Synoptics John 14:9-12

In John, chapter 14. Are we going to be okay up here?

We don't need to separate you or anything? Okay. Alright, John, chapter 14.

I just realized having the Hebrew text open there is rather irrelevant. It's not going to help us out a whole lot in John, chapter 14.

Jesus said to him, Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the

Father. How can you say, Show us the Father? Once again, we are in this last period of training of the disciples.

It is very shortly prior to the betrayal of the

Lord. We need to keep that in mind. Sometimes it is pointed out that there is a great difference between what

John has here and what we have in the synoptics. But John has much more of an emphasis upon the personal interactions of Jesus.

And so here you have this discussion going on. Philip has asked in light of the son saying he's going to be going back to the

Father. Lord, show us the Father. It's enough for us. Jesus' response, as we pointed out last time, emphasizes the fact that he is the perfect revelation of the

Father. But as I've noted, the apologist in me warns you that a large portion of evangelicals are very confused on the doctrine of the

Trinity. And as a result, they look at a text like this. And they assume that, wrongly, that all the distinctions that have been made between the

Father and the Son in the previous portions of the Gospel of John evaporate at this point.

And that you're going to eventually have the statement, I and the Father are one, interpreted from John chapter 10.

Or these statements from John chapter 14. As in some way undoing the distinctions that have been drawn from the beginning last time we were together.

I do recall going back into the earlier portions of John and noting the many places where those distinctions are emphasized.

So what we do have is the fulfillment of John 1 .18 where Jesus is said to be the one who exegetes or makes known or reveals the

Father. Jesus said to him, have I been so long with you? And yet you have not come to know me,

Philip. He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, show us the Father? So in other words,

Philip is being abraded for not recognizing that everything he has come to know of the

Son and of the Son's revelation of the purpose and character of the Father is a perfect revelation.

And if Thomas is looking for something better than this or greater than this, then he has not really come to know who

Jesus really is. Now again, I point out that it is unusual in much of modern theology for this kind of view of Christ to prevail.

Solely due to the fact that you have to believe that what we're reading here is really divine revelation.

Those who have a merely human view of Jesus and who assume based upon their worldview that any supernatural element to Jesus' existence is a later embellishment or addition are obviously going to have to dismiss all of this, spiritualize it in some way, and come up with some other explanation.

But if you actually share the worldview of the writer's scripture, then you really are taken aback once again by the fact that this is a phrase, like so many found on the lips of Jesus, that could never have been uttered by a mere prophet, by one who, for example, has any sense of his own sinfulness or depravity.

Because anyone who knows of their own sin and depravity would recognize that their sinfulness, their self -centeredness, their depravity would bar them from being a mirror image of the

Father, no matter how close they may be to God. You know, I mean, you can call David a man after God's own heart, but David does not say, if you've seen me, you've seen

God. The reason being he well knows that once you have depravity and sin in the experience of a human being, it's a warping of the lens, it's a warping of the mirror, shall we say, that results in a warped reflection of God.

And that's why we, in this life, can never be perfect representatives or representations of Christ living in us.

There will always be imperfections, there will always be things. Jesus does not show any idea of this.

Instead, he says to Philip, if you've seen me, you have seen the Father.

And then he asks, do you not believe, in verse 10, do you not believe that I am in the

Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does his works.

And so you have this very intimate discussion of the relationship of the

Father and the Son. Now, again, there are places, and for example,

John chapter 17, which is coming up very shortly, not so much in our reading, but Jesus got to John 17 a whole lot faster than we will.

Let's just put it that way, chronologically speaking. But where we are in the

Father and the Son, and we are in Christ, and if we're in Christ, we're in the Father. You've already had, in John chapter 10, the sheep are in the hand of Christ.

No one can snatch them out of Christ's hand, but then again, we're also in the Father's hand.

No one can snatch us out of the Father's hand, and I and the Father are one, and things like that. So you will have places where our union with God is emphasized.

