“It would be political suicide to give that speech,” said an aide to his boss. “He’s right, Senator,” chimed in another aide. “It’s just one clear-cut statement after another” (Morrie Brickman, Reader’s Digest [4/83]).

It’s probably suicidal for a pastor to preach on why you should not tithe! It’s risky at best, because some may hear the part about not tithing and block out the rest of the message! I would guess that if everyone who came regularly to this church gave ten percent to the church, our income would probably triple, at least! So why am I not preaching instead on why you should tithe?

The answer is that tithing is not the New Testament standard for giving. Perhaps more than any other factor, giving reflects the condition of our hearts: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:21). You can fake some things, but you can’t fake giving your money! You may get mad at me, but I’m going to give it to you straight: If you give ten percent or less of your income to the Lord’s work, in most cases it reflects a lukewarm heart toward God. I used to give ten percent and thought I was doing fine. Then I made the mistake of preaching on giving! I discovered that God’s Word teaches that ...

We should not tithe because God wants us to give generously, and tithing is the bare minimum.

Our God is a generous, giving God who so loved the world that He gave that most precious gift, His only begotten Son. “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). As God’s people who are to be like Jesus, we are to be generous givers.

The Bible teaches that God, who richly has supplied us with all good things, wants us “to be generous and ready to share” (1 Tim. 6:18). But what does generosity mean? Isn’t giving 10 percent of my income to the Lord’s work being generous? If not 10 percent, how much should I give?

1. Tithing is not the New Testament standard for giving.

Many churches promote a concept called “storehouse” tithing, based on Malachi 3:10, where God tells Israel to “bring the whole tithe into the storehouse.” They teach that the local church is the storehouse, the tithe belongs to God, and His blessing is conditioned upon faithfulness in tithing. One pastor in a church near me in California preached that if his people weren’t giving ten percent to that church, they were in sin and needed to go home and repent!

Before I critique this view, let me point out that there are some commendable points regarding tithing: (1) Those who tithe are often acting in obedience to what they believe God has commanded. (2) Tithing gets some to increase what they give. (3) Tithing helps consistency and discipline in giving. But consider these seven reasons why tithing is not God’s standard for Christians:

A. Tithing was a part of the law of Moses; believers are not under the law.

Romans, Galatians, and other New Testament passages make it clear that Christians are not under the law of Moses. That does not mean that we are lawless, because we are under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:20-21; James 1:25; 2:8, 12; Rom. 13:8-10). Those aspects of the Mosaic law that reflect the moral character of God are valid under the New Covenant and are repeated as commands in the New Testament. But the church is never commanded to tithe.

Those who argue for tithing point out that Abraham and Jacob both tithed prior to the Mosaic law (Gen. 14:20; 28:22). Thus tithing supersedes the law, they argue. If the New Testament gave no further guidelines, that might be a valid point. But it does, as I will show. But there are other practices, such as circumcision and sabbath-keeping which pre-date the Law and yet are not binding on us.

If you examine the references to Abraham’s and Jacob’s tithing, you will see that God did not command them to tithe and there is no indication that this was their regular practice. On one occasion after a victory in battle, Abraham tithed the spoils from that battle, but nothing is said regarding his other possessions or his regular income (Gen. 14:20). To follow Jacob’s example would be wrong, because he was making a conditional vow before God, promising that if God would keep him safe and provide for him, then he would give God a tenth (Gen. 28:20-22). That’s hardly a good example to follow in giving! Tithing was required under the Mosaic Law, but believers are not under the Law.

B. Tithing was an involuntary tax to support Israel; believers are not a part of the theocratic nation.

In the Old Testament, there was both required and voluntary giving. The tithe was required. It was commanded for every Israelite to fund national worship and help the poor. In actuality, there was not just one tithe, but rather two or three ([1] Lev. 27:30-33, Num. 18:20-21; [2] Deut. 12:17-18; [3] Deut. 14:28-29), so that the total was not 10 percent, but more like 22 percent (see Charles Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life [Moody Press], p. 86). Thus if we are required to bring the whole tithe into the storehouse today, we had better up the percentage from 10 to 22 percent!

C. Tithing is not mentioned in any instructions to the church, although much is said about giving.

G. F. Hawthorne writes (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [Zondervan], 3:854:

Since the tithe played such an important part in the OT and in Judaism contemporary with early Christianity, it is surprising to discover that never once is tithing mentioned in any instructions given to the church. Jesus mentions scribes and Pharisees who tithe ..., but he never commanded his disciples to tithe. The writer to the Hebrews refers to Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek and Levi paying his tithe to Melchizedek through Abraham ..., but he never taught his readers to follow their example. Paul writes about sharing material possessions to care for the needs of the poor ... and to sustain the Christian ministry .... He urges and commends generosity ... but never once does he demand, as a command from God, that any specific amount be given.

