John 17:6-9

John 17 and the High Priestly Prayer

Press forward in our vain quest to finish whatever it has been doing for so many years. We're in John chapter 17, looking at the high priestly prayer of the Lord, and we spent most of our time last week on verse 6, finished that up, and so we will press forward from there, beginning with verse 7.

And now they have come to know that everything you have given me is from you. The words which you gave me I have given to them, and they received them, and truly understood that I came forth from you, and they believed that you sent me.

And so we saw in verse 6 the particularity and the relationship of the Father and the Son, in the Father giving certain people to the Son out of the world. They had the sovereignty to do that, then the manifestation of the name of God to those who have been given to the Son.

The Son has the capacity, the ability, by his very nature of being able to do that with perfection. There is no imperfection in the revelation that is given to us by Christ. Once again, words that cannot really be understood outside of the highest view of Christ.

I have often commented on the fact that once you have a diminishment of a high view of Scripture, once you no longer have the idea that Scripture presents to us a unified perspective, that there is a revelation that is found through Scripture, that the theology of the Christian faith collapses very, very quickly.

We see this in many of the denominations around us today. And certainly when we think about something like this text of John chapter 17, you could never make heads or tails of this in the vast majority of theological seminaries in our land today.

They do not have a sufficiently high view of Scripture to do anything other than what they do, and that is you begin with the assumption that Jesus could never have said these words, therefore they are nothing more than the ruminations of a later person or persons.

You can then chop it up into little pieces, you don't have to harmonize it any longer. You really can't. You don't have any basis for looking at it as a whole. And the result is the diminishment of these texts in having an impact upon the theology of these particular churches.

And so, you have to keep that in mind when you consider why there are such divisions and what the origin of those divisions are. When divisions are based upon human tradition and a lack of love on our part and our elevating tradition to a higher position than it should have, that's not a good thing.

When divisions are based upon the reality that there are those that take seriously the revelation of Scripture and there are those that do not, those divisions are absolutely necessary and definitional.

And to decry those divisions is itself, I think, an extremely dangerous thing. So, I mentioned that just in passing, that as we look at this and we look at what is said, it once again points us not only to the deity of Christ, but to the highest view of Scripture that we could possibly hold.

And we really cannot make much sense out of this text unless we have that very high view of Scripture. And so, there is a revelation that has taken place in the name and that results in, they have come to know that everything you have given me is from you.

In other words, the disciples have come to understand. Now, maybe imperfectly, I mean, these same disciples are going to be asking questions about, well, you know, is it time for us to get those thrones and, you know, is it time to start ruling?

And obviously, there is going to be a continued period of growth and understanding after the resurrection. Remember Luke 24, the Lord opens their minds to understand the testimony of the Law and the Prophets from Moses onward as to the resurrection and what they testify concerning Christ.

And so, this is not a perfect knowledge, but it is a supernatural revelation. It is similar to what we saw in Matthew chapter 16 when Peter recognizes who Jesus is. Jesus' response is that this doesn't come from you.

This is a revelation that has been given to you from the Father. And the same way they have come to know that everything you have given me is from you, there is a revelation that takes place in the person who has been given by the Father to the Son as to the harmony and unity that exists between the Father and the Son, which, I'll be perfectly honest with you, scares me a little bit, given the fact that there is so precious little discussion amongst evangelicals in our land today of the relationship of the Father and the Son.

In fact, again, I've said it many times, but I think if we were to give a quiz to most people walking out of a church today as to the relationship of the Father and the Son, they'd end up being modalists.

They wouldn't even be biblical Trinitarians. And so, that's frightening to me because part of what it means to be a true follower of Christ is to come to know that everything you have given me is from you.

That there is a perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son. This is, again, John 17 just seems to be a place where all these themes that have been presented in previous chapters are being tied together.

And so, remember John chapter 5, the Son doesn't do anything of himself. Everything he does, you know, the words that he speaks are given to him by the Father. He's not some separate deity out there doing his own thing, etc., etc.

All these themes seem to be coming together here in John chapter 17. And so, the disciples have come to know that everything you have given me is from you. So, there is perfect unity. There is also, at the same time, again, no mere human prophet is going to be saying these types of words.

