Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Good evening, everyone. It is good to see you all here tonight. And before we get started I want to make a few preliminary statements. One I meant I meant to mention this in the last couple classes, and I think I have forgotten.
But in our last class a church a member of the class gave Copies of this Bible timeline, and I still have several copies left, so if anyone would like one. They're over here. Just pick them up during the break if you would they're right here.
But I definitely want to. I don't want them to just sit on my my shelf. They were meant to be given away, so I have several of them here and please feel free to take one. We also have a handout for tonight, but because it's going to be in the second half of the class I'm not going to worry about handing it out yet.
I want to dive right in we are. We are tonight going into our survey of the autopic gospel. Now I don't say it that way just to make it sound strange. I'm trying to remind you when I call this the survey of the autopic gospel I'm trying to remind you that we have four Gospels, but there are three Gospels that are Very similar to one another in fact the word Synoptic is used for those three Gospels and the word synoptic means to view together.
That's what that term means and then we have what is known as the autopic gospel or it means to view by itself and that is what we call the gospel of John. I have been looking forward to tonight's lesson.
I Love the gospel of John. I did say last week that the gospel of Luke is my favorite. Because it was the first that I had preached through. It's what I did my doctoral dissertation on but it is a very Easy thing to say that the gospel of John has certainly been the most beloved of the Gospels down through the ages particularly within the church.
Because of what it tells us about the Lord Jesus Christ and the amount of information that it gives us that the other Gospels simply Do not give us the the the gospel of John is In many ways a Bible all to itself.
It contains a verse which has been considered by many to be the Bible in miniature. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. That whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.
That certainly is one way to give a synopsis of the gospel. And so we are going to be looking at the gospel of John tonight. I've been excited all day to have this time with you all and I'm really looking forward to our study.
But before we begin I want to ask how many of you received the email and or the Facebook post that I put out earlier Today about listening to the podcast today. Okay. The main reason I'm asking is I want to know if you're getting my emails and or my Facebook messages because if you're not then there are some times in this class where I'm going to be sending you things to do during the week and If I don't have your email address or whatever, I won't be able to do that.
So if you did not get an email email from me or you are not on Facebook because I do it on both. Then please during the break come see me so I can make sure that you get that because what I did Today's podcast and for those of you who don't know I do a podcast every morning at 630.
It's about a 20 to 30 minute lesson on some subject today. I talked about the Walter Bauer hypothesis, which has been very influential in the last 100 years in regard to the liberal understanding of the New Testament.
Particularly regarding the life of Jesus Christ if you are not familiar with the Walter Bauer hypothesis I would recommend please go and listen to that podcast. And if you did listen to it, hopefully now you're at least more familiar with what I'm talking about.
It's very important particularly regarding. And basically the Walter Bauer hypothesis is this that in the first century there was not Christianity. But that there were Christianities. There were a lot of competing and various Beliefs among Christians.
There was no Orthodoxy there was only diversity. There was no Unity and belief and Bauer essentially said what we believe is simply what one, you know. You've heard the old adage that the history is one is written by the winners and the only reason why we believe the things that we believe is because it won out and Had the Gnostics won then we'd all be Gnostics or had the whatever's won.
We'd all be that and it's a hypothesis that is not rooted in history. It's rooted in speculation. And it really doesn't have any foundation in history at all. But you remember last week we talked about the historicity of the Gospels this is one of those areas where the Skeptical scholars which are I should have used this term last week the higher critical scholars.
That's usually the term more Adapt to those who are opposed to the historicity of the scriptures the higher critical scholars will cite things like the Bauer Hypothesis as the foundation as I said in preparation for this class I've been listening to a Yale professor teach a survey of the New Testament and it's absolutely atrocious.
He assumes the Walter the Bauer hypothesis without without giving any real Foundation for it. He just assumes it's true and He bases almost his entire presentation. All of his lectures on the idea that there is no real Orthodoxy in Christianity, but it's all diversity and so again, I didn't mean to spend this much time on it, but if you didn't listen to the podcast, please do it's very important and Also in the podcast I point you to a man by the name of Michael Kruger.
Michael Kruger is the name in Church history right now as far as regarding the history of the text and he has some very wonderful Teachings and books on the subject and I would point you to him as well.
So that being said let us look. Begin our look at John's gospel. Hopefully you did your homework. What was the homework for this week? Read that's the homework every week. Did you read? Good. Okay, so you've you've already gotten a step ahead.
Because what we are doing we are going to look at three things tonight regarding the gospel of John. I wish we could just read the gospel of John. We probably could in an hour and a half. But but we're not going to do that, but it but there's so much value and just hearing what it has to say.
But we're gonna look at three particular Aspects of the gospel of John. Number one. We are going to look at authorship and purpose. Number two, we're going to look at theological insights and Number three, we're going to look at issues regarding harmonization.
Now I want to say something about Those things this is a survey and One of the things you will Realize if you ever take another survey of the New Testament, whoever the teacher is will probably teach different things than I do.
Because as surveys and I don't get my my stuff from from books. I write most of my curriculum myself night. I draw from tons of literature, but I write my own outlines. I write my own curriculum and so as I survey the New Testament it might be different than another professor would and they're going to be certain things that I focus on tonight.
That another professor might not and likewise another professor might focus on things that I that I wouldn't. And so when we get to the theology of John know this I have I have a handout for you. It is such surface level.
There's no way at the time. We have to dive into all of the theology of John. In fact, I was looking over it as right before class started and I said, oh I forgot this or I should have included this. Or this is what and so as we're going tonight, I may just have to keep you here until midnight.
Yeah. There's just so much theology in the gospel of John. But we're going to focus. I did I do have an outline that I'm going to try to stick to simply to keep us on task so let's look first at authorship and purpose with the rise of critical scholarship there began to be a rise in the debate as to who truly authored the Gospels and The most hotly debated gospel was John's gospel and Can anybody tell me why?
That's right. That's right. Yep. The the John has what we would call a high Christology Has a high view of Jesus Christ. And so the argument among critical scholars was that such a high view of Jesus Christ was not Present in the early church.
It wasn't even present in the first century according to the critical scholars and therefore John could not have been written in the first century in fact. It was widely accepted for a long time that John was actually a late second century writing which would have put it well outside the time of the life of John himself which would mean that it wasn't written by John so that argument was very popular and Some made their case as to why we shouldn't believe in things like the deity of Christ because they were second century additions to What the Christians actually believed and then archaeology did us a favor and by the way Archaeology always does us a favor.