If tithing is to be practiced by the Christian church, it seems strange that Paul did not mention it when he wrote of giving, especially to the predominately Gentile churches which would not be familiar with the Old Testament.

D. Tithing is not mentioned in any writings of the early church fathers.

By itself this is not decisive, but it lends weight to the biblical arguments. If the early church practiced tithing, then the concept should surface somewhere in the writings of the church fathers of the second and third centuries. But it does not, even though giving was an important part of early Christian worship (see Hawthorne, pp. 854-855).

E. Tithing puts the wrong emphasis upon giving.

Tithing emphasizes your obligation to God; New Testament giving, as we shall see, emphasizes your willing, loving response to God’s grace. Furthermore, tithing limits giving by making a person feel that he has paid his dues (so to speak) and thus nothing more is required, when, in fact, much more could be done. Tithing has a tendency to put a person on a legal basis with God, rather than a love relationship. It’s the wrong emphasis.

F. Tithing leads to a false concept of stewardship.

It leads to the notion that 10 percent is God’s money and 90 percent is my money. In reality, 100 percent is God’s money, and He may want me to channel 90 percent into His work and live on 10 percent. Tithing can be a bad rut.

G. Tithing is burdensome for some and too easy for others.

If a man with a family of five makes $20,000 a year and tithes, he has $18,000 (apart from taxes) to support five people. If a childless couple makes $100,000 a year and tithes, they have $90,000 (apart from taxes) to support two people. That would be burdensome to the man with five mouths to feed, but ridiculously easy for the couple.

There are seven reasons that argue against tithing. Then what is God’s standard for giving?

2. Generous grace giving is the New Testament standard.

When you say “grace,” a lot of people, unfortunately, connect it with hang-loose, undisciplined living. But that is not grace! Nor is grace the balance point between legalism and licentiousness. Rather grace (as a system) is totally opposed both to legalism and licentiousness, which are two sides of the same coin.

Legalism and licentiousness both operate on the principle of the flesh. Legalism is an attempt to earn standing with God through human effort and leads to pride or condemnation, depending on how well you do. Licentiousness casts off restraint and lives to gratify the flesh.

But God’s grace is His unmerited favor based on Christ’s sacrifice. The motivating power in grace is the indwelling Spirit of God. The person under grace responds out of love and gratitude to God and depends upon the indwelling Holy Spirit to conform his life to what God requires. With that basic understanding of grace, let me spell out some things that grace giving is not, and then some things that grace giving is.

A. Grace giving is not ...

(1) Random and irresponsible. It does not mean that you give every now and then, hit and miss; rather (as we shall see next week), it is planned and systematic (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 9:7).

(2) Based on feelings. Being under grace does not mean living by feelings. Living under grace means walking by faith and obedience in response to God’s love. There are many commands under grace.

(3) Usually less than the requirement of the law. God’s grace should motivate us to excel far more than the minimum under the law (1 Cor. 15:10).

(4) Giving God the leftovers. God deserves the best, not just what is convenient. If we love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, then we won’t just give Him what’s left over after the bills are paid. He deserves first place.

Thus grace giving is not sloppy, irresponsible, haphazard giving whenever we feel like it.

B. Grace giving is based on ...

(1) God’s example in Christ (2 Cor. 8:9). Aren’t you glad that God did not just give a tenth! He gave all. The Lord Jesus Christ was infinitely rich. He dwelled in the unimaginable splendor of heaven, apart from the sin and corruption of this world. But He gave that up, laid aside His privileges, and took on human flesh. He could have chosen to be born as a prince in palatial splendor. But instead He was born and lived in poverty. He ultimately impoverished Himself to the maximum by taking upon Himself the sin of the human race in order that we might become rich (2 Cor. 5:21).

Grace giving looks to the nail-pierced hands of the Lord Jesus, who gave Himself so that we might be rescued from the wrath of God, and says, “Lord, You gave all for me! What can I give back to You?”

(2) The concept of stewardship. “You are not your own, for you have been bought with a price ...” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). All that we are and have belongs to God, not just a tenth. I am merely the manager of His resources. As a good manager, I use the Owner’s resources to further His work (see Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 11:27-30 for some examples).

(3) Inner motivation, not outward compulsion (2 Cor. 8:3-5; 9:7). Motive and attitude are crucial. It is better to give a small amount based on a loving response to God’s grace than it is to give a large amount based on outward pressure or pride. Note the attitude of the Macedonian believers: they had an abundance of joy (2 Cor. 8:2); they gave of their own accord (8:3); they begged with much entreaty for the favor (8:4!); first they gave themselves to the Lord (8:5); they had both the readiness and desire (8:10-12, 9:2); they gave cheerfully, not grudgingly or under compulsion (9:7).

