Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
It's been a little while since we have been together in John 17, but we pressed on. I figure if we keep going, we'll eventually get somewhere. So, we have been looking at this prayer that seems to tie together so many of the themes that are found throughout the Gospel of John.
I know I have touched upon a few things through verse 10, but I'm pretty certain that I haven't actually looked as deeply as need be, especially in verse 9. So, beginning at verse 8, For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you and they have believed that you sent me.
I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. I am no longer in the world.
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. So, once again, so many of the key themes that have been developed in the Gospel of John.
We have Jesus as the revelator of the Father. For I have given them the words that you gave me. Remember the repeated statement of Jesus. I do not speak on my own initiative, but I've heard the Father speaking.
These are the things that I say to you. Again, the unity of Father and Son. In the work of redemption and the unity that they have in perfection. There is no disagreement. There is no disharmony between the Father and the Son.
And then the result of the giving the words, they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you. So, there is that relationship between the receipt of the Word of God and a true knowledge, the origin and source of Jesus Christ.
There are many people, I think, that have a traditional knowledge, a religious knowledge, a self-serving knowledge, the truth of the deity and divinity of Christ. But I really believe that there is a true knowledge that is described here to know truly that Parasu Ex Aethon, that I came forth from you.
So many today within what is called self-Christianity do not believe that Jesus was anything other than a very wise apocalyptic Jewish teacher. And that the confession of Him as the Son of God, the confession of Him as the primary revelation of God, all these things are later accretions.
They are later developments. Are not specifically a part of what Jesus Himself taught. And this is so common in so much of what calls itself even Protestant Christianity in the United States that I think you really need to be aware of the fact that to believe that Jesus was truly the one who came forth from God, that He gives a personal revelation of the Father that no one else could possibly give, is to put yourself in a very small minority.
And it will, again, help you to understand when you see people on television, hear people in media, read in books, where people handle the Scriptures and yet come to such odd conclusions, to remember that the vast majority of them do not view the Scriptures in the way that we do, do not see that Jesus' revelation of the Father is unique and in a category unto itself, because it is a self-revelation of God, that Jesus is actually sufficient to reveal to us the Father in perfection, no mere creature could ever do that, etc., etc.
And, again, I think this is just a mark of supernatural Christianity, of believing Christianity, whatever other terms you want to use. There's just so much false Christianity in our world that we have to start using other terms.
You know, say, well, that's true Christianity, it's real Christianity, it's biblical Christianity, it's believing Christianity. Okay, that's a very politically incorrect thing to do. It's assuming that there is a true Christianity, when we all know that from most of the world's perspective that is not the case.
But, again, the disciples are described as those who have received the words of God and have come to know in truth that I came from you and they have believed that you sent me. So, obviously, from the perspective of this text, a person who does not believe in the divine origins of Jesus Christ is not one of the disciples of Christ.
And yet, in our world today, the majority of those who would, in those constant Pew Forum surveys that pop up in the media all the time, would be described as Christian, are not truly disciples of Christ.
Now, that doesn't mean that Christ isn't building his church, he is. But, as has been the case throughout most of history, the true followers of Christ are rarely the popular majority. And we have, here, in Scripture, standards given to us.
And here it is a standard of belief. It's also a standard of truly knowing. Truly knowing. And I would suggest to you that one of the examples of truly knowing is the fact that once you truly know something, it's not something that you stop truly knowing.
That would fit with the present tense believing. The present tense, you know, the one believing in me. Now, this doesn't use the present tense because it's not talking about that. It's talking about a historical fact that marks the disciples off as having come to this knowledge that's different from those who will believe because of their testimony in the future.
But, still, this true knowledge is something that I think is clearly a work of the Spirit of God. So, it says, I am praying for them. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world. Now, the article that's used here, Pari, can sometimes have a meaning of concerning or about.
But, here, you have the very same term to pray, erotaho. And, I am praying for them. And then you have the exact same forms in the next phrase. Not concerning the world am I praying. But concerning those you have given me for they are yours.
So, there is a purposeful, clear distinction as to the object of Jesus' prayer here. And, if we see this prayer appropriately as a part of Jesus' intercession, then we have to deal with the reality that right before the crucifixion, right as Jesus knows Judas is probably even at this point of time organizing the men and maybe even walking through the streets of Jerusalem with the lanterns heading toward his location.
