Lars Larson Live Stream

Mark 14: The Anointing at Bethany, the Last Supper, and Peter’s Denial

Our Bibles to what? Mark 14? And Jason will read for us that chapter then pray.

For us. Mark 14. Mark 14. It was now two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth and kill him. For they said not during the feast lest there be an uproar from the people.

And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper as he was reclining at table a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard very costly and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.

There were some there who said to themselves indignantly why was the ointment wasted like that. For this ointment could have been sold for more than 300 denarii and given to the poor. And they scolded her.

But Jesus said leave her alone. Why do you trouble her. She has done a beautiful thing to me for you will always have the poor with you and whenever you want you can do good for them but you will not always have me.

She has done what she could. She has anointed my body beforehand for burial. And truly I say to you wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world what she has done will be told in memory of her.

Then Judas Iscariot who is one of the twelve went to the chief priests in order to betray them in order to betray him to them. And when they heard it they were glad and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him.

And on the first day of unleavened bread when they sacrificed the Passover lamb his disciples said to him where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover. And he sent two of his disciples and they said to them go into the city and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you follow him.

And wherever he enters say to the master of the house the teacher says where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples. And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready there prepare for us.

When the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them and they prepared the Passover. And when it was evening he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating Jesus said truly I say to you one of you will betray me one who is eating with me.

They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another is it I. He said to them it is one of the twelve one who is dipping bread into the dish with me for the Son of Man goes as it is written of him but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed.

It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. And as they were eating he took bread and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them and said take this is my body. And he took a cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank it.

And he said to them this is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.

And when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives and Jesus said to them you will all fall away for it is written I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered. But after I am raised up I will go before you to Galilee.

Peter said to him even though they all fall away I will not. And Jesus said to him truly I tell you this night this very night before the rooster crows twice you will deny me three times. But he said emphatically if I must die with you I will not deny you.

And they all said the same. And he went to the place called Gethsemane and he said to his disciples sit here while I pray. And he took with him Peter and James and John and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.

And he said to them my soul is very sorrowful even to death. Remain here and watch. Going a little farther he fell on the ground and prayed that if it were possible the hour might pass from him. And he said Abba Father all things are possible for you remove this cup from me yet not what I will but what you will.

And he came and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter Simon are you asleep. Could you not watch one hour. Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.

And again he went away and prayed saying the same words. And again he came and found them sleeping for their eyes were very heavy and they did not know what to answer him. And he came the third time and said to them are you still sleeping and taking your rest.

It is enough. The hour has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise. Let us be going see my betrayer is at hand. And immediately while he was still speaking Judas came one of the twelve and with him a crowd with swords and clubs from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

Now the betrayer had given them a sign saying the one I will kiss is the man sees him and lead him away under guard. And when he came he went up to him at once and said rabbi. And he kissed him and they laid hands on him and seized him.

But one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to capture me day after day I was with you in the temple teaching and you did not seize me but let the scriptures be fulfilled.

And they all left him and fled. And a young man followed him with nothing but a linen cloth about his body and they seized him but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. And they led Jesus to the high priest and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together and Peter had followed him at a distance right into the courtyard of the high priest and he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire.

Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death but they found none. For many bore false witness against him. But their testimony did not agree. And son stood up and bore false witness against him saying we heard him say I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and in three days I will build another not made with hands yet even about this their testimony did not agree.

And the chief priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus have you no answer to make. What is it that these men testify against you. But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed.

And Jesus said I am and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest tore his garments and said what further witness do we need.

You have heard this blasphemy what is your decision. And they all condemned him as deserving death. And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him saying to him prophesy. And the guards received him with blows.

And as Peter was below in the courtyard one of the servant girls of the high priest came and seeing Peter warming himself she looked at him and said you also are with the Nazarene Jesus. But he denied it saying I neither know nor understand what you mean.

And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed and the servant girl saw him and began again to say to the bystanders this man is one of them. But again he denied it. And after a while the bystanders again said to Peter certainly you are one of them for you are a Galilean.

But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear I do not know this man of whom you speak. And immediately the rooster crowed a second time and Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him before the rooster crows twice you will deny me three times.

And he broke down and wept. Let's pray. Our Father when we read this text we see some of the shame that the Lord Jesus Christ endured. He was spit upon he was mocked. He was unjustly tried he was blasphemed and Lord he did this for your glory.

He did this for our good. And when we see Peter and we see his denying you Lord we often we need to confess that we often deny you. We deny you in our words. We deny you in our thoughts. We deny you in our actions.

