumably outside the second north wall (the third north wall, farther to the north, was not begun until about twelve years later, under Herod Agrippa I). If the praetorium of the trial narrative is to be identified with the Antonio fortress, then the present Via Dolorosa probably marks the route of the cross with substantial accuracy, although it runs several feet above the first-century level. Until a few years ago it was uncertain whether the traditional site of Golgotha, covered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, was outside the line of the second north wall or not; that it actually was outside was indicated by excavations conducted in 1963 and later in the Muristan area, to the south of the site" (F. F. Bruce, "Gospel of John" [Eerdmans, 1983], page 367).
"Golgotha is an English transliteration of the Greek, itself a transliteration of the Aramaic.... ... The place of the skull probably derived its name from its appearance, though this is uncertain. The site is in doubt. Gordon's Calvary is not an option. [Carson has a footnote, "Cf. Andre Parrot, "Golgotha and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre" (tr. E. Hudson; SCM, 1957), pp. 59-65).] The most likely site is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, just outside the northern wall, and not far from the road (Matt. 27:39; John 19:20)." (D. A. Carson, "Gospel According to John," pages 609, 610). I don't know enough about the topic to agree with Carson that "Gordon's Calvary is not [even] an option." He may be right. Most of the commentators and other scholars (including archaeologists) that I have read agree that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the most likely site for the crucifixion and burial of the Lamb of God.
"The actual location of Golgotha is a matter of debate. When [the Roman emperor] Hadrian reconstructed Jerusalem after the Second Revolt [which was led by Bar Kochba (many, including Rabbi Akiba, thought he was the Messiah)] as Aelia Capitolina (A.D. 135), Christianity was considered a Jewish sect, and its holy sites were treated accordingly. Hadrian had a Roman temple built over the crucifixion site. This temple enabled Helena, Constantine's mother, to identify the place of the crucifixion and tomb of Jesus when she came to Jerusalem in A.D. 326. Hadrian's temple was removed and a magnificent basilica built in its place (A.D. 336) ...." Laney says Gordon's "arguments are unconvincing" (J. Carl Laney, "John," pages 345, 346).
"Golgotha (19:17) was undoubtedly near the site of the Holy Sepulchre.... The traditional Protestant 'Garden Tomb' is a substantially later site and cannot represent the site of Jesus' burial [Keener has a footnote, "Tomb architecture changed radically after Jerusalem's fall (Goodenough, "Symbols," 1:84-89; Brown, "Death," 938-39)."]; by contrast, the Catholic Holy Sepulchre and tombs in its vicinity date to the right period. [Keener has a footnote, "On the latter, see Brown, 'John,' 2:899; idem, 'Death,' 1279-83; cf. Blinzler, 'Trial,' 215-52; Smith, 'Tomb'; Ross, 'Church'; Riesner, 'Golgotha.' "] The tradition of the latter vicinity is as early as the second century (when Hadrian erected a pagan temple there; he defiled many Jewish holy sites in this manner) and probably earlier. Good evidence exists, in fact, that this site dates to within the first two decades after the resurrection. This is because (1) Christian tradition is unanimous that Jesus was buried outside the city walls and no one would make up a site inside (cf. Heb 13:12; John 19:41); (2) Jewish custom made it common knowledge that burials would be outside the city walls; (3) the traditional vicinity of the Holy Sepulchre is inside Jerusalem's walls; (4) Agrippa I expanded the wall of Jerusalem sometime in the 40s C.E. [AD]" (Craig S. Keener, "Gospel of John," Vol. 2 [Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], pages 1134, 1135).
I'll quote part of what George R. Beasley-Murray says here ("John" [Word Inc., 1987], page 318). "The hillock behind the bus station in Jerusalem, Gordon's Calvary, is undoubtedly reminiscent of a skull in shape, but the traditional site of Golgotha in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is favored by recent archaeologists (see, e.g., J. Jeremias, 'Golgotha' [...1926]; A. Parrot, 'Golgotha et Saint-Sepulchre' [...1955]; K. M. Kenyon, 'Digging up Jerusalem' [...1974] 226-34, 261-67; J. Finegan, 'The Archaeology of the New Testament' [...1978] 156-68 [with bibliography])."].]] (18) There they crucified Him [Mark 15:25 says, "It was the third hour when they crucified Him." Essentially everyone agrees that the third hour means 9 a.m., but it seems clear that Mark's third hour, sixth hour (Mark 15:33), and ninth hour (Mark 15:34) are very rough approximations of the time. Jesus could have been (and probably was) crucified more than an hour before 9 a.m. (see under John 18:28; 19:14).
