You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Unless you just arrived from another planet, you have heard that sentence many times in your life. These words are the words of Jesus and they are found in John 8:32. They are true beyond a doubt, and in a wide range of applications. But you may not be familiar with the response to that statement by the people who heard it first.

Then said Jesus to those Jews who believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We are Abraham’s descendants, and were never in bondage to any man: how say you, You shall be made free?

Now, this response is truly astonishing. The Jews had been a conquered people in one way or another for most of the years since the Babylonian Captivity. They had been under the Medes, Persians, Greeks, and here they sat under the heel of the Romans even as they spoke these words. Yet they thought they were free.

It's almost an analogy for life, in general. Is it possible that we are living out our lives in a kind of bondage while we say, along with these Jews, We are free men. We have never been in bondage? It’s possible, I suppose, to be a slave and not know it. Most of us are in one kind of bondage or another. The terrible irony is that we have forged our own chains and wear them when we could probably just as easily cast them off, because the chains are in our minds.

I think we have discovered why some of the words of Jesus are so obscure. Deep into the years of his ministry, there were so many people laying wait for him, trying to trap him and wanting to kill him, that he often spoke in riddles and allegories which he later had to explain to his disciples. It was not so much that he was afraid as it was that his time had not come. At the last Feast of Tabernacles he attended, he went there secretly and did not teach until the feast was half over.

Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marveled, saying, How knows this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

I have to stop here and take note of a theological doctrine that Jesus and the father are coequal from eternity. The line of reasoning that comes to that conclusion is a little beyond most of us. The average reader, making his way through the four Gospel accounts will naturally and easily assume that the Father is greater than Jesus. For one thing, Jesus is found right here saying that the doctrine he taught was given to him by the one who sent him. There is no simple way of getting around the fact that the greater sends the lesser. And the message Jesus taught originated with the Father. If that is not enough, consider what Jesus will later say to his disciples in John, chapter 14, verse 28…

There are some things about Jesus that are bound to be troubling to a Christian reading the New Testament—that is, if you are reading the New Testament carefully and thinking about what you read. It’s a testimony to the hateful antisemitism that still exists that some people get real uncomfortable when I remind them that Jesus was, after all, a Jew. Jesus observed the Sabbath every week of his life—even though he rejected the Pharisees interpretation of Sabbath observance. Jesus also observed all the religious festivals of the Jews. Every year of his life, he made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. To have failed to do so would have been to break the written law—something Jesus never did.

2 Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand.
3 His brothers therefore said unto him, Depart from here, and go into Judea, that your disciples also may see the works that you do.
4 For there is no man that does anything in secret, when he himself seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.
5 For neither did his brothers believe in him.
6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready.
7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hates, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
8 Go you up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet fully come.
9 When he had said these words unto them, he remained still in Galilee.
10 But when his brothers were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

It may seem strange that Jesus could go up in secret, but remember, this was an age without television or newspapers. Relatively few people would recognize him, though nearly everyone had heard of him. And, during this festival, Jerusalem was thronged with hundreds of thousands of people.

There is a peculiar Christian conceit that dismisses all things Jewish as though it were another religion and another God. Because of this, we sometimes fail to recognize things that are vitally important. We fail to pay attention to things like the Feast of Tabernacles. What is this feast and what was its purpose?

It is becoming increasingly common these days for a minister, a pastor of a church, to be caught in some kind of sexual sin. I recently read that upwards of 30% of church pastors have committed adultery or some cognate sin at some time in their pastorate. I don’t know why I should have been surprised at that. Our society is so sexually overcharged, and a minister is at once in a vulnerable and powerful position to either be taken advantage of or to take advantage. What is a little surprising is that increasing numbers of these men are being retained in their positions even after the discovery of a sexual dalliance.

When this happens, there is usually confession and forgiveness by the whole church. I presume the fact that a man has fallen off the fidelity wagon once need not destroy a lifetime career of an otherwise effective pastor and preacher. I am not so sure what churches do the second time he falls off the wagon. Or the third. How many times can a church forgive a wayward pastor and have the forgiveness mean anything?