We should never be afraid of What's going to be found in the sand or what's going to be unearthed? Because we have the truth we shouldn't be afraid of facts if we have the truth and You remember that passage where Jesus said if if these be silent then the very stones will cry out.
I had an archaeology professor when I was in seminary who loved that verse. Because he made the argument that he said I think Jesus is literally saying that one day Archaeology is going to prove everything.
I've said it's true. I I don't agree with that, but you understand what he was saying said the rocks are crying out. Every time he used to say this he said every time a spade went into the ground. They would unearth one more fact that that that verified what the Bible said.
There were places that the Bible talks about and some people says these places never existed. Then archaeology went and began to dug and they found ruins and of these places and it's amazing. It's it's it's just again one more verification that that not only is the Bible true and accurate.
But we have the evidence to show it's true and accurate. And so it's wonderful to have those things and when it comes to the gospel of John We have early Manuscript fragments and the earliest Manuscript fragments that we possess are from the gospel of John some of the earliest manuscript fragments p52 is a Fragment of the gospel of John P stands for parts or Pot papyri, thank you.
It's it's papyri when the Bible was written when the New Testament was written. It was written on papyri, which was. It was an early form of paper. They would take the papyrus read and they would interlace it together and they would press it down and they would they would basically Create paper out of it.
And and so the earliest manuscripts were written on this papyri and then later manuscripts were written on vellum. Which is like leather those manuscripts lasted a lot longer than the papyri manuscripts.
It amazes me that any papyri is left at all but there is and We have pieces of manuscripts and one of the ones that has been found is p52 it is the earliest and most famous Greek New Testament manuscript and It is of the gospel of John and it dates to the early 2nd century.
What does that mean. Well, that means that those who said that John wasn't written until the late 2nd century are wrong. Because we have a copy of it that dates To the early 2nd century not the late now if you're having trouble keeping up with this in your mind.
Here's here's what they're saying. And here's what actually happened. They're saying, you know, we have the first Oh bad marker. We Have the. We have the it's almost comical we have the first century is.
There is no year zero, but would you say zero to ninety nine the second century? So that so that's the first century. The second century is 100 to 199 so that's the second century and then of course 200 to 299.
Is the third century if you took my church history class, you remember we did three centuries at a time. So the first three centuries of the church are huge very important and they're saying the gospel of John is written here.
When John lived here. Okay. So this what this couldn't be written by John if it's written way out there. But John John lives in here then a copy is found. The copy is from around here. What does a copy demand?
An original yeah, there has to be original and when and when copies exist that means not only has the original been made but it's it's it's been Transmitted so much that copies have been made. So this takes us well back into the first century well into the lifetime of John.
John lived the the latest of the Apostles. He lived till in to the 90s. So he lived well in this time period putting his gospel well in the period of time of his lifetime. I'll read this to you says the Apostle.
John likely wrote this Gospel sometime late in the first century. I would disagree with that, but we'll get that in a minute. But this means that p52 the earliest New Testament Manuscript was likely copied within a hundred years or so of the original moreover since manuscripts.
Since the manuscript was discovered in Egypt a significant distance away from Ephesus where the gospel was originally written. We can see that the text of the Bible is being copied and widely circulated.
Already in the second century so not only was it Early, but it was so far away that it shows that expansion. Early on it shows that copies are going out and they're going far and wide. And so so those who argue against the authorship of John.
Had to step back and say oh wait, okay now we're our arguments about Christology and Early Christian Christology those those arguments don't really work. And so that's where we find ourselves. We find ourselves in a situation where it shouldn't be as hotly debated as it is and anymore it really isn't even the even the.
The guy that was teaching the Yale class that I was telling about even he said yeah, John wrote it it was amazing. He's a higher critical. Yeah, John. John is the author. Now there is another thing that we need to look at as far as authorship.
And this is. We have testimony to John's authorship, which is fairly unique. We have testimony to John's authorship that comes from an early church father. Named Irenaeus. Irenaeus was the student of a man named Polycarp.
You've probably heard of Polycarp. Polycarp was a student of who? John he was a disciple of John. Irenaeus was a disciple of or a student if you will of Polycarp so Irenaeus is two generations or really one generation.
From the original and guess what Polycarp or guess what Irenaeus tells us? Irenaeus tells us that the Gospel of John was written by John. So we really have no reason to doubt John's authorship and Maybe I spent more time on that than I should have but I think it's hugely important.
We are we this is the man who walked with Christ. This is the man who laid his head on on the on the chest of the Lord Jesus. This was the man who said who he said I Jesus loves me. You know, he was the first to say Jesus loves me this I saw this I know right because he said I'm a man who?
Jesus loved. And we have his words. We have his gospel from his own hand. Now we don't know where he wrote. But there are several propositions that have been made. The traditional view is that he wrote from Ephesus.
Legend says that he was requested to write by friends to supplement the other Gospels now again, that's all part of legend and church tradition. But it does make sense because it would conclude us to understand that John was probably aware that the other Gospels existed.
We do believe he wrote later than the other Gospels. So it is likely that he knew that they existed and That brings us to the question of when did he write if if if we take the later? Rendering we can put John as late as 80 to 90 because that would have been the length of his life.
However, does anybody remember what I believe about this because I've talked about it in the classes prior. I 8070 and I have various reasons for that not the least of which is the fact that none of them mention this major thing and It's a fulfillment of prophecy that Jesus gives us in Matthew when he says not one stone will be left upon another.
That happened nobody mentions that it happened. It to me is a huge matzah ball hanging out there that nobody says anything about this but the the other reality is We we think of John and we think of him as the author.
He's not writing so much later than the other gospel writers, but he's writing later, but not 20 and 30 years later. We're looking at within a decade or so. Maybe 15 years not 20 or 30 years, which what does that tell us that tells us the other Gospels?
Are likely already circulating at that time, especially if he's aware of them and people are asking him to supplement. What has gone out? It just tells us so much if we look at it from it from a historical perspective of what's happening.
Because you know what we don't have from the first century. We don't have any other Gospels. The gospel of Thomas people are in the guy again this professor from Yale. Oh, well, we need to look at the gospel of Thomas.
The gospel of Thomas is a second century work at best was not written by Thomas. It is a Gnostic work. It has some of the most ridiculous. I'm probably gonna do a few podcasts on it because I. All you gotta do is listen to it.