And people say, well, see, that just shows that Jesus is just one of us. But the reality is, what makes those statements about our being in Christ or in God special is the relationship of the

Father and the Son, the unique relationship of the Father and the Son. And then our union to the

Son is what makes our relationship special. But if there was not that first relationship, that prior relationship of Father and the

Son, which is absolutely unique, which is eternal. Ours is not an eternal union in that way.

The unique Son, who has always been the Son, who is at the

Father's side, who makes the Father known. The reason we can have intimate relationship with God, and we'll have that kind of intimate union without the hindrance of sin in the eternal state, is because we have been united to the

Messiah, united to Christ, united to the eternal Son. And I would argue that the only way that that has been able to happen is because of the condescension of the

Son, the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, all of that, is how we can have union with Christ.

How we can be in Him and therefore can look forward to a relationship with God that I would argue

Adam could never have had. Adam could not have had that relationship apart from the initiative of the triune

God, the incarnation, redemption, all of those things.

A lot of people like to say, well, couldn't God have done it some other way? Well, I forget who it was who answered a question along those lines.

Something about, you know, didn't God initially make hell just for Satan and the angels? And something said, made some comment along the lines, and for people who ask questions like you ask, you know, thrown in for the...

We can speculate about anything. We can sit around and, well, maybe He could have done it this way, or maybe

He could have done it that way. And I get worried about folks who spend most of their time in speculation about things like that.

They end up getting on really goofy websites on the Internet and getting really messed up. But leaving mere speculation aside, the point is that from the biblical perspective, there is a purpose in all that God has done.

And part of that purpose that is revealed to us is this amazing concept of our being united with Christ.

And so that, and we say these phrases without always really thinking through what these phrases mean, but we say things like, so that His death is our death and His resurrection is our resurrection.

Well, that's true. Those are true statements, but you have to think through what all of that means.

And so the idea that, well, you know, the cross was an afterthought, or, you know, this is just the best

God could do, or God didn't expect this to happen, that's the amazing thing with the good open theist, you know.

God was really taken aback when Adam did what he did, and so he had to come up with this other plan type of an idea. It's just utterly foreign to any meaningful or consistent reading of the text of Scripture that actually takes the wording seriously.

And so it seems that there's almost, you know, when you see the phrase, do you not believe?

You know, if someone were to approach me in that way, you know what, you're automatically on the defensive.

I mean, you're automatically, sure, yeah, even if you don't really know what's being said, don't you believe that X, Y, and Z?

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? Now, this is not the first time

Jesus has said something similar to this. Again, I am the Father, we are one, John chapter 10. Before Abraham was,

I am. It's not like we just get to John chapter 14, and these poor guys are going, really?

I had no idea. Now, you have an explicitness in these words that is new in that sense.

But the reality is that what Jesus has done and said and how he has acted, we have, in other words, we have been reading the preceding material correctly in understanding it to be pointing to these things.

John really provides us our own interpretive grid. It's amazing to see the mental gymnastics of people who try to get around this stuff.

But, do you not believe that I am the Father and the Father is in me? And again, people say, well, yeah, but we're in Jesus and Jesus is in us, so it's not really special.

But it is this unique relationship that provides the ground for our being able to have the relationship we have with God the

Father. And that's what comes first. This is a natural relationship. Ours is a relationship that is only due to the extension of grace over time.

So, there's a vast difference. We need to keep that in mind. And again, I emphasize this and I appreciate all of your patience in my strong emphasis of these things.

But, I think those of you who have gone into university settings and other contexts understand why

I'm emphasizing these things. Because there is a tremendous amount of opposition. And I just,

I am absolutely convinced that we must be prepared to give an answer and that the freedoms we have to do so in the future are going to be very restricted,

I think, on a broad -based level. And it's going to become much more of the responsibility of every single believer, every single individual, to know these things and to be able to explain them to others in private conversation.

Because that may be the only way we've got to actually say these things in the not -too -distant future.