There was a day when Peter came to Jesus and asked the question: Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus’ answer places a pretty big burden on us all: Oh no, Peter, I wouldn’t say seven times: but, Until seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22). But I can’t see a church retaining a pastor who keeps repeating his sins. Sooner or later, he will fired. Probably sooner—especially in this day of the instant lawsuit. Is a church that fires its minister being unforgiving? The problem with forgiveness is that the word has a rather broad range of meanings. Let’s examine some of them.

Can God read your mind? 99 people out of 100 who believe in God would say, Yes, God can do anything. He can read your mind. But if you are a serious Bible reader, you probably have had reason to wonder if that is really true—at least, if it is true all the time.

To even ask the question is to call the issue in doubt. And it is an important issue to say the very least. So why would anyone doubt it? After all, the Psalms tell us The Lord knows the thoughts of man and Shall not God search this out? for he knows the secrets of the heart.

But there are times when reading the Bible that what we think we know about God suddenly doesn’t work. Let me tell you a story from the Bible to illustrate where the problem comes in. We’ll begin near the very beginning, in Genesis, chapter 2…

Which is more important, do you think, pursuing a religious argument with someone, or giving a life to man who doesn’t have one? Note that I said, pursuing a religious argument, not resolving a religious difference. These arguments never seem to be resolved, so we must engage in them for our own entertainment. And when I talk about giving a life to a man who didn’t have one, I am talking about poor devil who claws at his flesh, foams at the mouth and grinds his teeth. I am talking about a man whose life is so bad that he throws himself into the fire or sometimes into the lake trying to destroy himself. This is a really tormented man, and I am talking about complete and total restoration. Which is more important?

There must have been times when Jesus wondered if he could afford to leave his disciples alone. The poor man I was talking about was brought to Jesus’s disciples while he was away. His father brought him and asked the disciples to cast the demon out of the man. I don’t know what they did. Whether they stood there helpless or whether they attempted an exorcism that didn’t work. But when Jesus returned, he saw a crowd gathered around them and the scribes questioning them. For the scribes this was an important failure by Jesus’ disciples, and they would have jumped on this as they did everything Jesus and his disciples did. And while they stood and argued religion with the disciples, this poor, tormented man sat there drooling and clawing at himself.

For some, he was just an object of a religious argument. But Jesus did not see people like this as objects. He saw them as tormented human beings. What was it like to be inside a body and mind like that? How bad does it have to get in your mind before the pain of tearing your skin or burning yourself is preferable to the torment of the soul? When Jesus came on this scene, he focused on the poor man. In a way, you might think that having the power to heal a person like that would give you a flippant attitude toward suffering. You could shout be healed and walk away triumphantly. I have an idea that, when you really have the power, it is not that way.

When you don’t have the power, you feel bad about human suffering, but there is nothing you can do. But when you do have the power, there is a terrible burden of responsibility that comes with it. I suspect that Jesus, having the power to heal, felt the pain of the sick and the suffering much more deeply. And all the more so, because he would bear their sicknesses and their pain to the stake.

It is hard to imagine the confusion that swirled around Jesus during his ministry. The entire Jewish world had already been ripe with expectations of a Messiah, but Jesus was not exactly what they expected. It is strange when you think about it—that a person could miss seeing the Messiah because he expected the Messiah to be different. I think this is what the prophets were talking about when they warned man about making God in their own image. It is sobering to consider that I could miss something very important about God because I expected something else. It is testimony to the importance of keeping an open mind.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Now what seems strange to me about this passage is that not one of the disciples asked Jesus, Lord, what is a church? Don’t you think that is odd? Up to this point, he had said nothing about any church. Now, out of the clear blue sky he says He is going to build his church. What is a church, anyway?

Do you wash your hands before you eat? Well, if you had a mother, you probably do. It is a habit acquired in childhood. But chances are you don’t worry about it very much unless you have just been petting the dog or something like that. Why do I ask? Well, it became a major issue between Jesus and the Pharisees, believe it or not.