We should not think, “How much do I have to give?” but rather, “How much can I give?” We should not wait for someone to pressure us with a need; we should look for needs that we can meet (8:4). I look for and give to Christian organizations or workers that do not pressure donors with desperate appeals for funds. You almost don’t notice these workers because there are so many pleading for your money so that they “won’t go off the air next week.” May I say, “Let them go off the air!” Christians ought to give based upon inner motivation, not outward pressure. Grace giving is based on ...

(4) A new relationship with the Holy Spirit, not the old dispensation of the Law. Romans 8:14 says, “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” Galatians 5:18 says, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.” The context of both passages shows that Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit leading the believer into righteous, godly living. In Galatians, such righteous living is spelled out in the context, in part, as sharing financial resources (6:6, 10).

It’s easier in some ways to follow a set of rules. Just give your 10 percent and that takes care of the matter. But God wants us to be led by the Holy Spirit. That’s kind of scary! The Holy Spirit might want me to give 35 percent or who knows how much! But the point is, I am not living by rules, but in a relationship with the living God.

(5) How much God has prospered you. How much should you give? How much has God prospered you? (Note 1 Cor. 16:2, “as he may prosper”; Acts 11:29, “in the proportion that [they] had means”; 2 Cor. 8:3, 11, 12). Generally, they gave according to their ability, and in some cases beyond their ability. Sometimes you should give sacrificially. (We will look at that next week.) But the general principle is, give as God has prospered you.

When God entrusts you with more money, instead of spending it on more junk that you have to protect from moths, rust, and thieves, you should ask, “Lord, how do you want this money used in Your kingdom?” As God gives you more, you should increase the percentage you give, not just the amount. If you have enough to live comfortably, then invest the rest where God pays guaranteed, eternal dividends.

But here’s the catch: we need to start giving where we’re at, and not put it off until someday when we’re rich. The Macedonians gave in the midst of a great ordeal of affliction, out of deep poverty (2 Cor. 8:2). Jesus commended the poor widow who gave all she had to live on, but He was not impressed with the large gifts of the rich, because they had much left over (Mark 12:41-44).

George Muller is remembered as a man who received millions of dollars to support his orphanage, in response to secret prayer, without making any needs known to others. What many don’t know is that Muller gave away vast amounts to the Lord’s work out of funds that were given for his personal support. From 1870 on, he personally contributed the full support for about 20 missionaries with the China Inland Mission. From 1831-1885, he gave away 86 percent of his personal income! As the Lord prospered him, he could have lived in style. But he lived simply and gave away the rest.

Conclusion

Generosity and grace giving are built on the qualities we have already studied. If you’re free from bondage to greed and debt, you won’t be enslaved to money. If you’re a person of integrity and if you’re faithful as a manager, not the owner, of your money, then when God supplies you with more, you will prayerfully channel anything above personal and family needs into His kingdom.

In this church, we don’t use pressure or gimmicks to get people to give. I want your giving to be between you and God, based on your response to the love He has shown you at the cross. Also, I want to encourage each of you to refuse to give to any organization that uses pressure and fund-raising gimmicks. If you believe in the work of this church, then give generously as God has prospered you, out of love for Him.

Don’t assume that because we don’t use pressure we don’t have needs. I believe it is legitimate to inform the church family about needs so they can give wisely. We have needs: to meet our monthly budget; to get some better office equipment; to pay off the mortgage on the house next door so that we can use it and the house across the street for ministry; to buy more property for adequate parking; to pave the lot behind the church. We have to turn away missionaries who need support. I believe the way to meet these needs is to help God’s people get their hearts right before Him and to teach what His Word says about money and giving. As we respond to God’s grace by giving generously, the needs will be met.

A farmer who was not much concerned with spiritual matters once went to hear John Wesley preach. Wesley was preaching about money and he soon had the farmer’s attention, because his first point was, “Get all you can.” The farmer nudged his neighbor and said, “This is unusual preaching! I’ve never heard the likes of this before. This is good!” Wesley talked about hard work and purposeful living.

His second main point was, “Save all you can.” The farmer became more excited. “Did you ever hear anything like this?” he exclaimed. Wesley denounced waste and extravagance. The farmer was quite happy, thinking, “I do all this.”

But then Wesley advanced to his third point, which was, “Give all you can.” “Oh, dear! Oh, dear!” moaned the farmer. “He has gone and spoiled his sermon.”

I hope you don’t think that I have spoiled this series on money by saying, “Give all you can.” God has given all for us; He wants us to be cheerful, generous givers who respond to His grace.

Discussion Questions

1. Agree/disagree: In most cases, not giving more than 10 percent reflects a lukewarm heart toward God?
2. What is the biggest hindrance to generous giving among Christians? In your own life?
3. Should we give out of obedience even if we don’t feel like it? Isn’t that legalism?
4. If 10 percent isn’t the standard for giving, how do we know when our giving pleases God?

Copyright 1993, Steven J. Cole, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, © The Lockman Foundation

This is part 4 in a 23-part study on the book of John. Below is a modified transcript.