So, I emphasize the objections. And also, objections very frequently shed more light on the reality of what the text is actually saying.

So, if you're one of those folks that sit back and, ah, I never get into those types of conversations. Remember that section in the

Old Testament, the trial of the false gods, where it's God bringing accusation against false teaching that gives us some of the brightest light of revelation on his own nature.

Keep that in mind. So, anyway, going back to the text, there is a reciprocal relationship.

I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Now, we shouldn't think of this in mere spatial concepts.

It's sort of like that well -known section that Paul penned to the

Corinthians. He said, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. And a lot of folks will look at that and say, see, there you go.

God was in Jesus. There was sort of a, he was in him, you know. So, that means he walked left and walked right.

That's not really what Paul's saying. In fact, I think the best understanding of that particular use of the language was by means of Christ reconciling the world.

In the same way, we say, do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? This isn't mainly a spatial, location, geometry type thing.

This is the same type of very personal, intimate language that is used over and over again in Ephesians chapter 1.

The first 13 verses, 10 times. In Christ, in him, in the beloved one. This concept of a union that is supernatural, and in fact transcends any kind of geometric plotting in saying, well, the locus of the personal thought of the

Son is in God the Father. No, that's not the point.

The point, if the relationship between the two verses means anything, is a revelatory one.

That is, the union of the Father and the Son is so close and so intimate, that to have intimate knowledge of the

Son, of necessity results that you truly know the Father. Once again,

I just point out the application to those who would deny the exclusive nature of the claims of Christ.

There have been many who have claimed to know much about God. There have been many who have claimed to be a special representative of God.

But Jesus' claims really transcend anything that you could find anywhere else.

Primarily because we're talking about a person here who is a monotheist, who every morning says,

Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh our God, says the Shema every morning. There is only one

God, and yet, at the same time, confessing everything the

Bible teaches about the fact that God is transcendent, that God is a creator, and He's not man, yet He, as a man, says,

I am the Father and the Father is in me, and if you've seen me, you've seen the Father. And so there is something about this revelation that has taken place in the

Incarnation that has to be able to explain all these things. And within polytheistic systems, that just completely changes the ground.

We're talking about a monotheistic system here. This is why, again, the

Church is forced, over those first number of centuries, to struggle with how to express not so much the language of the

New Testament, but the divine revelation that took place between the Old and the New Testament, which is the

Incarnation of Christ and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That's really what those first two centuries are about.

It's not that the Church is making up doctrine or making up teaching or something along those lines.

It is, we have been bequeathed this body of revelation, this redemptive event in time, and now, as the

Gospel goes out into all the world, there's lots of questions that are being asked, and we have to find a consistent way to try to answer those questions.

And that really is what you have going on at that particular time. So, there is a union.

Remember John chapter 5? Again, the union of the

Father and the Son, together, distinct, but the union's there. And then, echoing John chapter 5, the words that I say to you,

I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His words. Your words are the expression of your person.

They are very personal, much more so, I mean, I'm afraid today, especially the younger generation, words, names, for example, don't mean anything anymore.

Names used to have a lot of meaning to them, but anymore, they're just whatever happens to be popular in your generation, or whatever happens to be unpopular in your generation.

Maybe you want to stick your kid with a name that no one else has ever even heard of. I have, we have a little, we never expected this, but you know, when kids are born, they end up with names you never expected.

Well, one day, Summer referred to Clementine by this name that I'm like, what?

What was that? And, you know, at Starbucks, they write on the cup your name. And so, one day, she had had a lady come through,

I think the drive -thru, if I recall correctly, or maybe it's inside, I don't remember what it was, but, and the woman's name was

Bonquiqui, B -O -N -Q -I -Q -U -I -Q -U -I,

Bonquiqui. And for some reason, Summer decided to call Clementine Bonquiqui.

And so, not only did it stick, but everybody else in the family now,

Nani, Kelly, is Nonquiqui, and I'm Grandquiqui.