Jesus' prayer is for a very specific people. A specific people we've already seen in the preceding verses. A specific people who belong to the Father are given to the Son. Same thing we saw in John 6.
Same thing we saw in John 8, John 10. Now being repeated in John chapter 17. And so, we once again have to simply ask our synergistic friends who insist on the peanut butter version of God's love that has no specificity to it.
How do you understand these words? And frighteningly about the only way to do so is to base the relationship of individuals to Christ and to God based upon their own goodness. I've actually heard people do this.
These are the remnant. They are not just remnant according to grace, but they are remnant where people have done the right things. They are righteous. And it really ends up devolving down the individual into it's hard to avoid a work salvation system at that point in time.
But whatever else we have here, if this is Jesus functioning as intercessor, then he intercedes for a specific people. And again, there's nothing surprising about this. There's nothing unusual about this.
Anybody who was familiar with the Old Testament, the Old Covenant paradigms, and well, two weeks ago, I remember Sunday evening, Leviticus chapter 16. I read through Leviticus 16 and you think of the high priest and it's very clear the high priest is not praying for the Babylonians.
He's not interceding for the Egyptians. The sacrifice is not intended to turn away the wrath of God against the Amorites. That was a given. That was clearly understood. There wasn't any confusion about that.
The only confusion that comes about today is when we read these texts through the lens of a much later biblical development that goes back to an emphasis upon man's activities rather than upon God's. And so, I am praying for them.
I am not praying for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. And so, whatever you do with use of the term cosmos, world, in the Greek New Testament, you have to fit it in this just like you have to fit it in John 3 .16.
And I hear a lot of people who are very confident in their assertions concerning John 3 .16 and the universal meaning of cosmos, but I don't see nearly as many who are overly confident in then dealing with this particular text because of the differentiation it makes.
Because if world means every single individual, then who are the disciples? They're not individuals? Well, no, of course they are. Well, they're not in this world? Well, no, actually they are. A differentiation being made and unless you let John use world in the very broad number of ways that he insists that we do so that we can see what he's communicating, well, you're not going to be able to make heads or tails out of this text, which sort of resonates with my observation anyways that while John 3 is one of the most popular chapters in the book of John amongst evangelicals, John chapter 17 does not seem to be one of the most popular.
Why are you wearing sunglasses, dude? Oh, okay. I just thought you were really trying to look uber cool. I thought maybe you were trying to make up for the extra ventilation you have in your Coogee shirt there.
Yeah, that's funny. I don't know if that was what was going on there. I just thought maybe you were trying to freak me out, you know, because I've got somebody sitting back there with their shades on, you know, like, oh, you know.
Either that, the other option was in high school people would do that, but the reasons were not all that good. They were trying to hide those bloodshot eyes is what they were trying to do. So, okay, all right.
Okay, just checking. All right. You can put them back on now. I'm not completely freaked out. I thought you were sitting there with sunglasses reading your phone. I'm like, this is really weird. We believe you, right, everybody?
Verse 10 continues on, Whom you have given me, for they are yours, all mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. The interplay in the personal pronouns here, once again, just not to beat the proverbial horse, but to remind you of how important it is, the use of personal pronouns between the Father and the Son in this text is one of the clearest refutations of the fundamental assertions of Oneness Pentecostalism that I know of in the Bible.
If you have any friends who are Jesus-only, they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, they say that Jesus is two persons, the Father and the Son. I think that the prayers of Christ are impossible for Oneness Pentecostalism to deal with in any consistent fashion.
And this would require an internal conversation where a creature, the Son, is having a chat with the deity that indwells him. And all in one person. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
The human nature who is not eternally existed, we already saw in John 17 .5, this is absolutely impossible. 17 .3, 17 .5, the fact that the Son here is eternal as a divine person, we emphasize that, but I just point it out again.
And then once again, the unity that exists between the Father and the Son here, very same emphasis that was found in John chapter 10 when speaking of the sheep, and I give them eternal life, no one can snatch them out of my hand, no one can snatch them out of Father's hand, I am the Father, we, plural verb, we are one.