Just read it. It's some of the most ridiculous thing. It has none of the qualities of the other four Gospels at all. It is it's basically sayings of Jesus but it's not. Some of it's taken directly out of the the the four Gospels.
So some of its just direct what I would say ripoff, but some of it is very obscure. Language, I believe it's in the it's I know it's in one of the Apocryphal Gospels, but I think it's Thomas where Peter asks about Mary Magdalene being saved and Jesus said she has to become a man before she can be saved.
It's very weird. There's a lot of odd things in the gospel of Thomas and It just doesn't read with the same quality of character that the other four Gospels do. Like one of the easiest ways to just discount it.
It's just read all five read four regular Gospels and then read this this absolute monstrosity and you're like, yeah. That ain't the same it's just it doesn't bear the qualities of historicity or. Any of the you know when you read the new when you read the Gospels think of how it reads it reads like a biography and It and it's it's so expressive and so well written.
And then you get to something like the gospel of Thomas. It's like not not not of the same quality not at all. But again, we talk about the the gospel of Thomas and and other Gospels they they they do not qualify we have four Gospels that come from the first century all four of the people that wrote the Gospels had a legitimate connection to the Apostles and They all tell the same thing about Jesus from four different perspectives.
There is no reason for us to doubt that there should be and should only be the four Gospels so moving on from there. We Don't have to when we talk about purpose. I said we're gonna talk about authorship and purpose.
We don't have to wonder what John's purpose is because he tells us in John chapter 20 verse 30. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that by believing you may have Life in his name.
What's the purpose of John's gospel that you will believe in Jesus? That's the purpose He tells us when the author gives you his purpose. You don't look for another. The purpose is that you would believe in him.
He has an evangelistic Purpose and this is why a lot of churches including our own in the past sometimes purchase copies of just the gospel of John and Give them away as gospel tracts. Because this has been written that you may believe.
Somebody comes to me and they say I'm a new Christian. Where should I begin reading start with John? This has been written that you may believe now. Let us talk more about the purpose because there is more to the purpose than then.
More but not less than that. The purpose is to show that Jesus is worth believing in. This is why it begins in the beginning was the word the word was with God. The word was God. He's worth believing in and John writes his gospel centered around seven public miracles of Jesus seven undone undeniable claims to divinity Within his Life that he was that he bore witness to and the seven miracles are these.
Number one is turning water into wine. That's chapter 2 verse 9. Number 2 is the healing of the noble man's son. That is chapter 4 verse 46 to 54. Number 3 is the healing of the crippled man at the pool of Bethesda.
That is chapter 5 2 to 9. Feeding of the 5 ,000 that is chapter 6 1 to 14. Number 5 the walking on the water chapter 6 verses 16 to 21. Number 6 is the healing of the blind the man blind from birth in chapter 9 verses 1 to 7 and Then the 11 is the coup de gras the raising of Lazarus in chapter 11.
If you look at the pattern of John's gospel, you'll see it centers around those seven major events in the life of Christ. All of them, of course pointing to him as divine now one could argue that there's an eighth and that's the resurrection but in keeping with John's use of The idea of sevens and we do see this because I'm going to show you another one of those in just a moment.
I think that those seven work together because all of those precede Jesus going to the cross all the Gospels share the cross the death burial and the resurrection but John tends to focus on those things and what's interesting about John's gospel is John's gospel gives us more about the life of Jesus in the sense of chronology than anyone else because Matthew Mark and Luke all together add up to about one year of Information in the life of Christ, but we believe John we believe Jesus had a three-year ministry.
Why? Because of John's gospel because John tells us that There are annual feasts and Jesus goes and deals in these feasts. So there's there's three years. How do we know because we're counting the events in John we don't see these same things in Matthew Mark and Luke so John is giving us a wider view of the life of Jesus and the ministry of Jesus and Again, he's centering it around these seven miracles.
Now along with the seven public miracles. There is also seven I am statements of Jesus. I'm gonna I know it's hard to write all these down. And I and I do for the sake of time. I can't just stop and and and go too slowly.
But I'll give these to you in a way that you can write them if you'd like. He says I am the bread of life chapter 6. And he says it several times in chapter 6. I just say it's chapter 6 beginning of verse 35 Number 2.
He says I am the light of the world. That's chapter 8 and Chapter 9. I Am the door he says in chapter 10 verse 7 and verse 9. What's that brother? Okay, he says I am the Good Shepherd chapter 10 verse 11 and verse 14.
He says I am the resurrection and the life chapter 11 verse 25. He says I am the way the truth and the life chapter 16 or 14 verse 6. And he says I am the vine chapter 15 verses 1 and verse 5 so right there we have Seven statements where Jesus says I am the blank.
I am the bread of life. I am the light of the world. I am the bread come down from heaven. Why is that important? Because remember we talked about John has a high Christology, right? What's Christology doctrine of Christ?
John's and what we're going to see when we look at the theology of John is John's entire purpose is to express the absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the God-man. So he uses this phrase over and over I am This I am that I am I am I am.
Where does that come from? Who who who said I am. Well God, right. Well, we're getting there we haven't got there yet. That's John 8 58 because I'm gonna make that point too. But who is who is the first to call himself the I am?
Exodus right we go back to Exodus the burning bush and you have the burning bush. Who says to Moses. Moses said who shall I say has sent me you tell him I am has sent you. Yeah, I am that I am is a reference to God and so Jesus comes along.
He says I am this I am that all of that is is Linguistically tied to the concept of the I am but the most important one I would say Is in chapter 8 verse 58. Whereas Jesus is Interacting with the Jews and he is going back and forth with him about who he truly is.
He says if you if you really were of Abraham you'd believe in me. Abraham look forward to my day. He saw it and was glad where he saw it and rejoiced and They said ha you're not even 50 years old and you're telling me Abraham.
You know and have seen Abraham. And Jesus said before Abraham was I am. I just imagine he said it just like that. It's so cool. Yeah, I mean before Abraham was I am because you got to think of the the weight of Just that statement.
It's formed in such a way that it is absolutely Unquestionable. People always say Jews never said he was God. That's not true because he said it in that verse he said before Abraham was I am. He took on the name of the divine and he expressed his own eternality before Abraham existed.
I Have always existed. That's what the phrase I am means. Means I exist. You see when we say I am we always have to qualify it. I am because there's enough air. I am because I've had enough food. I am because there's enough atmosphere to keep me from floating away.
There's all these things that make me able to exist. God doesn't have that. God has what's called a say it II. Say it II is the is the quality of God. That means he is absolutely self-existent and independent.