So, you know, when we do FaceTime now, she's back in Georgia, you know, it comes up, and I hear

Summer saying to her, there's Grandquiqui, and hi, Bonquiqui. And it's like, oh my goodness, how in the world did that happen?

I have no idea what any of that means whatsoever, but it's just, you know, it's just how names are.

But it used to be, you saw in the text that Brother Jim read this morning, you saw an example of this.

I don't know how many of you noted it, but after the section that most of us know in Romans 9, is a section most of us don't know in Romans 9, and it says that those who are not beloved shall be called beloved, those who are not my people shall be called my people.

That's in the Old Testament, where God actually had someone called Lo -Ami, not my people. That's the name,

Lo -Ami, not my people. And really, in the Old Testament, very frequently, especially when

God says use this name, translate the name to find out what's actually being said. Otherwise, if you just have the name transliterated, it's like, oh, don't get it, and sort of skip over it.

That's the way things were. Names meant something. One's word, one's pledge meant something.

It was much more, you know, we just, this is how you talk to people now, you know.

I mean, you'll see people in restaurants now. This is very, very frightening to me, but you'll see people in restaurants right now, and they're doing this number, and they're sitting at a table, and everybody at the table is doing this.

No one's talking. They're all sitting here doing this. And the worst thing is when you hear, and then all of a sudden the person across the table, their phone goes, ding.

They're talking like this. Look at the person. Speak. Speak. Use it. And then you try to talk. They just can't do it because they just don't, you know, that's the only way they know how to communicate.

And it's just cheapened stuff, you know, doesn't it? I mean, in a sense.

I mean, I use it. It's very convenient at certain times, but it's not a good thing.

The point is the words that I say to you, I just speak on my own initiative. So when a relationship is so close that the words spoken are not on my own initiative, but the

Father abiding in it, and then notice this, does his works, not speaks the words, does his works.

So the works of the Father result in the words of the

Son. So what the Son speaks is reflective perfectly and 100 % of the will of the

Father who is doing his work, he's accomplishing his will through the Son. That's about as close a relationship as you can possibly have.

And so Jesus continues on in verse 11. It was interesting, he had asked in verse 10, specifically to Philip, do you not believe, now he goes back to the whole group, believe me, to everybody, believe me that I am the

Father and the Father is in me, otherwise believe because of the works themselves. And so there is a propositional statement,

I am the Father and the Father is in me. I am the perfect revelation of the Father. But at the same time, the works that I've done have already told you this.

I think this sort of shows what the basis of Jesus having said don't you believe this, or haven't you seen this, is you've had all this time to be observing the consistency of my teaching and my actions.

And that consistency over time, this is only a short period of time after Lazarus has been raised from the dead and so many miraculous events have taken place that the works that Jesus has done, these are the

Father's works. Verse 10, but the Father abiding in me does his works, otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

They are divine works. And so I think we're right, once again, as we look at the

Gospel of John to when we see these signs that Jesus does, going all the way back to John chapter 2, the first sign that he does, the wedding in Cana of Galilee, the turning the water into wine, these are meant to communicate something.

They are the works of the Father that communicate something that taken together become a basis of belief, believe because of the works themselves.

The works point to the fact that we should believe that Jesus is the

Son of God and by believing have eternal life in his name, which is going to be the sort of summary statement of John 20, 31.

That's what it's all sort of working toward anyways. And so believe me, believe what

I say, that I am the Father and the Father is me. And then again, this is echoing back, if you recall,

John chapter 5. The different ones who testified concerning Jesus. The Father testifies concerning Jesus.

The works can testify concerning Jesus. Moses testifies concerning Jesus, etc., etc. This is the basis upon which we are to believe.

So truly, truly, I say to you that very formulaic assertion of I am taking an oath.

Amen, amen, lego, humine, I am saying to all of you. He who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also.

And greater works than these he will do because I go to the Father. Now, immediately people stumble at this point because they assume that Maidzena means greater in a sense of either more frequent or a demonstration of more power.