I'll quote part of what J. Carl Laney says regarding crucifixion ("John" (Moody Press, 1992), page 344). "Crucifixion was not a Roman invention. The Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Persians all practiced crucifixion during the first millennium B.C. ("Vassilios Tzaferis, 'Crucifixion: The Archeological Evidence,' 'Biblical Archaeology Review,' January-February 1985: 48)." And although the traditional method of execution among Jews was stoning (Deut. 21:21), the Hasmonean tyrant Alexander Jannaeus used this dreadful punishment on his own Jewish kinsmen (Josephus 'Jewish Wars' 1.97). The Romans adopted crucifixion as the official punishment for non-Romans, particularly slaves. Crucifixion was later used by the Roman army to execute rebels. During the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, Roman troops crucified as many as five hundred Jews a day for several months (Josephus 'Jewish Wars' 5.449-52). ... Death by crucifixion was in every sense excruciating, a term derived from the Latin excruciatus, meaning 'from the cross.' Although a crucified victim suffered terrible thirst and physical exhaustion, death usually came as a result of asphyxiation. ...."
I'll quote part of what Leon Morris says here ("Gospel According to John," pages 805, 806). "Popular piety, both Protestant and Catholic, has often tended to make a great deal of the sufferings of Jesus, to reflect on what was done and to dwell on the anguish He suffered. None of the Gospels does this. The Evangelists record the fact [that He was crucified] and let it go at that. The death of Jesus for men was their [the Gospel writers] concern. ((Morris has a footnote: "Cf. Morgan [G. Campbell Morgan 'The Gospel According to John,' 1951]: 'It may be a challengeable opinion, but I think the Church of God has suffered more than it knows by pictures of the crucifying of Jesus; and sometimes by very honest and well-intentioned sermons, trying to describe the matter on the physical side. I am not denying the tragedy and the pain of it physically, but the physical suffering of Jesus was nothing compared to the deeper fact of the Cross.' ")) They make no attempt to play on the heartstrings of their readers." We must make sure that our religious thinking and activities go beyond the emotional level and the flesh; our faith and worship must be based on the balanced truth of what the Bible teaches and must be in/by the Holy Spirit.]], and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between [[Compare Matt. 27:38, 44; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32, 33, 39-43; and John 19:32. "John gives us no details of the two men who were crucified with Jesus. Mark and Matthew call them 'bandits' (Greek "lestai") using the same word John uses of Barabbas (18:40); they were probably freedom fighters of his company. ..." (F. F. Bruce, "Gospel of John," page 368). See under John 18:40.]]. (19) Pilate also wrote an inscription ["Pilate had a notice prepared" NIV] and put it on the cross. It was written, 'JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.' [Compare Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; and Luke 23:38. Pilate was taunting the Jews with this inscription (cf. John 19:14, 15, 21, 22).] (20) Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew ["Jewish Aramaic" (margin of NASB)], Latin and in Greek. [["Aramaic...was the language in common use in Judea; Latin was the official language of the army; and Greek was the lingua franca of the Empire, and well known in Galilee" (D. A. Carson, "Gospel According to John," page 610).]] (21) So the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, 'Do not write, "The King of the Jews"; but that He said, "I am King of the Jews." ' (22) Pilate answered, 'What I have written I have written.' (23) Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer garments and made four parts, a part to every soldier and also the tunic ["Greek 'khiton [chiton],' the garment worn next to the skin" (margin of NASB)]; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece. ["Jesus' simple wardrobe was composed of five items: a turban or headdress; an outer robe; a sash or girdle, the folds of which would provide pockets; sandals; and a fairly long tunic, woven in one piece, that was an undergarment" (Merrill C. Tenney, "Expositor's Bible Commentary," Vol. 9, page 181). "...the tunic was normally 'a long, tight-fitting shirt made of two pieces of cloth sewn together,' typically sleeveless, whether of 'wool, linen or leather.' A seamless tunic, which would fit the neck more closely and generally have short sleeves, was of special value" (Craig S. Keener, "Gospel of John," Vol. 2, page 1140).]] (24) So they said to one another, 'Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be'; this was to fulfill the Scripture [cf. John 19:28, 36, 37]: 'THEY DIVIDED MY OUTER GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND FOR MY CLOTHING THEY CAST LOTS [Psalm 22:18].' [Compare Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; and Luke 23:34.] (25) Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [[Compare Matt. 27:55, 56; Mark 15: 40, 41; Luke 23:49; and 24:10. Apparently four women are listed here. (Many scholars point out that it is unlikely that "His mother's sister" and "Mary the wife of Clopas" refer to the same person. For one thing, the two sisters would both be called "Mary.") We don't have enough information to be dogmatic, but apparently "His mother's sister" refers to "the mother of the sons of Zebedee [the apostles James and John (cf. Matt. 20:20-23)]" of Matt. 27:56; her name may well have been "Salome" (see Mark 15:40; 16:1). If this view is correct it could help explain why James and (especially) John, were especially close to Jesus, in that they would have been cousins. It could also help explain Jesus' entrusting His mother to the care of John. The fact that John didn't mention the name of his mother (assuming that "His mother's sister" here in John 19:25 refers to John's mother) would fit with the fact that John doesn't mention his name or his brother's name in his Gospel.