A say it II a s e I t y E I t y a say it II and It simply means the to have existence in himself. God is the one who can call things into being because he is self-existent. He doesn't have to have permission from anyone.
He doesn't have to get anyone else's approval. He doesn't have to have anyone else mark the okay on his spreadsheet he is I am. God says and and Jesus said I am. I remember hearing years ago I'll remember who the pastor was but he said he said he said if Jesus was speaking.
Like he should have spoke. He would have said before Abraham was I was. But because he said before Abraham was I am we know he's really saying something. He's using language to make his point and John is Ensuring that we understand that point.
I Do want to make mention though? Because I had this question at set free. I was talking about this I taught on the the day of Christ this morning at set free and the question was well. What do the other Gospels teach the day of Christ?
Absolutely. And even the phrase I am you remember when Jesus came to the to the men in the boat? And he was walking on the water and they and they said he said fear not it is I. That's not what it says in the original language.
This is fear not I am Very important that phrase eggo Amy in the Greek is the same as it is here in and what's he doing when he says I? Am I Am walking on the water. That's a that's pretty divine. Yeah, it's a pretty big deal also Jesus in all the Gospels forgive sins.
In fact, that's why they picked up stones to stone him. That is a prerogative that is belongs to only God. And that's why they were so upset. So John is not the only gospel that gives us a divine Christ.
But he is certainly the one that goes out of his way to express the divinity of Christ in such Uncertain terms that even those two people who show up at your door on Saturday morning have to Retranslate the Bible just to get away from it.
I'm talking about the Jehovah Witnesses they have to have their own translation where they add words and Reorder words so as to make Jesus not divine there really is no question that John's Christology is one of a divine God man Jesus Christ so Kind of got a look kind of got away from myself there because we're gonna see more of that.
We talked about the theology of John, but it really is. This is it. The other thing we should note about John before we move away from the authorship and purpose is that John's gospel is simple. Its sentences are short.
It is the it is the Greek that most students who begin Greek cut their teeth on. Because he uses certain words over and over uses the words believe Love world sin father all those words are used multiple times in John's gospel.
Yet even with a small and repetitious vocabulary He dives deeper on certain subjects than any of the other Gospels, and that's what we're going to look at now. We're going to look at the theology of John's gospel brother.
Well. We want to ask him, but you're closer. Would you would y 'all pass those out for me and Just make sure it's a two-sided. It's it's a two-sided handout, so please make sure everybody gets one sorry I I Do believe numbers matter.
I do not believe in numerology though. Well, that's why I was saying I think you see seven miracles we see the seven I am statements. What is the typically? We talk about biblical numbers. There are certain numbers that have certain Weight to them.
Number seven usually has to deal with completeness. Think about God create the world seven days. You know they're certain answer so John referencing seven miracles seven I am statements. There's certain there.
There's I think there's something to that where it gets dangerous though is when people start trying to interpret the Bible Numerically and and that's where I would say be careful right. I will I'll give you a good example.
Since you asked I always kind of pay attention to numbers. What was Jesus's first miracle? Turn the water into wine. I love Mark Lowry. Do you know Mark Lowry is? Mark Lowry is a Christian singer, and he's a comedian and one of the things that he says he said I love the fact that Jesus's first miracle.
The only purpose it had was to keep the party going and I thought that was kind of funny. Is it really just it just you know? I Want you to consider the enormous weight of the first miracle of Jesus Recorded in John's gospel.
We know it's the first miracle because it says This was the first miracle right John tells us. It's not like we have to guess. Doesn't necessarily mean it was the first miracle he'd ever done because it seems like his mom knew he could do it.
Which is interesting? But in regard to his ministry, this was the miracle that sort of kicked off The ministry and began and what what what do we see there? We see Jesus create Something from nothing.
Now bear with me because some of you're gonna say he didn't create something from nothing he turned water into wine. Yes but wine Has within it Elements that are not in water. Wine has Elements that are not present in water.
So therefore when Jesus turns the water into wine He is adding elements to the water because wine is mostly water it's just got certain elements that are not in water. He adds the elements that were not there by the power of his own Ability to do a miracle and I want and again numbers.
This is why I'm saying this because you reminded me. How many water pots were there. Three? Six six water pots. Look at us John chapter two. No, not about that. I want you to think that's okay. Six Water pots.
Jesus create something from nothing in six days. God created the whole world out of nothing. So there is some there is some. I think there's some connection there as Jesus Identifying his divinity again.
I'm not. I'm not. I'm not diving into numerology. I'm just saying if we see something Where Jesus is doing something miraculous and he's he's identifying himself in a certain way. And there's a connection.
I think the connection between the miracle of the water and the wine is a connection to his divinity. I don't know. I don't want to get too far into it. Like I said, and we got a lot of other stuff to do.
Yeah. All right. So You have your handouts? Please turn to the Theological propositions in John's gospel. As I said another surveyor Might do this quite differently. So I'm giving you my survey of John's gospel in regard to the theological propositions that I would think We should recognize and of course, I am certainly bent towards reformed theology.
So you'll notice that I certainly didn't get away from the total depravity there number four or election number five. But the first thing that John's gospel teaches us primarily is the divinity of Christ now I have spent many many sessions teaching on John 1 1.
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. And I don't we could break the Greek down, but that's that's really too much for this class. The the the part that I think really is overlooked though is because number verse 1 is so clear.
He is with God and he is God that that expresses what we believe about the Trinity that God is one in essence and three in Person. Therefore we can refer to his nature and to his person as being distinct.
I think John 1 1 allows for that but then it says he was in the beginning with God and all things were made through him and Without him was not anything made that was made. Jesus is not only present in Creation he is active in Creation.
He is the agent of Creation. All things were created through him. Now you look down to verse 14. Verse 14 should never be overlooked. It says and the word became flesh and dwelt among us that were dwelt.
There's the word for tabernacle. That's an important side note. Jesus tabernacled among us. There are certain things you can do with the looking back at the Feast of Tabernacles and what that represented and all those things.
But ultimately it says we have seen his glory. Glory is the only Son from the Father full of grace and truth. So if anybody ever says well John 1 1 isn't about Jesus. Well, John 1 14 proves that it is about Jesus.
So there's no question John gives us an interpretation. We've already looked at John 8 58 or we've already talked about it. So I don't want you to go there, but I do want you to turn to John 17 verse 5.