And so many people will go, well, even the most wild -eyed purveyor of miraculous activity blushes a little bit at that point.

Because again, this is just shortly after things like Lazarus.

And I've seen lots of folks on the channel

Between20 and 22, won't mention it by name, who have tremendous capacity.

In fact, it is amazing, the most common miracle that I see when my clicker battery dies and it happens to stick on that channel or something like that, which is about the only reason

I go there. Though once in a blue moon, I'll just sort of, I don't know why I'm doing this, but, you know.

And then you see people on there that are really getting really, really old. And you remember what they looked like when they weren't really, really old.

And it's like, whoa, okay. And you do wonder how you get hair to be blue.

It must be the lighting. I don't know how else that works. But anyways, the single most commonly worked miracle for some odd reason, by people from long distance, you know, by the guy doing this at the

TV camera, is the lengthening of short legs.

I did not know there was a plague of short -leggedness in the world. But evidently there is.

I'm not sure how there can be anybody left, given how many short -legged people have been healed remotely by these folks.

But maybe that's the greater, right? No, I don't think so. I don't think so. Note the last part of the phrase.

Because I go to the Father. What does that have to do with anything? Because I'm going to the

Father. Well, this is John chapter 14. And what you're about to encounter is going to be in John 14 and 16, really the foundational portion of Scripture in our understanding and knowledge of who the

Holy Spirit is. The coming of the Comforter, the Parakletos, the

Paraclete. You'll notice that the context here is speaking of the period after Jesus' ascension.

Notice 13 and 14. Whatever you ask in my name, that will I do, so the Father may be glorified in the

Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. Now, if you've got the King James, the

New King James, please note it does not say, if you ask me, it says, if you ask. We'll talk about that if we get there today, which

I sort of doubt we will. But when we get there eventually, I know I'm not here next week, but we'll get to it at some point in time.

That is a very important textual variant that we will explain rather fully. One of the reasons is just a teaser to get you to come back.

That textual variant was directly connected to the only time in almost 30 years of ministry now where I have ever been physically assaulted.

Knocked on my back because of John 14. Now, if I go zooming by John 14, 14 a few weeks and completely forget about it, someone's going to have to stick their hand up and go,

I remember you were going to tell us about when you got attacked because of John 14, 14, and then

I'll remember and tell you about it. But it's a fun story.

Anyways, the point is that if you ask is in the future.

So we're talking about Jesus is now looking toward the future, and he has talked about going to the

Father. Now, this is not the first time. I mean, he started off talking about going to the Father. Now he's returning to that and saying that this idea, that he who believes in me, the works

I do he will do also, and greater works than these he will do, because I go to the Father, has to do, whatever is being discussed here, has to do with the ministry of the

Holy Spirit. Now, some people would want to say, well, this only has to do with the apostles, because we do see a young man that falls out of the window,

Paul goes down, takes him up alive. Peter is involved in resurrection experiences.

You have all sorts of things like that. Some people would say, well, this is specifically fulfilled in the apostolic period.

Well, maybe. I would not argue against that. But, and certainly, the coming of the

Spirit in the book of Acts, there's all sorts of ramifications and things that are worked out over many chapters to explain how it is that Christ will continue to be present with his people, yet now by means of the

Holy Spirit. Because if you just look down to verse 23, I think it's rather interesting.

Jesus answered and said to him, if anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him.

Well, how does the Father and the Son come to us and make their abode with us? It's in the context of the coming of the

Spirit. So that's the same context that you have here as well. And so, this all has to do with the coming of the

Holy Spirit. And if that's the case, then it would seem to me that there would be a weakness in arguing that this is only relevant to the disciples themselves.

Because most of what we find in the rest of 14 and 15 and 16, we make application to all believers.

Because we're talking about the presence of the Spirit in our lives. So, doesn't this mean that the works that Jesus did should be just commonplace?

Well, see, notice we are assuming that the works are only the signs. The signs that pointed to who

Jesus was. The signs that pointed to his messiahship. Well, that's not something that is in dispute any longer.