No mere human prophet can wield the very power of God that we saw in John chapter 5. He's been given to have life within himself, to give life to whomever he pleases. You know, all this kind of stuff.

And again, notice the relationship in verse 8. For the words which you gave me, John chapter 5 again, I have given to them and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from you and they believed that you sent me.

Wow! So much here, but I'm trying not to bog down, but I also don't want to skip over important things. Who was it I was listening to? Oh, yeah, okay. I won't mention who it was because that would definitely sidetrack us, but it's funny when people speaking in conservative context grab quotes from folks who weren't overly conservative in their actual theology and then try to weave them in so as to make themselves sound really smart.

There is a quote from Karl Barth. Now, I went to Fuller Seminary, so I got a Barth-load full of Barth. And, you know, Barth said some good things, but he was also so far off on other things that it really makes it, I think, a bit of a waste of time to spend much time with him.

Especially when I was at Fuller, I mean, he was just, you know, just gagged me. Anyway, I was listening to a conservative speaking yesterday, and I was listening to him for completely other reasons than this, and he decided to grab a Barth quote just to make himself sound smart.

And the Barth quote was that 2 ,000 years ago the word became flesh, and for the past 2 ,000 years theologians have been trying to turn him back into words, focusing upon words, words, words, words. Well, sorry, Dr. Barth, but it seems that Jesus said a fair amount about this words thing and this revelation thing.

For the words which you gave me I have given to them. So the teaching that Christ gives, the revelation that he gives, part and parcel of the revelation of the divine character of Christ in the book of John is that the teaching that is his, I mean, he is the word made flesh.

But the word made flesh then exegeted the Father, explained the Father, revealed the Father with perfection, and he did so, yes, through his life, yes, certainly. We can look at the actions of Christ, the obedience of Christ, all those things are revelation of the Father.

But what did he emphasize? What did he spend his days doing? Out in the fields contemplating alone so he could give us examples? No. He spent hours and hours and hours teaching, speaking, communicating.

That's what he was doing. And so the assertion that's being made is the teaching that I'm giving, it's not something I've come up with. This isn't me and I've done all this contemplation about who God is and I have a new insight about who God is.

I mean, gurus like that are a dime a dozen and they're all over the world today. And, you know, if you want to get whoever is in the current lead of being the current guru in our society, just give Oprah a ring and she'll let you know.

So there's nothing new about that at all. But what Jesus was saying is these words are not my own. That what you have in my teaching is, well, as we would understand it, given a full biblical understanding, is an inter-Trinitarian communication from the Father through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit to those who are his people.

This is, again, the entire Trinity is involved in this revelation, which takes us back to the high view of Scripture that must be ours. And I know for most of you, especially if you've been blessed to be raised in solid Christian churches, you may wonder sometimes why I empathize this aspect so strongly.

But you need to realize what a small minority of the quote-unquote Christian world we represent in having this view of Scripture. If that's all you know, if that's all you've been exposed to, then it's sort of like, what do you mean?

And I notice that sometimes people who are raised in that milieu, when you have interaction with other people, there's this difficulty in communication because there's such a presuppositional difference in your worldview and how you approach Scripture.

And you're trying to listen to them, but you're listening to them as if they're someone who is under the authority of sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura. Scripture is the sole and fallible rule of faith in the Church and all of Scripture.

And they're not. They have a completely different view. I tried to explain this, and I seem to still be in the same fast-speaking mode that I was in on Friday. I was on the Janet Mefford Show for half an hour.

Normally we do an hour, but we only had half an hour on Friday. And so we were trying to address an article written by an extremely liberal Baptist in the American Baptist Press. And if you know anything about American Baptists, you know, the Presbyterians have their liberals and the Lutherans have their liberals.

Well, we've got our liberals, too. And this guy had written an article on rethinking the Atonement. And it was really nothing new, I mean, but it's good that we are still shocked when people say some of the things that we do.