Apparently "Mary the wife of Clopas" is to be equated with "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" of Matt. 27:56 and "Mary the mother of James the Less ["Literally, little (either in age or stature)" margin of NASB] and Joses" of Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 16:1). F. F. Bruce points out in a footnote that "Joses (Mark 15:40) is simply one of the Hellenized forms of Joseph (Matt. 27:56) ...."
On Mary Magdalene, cf. Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2; and John 20:1, 18. D. A. Carson points out that "Mary Magdalene" means "Mary of Magdala, a village on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee two or three miles north of Tiberius."
I'll quote part of what Merrill C. Tenney says here ("Expositor's Bible Commentary," Vol. 9, page 182). "Four women are mentioned here: Mary, the wife of Clopas; Mary Magdalene; Mary, the mother of Jesus; and his mother's sister, who was presumably Salome, the mother of James and John (cf. Matt. 27:56; Mark...15:40). The identity of Mary of Clopas is uncertain. She may have been the wife or daughter of Clopas. If she were the former, a question arises whether Clopas and Alphaeus, who was the father of James the younger (Mark 3:18) were identical. Most of these women were related in some way to the Twelve and were among Jesus' most loyal followers. Mary of Magdala appears in Luke's list of those who helped support Jesus by their contributions (Luke 8:2)."]] (26) When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved [That disciple was John, the apostle who wrote this Gospel (cf. John 13:23; 20: 2; 21:7, 20).] standing nearby [Apparently Mary and John were standing quite close to Jesus.], He said to His mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' (27) Then He said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' From that hour the disciple took her into his own household. [Jesus (Mary's firstborn son [Luke 2:7]) commissioned John to take Mary into his household and look after her needs. Undoubtedly Joseph, her husband, had already passed away.] (28) After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished [["that all was now completed" NIV; it could also be translated "that all things had already [or, "now"] been finished"; verse 30 uses the same Greek verb ("teleo") in exactly the same form (perfect, indicative, passive, 3rd person, singular - "tetelestai") as the verb that is translated "had...been accomplished" here in verse 28. Apparently the idea is that all things except one had already been accomplished, and that Jesus proceeds to accomplish that one last thing (as reported at the end of verse 28 and in verse 29) before He died.]] to fulfill [The Greek behind "to fulfill" here is a form of the Greek verb "teleo," the Greek verb used earlier in this verse (and in verse 30). A different Greek verb ("pleroo") would typically be used for fulfilling the Scripture (cf. John 19:24, 36, 37; "pleroo" is used in John 19:24, 36). The verb here could be translated "to complete/finish" instead of "to fulfill"; the Scripture was completed/finished in the sense that the relevant prophecies in the Scriptures would now have been completed/finished. (I had a footnote: "The question, indeed, is not of the fulfilment of this special prophecy [where Jesus said He was thirsty and was given the sour wine to drink], but of the completing of the fulfilment of the Scripture prophecies in general" (F. Godet, "Gospel of John," Vol. 2 [Zondervan, 1969 reprint], page 389).]] the Scripture, said, 'I am thirsty [cf. Psalms 22:15; 69:21].' (29) A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop [[Many commentators make the point that typically Roman crosses were not very high. The feet of the one being crucified were typically not far off the ground. Apparently the soldiers used a stalk of hyssop about one and one-half feet long.]] and brought it up to His mouth [cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36]. (30) Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, 'It is finished!' [[On the Greek verb used here ("teleo"), see under verse 28. Jesus' atoning work as the Lamb of God was completed/finished with His all-important atoning death. For one very significant thing, He earned the right to save (with a very full salvation) all who repent and submit to the gospel of the new covenant in faith. And His death stripped sin, spiritual death, and Satan of their authority and made it certain that all the enemies of God (including physical death) will be removed from His kingdom forever at the proper time. Although Jesus' work was not completed with His all-important atoning death, the glorious results I just mentioned are sure to come to pass, because (for one thing) they all flow from this all-important atoning death. Jesus must yet be raised from the dead, be taken to the right hand of God the Father, begin to function as our great high-priest throughout this age, and then return to the earth to save His people and judge the world, etc.]] And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit [Compare Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; and Luke 23:46. John's account of Jesus' trial and crucifixion emphasizes throughout, very much including these last words, that Jesus was in full control until the end.]