But Lord we are so thankful that you are faithful that you could not deny yourself that you perfectly followed the law of God you perfectly followed the will of God. And because of you because of your work on the cross Lord we have life.

We thank you for our union with Christ. We thank you for the fellowship that we have as believers with each other because of your work. And we pray now Lord as we turn to the gospel of John and as we continue our study there Lord help us to be mindful of what Jesus Christ has accomplished on our behalf we pray that we would understand the text.

We pray that the Spirit would teach us exactly what we need to do individually in order to obey it Lord conform us to the image of your Son. Thank you in Jesus name Amen. Well let's turn in our Bibles again.

John 6: The Bread of Life and the Meaning of Eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood

To John 6 as we're working through this discourse of Jesus where he declares that he is the true bread that comes down from God out of heaven to give life to the world it's fitting that we sang that first hymn today the hymn of the month.

We picked it of course a theme because it was centered here on John chapter 6 so we somewhat of a struggle for us the first occasion first Sunday the month singing that hymn of the month but we seem to get better as the month goes on and I trust that'll be the case with this new hymn as well.

Well this is the fifth Lord's Day in which we've considered this discourse of Jesus. John's gospel is centered around seven signs and each sign seems to establish the context or the occasion for Jesus to give a discourse.

And we are presently about halfway through it. As we've been here some some time now and in our passage today we read of our Lord Jesus actually becoming more direct and provocative than he had been up to this point it would seem as the passage unfolds he gets more direct with his hearers and they actually get more angry with him as he became more clear and direct.

Now we've got 13 pages of notes before us. There's no way in the world we're going to get through those today and so don't you know sigh or or be discouraged by that. But I did want to put what was here in your hands to make them available to you.

The nature of our passage of John 6 really forces us to have to deal with some issues that some may regard is not pleasant. We live in days when we're supposed to celebrate everybody's opinion no matter how biblical or unbiblical it is.

That's how we coexist right. Everybody's right. But we cannot be faithful to the Lord and faithful to his word by taking that kind of approach and so we have to address what we believe the Bible teaches.

It may get some hymn books thrown at me but that's alright. We've got to do what we do right regardless. And so the nature of this passage and the divergent claims as to its interpretation by disparate groups over the centuries whose beliefs are practiced today across the world really necessitate for us to address them.

Because not only are we called of God as a church and certainly I as a pastor to proclaim what is good and true but we're also commanded in Scripture to warn people against that which is bad and false.

And that kind of thing is not popular in today's multicultural world. Nevertheless. And so today in our notes we give particular attention to what we would regard Protestants have always regarded as the idolatrous and blasphemous practice of the Roman Catholic Mass with his teaching of transubstantiation.

We repudiate this as not being biblical but rather the creation over time of tradition and doctrine the doctrines of men and I think I'll mention it later. We might not get to it though. But the first word of transubstantiation isn't found in literature until the 9th century AD although you had supposedly priests offering a sacrifice of the Lord's Supper much earlier in centuries the first notion that somehow the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper is turned into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ did not surface until the 9th century AD.

It was a it was the result again of tradition departing from the scriptures over time and authoritative teachings and doctrines offered by Rome. Rome's claim in practice that their priests repeatedly offer Christ and bloodless sacrifices on a consecrated altar made holy by a relic is unbiblical.

And we would argue Protestants always have that this is idolatry the sin of idolatry for those all those who participate. And from the earliest days of the Protestant Reformation the belief and practice of Rome respecting the mass has been refuted and corrected biblically and historically.

And so again we'll not have time to speak on all the information in your notes. But I felt it important that you have it in hand anyway. We left off last week in our study of John's Gospel in the sixth chapter with verses 50 and 51 and following in which we read Jesus's words this is the bread which comes down from heaven speaking of himself of course that one may eat of it and not die.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. And the bread that I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the life of the world. So the Lord had been speaking regarding himself as the true bread from heaven.

Really since the early part of this discourse we're up at verses 50 51. But early or early on he declared that he was the true bread from heaven. But he did so in more subtle ways before this point as the dialogue unfolds however we read our Lord became more direct and pronounced in his assertions.

The crowd got madder and madder and he got more and more direct. He wasn't trying to appease anybody. Jesus first declared that although Moses had given Israel bread in the wilderness Jesus said to them my father gives you the true bread from heaven.

That was back in verse 32. And then in verse 33 Jesus described this bread from heaven was not literal bread but the true bread from heaven is a person he didn't yet identify himself. He said for the bread of God is he.

He was the personal masculine pronoun third person he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. But then Jesus became more direct in verse 35 in which he declared I am the bread of life.