But the first thing I had to try to communicate to Janet, and of course Janet's a really sharp cookie. She already knew this. But I tried to communicate to the audience in general was the fact that the reason that this article says the things that it does, it was denying penal substitutionary atonement and saying that it makes God look small and petty and a child abuser and it doesn't produce discipleship for Christ.

And the whole reason Christ died was simply to give us an example. He didn't come to die. He came to give us an example in his life and all the rest of this kind of stuff. And the only way for people to understand why there are people who say this, because if you've been raised with this high view of Scripture, you listen to that and you go, it doesn't sound like that person really believes the Bible, but they say they believe the Bible.

So I don't understand. And we've got to understand that you can stand there all day long and say I believe the Bible, but it's what you believe about the Bible and how you believe the Bible is a revelation that's going to make all the difference in the world.

If the Bible's just a quote book where you believe that God has sort of given certain people some elevated views of God, but not necessarily fully consistent views of God, then you can just sort of pick this, pick that, pick that.

You cobble something together that makes you feel good or that you feel will allow you to minister to your time and your place or however else you want to put it. But you're not under any obligation to follow the threads of divine truth from Genesis to Revelation, to be harmonious in your interpretation, to not interpret the Bible so that one author is contradicting another author or one author is contradicting himself, which is the real big fad today.

You're going to approach the Bible in a completely different way. And if they've been raised in those denominations where that is not modeled from the pulpit for them, they're going to look at you like you're just as much of a weird alien animal as you're looking at them.

And the result is going to be a real difficulty in communication if you're not aware of where it is they're coming from. And so when you look at what Jesus says, for the words which you gave me I have given to them and they received them.

What does that mean? Does that just simply mean they accepted that I have some kind of insight into God? What does it mean to receive the words of God from Jesus? Again, there's just so much that could be unpacked here.

But I have become more and more convinced over the years, as I have had opportunity of interaction with a lot of different people from a lot of different perspectives. And on one level, I have learned to be much less judgmental over differences that should not divide.

But at the same time, I have become even more dogmatic about the differences that have to divide because they actually define the faith itself. It's not always easy to walk that line and not everyone is necessarily going to agree where I draw that line.

I can only answer to God for where I draw that line. But the point is that especially on this matter, I have become much more convinced that a part of the work of the Spirit of God in regeneration, in union with Christ, in dwelling a person and revealing the Father to them through the person of Christ, a part of the work of the Spirit of God is placing within the heart and mind of the regenerate individual a deep and abiding respect for, love for, and obedience to the Word of God.

And when I don't see that, I am concerned. When I don't see that, I am concerned. Now, I know, again, that there are people, it is part and parcel of their upbringing to not have that high view of Scripture.

And the result normally is a fundamental decay in the central preaching of justification, cross, resurrection, all those things. That's all they've ever known. Well, how do you deal with that? I cannot judge hearts.

I don't have that means to look into someone's heart. But when I have a conversation with someone, it's not too difficult for me to find out fairly quickly. whether they truly are willing to be corrected by and directed by the Word of God or whether they don't.

And as soon as you start bringing the Word of God to bear, it's amazing how bright the light is that it shines upon someone's reactions to that. It doesn't mean that, look, I know people, there are people sitting in this room, the first time someone brought certain elements of the Christian truth to bear upon you, your reaction was not overly positive.

So, I'm not saying, well, you know, all you've got to do is quote one verse on limited atonement. If they don't like it, they must be a reprobate. I've met that cage-stage type person too. You want to avoid that.

But what I am saying is that fundamentally, when there is a presentation made of the deep truths of Scripture that is firmly and thoroughly biblically based, and the basic response is, well, you know, I'm just not so sure about that.

That concerns me. It concerns me a lot. Because these men, the words you gave me, I have given to them, they have received them and truly understood. So, there is this taking in of knowledge. There is an element of truthfulness to it.

I mean, there are people. I've had some interesting dialogues. I remember years and years ago, man, I had a full head of hair. That's how long ago this was. But this was back when KFYI was just starting.

Come on. Yeah, and the earth was still cooling, and you had to be careful. Those big dinosaurs come along and eat your children. It wasn't that far along. But KFYI had just started, and so they had a lot of interesting people on to try to get controversy going and stuff like that.