Turn to John 17 verse 5 if you have your Bibles. Oh, wait, you don't have to you have a handout. I'm sorry Keith you're better than this. No, it's okay. That's all right. No. It's fine. I said John 17 5 and now father glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had before the world existed.
Right there. If somebody says Jesus came into existence in Bethlehem take him right to John 17 5. He shared glory with the Father before the world existed and by the way the word there the word for had I do believe is better is the word shared the glory that we shared before the world existed.
Because that's the concept and this gets us back to the idea of the Trinity. How one of the one of the words I think is so important for the Trinitarian for Trinitarian theology is the word share. One essence is shared By three persons and They share the glory of God.
No, you know what? The Old Testament says God says I'll share my glory with no one. So, what does that mean? I mean Jesus has to be co-equal with the Father. He can't be some demi-urge or some secondary God or some kind of deity that was formed.
He has to be completely one with he who has always been. Equal co-equal co-eternal and yet distinct. All right. John 18 verse 6 this one I love because none of the other gospel writers even mention this and it's so huge.
Notice what it says. Says when Jesus said to them I am he by the way. He didn't say I am he he says I am when the when the when the soldiers come to Jesus. Who is you looking for Jesus of Nazareth? I am and They fell down y 'all.
Well, they fell down they drew back and fell to the ground. I think it was as an expression of Jesus's power. We don't see this in Matthew Mark and Luke. But in John's gospel to remind us of who it is who's speaking when Jesus says I am.
They fall down in John 19 verse 30. It says When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said it is finished and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. And why do I say that's a reference to his divinity?
Yeah, by the way, you don't get to do that. When it's your time to die. You're gonna die whether you give it up or not. You're gonna die regardless. Jesus gave up his spirit and that references his divinity and I'll point you back to another passage.
It's written there for you. He says in an earlier passage. No man takes my life from me. John 10. I lay it down on my own accord. No one can say that except of course the God-man. My favorite disciple Thomas.
Why do I call him my favorite disciple. Because I think he gets a bad rap. I Think Thomas. I think first of all anyone who would call him doubting Thomas and think you've never doubted. And you've never had to deal with any kind of doubt shame on you.
So you when they say the one finger points out three more point back at you. And you pointed down to calling him doubting Thomas. How dare you I? Mean we all deal with with we all struggle at some point, right?
You know what Thomas actually said when Jesus was going to Bethany to raise Lazarus. All the other disciples said no if you go you're going to die. If you go they're going to catch you. They're going to put you death and Thomas said let us go with him so that we may die with him.
Nobody remembers that don't remember. They'll remember the error right. Everybody always remembers our mistakes Thomas. Certainly he did doubt, but when he saw Jesus what did he say? He said my Lord and my God.
I had a Jehovah Witness. Tell me one time that that was an expletive. An expletive is it like a curse word like oh my you know when people say use the use the Word of God as a cuss word. I Don't know Thomas personally, but I'm pretty sure he didn't cuss in front of the desire in front of the Savior.
I'm sure he didn't add. Oh my goodness or to use the divine name as a cuss word. How does it say it ha Kodi a smoo Kai, hi. Hey, hi fast man my Lord and my God. It is one of the most beautiful expressions in the Gospels.
Regarding the divinity of Christ and Jesus does not correct him. He didn't say hey, you're wrong, bro. I'm not God. No, he accepted his worship and Not only did he accept his worship. Not only did he not correct him but Jesus demonstrated that What he was saying was true by Continuing on as if it as if nothing happened.
You know, this is this is the truth doesn't need to be corrected. Thomas is that that interaction with Thomas is well worth your time of study. So that that's several things that John gives us in regard to the divinity of Christ.
I would say direct statements to the divinity of Christ. Number two adoption this one will go quick. I pointed this out because a Lot of people say that everyone is a child of God. That's not true. You're a child of God by being born again into the family of God being adopted into the family of God and it says right here.
He says he came unto his own his own did not receive him. But to all who did receive him who believed in his name He gave them the right to become children of God who were born not of the blood. Not of the will of flesh nor the will of man, but of God by the way.
That's Calvinistic too because he was not born again. Because of his lineage he wasn't born again by his own will he was born by the will of God and that's an important truth there, but Ultimately the point I'm making is That John teaches us that we are made children of God through Christ and So we see that the doctrine of adoption the next of the doctrine of regeneration regeneration is Being born again.
We see that in John chapter 3. Did you know this is what I'll say this is interest this interest me. There's nowhere else Where the term born-again is used except for in John 3. We don't see that in Matthew Mark Luke.
Now we see certain terms that are similar. The washing of regeneration I think is used in Titus. But the but but think about how important this is unless a man be born again He will not see the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water of the spirit.
The kingdom of heaven what a what an important thing to only be recorded once. The concept is all over the scripture the concept of regeneration is Going from death to life. Paul talks about this very clearly in Ephesians chapter 2 you were dead in your debt trespasses and sins and once you once walked according to the You know according to the Prince of the power and air and all that and then he says but God being rich in mercy With a great grace with which he loved us made us alive together with Christ by grace you've been saved, right?
That's regeneration same idea being born again same concept, but the but the phraseology born again Is only found in John 3. And that I just find that interesting you can translate it born from above.
I Actually think that's probably what Jesus meant but Nicodemus didn't take it that way. Because Nicodemus says well, does that mean I have to go back in my mother's womb and be born again? So Nicodemus the word again and the word from above literally the same Greek word.
So whichever whatever word Jesus is using here can have could mean either one, but it's obvious that Nicodemus says well, do I have to go back in my mother's womb, which is the most ridiculous of all things to ask.
And Jesus does deride him a little bit, doesn't he? You're the teacher of Israel and you don't understand these things. I mean, can you imagine? You go to talk to Jesus. You say Jesus, you're a great teacher.
No one can do the things that you do unless he'd be from God. Unless a man be born again, he will not see the kingdom of heaven. That ain't what I said that that's a non sequitur Jesus. That ain't nothing to do what I just said.
Are you saying I got to go back into my mother's womb? Unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit He will not enter the kingdom of heaven and then to go on to say you're the teacher. You should know this stuff.
I Mean Jesus really gives Nicodemus a little bit of a hard time if you if you're honest but of course Nicodemus is The Pharisee so it's part for the course. But that's the doctrine of regeneration mentioned there.