Let’s begin with a prayer. Lord, we thank You for this opportunity to gather together and for us to study Your word together. We pray that You would give us discernment and clarity and give us ears to hear, eyes to see and a heart willing to obey and respond so that we are not merely hearers but doers of Your word. We pray in Jesus’ name. Amen.

We are looking at John chapter 2 and if your recall, there are no chapter and verse distinctions in the originals. You always want to remember that. It’s very important for you to see the smoothness of this because it then goes on to say in chapter 2 verse 1, on the third day. The question some scholars have is you identify earlier days for example John 1:35, again the next day and so forth. Some scholars identify four previous days and then three more days after those days and that is to say His journey up to Galilee would perhaps be for a total of seven days. The sixth day would have been passed over in silence according to this view and in that setting you’d have the idea of seven days of witness and of revelation in the knowledge of Christ.

Now I like a particular application or a particular way of seeing that I found in a book by Gary Burge in the NIV application commentary that says that in John you actually have two books. The book of signs is chapters 1-12 and the reason why it’s called the book of signs is because you have this first main part, which looks at semeion rather than dunamis. Dunamis is the word used in the synoptic gospels of Jesus’ works of power and it means miracles. Signs, semeion, point beyond the miracles to the spiritual revelatory power and meaning of the miracles. So that it’s one thing to believe in Him because you see miracles but it’s another thing to see that the miracles actually point beyond themselves as signs for us to recognize who He is. See the concept there. There’s the idea that John uses this phrase in contra distinction from the synoptic gospels. As the book of signs, he’s developing a case very generally with a sign followed by a discourse and then another sign and a discourse. Although in chapter two we do not have a discourse until after Nicodemus in chapter 3. Then speaking of the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist in the 2nd half of chapter3, there is another discourse. You have this kind of back and forth movement but the signs are designed to teach us something about who He is. We’re also invited to see that there is a response. There are some people who accept and some who do not embrace Him. There’s movement between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.

There’s also the book of glory, which are chapters 13-21. The reason why it’s called the book of glory is because Jesus interprets the hour of glorification, namely His departure to the cross. This is the time where God Himself honors and exalts Himself through His Son so that the cross, rather than something being ultimately dishonorable turns out to be a sign of great victory, power and authority where He is in fact lifted up before all men.

Within the book of signs though, I want you to notice especially as John 2 opens up to us that we see John concentrating on both the festivals of Judaism and the institutions of Judaism. The reason why he’s doing this is he’s contrasting what Jesus is offering in the new covenant with what was found in the old covenant under Judaism both in terms of it’s institutions and it’s festivals. If we were to consider, for example, the institutions in John we would look particularly at chapters 2-4. There we would discover a wedding in Cana (2:1-12), the temple in Jerusalem (2:13-25), a Rabbi in Jerusalem (3:1-24) and a well in Samaria (4:1-42). You have various powerful symbolic institutions that are repeated over and over again in the Old Testament. In the Hebrew Bible you have a contrast between what Christ has been providing and you have these institutions there, the wedding was a major feast, the temple, the Rabbi and the well. Then there are the festivals. They’re particularly found in chapters 5-10. The festivals would be the Sabbath in chapter 5, Passover in chapter 6, then Tabernacles in chapter 7, and Hanukah, the festival of lights in chapter 10. We have a symbolic portrait of how Jesus consistently does something here. There’s a theme of replacement and fulfillment in each of these cases. He’s going to be replacing the temple, a whole new way of teaching, a whole new approach to the Sabbath, the Passover and the festivals. All these things now are being replaced in one way and being fulfilled in another. He’s actually going to fill them with the wine of His own life and revelation. We have a radical transformation that’s taking place.

Typically here is what we see throughout the action. You usually see a four-fold pattern. Jesus would appear at an important event in Judaism- that’s the first thing. So whatever the important event is, He shows up, whether it’s a marriage, at the temple, one of the members of the Sanhedrin approach Him or a well which symbolized a very big theme in the old covenant. Jesus exploits symbols that are associated with those very events to make His own identity clear. Each of these things exposes something about His actual identity. There’s a progressive exposure of His very identity. John is a book of increased exposure and increased revelation just as the whole bible is progressive revelation as you go. God Himself in His very nature and character is being exposed in a revelatory manner. We increase in our grasp of the light and He builds to a crescendo so that we have a fairly clear grasp of who He is and what He claims to be by the end of the gospel. We, the readers, are given the opportunity to decide whether we embrace Him as being the Christ, the Son of the living God, and by embracing Him we receive life in His name. There’s a wonderful literary structure using subtle sub-themes and layers like this.

Secondly, He exploits the symbols that are associated with the event to reveal something about Himself.