Some of you may recall. I mean, I've been around here most of that time. Some of you may recall when Tom Likas was on the air here in Phoenix. Wow, I'm hearing groans out there. I was on the Likas show 17 times.

Most people don't know that. That's when I discovered who he was on the air and who he was in person were two completely split personalities. It was really, really strange. On the air, he was this wild shock jock, and off the air, he was this shy, retiring computer nerd.

It was just really weird, the two different people that he was. But he, for some reason, liked me. So I remember once being on with this atheist. He had published a book with Prometheus Books. Any book you ever see from Prometheus, realize where it's coming from.

And this guy, as an atheist, said, Well, it's obvious what the Bible teaches. You don't have to have a degree in rocket science. I said, I don't understand why atheists, I don't understand why Christians don't get what the Bible teaches.

You've got this God, and he's got a purpose, and he's working it out in this world, and he's in charge of everything. And he holds men accountable for what they do, because that's how he made them. But that's what the Bible teaches, and he elects a certain people's salvation.

I'm just sitting here going, you know, wow, okay, you know, interesting. It was a very, very interesting conversation. So here's the guy. He reads the Bible, and he goes, well, that's what it says. It's pretty obvious to me.

But he has knowledge. He has knowledge. Sadly, I haven't encountered a lot of people. Muslims and atheists and so on and so forth that know more about the Bible than a lot of people in our pews do. But it's not this kind of knowledge.

They have received it and truly understood, known truly in the original language. And so there is a taking in of knowledge. But then there is a taking in of knowledge to where you understand that what you know is true.

And that's where the spiritual element comes in. And that's where we stumble a lot. We struggle a lot in our day. It's something that I'm sure Brother Callahan has given a fair amount of thought to in the philosophical realm.

There are people that can have knowledge. The Scripture says men know God exists. They suppress that. But there is something in the makeup of man as a creation of God to where there is a knowledge and then there is a knowledge of truth.

And this will help you to understand that there can be people with 47 letters after their names that are absolutely brilliant, that have incredible memories. They've done a tremendous amount of reading, a tremendous amount of study.

And yet they can't recognize truth for love nor money. I was thinking about that phrase, love nor money, this week. And I realized I got that from my mom. And unfortunately I'm never going to be able to ask her, where did you get that?

Because it's not really a normal phrase. But I use it all the time. That, part and parcel, various and sundry, and love nor money. I'm sorry, but I am who I am. And I still refer to the Davenport. So give me some, I was sort of Midwestern bred.

I was born in Minneapolis. So give me some break there. But there are people who have a tremendous amount of knowledge but cannot recognize truth for anything. And see, we're intimidated. We're taught to be intimidated by scholarship in our day.

For those of you who are listening, I just did the air quotes thing. Scholarship. Well, you need to learn to recognize the difference between scholarship that is based upon taking in of simple knowledge and scholarship that actually allows a person to see truth.

Unfortunately, a lot of the educational system we have today isn't overly concerned about the truth part. In fact, a lot of it doesn't really think there is much truth to know anyhow. It's all very subjective, so on and so forth.

But don't be intimidated by the scholar that has a massive amount of information if the poor fellow or poor lady can't see basic truth when it's right in front of them. In fact, sometimes the plethora of knowledge is actually an impediment for that person to see the truth.

And certainly, that's, I think, behind what Paul says. He says, knowledge puffs up but love edifies. So, they have received these words. They've truly understood that I came forth from you and they believe that you sent me.

And so, once again, big issue, big question that people raise today. And it's a good question. Can you be saved? What is the, well, use a mathematical term. What is the LCD, the least common denominator, when it comes to the issue of salvation?

What is the least amount of information? Because everyone of us knows, I would assume, that what we know today in comparison to the day we believe that God converted us, that we were changed. I sure hope you know a whole lot more today than you did then.

And I know some people that just keep thinking, well, you know, I must have just gotten born again. You know, just keep pushing that regeneration thing up. A little scary because they end up with this big, huge list of all the things you need to know the way I know them to be saved.