Same here, all mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. So, being given the elect of God, so that He is to bring about their salvation, glorifies Christ, He is glorified in the Father entrusting them to Him.
Back to John 6 .39, this is the Father's will for me, that of all He's given me, I lose none of them, but raise them up at the last day. This is how He is glorified, and therefore, I would suggest synergism does away with one of the primary means by which the Son is glorified in the Gospel of John, and that is His singular capacity to bring about the salvation of the people of God.
If that is a cooperative effort, if that is something where He's just trying, trying, trying, trying, trying, and at times fails in the apostasy of people who were truly born again, and then lose that salvation, then He would not be glorified in that.
And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Now, I mentioned earlier that the perspective of this prayer is of the accomplishment, the absolute certainty of the cross.
Jesus is going to say, I have completed the work. Now, does that mean that the cross is just an afterthought? No. The perspective of this prayer is in light of the absolute sovereign inevitability of what is about to take place.
It could not be any other way than it is. This is really John's fulfillment of not my will, but thine be done in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And so, Jesus knowing what it was about to take place, as we saw earlier in this section, speaks from that perspective.
So much so that He can say, I am no longer in the world. Well, spatially, temporally He was. But the perspective is provided by 14 through 16, going back into the presence of the Father, the sending of the Spirit, the whole progression that is found there.
And where is He going? But there 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. And so, Jesus speaks of the transition that is taking place in the relationship between Himself and His disciples.
They are going to be in the world. They are going to be experiencing what is going on in the world. Even though the Son is coming into the presence of the Father. What was the promise in John 14 through 16?
If I don't go, the Holy Spirit can't come. If I go, we will send the Spirit to you, etc., etc. Tying all this together. Holy Father, keep them in your name. Now, once again, this title found in verse 11.
Pater Hagiai. I can't help but just mention, sorry, but I saw a guy that I really respect say something in Twitter recently. He said something along the lines of I get an idea why there are so many people that really like this Pope.
Really love this Pope, is the way you put it. And my response was are we talking about the same guy who allows people to address him with the titles of the Trinity? And when you think about it, what is the Pope called?
Well, he's called this. Holy Father. All the time. I mean, that's constant. I mean, I imagine in each day, someone around the Pope calls him Holy Father probably 5 ,000 times. Holy Father, Holy Father, Holy Father.
He's referred to that way. The Holy Father said this, and the Holy Father said that. The only Holy Father in the Bible is the Father in relationship to the Son. When he was ordained as a priest, he was identified as an alter Christus.
An alter Christus. In Latin, that means another Christ. All Roman Catholic priests are, when they are ordained, are identified as an alter Christus. If you would like to see a Roman Catholic priest defend that title, then see the debate that I did with Mitchell Pacwa back in the mid...
Hmm. Sometime in the past 30 years. That's the safe way now. I think it was around 2005. I think. Approximately. Somewhere around there. And you will see someone that admits, yes, all of us are, all of us priests are identified as an alter Christus.
And then he's called the Vicar of Christ. And, of course, the vicar is one who takes the place of. And so, who is the Vicar of Christ, according to John 14 through 16? The Holy Spirit of God. It's the only Vicar of Christ.
It's the Spirit of God. He's the other comfort. And so, you have all three titles of each of the divine persons. Father, Son, and Spirit applied to this man in Rome. And, you know, he might kiss little babies and be nice to kitties and doggies.
But, there's a problem there. And our forefathers saw it a whole lot more clearly than the vast majority of people do today, sadly. Anyway, Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one even as we are one.
Well, what is this name? Well, there's a lot of discussion of that. And, um, just a couple of aspects to keep in mind as you consider it. Um, this is a name which has been given to the Son. Is it a specific, is it the name Yahweh?
I don't think so. Because it's something that has been given to the Son. And, that, that name could not be given in the sense that it represents the very being of God. And if you have not always had that being of God, you could not be identified with that name.
If you're a creature, you could never be called Yahweh. Not even in a meaningfully full representational way. Instead, it would seem that just as above the name referred to Jesus' revelation of the character of God, um, in the same way, that's what a name represented in that day.