Thirdly, He shows or provides something in abundance that the event actually promises. At the wedding He provides the abundance of wine. The temple had been dead but now He clears it of the old and cleanses it so He can replace it with Himself- with a temple that is His actual body.

The fourth characteristic is He’s misunderstood along the way. Typically what we’re going to see is that whatever He does seems to also be misunderstood often by the religious leaders. There is this motif that John exploits as he develops his material in this gospel.

Let’s take a look then first of all at the wedding in Cana of Galilee and we’ll see this pattern here. Mary, His mother, is there. She’ll be showing up again at the cross in John 19.  John 2:1-5, “On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there: and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, ‘They have no wine.’ And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” Some people regard that as being a little harsh. I’ll explain what’s really going on there in a bit. John 2:5-11, “His mother said to the servants, ‘Whatever He says to you, do it.’ Now there were six stone water pots set there for the Jewish custom of purification containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus said to them, ‘Fill the water pots with water.’ So they filled them to the brim. And He said to them, ‘Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.’ So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, ‘Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.’ This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.”

The first thing we want to look at is the importance, the symbolic meaning of the wedding and the importance of this context here. Some critics believe this is a luxury miracle that wasn’t necessary. I want to argue that this is not at all purposeless. It really reveals some important principles of supernatural power and also it is a miracle of deep significance. Again we have in verse 11 this semeion, the miracles of Jesus, signs displaying the glory of Jesus and the wonder of His redeeming love. We have here the seventh day of the new creation week, which manifests His glory if we take that approach to it although it can’t be demonstrated. Scholars disagree over the structure of the days but unlike the other signs in this gospel this one is not followed by a discourse explaining a spiritual truth. I think it does however show how Jesus is exposing the inadequacies of Judaism as a religion of salvation and initiating his own disciples into the necessity for His own redeeming death. You have these stone water pots that are going to be for purification and Jesus is going to take them and use them in an entirely different way. The water for ceremonial purification is now going to be transformed into wine and that wine gives life. As it says in Psalm 104:15, it makes man’s heart glad. This is a fitting symbol of the new spiritual power that’s made available for humanity by the shedding of the blood of Jesus. We have a picture as well of a great abundance and great quality. I believe in one way it’s the miracle of the kingdom. It’s a miracle of what Jesus is going to inaugurate. There’s an eschatological dimension to it. You have to understand this- weddings in those days really were the chief celebrations of the year. They were a big thing- even bigger than in our culture. They often lasted for a week of celebration. It would be very easy for the wine to run out especially if you had more guests than you expected. Jesus says His mother, Himself and the disciples were invited there because Cana really wasn’t very far as a village, maybe four miles from Nazareth. Folks in that environment would’ve been invited and very likely they ended up with more than they expected and more people hung around as well. This was a huge embarrassment as you can well imagine and so this is a cause of concern.

Why did Jesus’ mother feel the need to take upon herself the burden of that? It’s not explicitly answered but there is indeed a concern or compassion for the painful situation that that actually implies. It’s as though they are insulting the guests by not providing for them. This is no minor thing. I want to suggest that this whole image here of weddings in the Jewish mindset was their best way to typify the glories of heaven, the glories of the kingdom. The idea of table fellowship is a big thing in the scripture as you can imagine. Table fellowship is the idea of people enjoying food and drink together in the context of communion and community and doing it in the context of worship. So the Eucharistic meal became the ultimate portrait of the heavenly banquet. The idea here is that we have something that seems to point beyond itself and Jesus now is actually filling it with something far, far greater.

The key verse for interpreting this is verse three where we see His mother saying, “They have no wine.” She didn’t say do something about it. She just makes this observation. They are out of wine. Of course Jesus knows very well that she is pointing this out to Him. She doesn’t know what He’s going to do. This is the beginning of the signs. I don’t believe she expected Him to actually do a miracle here. What did she expect Him to do? I’m not quite sure but the point here is He did more than she expected.

But then He makes a statement here so different really that His concern is really different from Mary’s. That’s why He says and this is literal, “Woman, what to me and to you.” - Greek literally translates- what to me and to you. Now woman in modern English conveys the erroneous impression that Jesus is reproving His mother. That’s not the case. Actually He used that word in other contexts as well with others for example the woman of Samaria, Mary Magdalene at the tomb and so forth. It’s not unusual to use that term but the context tells us that they don’t have the same concerns. What He’s really saying is this- what do you and I have in common in this issue. You’re being concerned about the human and I’m concerned about My Father’s will. If what you’re asking me to do does not really move in the direction of what My Father’s called me to be then it’s a different concern. We see that the word hour is used in a very special way as it consistently refers to the hour of the Passion and it hasn’t come yet. The certainty of that hour would condition everything Jesus would say and do. That hour is a critical theme. We see it again and again in this gospel. It’s an important motif because it’s God’s timetable in the life of our Lord. I want to say that in verse 5 Jesus’ greater concern didn’t prevent Him from acting according to His mother’s unspoken question.