And he repeats that later and again we saw when we were there. That was a claim to deity. The I am a go a me. And Greek was the claim that he's the Jehovah the burning bush I am the bread of life. And so for the bread of God he's who comes down from heaven gives life to the world and it is he I am the bread of life.

He told them that the life that he gives as the true bread is obtained by the one who comes to him. Verse 36. So what is it to come to him. What does this mean. Well he conveyed then the truth that to come to him is to embrace him in faith as the only source and means of eternal life that God the Father grants to those who know him.

He is the way the truth and life. No one comes unto the Father except by him as he declared in John 14. And so he conveyed the truth that to come to him is to embrace him in faith again as the only way of salvation.

Nevertheless Jesus then told them that none of them would believe on him in spite of all the signs all the miracles in spite of the great offer and privilege that was there none of them would believe.

And so those who do come however would do so because God the Father draws them. And so the Lord Jesus starts talking about the sovereignty of God in salvation. It's because of the Father he draws sinners to believe on Jesus.

I would have never come to Christ if it were not for the drawing of the Father. And neither would you have done so if you're in Christ today the Father drew you. You didn't find Jesus. He found you. You were the one who was lost.

Jesus wasn't lost. And you went out there and found Jesus. No you were lost. And he came and found you is how the scriptures declare it. Isn't it. And the Father drew you to him. But again Jesus told them you don't have the desire nor do you have the ability to come on to him.

And so it's the Father who draws them. And so he speaks of God's effectual call when God. It's not just a general call. We give a general call to everybody in this building right now come to Christ and forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.

And that's a sincere offer of Christ to everyone here who's a sinner. But there's a calling of God because no one would respond to my invitation. You know unless God uses my words to call and summons there's conviction.

This isn't just this man standing up here and teaching me about Jesus. I hear God calling me to believe and to turn from my sin. It's a it's a powerful spiritual working and awakening in the soul that God performs.

And Jesus indicated that. And again the promise verses 35 to 40. Speaking of this effectual call of the father of the elect on the salvation Jesus said to them I'm the bread of life. He who comes to me shall never hunger.

He who believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you've seen me and yet you do not believe. They were no different than anybody else. And then he declares all that the father gives me will come to me.

And the one who comes to me I will by no means cast out. For I've come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of the father who sent me that of all he has given me that that's the elect that the father chose and then gave to his son in eternity.

And then he was sent on this mission. You go save them. And it was his mission to come. I'll lose nothing. He doesn't lose a one of them but should raise it up at the last day. This is the will of him who sent me that everyone who sees the son truly sees him spiritually with the eye of faith and believes in him may have everlasting life.

And I'll raise him up at the last day talking about the final day of the resurrection and the general judgment of all mankind. He'll raise that person up on to everlasting life. Well the Jews if they're listening to Jesus were getting more and more enraged because they knew exactly what he was saying what he was claiming.

He declared that he had come down from God in heaven. In other words they understood what he was saying. They didn't believe it but they understood he was asserting his incarnation that God the Father sent him down from heaven.

And of course he assumed a human nature and became Jesus of Nazareth the God-man. He asserted his incarnation sent by the Father. And they reacted and rejected his claims as we read in verses 41 and 42.

The Jews then complained about him because he said I had the bread which came down from heaven. They said is this not Jesus the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know. How is it. Then he says I've come from heaven.

They didn't believe it. They wouldn't believe it. But with verse 43 our Lord then you know didn't become apologetic and trying to convince them and persuade them. It would seem that he ramped up the intensity of his language by becoming more direct toward his hearers and more abrupt in the description of himself.

And so we read verses 43 through 51. We've already covered these. Jesus therefore answered said to them do not murmur among yourself. Stop your complaining. And he's talking to the synagogue in Capernaum.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I'll raise him up at the last day. It's written in the prophets they shall all be taught of God. Everyone that becomes a Christian comes because God the Father teaches them to do so.

Therefore everyone who's heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except he was from God. He's the only one. He's the infinite son of God. He's the only one who can see the infinite God face to face as it were.

Everything else is simply a very very limited representation of God so that we might understand him through to our human context. Most assuredly I say to you he who believes in me has everlasting life.

I am the bread of life. The second time he stated that truth your fathers ate the man in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven that one may eat of it not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. And the bread that I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the life of the world. He is the only source of life for the entire world faith through Jesus Christ.

And it's with verse 51 we left off last Lord's Day. And it's here we pick up with our Lord's words which speak to the theme of this fourth division of the discourse that of the outline that we've been following which is no one has eternal life except through feeding upon Jesus Christ.