Your name wasn't just as it is in our day, people trying to come up with the strangest, most unique names you possibly can so that if you stop in a little roadside stand, and go over to the little license plate thing, you'll never find your name in the little license plate thing.
Y 'all know what I'm talking about? Now it's keychains and stuff, they used to have these little, turn it and have all the standard names on it. My name was fairly easy to find. You could find a James or a Jim, but Kelly could never find anything because that ends with an I instead of a Y.
And now, who even fathers to try? I see some of the current NBA players ask, like, really? Seriously? Where'd that come from? I don't know. But now the idea is uniqueness, non-sameness, but it has nothing to do with character.
It has nothing to do with what you hope this child will embody in their life at all. But instead, this character of the covenant-keeping God is seen to be the foundation of the oneness of the individuals in the church, that they may be one even as we are one.
It is truly knowing God and truly knowing His character. That's what binds people together in the body of Christ around the world. We have a common confession and we have a common knowledge of who God is in and through Jesus Christ.
And because His character is perfectly revealed in Christ and we are in Christ, then we can have true knowledge of who God is and hence it's not just a bunch of opinions strung together. It's not just a bunch of people sitting around trying to get a closer relationship with God and then tell other people how to do that.
And it's interesting that the unity of these that are given to the Son is described as being a spiritual unity. That they may be one even as we are one. Somebody will say well, even as we are one means clearly that the unity of the Father and the Son is of individuals.
There is no one God. These are multiple gods, that's what the Mormons say. Because we are individuals ourselves and therefore this unity must be a unity only of purpose. And that the unity that exists between the Father and the Son cannot transcend or have any greater aspect to it than the unity that exists between believers.
But that is to extend the metaphor far beyond what it is meant to communicate. The fact of the matter is, the unity that exists between believers is a spiritual unity. The common that which binds us together, all around the world is revealed in 1 Corinthians chapter 12, where the Spirit, each one of us has partaken of the one Spirit.
The Spirit gives to each one of us as He wills the gifts. It is the presence of the Spirit. And of course no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. That's Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 12.
So it is the work of the Spirit in our lives that is the binding factor results in our common confession in the Lordship of Christ. And so the unity that is ours, even as we are one, is a spiritual unity.
It's not merely a philosophical unity. It is a spiritual unity based upon the revelation that God has made of Himself in Jesus Christ. And so, He continues on to say, while I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me.
I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost, except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. And so, now that the Son is going to be returning into the presence of the Father, and it will be the Spirit who takes the place of Christ, then we can see that the Spirit is the one who will guard, the Spirit is the one who will keep, and it is the Son, who up to this point in the life of the disciples has kept them in the revelation of the Father, in your name.
I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost. It certainly doesn't say much of our role in salvation that Jesus can speak this way, in the sense of us having a determinative role, because Jesus does not speak in the context of, I have done my best, and boy, I barely made it.
I mean, you could have given me a better lot than this. No. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost, except the Son of destruction, the Scripture might be fulfilled. Now, it's interesting.
Those who promote a very man-centered view of salvation will almost inevitably argue strenuously that Judas was a true Christian, that Judas was a saved man, that he could have remained a saved man, but that he was lost by his own act of apostasy and his own free will.
It's amazing to me that people can be so focused upon a man-centered reading of Scripture that they lose the entire last trace of this verse. Not one of them is lost, except the Son of perdition, the Son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
Okay, he's a specific person. He's identified as the Son of perdition. He... I mean, how else can you identify this particular individual? And then the statement that it is necessary that the Son of perdition do what the Son of perdition does, because the Son of perdition is central to the very means by which Christ is going to be betrayed in the hands of the Jewish leaders.
You really have to take the view that the entire story, the entire plot line that God has intended to accomplish, including all of the scriptural fulfillments, was just a... It could have been done otherwise.
It could have been differently. I mean, you think about it. Thirty pieces of silver and going out and hanging yourself and all this kind of stuff. What if Judas messed it all up and decided to remain faithful?
It just... That's why I've often said that the only consistent Arminian is an open theist who denies that God has knowledge of not just future events, but the actions of free creatures in the future. That's the only consistent way to get around it.