Here’s what happened. Instead of saying anything back to Jesus at that point, she turns to the servants and says, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” She has no idea what He is going to tell them to do. But she does know that He’s there for a reason. She was sure He was going to take some action and this is the point I want to stress- He will act in His own way. He will not come to our beck and call in the way we might expect. He will act for His own reasons. He will act in His own time. May I tell you that that is a portrait of prayer. We often want God to act in our way for our reasons. I want you to see that He has sovereign authority. I also want you to see that His actions would not only satisfy the physical need there but also point beyond that to a greater abundance and provision of spiritual needs.

The physical in John is always ultimately pointing beyond itself to the spiritual, which would be won by His coming sacrifice. We see in verse 6 as we go beyond this- 6 stone water pots for the purification. Clay water pots would not do. They could become contaminated. They’d need to be broken. A stone water pot according to the Mishna which was the Jewish oral tradition that was later written down, was still available in the oral tradition at that time. Later, around 200 A.D. the Mishna would be written out and actually become part of the Talmud with the Gemara, the commentary. You also had the Babylonian Talmud and the Palestinian Talmud. You had theses Talmudic commentaries, which were being memorized from Rabbi to Rabbi and part of the oral tradition was that you needed to have stone water pots for it to be adequate for purification. Note too that the temple was made of stone and there’s a connection between this miracle and the cleansing of the temple and the fact that the temple was empty or had something wrong in it that needed to be cleansed before that which is of the Spirit can enter.

These were very large containers- 20 or maybe 30 gallons each. Jesus was going to fill them up with wine and fill them to the brim as He stresses so we’re dealing with 120 to 150 gallons of wine and not ordinary wine. I would argue that this is the best wine ever created! My point is that this was not just a miracle of abundance but of kingdom quality and excellence as well. They were surprised because typically you bring out the better wine first and then when people’s palates were not as discerning they’d bring out the cheaper stuff. The idea that he would save the best for now is a surprising concept to them. We see here a miracle really of the old creation and the parable of the new creation. The new worship in spirit and truth surpasses the old as much as wine surpasses water.

Turn to Ephesians 3:20. It’s a reminder of the imagery we have of the blessings of God, “Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us.” We have this wonderful portrait of how much superior this is compared to anything people had known. We see here a picture as well of how God saves the best for the new life, the new creation in Christ. It then in effect, points beyond itself to its ultimate fulfillment in the echelon or future in God’s kingdom. Remember what Jesus said to His disciples, “I will no longer drink with you of the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you in My Father’s kingdom.”(Mark 14:25) Remember that strong word- I will drink with you in my Father’s kingdom. Now that will be impressive. That will be a feast. I want to tell you at that banqueting table and I’ve said this before but the best meal you’ve ever had on this planet is like cardboard in comparison with that. It’s like the food you thought was good will be like stale, old, cheap food. You haven’t tasted anything yet! The same would be true of art and of music and all sorts of beauty. We haven’t seen all that awaits us. We’ve only seen little patches, little hints and little bits every so often as a flash of God’s true glory come because I don’t believe we have the capacity to grasp it or to appreciate it. It would be too much for us. We don’t have the capacity now but it will be good and our capacity will be enhanced. That capacity was limited and bounded as a consequence of the fall and will be more than restored in the resurrection. You might recall that we will be so great in God’s economy that we will be the greatest creatures He’s ever created- even above the angels, which we will judge. “You’ve made them for a little while lower than the angels. You have crowned him with glory and honor” (Hebrew 2:7) The idea here is that we will be judging angels. We see these hints in these anticipations.

Though it was only the disciples who saw what had happened in verse 11. “This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.” So we see a further ground beyond John’s testimony for believing Him as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. You can see the disciples now seeing more about Him. They had already followed Him. They’ve already committed themselves to Him but now they have more ground, more warrant and more experience. The more they walk with Him, the greater their base is. I want to stress then that as the evidence increases their trust, their confidence and their assurance increases.

May I suggest that’s the way it should be in the spiritual life. As you build a personal history of God’s work in your life, shouldn’t that increase your trust and confidence in Him? Particularly as you see how He’s delivered you from things you thought you could never escape from in the past. We have all been in hard spots haven’t we? You looked ahead and said, “How on earth am I going to escape?” But then we look back and some how see a pattern and you build a redemptive history that we’d do well to recall. Our typical experience however is to forget God’s blessings in our lives and to move on as if they hadn’t happened. I suggest that you would be well advised to cultivate the spiritual discipline of remembering. I don’ really see that in Richard Foster’s, Celebration of Discipline, but it wouldn’t be a bad discipline- call it remembering. That is to say the discipline of gratitude, a spirit of thanksgiving honors God. When you do that you gain a confidence in God’s revealing of Himself progressively in your own life. You’re discovering not just God’s works but also God’s way. As you move in that direction then you begin to get an increased confidence in spite of the difficulties of the present tense, which can face us from time to time. We get a confidence because He has delivered us from the past and we can be confident about what He’ll do in the future and in our present. We have a confidence as well that He is leading us in a direction that will ultimately be for our highest good. His disciples then were really entrusting themselves to Him.