And that's what we have in verses 52 through 59. And as we read this again I want you to notice the more heightened and direct language that Jesus now gives to this gathering. The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat.

And then Jesus said to them most assuredly that's one of those verily verily statements that we've talked about. Amen amen I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you.

He couldn't have you know slapped a Jewish man or woman in the face and shocked them more than that word who were forbidden to have any kind of blood in their meat. Now he's talking about really a cannibalistic idea.

He wasn't apologizing. He didn't back off in any way. He went for the spiritual juggler. So to speak whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. And I'll raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed my blood is drink.

Indeed he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me. I and him as the Living Father sent me and I live because of the Father. So he who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven not as your fathers ate the manna and are dead.

He who eats this bread will live forever. These things he said in the synagogue as he taught in Capernaum. And so he concludes his public course as it were. And so we read that our Lord as he taught these people he did so with an increasing boldness and intensity speaking in terms and conveying images that confronted these people directly.

And as they expressed their refusal to believe on him he expressed to them their sad and damned condition as unbelievers. They revealed their resistance to him even their intractable hostility of him their incorrigible unbelief in his claims to be God incarnate sent by God the Father.

He was asserting that he was eternal God sent by God his father. And now is manifest in this man standing before them who alone gives eternal life to them who believe on him. And they didn't like it they were enraged.

Now we know of course I hope we know that our Lord's emphasis on eating his flesh and drinking his blood was to illustrate and emphasize to these people that true saving faith in him is a wholehearted dependence and confidence in him.

He was pressing on them the truth of the gospel that God gives eternal life to those who believe on him with their entire heart mind soul and strength. And that's what he was by the metaphor the imagery of eating and drinking.

Eating his flesh and drinking his blood. This should not be understood carnally. He wasn't pulling saying he was going to pull off some of his flesh and give them to eat and drain some of his blood out of his veins and give them to drink and thereby give them eternal life.

That is a carnal understanding of that he was speaking the spiritual matters. It's pagan and it's really anti-christian to speak in those terms. He was rather impressing upon his hearers that he alone was the source of eternal life just as the people have willed in the wilderness long before had to depend on eating the manna in order to sustain physical life.

People needed to feed on him in faith in order to have everlasting life. And so we see in these verses that we just read our Lord increasingly sharpened his speech intensified his imagery as his discourse as his discourse unfolded in the passage.

And although Jesus had spoken about the need to come to him and to believe on him in the earlier portions he introduced the idea here of eating him and then of course drinking his blood. Now the teaching of Jesus to this gathering of Jews regarding eating his flesh and drinking his blood of course caused a significant and lasting impression on those hearers.

You can bet they never forgot this. Did they. And this was one of his purposes for speaking to them in this manner. Those who are sitting there I imagine who did not believe on him this just confirmed them in their unbelief.

This guy's a heretic. Let's get him out of here we've got. We're not going to listen to another word this man says. And then there were others who probably believe somewhat. They wanted to make him king.

We read because they he fed him the day before. I imagine that their faith which was not wrought of God but rather it was a superficial faith I imagine that was immediately squashed when he gave these words.

There were a few there however his disciples who truly believed on him it must have caused them puzzlement. And yet they had resolved. They were going to follow Jesus regardless of what he taught. They were already convinced who he was and they needed him and they were not going to turn loose of him.

And so you've got this reaction and you got the people really kind of spreading out in extremes those who are clinging to him in faith but probably troubled listening to him and watching it unfold. I mean they had a kingdom at the beginning of the day 5 ,000 men women children wanted to make force him to become king and by the time Jesus got done with them after a sermon you know he barely had his 12 and it must have been terribly distressing for those 12 disciples.

And we'll consider that more next week I think. And so it's quite remarkable the way our Lord Jesus handled these people. Now let's consider a few general matters about interpreting this passage and here's where we get into it a little bit.

There is a difference of opinion on commentators coming to John chapter 6 and how to read it and how to interpret it say to churches today the theme of Jesus eating his flesh and drinking his blood is one of the major points differences and sources of contention across the spectrum of commentators of John's gospel.

And it's not so much a difference between say conservative common and liberal commentators as much as it's a difference between churches and those traditions that seem to be more liturgical and those traditions that are less liturgical in their form of church service as it were.

In other words a major point of difference and contention and interpreting this discourse of John chapter 10 is whether or not our Lord's words should be applying or should not be applied to the Lord's supper.

And you can see easily it could be he's talking about eating and drinking eating and drinking which we just did. And so there are those who make the application and the way these arguments go therefore in common in commentaries are one of two directions really two different contexts.