But, of course, once you become an open theist, you don't have any prophecy anyway. You've got good guesses, but you do not have prophecy. They have to completely redefine the categories of prophecy to make that fit.
And so, I don't know how you deal with it, but I just point out in passing that it seems very obvious that Judas here is identified as the son of destruction, the son of perdition. That he has a scriptural role to fulfill.
He does, though. You have, at the end, just stereotypical language. Hey, graphee, play role fey, in order that the graphee, the scriptures, might be fulfilled. I mean, that's found all through the New Testament.
It's an axiom. Jesus himself had said in John 10, the scriptures cannot be broken. And so, you have the exact same thing going on here. And so, when people say, ah, see, Jesus is good at keeping those who are given to him, but not perfect, because he lost Judas.
There is an assumption that is being made there that is a false assumption. What is it? That Judas was given to Christ for what purpose? That Christ would bring about his eternal salvation. That's not what Judas' role in the ministry of Christ actually was.
And so, though Judas was given to him as a disciple, the purpose, prophetically, was to function as he functioned. To be the one you know, the one who dips the sock, is the one who lifts his heel against me.
We have all these prophetic fulfillments provided in scripture. So, he did exactly what he was supposed to do, and it amazes me how many people I encounter that want to limit the power of Christ to actually save perfectly, based upon the idea that Jesus failed to save Judas.
I just, it is very hard for me to look at that and do anything other than just shake my head in disbelief. Because the text is so clear. But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have joy fulfilled in themselves.
And so, now I am coming to you. Jesus has no question as to what the result of his death, burial, and resurrection is going to be. He has no question about the fact that he will be accepted of the Father.
It is very common for people to say today that in Mark, Jesus is afraid and out of control, and by the time you get to John, he is in perfect control. He has a gross misreading of both. It is not so much that Jesus is in control, but he knows that the Father's perfect will will be done.
That he has fulfilled the Father's will for him. And so he knows he is coming to the Father. And these things I speak in the world, again, another use of the term world. I mean, it is like John is just trying to extend this phrase out as far as he can.
Here, it is in contrast to where Jesus is going to be going. If he is in heaven, he is not speaking in the world. That they, my disciples, may have joy fulfilled in themselves. So, these words of Christ about his perfect ability to save those who are given to him by the Father are supposed to be a source of joy for us.
Not a source of division. Not a source of argument. Supposed to be a source of joy. That's why, again, I don't understand the synergist who doesn't get this and thinks that it is a not only a slight on the character of God, but something to be fought against lest the church die on the vine or something else.
One of our greatest joys should be to proclaim the fact that we have a Savior who actually saves. Not just tries. Not just makes a valiant effort. This should be an absolute source of joy certainly for the believer in the most difficult and dark times in their lives.
To rejoice in the power of the Savior and to recognize that it's not up to me. God is at work within me both to will and do according to His own purpose and pleasure. But in those darkest hours I look away from myself and I look to Christ.
I look to Him crucified. I look to Him resurrected and I have a joy in that that the world cannot begin to understand. And that this joy is fulfilled in them. The world's not going to rejoice in that.
The only people who are going to rejoice and therefore glorify the Son in His perfect capacity as Savior are those who've experienced that. You and I. So He's glorified when we rejoice in it and it's a source of great joy for us to contemplate the power of our Savior and the fact that the reason we are still here the reason we persevere is not due to something good in ourselves.
It is fully and completely due to the perfection that is to be found in Him. Alright? So, we actually made a little progress there, was that five verses I'd say? We were flying! I mean for Reformed Baptists that's almost dizzying isn't it?
We're going to be stumbling out of here. But notice there will be another interesting use of the word world in the next verse which we can all look forward to the next time we are together but I'm preaching next week so I think Mr. Callahan's up.
So, we'll get there eventually. We will get there eventually. We'll be picking up with verse 14 O keepers of the notes. We have multiples now. We are cloning everything. Alright, let's close the word of prayer.
Indeed we rejoice our Heavenly Father in the perfection of our Savior Jesus Christ. May we truly find joy in that. May we find joy as we go into service now as we hear the Gospel once again explained to us.
We thank you for the freedom to continue to do this. We ask that you would continue to extend it to us. In Christ's name. Amen.