We move now to verses 12-25 and the cleansing of the temple. We saw in the first section the glory of Christ manifested and now we’re going to see something about His zeal and about His knowledge of humans. His zeal is going to be particularly revealed in v. 12-23 and His knowledge of what we’re about particularly in v. 23-25.

In verse 12 there is this little hint, a motion here that mentions, “He went down to Capernaum.” He’s going from the heights here down to the area around the Sea of Galilee. He goes down to Galilee, down to Capernaum, which is on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, which is identified as His home- the place where He really made what is His ministry focus-His headquarters. “He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days.” My own view about the brothers of Jesus is that Mary actually had other children. Mary had no union with Joseph until she gave birth to the Son, suggesting there were later children. I have no problem with that but what took place as years went by would be the assumption that Mary was a perpetual virgin. That idea became more and more prominent. These would then be called His cousins or something like that and in any case they were among those who came down to Capernaum. They stayed there a few days and after that incidental verse we go then to the following.

John 2:13-25, “The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables; and to those still selling the doves He said, ‘Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your House will consume Me.” The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this’ and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.”

In verse 12 it says after this or after these things. It usually introduces a new section and this section in John’s gospel extends to the end of chapter 4 with a minor break at 3:21, which deals with the new temple, the new birth and the new worship. In verse 13 after a brief notice of this visit to Capernaum we shift to Jerusalem and the temple. We go from Cana to Galilee and now we’re going back to Cana before we were actually in Jerusalem. This north and south and earlier picture we have in Mark 11:18 of the second cleansing that leads directly to the passion. Scholars debate over this because you know the synoptic gospels associate the cleansing of the temple with an event just prior to or near the end of His life. So how does a very early account in His life fit in with that? There are only two options. Either there were two cleansings that were distinct from one another and that this one was an aberration of what would happen at the later cleansing or some would say that John as often happens in the gospel, he reorganizes his material and deliberately takes it out of actual chronological sequence to emphasize a theological point. Frankly, I don’t have a dog in this fight! The fact is it doesn’t bother me all that much. I lean toward it probably being two cleansings but you could go either way. The thing I want to stress is that it’s not a contradiction. There’s no need for that to be contradictory, as either way would work. I’ll let you wrestle with that.

At the very least, you know how some people say these can’t be harmonized. My perspective is illustrated in this example. If you went to any intersection downtown Atlanta or anywhere and you had people at four corners and they saw an accident take place and you interviewed them independently of one another you’d have a lot of overlap but you’d have some variation as well. One might for example point out there were two people there. Another might say, “he said” and doesn’t refer to the other person. Just like you have two angels in one account that were at the tomb and one angel in the other account at the tomb. Well if there were two there was one. That is to say there isn’t just one and only one but it could be referring to the more prominent of the two who was actually speaking. There’s not a direct contradiction and frankly the usual so-called contradictions are based, I think, on an inadequate view where things have really already been revealed. It’s kind of a low view of the authority of scripture and the inspiration itself.

Question: In audible

Answer: The theological purpose in this case is because He’s dealing with the institutions of Israel so it would be very a propos for Him to talk about the Rabbi, the temple, the marriage and these kinds of themes and then the various institutions, the feasts and the Passover. And for him to build a case as well for why there might have been some encounter with Nichodemus later on, the growing hostility but we don’t know for sure. Again competent scholars disagree over this so there’s enough ambiguity and happily I will say where Scripture has a little bit of ambiguity it’s not concerning important doctrines.

My point about the four witnesses is this; if the four gospels could be exactly meshed I would suspect collusion. That’s my point. It’s actually evidence of the fact that they are eyewitness accounts but they don’t make an attempt to smooth it out and yet they can be harmonized.

We have something that would be given to us in v. 14- the spirit of Malachi’s prophecy although it’s not actually quote. Jesus, after His earthly ministry began, worked in the spirit of Malachi’s prophecy. Let me read it for you so we can get that setting from the last of the Old Testament prophets. Malachi 3:1-3, “Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,’ says the LORD of hosts. But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the LORD offerings in righteousness.” You can see a similarity there, a motif that would be in the Messianic text that would fit very well with this idea of refining and purifying.