Jesus had made a decision to stay in Galilee because the religious leaders in Jerusalem wanted him dead. It just wasn’t safe for him in Judea. So the Pharisees sent delegates to Galilee to report on what Jesus and his disciples were doing. What did they find? Jesus’ disciples were eating without washing their hands. Mind you now, this was not a matter of hygiene. The oral law had a long section dealing with ritual purification. They scrubbed up like a surgeon before sitting down to eat.

Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

A small digression about ceremonial defilement. Under the law of Moses, there were a lot of things that might defile a man or a woman, but ceremonial defilement or uncleanness as such was not a sin. It was a sin to go to the tabernacle or temple and to attempt to carry out the ceremonies there in an unclean condition. But the condition of being unclean was not a condition of sin. A woman was unclean after childbirth, but childbirth is no sin. All uncleanness or defilement did was to prohibit a person from temple ceremony. But for the Pharisees, ritual purity was a way of life. So how did Jesus answer this charge?

There were at least three major categories of people who heard Jesus speak. There was a smallish group of people who immediately responded to him. To them, he was like water on dry ground. They soaked up his every word and wanted more. There was another small group that bristled at Jesus’ every word. There was something about him that annoyed and angered them. Frankly, I don’t think in most cases they could have told you why. There was a third group, by far the largest, that just didn’t get it. They were fascinated with Jesus—who wouldn’t be? But his words seemed to go in one ear and out the other.

It is easy to criticize these people, but it probably better to feel sorry for them. Jesus certainly did. They tell us he was moved with compassion for the multitudes because they were scattered abroad as sheep without a shepherd. The truth is, they had looked at things so long in the same way, that Jesus might as well have been from another planet. They simply were unable to process a lot of what Jesus had to say. Jesus brought new wine, but they only had old wineskins. And they thought the old wine was better.

It is tempting to think, when you encounter people like this third group, that more arguments or better arguments will help. But the problem is not with the facts, the doctrines, the arguments. The problem is on the inside of the people who are listening. There is an interesting dialogue between Jesus and a crowd that included all three of these groups of people. It is found in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to John.

The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone; (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:) When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

It had been a hard three days. David and the handful of young men with him had left in hurry and they had taken no food. By the time they got to a place called Nob, they were in a bad way. They needed food and there was only one place David thought they might get something to eat. So he went to the priest at the tabernacle, a man named Ahimelech.

1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have sent my servants on ahead.

Now, David lied to the priest, because Saul hadn’t sent him anywhere. David was running for his life from Saul because Saul had ordered him to be killed. Should he have done that? Should he have lied to the priest? Well, he goes on to compound his lawbreaking.

3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present.
4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.
6 So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

Now, this is a real classic of rationalization, of reasoning your way around the law because the law was clear as crystal. If you were the judge, what would you do about this infraction. Because it was an infraction of the law—this is beyond dispute. Only the priests were allowed, by law, to eat the holy bread. How do you think God would judge it? Well, fortunately, we have a clue, because Jesus himself evaluated this instance.

Was Jesus a racist? You know, he live in a society that was, frankly, racist. Religious Jews would not eat with gentiles and Samaritans were beneath contempt. Oh, they were happy enough to make a proselyte from among the Gentiles, but they still treated them as second-class worshipers of God. So what was Jesus doing when he sent his disciples out and told them to stay away from Gentiles and Samaritans?

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. […] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter you not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Racist? No. In the words of Jesus we have already seen too many references to the conversion of the Gentiles. We has seen, when he was in Samaria, he spoke to those people and thought it important that they know the truth of the gospel. The breakout of the gospel from merely a Jewish religion into something far greater was foretold in the prophets and developed in the gospels. No, but the gospel had to go first to the lost sheep of Israel for a witness to them and as a witness against them. But in this passage, we will also find another interesting lesson for interpreting the Bible.