There are those of us who would argue when Jesus talking about himself as the bread he was speaking in comparison and contrast to Moses giving the manna and so he is talking to Jews in the synagogue of Capernaum comparing and contrasting himself as the bread from heaven against the manna.

The other group however would say no rather John the Apostle wrote this gospel probably in the 90s AD and therefore he was writing to a Christian community probably in Asia Minor what is Western Turkey today.

And so he is writing to a church and therefore he was recounting to these people in this synagogue really addressing and speaking about the Lord's Supper that the church in the 90s AD would have been practicing.

And therefore you have commentators who say the Lord's Supper should not be seen at all in John chapter 6. And you have others that say it's only speaking about the Lord's Supper here in John chapter 6.

And then you have people that go in between as well they see one or both and so really that's at the heart of the debate. Here's a on page four of your notes I put in a little theological note taken from one of my commentaries that I find very useful.

It's a very rather late published commentary. It's quite good. I don't agree with everything but it's quite good. And he wrote about this problem interpretation unlike the synoptics that would be Matthew Mark and Luke unlike the synoptics John does not give an account of the Lord's Supper.

That's interesting. For this reason alongside what is often taken as strong Eucharistic imagery the Eucharist is of course a term commonly applied to the Lord's Supper by more liturgical people. Eucharist is taken from a Greek Latin word meaning gratefulness sometimes grace or gratitude a strong Eucharistic imagery of the pericope.

Numerous interpreters had debated the manner in which this pericope or episode incorporates sacramental theology. In other words the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. How one interprets or even recognizes the Eucharistic imagery is almost entirely dependent upon the author assumed by the interpreter.

In other words God. Or is it John. That's the point. For example those who see the sacramental meeting meaning directly in the text consider the author to be writing to a first or to a late first century Johannine Church audience where such practices are already developed.

They're observing the Lord's Supper perhaps weekly and so that's the emphasis of John chapter 6. In contrast others consider any sacramental meaning to be blatantly anachronistic. In other words you're talking about another time.

It has no application to John chapter 6. One might try to hold them both in tension like Carson. He's making reference to DA Carson who's an excellent commentator who has in view primarily the ostensible historical context but would secondarily be willing to say that it's hard to imagine the evangelist writing several decades after the institution of the Lord's Supper could produce these words without noticing that many readers even if they understood the passage of right would in all likelihood detect some parallels with the Eucharist.

I think Carson has a point there. That's how John's gospel would have been read. When John wrote it he was talking about a historical situation. And yet when those gospel readers read it they wouldn't couldn't help at least seeing something there with the Lord's Supper.

And then Plink goes on to argue his position that he took in his commentary on John rather than choosing between Jesus and the evangelists are trying to mediate between them on historical grounds. This commentary intends to incorporate them both within the confines of the ontology of Scripture.

In other words the nature of Scripture. You just don't limit it to the historical situation. And he's right which interprets the words of the divine agent or author God in cooperation with a human agent author that'd be John.

This allows no demands that one not choose between Jesus and his Jewish context and the evangelist. That would be John the gospel writer and his Christian context. That is we should not be forced to choose between whether the imagery is alluding to the motif of manna in the Old Testament that would be Jewish or to the right of the Eucharist in the early Christian movement Christian rather in light of the purview of the divine author God.

The images make impressions upon the reader that reverberate across the entire canon with the manna in Exodus and the Eucharist in 1st Corinthians serving the appropriate interpretive background from which Jesus comes and is made known as Augustine in the 5th century explains in regard to manna and the Lord's Supper in the signs they were diverse in the thing which is signified they were alike as Jesus explained regarding Moses he wrote about me.

And in other words what what is arguing is that it's not an either-or there is both involved. Obviously when if you sat down and read John chapter 6 probably the idea of the Lord's Supper would at least be correlating there.

How does this. How does this apply. What does this mean. Even though the exact historic context was only motive Moses and the manner in the wilderness. Well this is one of the difficulties of John's gospel.

It's a complex matter and try trying to sort it through. Well I prefer to address the historical issue. This is how Jesus taught in the synagogue and I laid down the arguments here against the sacramental interpretation of John 6.

In other words those who are more non liturgical these are the reasons they wouldn't apply it to the Lord's Supper directly and so first of all the setting of the discourse mitigates applying it to the Lord's Supper.

Jesus is talking to Jews in a Jewish synagogue in Capernaum and that was long before the Lord's Supper was even instituted instituted down in Jerusalem couple years later perhaps they wouldn't have had any kind of understanding or context of the Lord's Supper and therefore to apply Jesus's words to that they would argue is illegitimate.