In the age of the church, we testify that the messiah has come and what the messiah has done.

Not doing what Jesus was doing at that particular point in time. So, when we look at it, the works that I do, he will do also.

I think it's important that we note what had happened just up above.

That we had had the Father abiding in me does his works.

And what had that been the parallel to? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the

Father abiding in me does his works. If you keep that in mind, then you're going to have a broader interpretation of what it says that he who believes in me, the works

I do, he will do also. And greater works than these he will do because I go to the Father. What is it that the

Spirit of God... What was the major change? Let me put it this way. What was the major change?

If you look at the disciples pre -Spirit, and then look at the disciples post -Spirit, post -Pentecost, you have

Jesus saying, stay here until the promise of the Spirit comes.

You shall be clothed with the power of manha. You've got all these promises. You have the end of the

Gospels and the fulfillment in Acts. What's the main difference between these two time periods when we look at the apostles and disciples themselves?

Well, primarily, it is the proclamation of a word with boldness.

I mean, they had done preaching during Jesus' ministry.

They had been sent out two by two for a brief period of time, things like that. But the fundamental difference is the proclamation of a message that is not going to be popular by any stretch of the imagination.

A message that is going to be described by the Apostle Paul as the stench of death, something that is offensive, something that is foolish.

It's going to bring the hatred of the world, and yet they do so with boldness.

And unlike the situation in Jesus' ministry, where Jesus preaches to 5 ,000 men, not including women and children, at the end of the sermon, you've got 12 confused disciples,

John chapter 6. What you have in the apostolic ministry is the proclamation of the message followed by, quite literally, mass conversion.

Thousands who do what is absolutely unnatural in the natural realm, and that is they obey the command, take up your cross and follow me.

They repent and believe. And so, I would suggest to you that one of the things that has been lost in much of evangelicalism is, because we see this stuff on television, we've lost the sense of wonder, and partly maybe because we see so little of it worldwide, but we have lost the sense of wonder at the proclamation of God's truth and how that proclamation draws together such an incredibly disparate and different group of people in repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

The proclamation of the gospel that results in a heart of stone being taken out and a heart of flesh being given, we may not see that in the sense of some type of vision or something like that, but it is truly the work of God.

Because what's God's work now? He's building the church. He's building the church.

And how does he do so? Through spirit -indwelt believers who proclaim that truth.

And while Jesus leaves this world with eleven disciples, not including the women, of course, there are more than that, it's not going to be long until it's being said that these people are turning the world upside down.

And what was the difference? The coming of the

Spirit. It takes a Peter who's hiding out in the upper room and turns him into, well, the

Peter that we know. Very quickly. The Father or my

Father? Yeah, let me, that's a translational difference.

In verse 12, there is no variation that would have the word me. The point is that it's

Hati ego proston patera. Ton can be translated, at least in Koine, we can ask our

Greek brother here, but definite articles, very different in the Greek language than English, by a long shot.

And evidently, you said that King James has my

Father? Yeah, the definite article, because it's there, can have, can function as a possessive pronoun.

And they are interpreting it in that way. I would have to look and see if pater is used, well, verse 13, it's hapater.

So, having the word used with the definite article isn't unusual in this section, but that's an interpretive issue on the part of the translators.

My Nephsalon 28th is not showing a variant there, but I'd have to, it's possible, yeah.

Yeah, okay? Okay, let's close our time with a word of prayer. Our Heavenly Father, we do thank you once again for this opportunity, this freedom that we have to consider your truth and to possess your word and to have this time to ponder it.

We would ask that we would not take this for granted, that we would recognize it for what it is, a gift from your hand.

And as thankful individuals, we would live in light of it. We would ask that you would be with us. We ask you every week this, but we would ask that you would be with us as we go into worship.

Lord, that you would focus our minds, that you would lift up our hearts, that you might be honored and glorified in all that takes place.