. (31) Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day [cf. Ex. 12:15, 16]), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. [[This was the "day of preparation" for the Sabbath (the Sabbath would have begun at sunset that Friday [that Good Friday]), and this was a very special Sabbath that year (it "was a high day") because Passover happened to fall on the Sabbath that year (the Jews were to eat the Passover meal that Friday evening). See John 18:28; 19:14, 42. The Jewish rulers (in their religious zeal) wouldn't have wanted the crucified men (or their dead bodies) to remain on the crosses until sundown any day (cf. Deut. 21:23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26, 27), and more so for a Sabbath, and more so yet for a special Sabbath. They understood that if the Roman soldiers broke the legs of those being crucified it would cause them to die very soon. For one thing, after their legs were broken (which was a very traumatic event in itself, as they smashed/shattered the bones in the legs with a heavy hammer) they could not push up with their legs, which helped them breathe. ((I had a footnote: "The normal Roman practice was to leave crucified men and women on the cross until they died - and this could take days - and then leave their rotting bodies for the vultures. If there were some reason to hasten their deaths, the soldiers would smash the legs of the victim with an iron mallet (a practice called, in Latin, "crurifragium"). Quite apart from the shock and additional loss of blood, this step prevented the victim from pushing with his legs to keep his chest cavity open. Strength in the arms was soon insufficient, and asphyxia followed" (D. A. Carson, "Gospel According to John," page 622). "In order to hasten death, the victims' legs (and sometimes other bones) would be smashed with an iron mallet, a practice called crurifragium ('breaking of the shinbone'). ... (Andreas J. Kostenberger, "John," pages 552, 553). B. F. Westcott ("Gospel According to John," page 314) mentions that Roman crucifixion was abolished by "the first Christian emperor Constantine (Lipsius, III. 14)."]] (32) So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him [cf. John 19:18]; (33) but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. [[John explains (in verse 36) why it was necessary prophetically that the soldiers not break the legs (or any other bones) of Jesus. As it turned out, the reason the Roman soldiers did not attempt to break Jesus' legs was that they could see that He was dead already. Apparently the Roman soldier's motivation to pierce Jesus' side with a spear (verse 34) was to confirm that He was dead, but (apparently) John sees important symbols in the flow of blood and water (see under verse 34). Pilate was surprised that Jesus was dead already. (I had a footnote: "Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead" (Mark 15:44 NIV). We must take into account, for one thing, that Jesus' crucifixion (which involved His voluntary all-important atoning death) was very far from being an ordinary Roman crucifixion.]] (34) But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear [I had a footnote: "Roman soldiers used primarily two kinds of weapons: a short sword for close combat and a lance or javelin for attacks from a distance. The lance...was about three and a half feet long and was made up of an iron point or spearhead...joined to a shaft of light wood..." (Andreas A. Kostenberger, "John," page 552).], and immediately blood and water came out. [[Apparently John would have us see the flow of blood as representative of the all-important atoning blood given for the salvation of the world (for all believers). And (apparently) he would have us see in the flow of water from Jesus' side a symbol of the cleansing, life-giving water associated with new covenant salvation (cf., e.g., Isa. 44:3-5; Ezek. 34:26; 36:25-27; John 3:5; 4:10, 11, 14; and 7:37-39).]] (35) And he [John the apostle] who has seen has testified [cf., e.g., Luke 24:44-48; John 15:27; 21:24; and Rev. 22:20], and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe [cf. John 20:30, 31; 21:24]. [[The apostle John (the one chosen to write this Gospel and the three epistles of John and the book of Revelation) was a very important eyewitness of much that took place from the time that Jesus' ministry began to the time of His resurrection and subsequent ascension from the Mount of Olives, very much including much that took place from the time Jesus was arrested in the garden until after He died on the cross. We can and we must have confidence that our faith regarding the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ and God's new-covenant plan of salvation is based on the truth. God has given us His Word and His Spirit to confirm the truthfulness of the gospel and the reality of new-covenant salvation in the shed blood of the Lamb of God. Furthermore, the more we live in the light of the gospel, by the grace of God in Christ through faith, the more the truthfulness of the gospel is confirmed to our hearts and manifested in our lives.]]
We will continue this verse-by-verse study of John chapters 18-20 in Part 5, starting with John 19:36.
© Copyright by Karl Kemp
PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR, LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE AS A MEMBER OR ANONYMOUSLY
Read more articles by Karl Kemp or search for other articles by topic below.
Search for articles on: (e.g. creation; holiness etc.)Read more by clicking on a link:
Main Site Articles
Most Read Articles
Highly Acclaimed Challenge Articles.
New Release Christian Books for Free for a Simple Review.
God is Not Against You - He Came on an All Out Rescue Mission to Save You
...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them... 2 Cor 5:19
Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Acts 13:38
LEARN & TRUST JESUS HERE
The opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect the opinion of FaithWriters.com.