And that can end up with you being in a very small church of three. Me, myself, and I. So, you've got to be careful about that. But what's necessary? I mean, I do believe that the Lord was gracious to me at a very, very, very young age.

But I don't think I could have given you an overly accurate doctrine of the Trinity at that age. Was I not saved? And if I'm right, that in most even conservative Bible churches today, if we were to give them a quiz on the doctrines of the Trinity, that most of them would fail.

Am I saying that all of them are lost? But at the same time, Jesus says, they've understood. They've truly come to understand. I came forth from you and they believe that you sent me. And the big division in the Gospel of John is with the Jews, who believe that if he had just said, I'm Messiah, something like that, they wouldn't believe that.

I mean, raising people from the dead, feeding people with loaves and fishes, sort of tough to argue with that. But what does Jesus say? I say you're unbelievers. Why? Because I am the I am. And us who believe I'm the I am, you'll die in your sins, John 8, 24.

They won't accept the revelation he's made of himself as being the divine son of God. So, where do you draw the line? One of the normal questions that's often asked is, well, can a person be saved who does not believe in the deity of Christ?

Well, here's my normal response to that. You're asking the question, are you talking about someone who is ignorant or someone who rejects something that they know? Vast difference between the two. Vast difference between the two.

Math was not my strong area in high school and college. And I sort of got by, I mean, I took all the advanced classes in high school, but then after that, forget it. It just was not something that I loved very much.

So, there are things in calculus that I don't understand. It's not that if I didn't put my mind to it, I couldn't figure it out. In fact, the older I've gotten, the more simple it's become in some areas.

But I've got mail. Boy, is that an old one. Oh, my goodness. You had to look far and wide to find the you've got mail thing? Oh, my goodness. That's throwing me into a time warp right there. Anyways, there are certain things in mathematics that I do not understand.

That's totally different than standing up and saying, I reject the conclusions of this form of mathematical inquiry and mathematical practice. Those are two different things. I think someone can be ignorant of the relationship between the father and the son in the sense they haven't been properly taught.

They've maybe been in the church. Certainly around here, the hymns would certainly give you some good ideas. We have good, solid theology in our hymns. And certainly, if you sit in this class very long, you're going to get hit up with a lot of Trinitarian theology for some odd and strange reason.

But that's, again, we've got to understand we're weird. Okay. I'm weird. I'm strange. This kind of class is very unusual. Y 'all do realize that in my experience, especially as we're going through stuff, and we've got some students from Canyon around here.

It's pretty weird, isn't it? Yeah. It's not your normal Sunday school class, especially if you're coming from someplace else. And when we've done some of the stuff on church history and stuff like that, there was no difference between what I did with you all in church history for how many years was that?

Three years we did church history? There's really no level. There's no difference in the level of material we covered in there than when I teach in seminary. Graduate level course, none. So that's just the way it is.

And so we're weird. So you get exposed to this, but there are folks who are sitting in churches they've been members in for 30 years that have never heard a sermon on the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, do they bear some of the responsibility for that?

Sure. I think more of the responsibility is borne by the people that are supposed to be, you know, the whole Council of God thing. But still, I think an individual has some responsibility before God to ask, you know, am I really being challenged to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Or am I just sort of really comfy? Those are some of the questions you might want to ask yourself. But, yeah, as it may, I think there is a difference between people who honestly want to know but have not been instructed.

Those who, and there's a difference between them and then those who have no spiritual desire to know. That could be scary. But clearly those who know what the truth is and deny it, those are the two groups you have to really distinguish.

The ones in the middle, probably a little bit of a squishy area there as to exactly where they are. I do not believe that a false Jesus will save anybody. So, when the Mormons come along and preach Jesus, who is the spirit brother of Lucifer, one God amongst many gods, whose blood does not atone for all sins, I'm sorry, that's not the Jesus of the Bible.

That Jesus does not exist and hence has never been the Savior for anybody. If you don't at least have that in your thinking, then you could just turn Jesus into anything you wanted him to be and say, well, he's going to be my Savior.

No, that's not the Jesus of the Bible. That's not what he allowed for. Does anybody in this room, myself included, have a complete, full and perfect knowledge of the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and all the ramifications thereof?