And by the way, I do not think that the doctrine of regeneration is a New Testament doctrine. But I think it's fleshed out in the New Testament. I think that Regeneration is necessary for all time that every person who's ever believed in in God Who has ever believed in the promises of God have done so because their heart was changed the the picture of the Old Covenant was taking out the heart of stone and putting in a heart of flesh and so regeneration is is Expressed more clearly in the New Covenant, but not limited to the New Covenant.
All right ministry or rather doctrine of total depravity. Go listen to my stuff on Calvinism, but that's I mean, we're running out of time and I want to get through these. Total depravity is no man can come to the Father unless or no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him.
It's clear in John 6 A election one of my favorite verses. Is John 10 25 27. Jesus said I told you and you do not believe the works I do in my father's name bear witness about me. But you do not believe because you were not my sheep.
My sheep hear my voice and I know them they follow me. He didn't say you're not my sheep because you don't believe he said you don't believe because you're not my sheep. That is so important and the distinction is massive.
You don't believe because you're not my sheep. The ministry of the Holy Spirit which we will talk about this more and when we get to our survey of acts which is next week, but the promise of the Holy Spirit is Clearly given in John 14 and 15 and even into 16 we we probably you're probably familiar with the term paraclete.
That's the Greek word paraclete. Ah, so it means one who comes alongside and Probably the most important word is the word alas. It's the Greek which means and it's the translates the word another. Because there is alas and heteros alas is Another of the same kind like if you're handing me apples and I say hand me an alas I would be saying hand me another apple but if I say heteros That would be hand me an orange because that's a different kind right so that so the distinction is in the Greek.
Another of the same kind and another of a different kind and Jesus said I will pray the father and he will send you alas paraclete us another of the same kind. As the as the as Jesus is divine so is the Spirit divine.
And we see that in that expression alas paraclete us so important important linguistic point to be made there. We so we see John 14 15 16 about the coming of the Spirit so that that ends that sheet. You can go back and look at those and if you have any questions or anything I'll feel free to ask we're going to take a break in a minute.
But before we do that I want to make just a few other very quick and out very quick statements about John's gospel. Because when we come back from the break, we're going to talk about the most difficult I would say one of the most difficult passages in John to interpret.
We're going to spend the last 25 minutes looking at what I would consider to be one of them one of the most difficult passages especially regarding church history. But before we do that, let me just make a few final points and then we'll take our break.
One is that John does not only use John does not use the Old Testament as much as say Matthew does but he uses a lot of Old Testament imagery and. So it is in John that we hear things like Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
And so there are certain things that John does that that are distinct from like Matthew Mark and Luke where? Rather than pointing to specific he does point to specific Old Testament passages, but but he'd use a lot of a larger illusory languages ill is illustrative language language and Probably the most at the one I've already said the Lamb of God.
Right. Jesus is the Lamb. He is the sacrifice. That was what John the Baptist said of Jesus when he saw him coming behold the Lamb Who takes away the sin of the world? And there's also something else and That is that there is an absence of language in John as well in Matthew Mark and Luke.
We see references to kingdom. But we do not see this in John as much. The phrase kingdom of God is used but the the term kingdom of heaven is. Is is is not? Used as much and so we have I'll read my notes here says the synoptics make a point to focus on Jesus as the king and of the kingdom itself but but in John The kingdom is with the king.
It's about him he's the king and it's it's about his him him inaugurating the kingdom and so Again cry, what is John focus on the deity of Christ? And So he the king is here. God is among us. What what does Emmanuel mean?
God is with us and Jesus will be called Emmanuel the king has come so In John's gospel eternal life is used more than terms like kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God because eternal life is with the king and Where's the kingdom?
It's with the king. So with that let's take a break. You have five minutes and we'll come back and we're gonna look at the most difficult passage in John in my opinion now I Hopefully wet your appetite for something controversial.
So We're gonna spend the last few minutes with what I consider to be the most difficult part of the gospel of John when I say this Any anyone can have an opinion and somebody might say? Oh, this isn't difficult at all.
I think it's difficult from a from the perspective of history and exegesis, which is the Using proper hermeneutics to draw from the text what it means and it is in John chapter 6. So if you want to open up your Bible to John chapter 6 in John chapter 6 We have some of the most Clear teachings of Jesus on the depravity of man.
John 6 37 Jesus says All the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me. Then in verse 44, he says no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him then in 65 He says this is why I told you No one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father.
I've taught on those three verses so many times Because of the subject of total depravity and it seems like every every so often I have to teach Those things again because people forget them or we have new folks.
And so I've spent a lot of time in John 6 but but in the midst of that is a part that I don't teach on much. Not because it's hard but because it simply is not the part that's typically the focus for me and that is the part where Jesus refers to his body as true bread and his blood as true drink.
Now the reason why I say I think this is the hardest and again somebody may argue Somebody may hear this somewhere and say oh, I don't think it's that hard at all. I think it's hard in respect to the idea of The question of What we call real presence.
Most people think that the difference between Catholics and Protestants on the Lord's table is The difference between what they call real presence. That's not the difference. Because the doctrine of real presence is Not the same as the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Transubstantiation is a 12th century doctrine. I believe it was the 12th century the 1100s That the Roman Catholic Church used to argue that Jesus's sacrifice must be presented again for the sins of his people and Therefore the table became an altar and the act of communion became a sacrificial act.
It became a propitiatory sacrifice. Every time we come to church We're going to satisfy the wrath of God by offering up the Son of God again on the table as a sacrifice for sins that is the doctrine of Transubstantiation when when John Wycliffe wrote against the doctrine of transubstantiation in the in the 1300s.
It was only a couple hundred years old. In fact, that's one of the arguments that he made was this was a recent teaching. I mean recent. I mean, you know 200 years is fairly recent when you think of theology.
He said this is a recent teaching and so transubstantiation and by the way that term transubstantiation means that the the elements change substance to literally become the body of Christ and the blood of Christ and they have a they have a philosophical underpinning to that because people say well It still looks like bread still looks like wine and they say yes because of the difference between substance and accidents.
Substance is the actual reality of something and the accidents or how that reality is understood or Felt or expressed and so they say the accidents do not change and therefore bread still tastes like bread wine still tastes like wine but the substance underlying the accidents are Changed into the literal body and blood of Christ and that is the that's a little more deep into the doctrine of transubstantiation but the doctrine of real presence Certainly predates the doctrine of transubstantiation.
The doctrine of real presence is that Christ is present in The sacrifice or in the in the sacrament. That Christ is truly present in the bread and the wine. Did you know John Calvin? Believed in what is known as spiritual presence.