No. So, there's got to be some recognition of gradation at this point. And the fact that the Spirit of God brings us along, teaches us, grows us, so on and so forth. But clearly, if someone is preaching an Aryan Jesus, a Jesus who is not deity, who is merely a, well, as the Muslims have, a prophet, a mir-razul, yes.

Is there salvation in believing in that? I would say no. In no way, shape or form. The Bible warns us about false Christs. There would be no reason for that kind of warning if it was just, hey, you know, just nod toward Jesus.

It doesn't really matter what you believe about him all as well. That would not follow. So, these individuals, they believed that you sent me. They believe in the divine mission of Jesus Christ and the fact that he has come forth from the Father.

Again, words that could not be put into the mouths of any of the prophets, anyone who is less than what we believe about Christ. I ask on their behalf. I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

And all things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I have been glorified in them. Wow. Again, we won't finish this up in five minutes. I don't know how we could even outline all of it, but most evangelicals today, in the English-speaking world and beyond, if you were just to read verse 9, they are going to be surprised that that's actually found in the Bible.

Because there has been such an overwhelming emphasis upon a particular understanding of John 3 that to hear John 17, 9 is grating. It is the equivalent for us old folks, this has no meaning for anybody under the age of 25 anymore, but for us old folks, it's the equivalent of dragging the fingernails down the chalkboard.

Which still to us older folks makes us go, and younger folks go, a chalkboard, as it does not have the same effect. I'm not sure why God designed us to just absolutely fall apart when someone drags their fingernails down a chalkboard.

If you've never heard it, young folks, find a chalkboard and try it. That's all I can say. You'll never forget the experience. Anyway, this text just runs smack dab into the presuppositions of the Jesus, long-haired hippie Jesus with lamb at noblest door Christology.

If you know what I mean. I know normally the Jesus at the noblest door isn't carrying the lamb, but it all goes together. And, you know, you've got the noblest door and he's a perfect gentleman, you know.

And I just think, just go ahead and throw the lamb in because it's all the same thing anyways. This doesn't sound like that. Ask on their behalf. I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

If this is truly a high priestly prayer, if we have here Jesus functioning in that way, there are some obvious ramifications to this statement. There is no way. I cannot imagine a way. I may run into a way.

I may be. We're trying to work it out. Scheduling my first formal debate with a former Presbyterian now Universalist up in the Denver Evergreen area for July. If any of you saw the review that I did about two weeks ago of the flaming toilet of death, it's the fellow in that video, Peter Hyatt is his name.

And he's a former Presbyterian who has now become a Universalist. And we're going to try to work out a debate up there, a dialogue debate, whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure that Universalist debate, but anyway.

So maybe I'll hear an interpretation of this text because it certainly would be one that I would bring up as illustrative of the fact that a Jesus that is derived not from what we'd like Jesus to be like, but what the Word of God says he was like, said things like this, I do not ask on behalf of the world.

Now if you don't recognize the cosmos has a range of meanings in the New Testament and in John in particular. If you do the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance methodology of interpretation that has one meaning as you cram into every verse, you're not going to be able to make heads or tails out of the New Testament or out of this text at all.

But certainly we do recognize that there are different uses of the term world here. Here there is a contrast between those given by the Father to the Son and the world. They have been taken out of the world but the world is not the object of the intercessory prayer of Christ at this point.

And that's what we'll have to pick up with next time around. So we will be in, for those taking notes, we will still be in John 17, 9. I think it means we got through what, two verses? Yeah, at this rate, man alive.

This just may be an eternal study. I don't know. We're not trying to make it that but that's sort of how it's working out. So let's close our time with a word of prayer. Our great Heavenly Father, we do thank you for your Word.

We thank you especially for this tremendous revelation of Scripture that helps us to understand your purposes. Lord, we would ask that we would not simply look at these things as facts of theology to file away but that we would live our lives in light of them.

And Lord, as we go into worship now, we would ask that you would be with us by your Spirit. May everything that is done be to your honor and glory. We pray in Christ's name.