Jesus is there spiritually. Luther believed in real presence. He believed Jesus was there physically. He believed in what was known what became known as consubstantiation, but Luther didn't like that term.
He didn't use that term. Basically what he said was the the elements aren't changing but they're being added to con means with trans means change. So the the Roman Catholic doctrine was that the substance is changing transubstantiation.
Luther said no, it's not changed. But the presence of Christ is added there. It's con substantiation it's with the substance and Luther held to real presence and. And I will say and I will admit that many people in church history have believed in real presence and Many of them use John chapter 6 as their argument.
So let's read the text. Let's with that being said let's actually look at what the text says. Can't read the whole chapter, of course for time's sake, but we will read. Beginning at verse. Well, let's begin up at Let's Let's begin around verse 45.
It is written in the prophets and they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the father except he who is from God. He has seen the father truly truly I say to you whoever believes has eternal life.
I am the bread of life. Your father's ate the man in the wilderness and they died. That is the bread that comes down from heaven so that no one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
If anyone eats of this bread He will live forever and the bread that I will give you Excuse me the bread. I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. Now verse 52 is when it really kicks in gear.
He says the Jews then disputed among themselves. How can this man? Give us his flesh to eat. So Jesus said to them truly truly I say to you unless you eat of my flesh. Excuse me. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you.
Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food. My blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him and The Living Father sent me and I live because of the Father so whoever feeds on me He also will live because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven not like the bread the father's ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever. Jesus said these things in the synagogue as he taught in Capernaum and when many of the disciples heard it they said this is a hard saying no one can understand it or who can understand It but Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this said to them.
Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life and the flesh is no help at all the words that I have spoken to your spirit in life.
But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning those who were Who who did not believe and who it was who betray him and he said. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.
After this many of his Disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. I Think verse 66 important. That's why I read all the way down to it because You have to ask the question. Was it was it verse 65 that offended them?
Some people argue that it was Because he said no one can come unless the father grants it to him. But he said the same thing in verse 44. I Tend to believe that what offended them was when he said you gotta eat my breath eat my body and drink my blood.
I think I think I think that was pretty offensive. I think and in Jesus, you know He talked about the church growth movement. Jesus was the was the was the ancestor of the church diminishment movement like he was off.
He could clear a room and even after this the decide he looks at the disciples. He says you're gonna leave too. Yes, I'm where we're gonna go you have the words of life, you know, so the point I'm trying to say is I think this.
I think this is intentionally. From the words of Christ intentionally meant to strike the heart. I think it's intentionally meant to be difficult. Not everything in the Bible is meant to be fed to us like baby food.
Sometimes I mean think about the woman. I always think about this passage where the woman came to Jesus and asked him to heal and he says Do we give the food? to the dogs. You know, you know you ever think about that passage you think about I mean if somebody if some woman walked up to you and Asked you for help and you called her a dog.
Most people would think you were pretty rough. But Jesus did it and I and I said this the other day. I'm I posted something on Facebook. I said if I ever say something that is offensive it was probably on purpose.
Because I tend to know what I'm saying and if there's anybody who knew exactly what he was saying was Jesus. Jesus knew exactly what he was saying. The question is what was he saying and when it comes to the the subject of the Lord's table.
First of all people who connect this to the Lord's table have to do so. Looking back because this is not he doesn't say this at the table. So so keep that in mind. This is in the synagogue at Capernaum.
This is not in in the upper room on the night before the crucifixion. So people who tie this to His words in the institution of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that.
I'm just saying you're automatically disconnected in context right. Because the Roman Catholic if you ever and if you've never had the conversation I'll tell you how fun it can be if you've never had a conversation Roman Catholic about the Lord's Table and what it really means they're going to run to John 6 like Usain Bolt.
I mean there's going to go as fast as they can to get to they're not going to start in 1st Corinthians 11. They're not going to start in the narratives of the gospel that talk about the Lord's table. They're going to break their ankles running as fast as they can to get to John 6 because this is the passage that they believe affirms their position of transubstantiation.
So Does it. I don't believe so and I will say this right away, I Don't think anything can affirm transubstantiation because transubstantiation is is 1 ,100 years after Christ and The doctrine is so foreign to the doctrine of propitiation.
That it has to be repeated over and over and over that it's an absolute violation of Hebrews. Which tells us that the sacrifice of Christ was once for all time. It was not meant to be repeated. So if a Roman Catholic comes and wants to argue about transubstantiation my immediate thing is do you need another sacrifice for your sins?
Do you need the sacrifice of Christ to be repeated and if the answer is yes? Then you do not understand the sacrifice of Christ. So that's that's huge. But we still have to deal with this whole real presence thing.
How many of you know Francis Chan? Francis Chan, I don't. I don't get in debate whether you like him whether you hate him. He very recently has been the talk of the town. Because he came out in support of real presence.
Okay Francis Chan is is is not not somebody that I listen to a read or anything like that. So it didn't bother me. I don't care what he believes. I just let me just say he's not on my reading list. So I really don't care.
It may end up on a coffee with the Calvinism at some point. Just you know, I'm looking for something to talk about. But ultimately I don't care what Francis Chan believes, but this he he said I was surprised to learn.
That so many people in the history of the church have believed in real presence and those of us who have studied church history. Have said I'm surprised that you could be surprised. I'm surprised you i'm surprised anybody could not know that if you've read any church history.
The idea that that there were people who believed in real presence. That was that that was a controversy and that was something that people yeah. Certainly people believe that. It's not the same as transubstantiation though, and you have to make the distinction.
Because if you believe in real presence, that's not the same as saying christ has to be sacrificed again. John Calvin certainly didn't believe that john that christ had to be sacrificed again. But he believed that christ was spiritually present in the sacrament.
There are four primary views on the table. That most most of you probably heard of but if you've never heard of them, they're important to know. The first is transubstantiation, which i've already explained.
It is the rep it is the representation of the once for all sacrifice of christ. It's absolute heresy. Transubstantiation is heresy. And I would say it's not it's not up for debate. The second is the lutheran view christ is is with the elements.
In a physical way and therefore we are partaking of his Body and blood when we partake but it is unseen um I think I think it was lutheran to use the phrase in over around and through. To refer to his presence is in the bread around the bread over the bread and through the bread.
So they have this sort of nice little Expression that they use. Calvin said no, it can't be and here's the argument. I love calvin on this because he makes such a great argument. Calvin said jesus christ's divinity is infinite, but his his humanity is not.
So his physical body cannot be in the bread and at the right hand of the father at the same time so. So he can't be in over around and through. But he can be spiritually in the bread and that is the position held typically by Reformed baptists and presbyterians if you've ever read the 1689 confession, that's basically the calvinistic position.
But it is not the position. I hold unfortunately. Because i'm a bad calvinist. Because there is a fourth view. And the fourth view is what has typically been known as the zwinglian view. Uh, but more more specifically referred to as the memorial view.
Let me spell that please zwinglian z w i n g L i a n zwinglian. That is based on the teachings of julrich zwingli. He was the other swiss reformer. He was a contemporary of luther remember luther and and zwingli actually before calvin I think calvin was 11 years old when luther nailed the 95 theses so that that puts him Almost a generation behind luther and so zwingli actually there there an argument could be made that zwingli was the the proto uh reformer before before luther.
Because zwingli was doing stuff in I think zurich before luther was doing stuff in and um, and uh, uh Wittenberg, so so there so there's certain I'm, i'm a big fan of zwingli. I he went right about everything but I'll tell you one thing He did do that was pretty amazing.
He served communion in wooden bowls. Because up until that point if you know communion was they had they had the the golden Chalices and the all of this accoutrement that came with having the lord's table.
In fact the first time luther ever Presented the lord's table as a priest. He he he spilled it because he was so afraid to touch it. And his father was absolutely embarrassed. Because His father wouldn't be a lawyer didn't want to be a priest.
Sent him to law school to be a lawyer here. He's he he gets converted to be a priest and the first thing he does spill the lord's blood all over everything and so there's this. The the the view of The table of zwingli is is this zwingli said Christ is not present physically or spiritually.
He is present memorially. That From his own words. Jesus said do this in remembrance of me and so that was. And and this was this was actually what divided luther and zwingli. Because they met together what was known as the mar marburg colloquy.
I always think of always in my mind I always say marlboro colloquy like it was. They're gathered around with some uh cigars or cigarettes or whatever. No, uh, the marburg colloquy. They met on 15 points of doctrine.
They agreed on 14 of them. But when it came time to discuss the lord's table luther History says luther actually beat the table and said hulk asked corpus meum. And that's latin for this is my body. And they could not arrive At a consensus on the lord's table and they divided and they never reunited.
In fact luther would go on to say that Zwingli was dangerous and that his teaching was false. He basically threw zwingli under the bus. Zwingli ended up dying on the battlefield. Uh, which is an amazing historical secondary note.
But the the point of the matter is zwingli was saying what we have in the table Is something that points us back to the real reality. And if you if you if you spend some time just Going through the scriptures and looking through the concept of memorial you will find that It's all through the scriptures that there are memorials that are made as reminders to something.
The memorial stones that were put up even even you could even you could argue that the covenant signs were memorial signs. The what is the rainbow? It's a sign that not going to do that again right. Well, what is the lord's supper?
It's a covenant sign, right? It's for new covenant believers and it's a sign of what was done for us and it points back to a greater Thing the sign is always less than what it points to right? You see a sign that says jacksonville three miles.
Well, the sign is nothing compared to the actual city of what it points to right? And so the sign takes on little significance when compared to what the sign points to. And so in that regard, I I would say this when somebody says, oh, it's just a memorial.
I say watch your mouth. Don't use the word just. Because if it's a memorial To the body and blood of christ you can't use the word just. And really be just um. So I haven't answered the question though because I I do want to.
I want to go back to the issue. What is jesus talking about in john 6. Is jesus talking about the table? I don't think so and I want to base this on verses 47 to 51. Notice what he says and and I want you to remember Jesus is using language that's intended to be provocative.
He is using provoking language. We know this because people leave and jesus said that's basically what was going to happen. I kind of I knew this was coming. You're going to leave too, you know. But look at verse 47.
Truly I say to you whoever believes has eternal life. I'm the bread of life. Your fathers ate the man in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven. So that one may eat of it and not die.
I am the living bread that comes down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I give for the world. Excuse me for the life of the world is my flesh. How does one eat of christ according to verse 47.
He believes in him. That is how we partake of the lord jesus christ. Jesus said let me finish my thought and I want to hear what you have to say. But he said whosoever believeth in me will not perish.
That is how we imbibe that is how we partake of the lord Jesus christ is by the act of believing and jesus uses the very powerful metaphoric language of eating. To point to the concept of believing. So brother tim you have something to say.
Yeah, i'm just going to say isn't that can you see the same? With the woman at the well. About throwing the water. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. This is living water. You drink of it. You'll never be thirsty again.
Well, give me this water. I'll have to keep coming back. He's he's speaking and I hate to use the word metaphorically because. It's often we have to be careful with allegories and metaphors. But is is is there is it not the perfect metaphor for jesus to say you must ingest me.
You must take me into yourself you must in in eating of my of my body and drinking of my blood it says it's it is allegorical to you must you must receive me. And so I would say I would say connecting this to the table too literally is is dangerous.
However, can we connect it to the table? Tangentially. Yes, because when he does hold up the bread he says this is my body. And anybody with two cents of brains goes no your body is holding the bread.
That's not your body. That's the bread. But he says he doesn't say this is like my body or this is a symbol of my body. Or this is a memorial of my body. What does he say? So this is my body. That's important that's again what separates us from the lutherans unless you are of course a lutheran.
I know I just lost battery. Thankfully. I have two backups because last week really bothered me. I cut it cut off halfway through so. So When we see this phrase Eat my body drink my blood. Certainly, I think it can be connected to the table.
But it's not to be connected by way of making the making the table something that it isn't it's simply Confirming the idea of believing in the lord. Jesus christ. Uh, I hope that was helpful. And like I said, you might think another passage in john is harder that to me is.
One because of the historic ramifications I consider that to be One of the hardest ones in the gospel of john now. We have to close because it's time. I do want to mention one thing on the back of your handout tonight I gave you This is actually directly from the book introducing the new testament by mu and carson and all this does is tell you some of the distinctions between the synoptic gospels and john's gospel.
And I wish we had more time, but we don't keep this in mind. Next week we're moving out of the gospels. We're moving into the book of acts. You have reading to do and I would encourage you to do that and be ready.
And be looking at your email because I may send you something extra to listen to read. Let's pray Father, thank you for this time of study. I pray that it has been fruitful for your people and encouragement to them.
And I pray all this in jesus name and for his sake amen.