In any case, look at v. 14, “And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers seated at their tables. “And in the temple”- the word that is used here is the word “hieron” not the word “naos”. Hieron is used for the whole of the temple precinct including the court of the Gentiles whereas naos is used of the shrine, the inner sanctuary. It’s interesting in v. 19 He switches to the word naos. So He cleansed the outer courtyard but the naos, the inner sanctuary, is what He is referring to as His own body. There is a play on that imagery. As we go, we see Him making a scourge of cords and driving them out of the temple with the sheep and the oxen. The reason why he’s doing it is not necessarily because they’re extorting the other people but because it was happening there in that context, that precinct. It was something that was supposed to be a house of prayer, and they made it into a place of commerce. Frankly the scary part about this kind of cleansing is that I often wonder if Jesus were to come to one of our institutions, one of our churches, what would He do in that setting? I almost wonder if He wouldn’t get some pew ropes and start putting them together and start driving something away.

It does show here that He does know what is in people’s hearts. It’s a theme we’ll see in a moment. He also sees that the visible always has a way of occluding the invisible and eventually people get all wrapped up in their routines and rituals. They get so fired up about exact performance in a particular way and you follow the stages correctly and the supposition is that outward performance will lead to inward knowledge of God. It doesn’t work. Outward ritualism is not the same as an inward embrace and an inward trust. It’s easy for us to connect and go to the organization over the organism. That’s just our natural bent isn’t it? We focus more on the organizational side of the faith more often than we do on the organism as the living body of Christ. It’s the visible over the invisible.

Question: Inaudible

Answer: The difference is this. Commerce was not to be done in the temple precinct. If you brought animals for sacrifice or if you had to purchase animals for sacrifice it should not be done there in that precinct. It shouldn’t be done in a context that’s sanctified or set apart. They made it a place of commerce. Part of what was going on there was the Sadducees saw this as a context in which they could gain the power, and wealth and also as means of getting their hands into the pot. People would also bring their own animals and there was some corruption going on because sometimes they would bring an animal and they would say it was not perfect. They would sell them a perfect animal and then put the so-called imperfect one into the pen and resell it to the next person who had brought a so-called imperfect animal and on and on. That sort of thing did go on.

The point here is that this particular place, this locale, should be set apart not as a place of commerce. If it was to be done it should be done elsewhere. This was the court of the Gentiles but it was still associated there with the actual temple precinct.

The main point that we want to stress is that Jesus is challenging the externalism and the outward life and the commercialism that was actually becoming so rife that it became more of a context for greed and exploitation. Do not take the sacred and render it profane. We have here not only the reforming of the old system but He’s actually abolishing it. In this context He’s specifically denouncing fraudulence of moneychangers and He’s also objecting to any business at all that’s being transacted in the temple.

Question: Inaudible

Answer: It’s a good observation. They don’t question what He’s doing. It’s almost like they sheepishly acknowledge that there’s something correct and right about what He’s doing. He’s the first one to stand up to what everyone knew was an increasingly corrupted system. Indeed, in Mark’s account of the later cleansing (if we take it that way) Jesus recalls that the temple had been intended by God to be a house of prayer for all people. If you look at Mark 11:17 with me you see a slightly different angle. In fact it even mentions He drove them out in v. 15. In John’s account he mentions the animals and Mark just mentions the tables and so forth, then it mentions the doves. He wouldn’t permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. May I tell you, by the way, that’s pretty powerful stuff because there were thousands of people there. What time of the year was this? This was in fact the Passover. This is a big time. It’s a crowded place and there are thousands of people there. What manner of man was this that He had the authority to prevent them from doing this? It says in Mark, in this context here, and I take it that there’s a parallel between them- He has an authority to keep them from actually carrying merchandise and that’s when He said, “Is it not written,’ My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a robbers’ den.” The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him.” (Mark 11:17-18a)

Question: Inaudible

Answer: She’s asking why did God require animal sacrifice and really why doesn’t He require it now? The answer would be in the book of Hebrews. Hebrews tells us that the blood of bulls and goats never made propitiation or satisfaction for sin. All it did was point beyond to the One who would ultimately bear our sins. This One, when He offered Himself actually sat down at the right hand of God having made a complete sacrifice so that there would no longer be need for any more animal sacrifices. The Old Testament sacrificial system always pointed to the life of the One who would come. The idea was this- the life is in the blood. Leviticus 16 focuses on this. So that life being in the blood becomes a key symbol then when the new covenant, in My blood, is established so that the blood becomes the life. The life is the Zoë, the life of Christ that He’s offering to us. My point then is that the old covenant sacrifices could only anticipate and put off the debt but they could never actually pay for the debt. Hebrews stresses this- the animals could not actually pay for the sacrifice. They would only cover it up. So once a year in Yon Kipper, the Day of Atonement, the high priest would go into the Most Holy Place and there he would actually take the blood of a goat and he would sprinkle it on the Mercy Seat. What was inside the Mercy Seat? The law of God was in there. You have the blood of the animal covering between them and the law so in effect God sees that and it’s an anticipation of Christ who would not just cover but ultimately atone- so His life for our life- the life in the blood- so now we have His life in us. I’d particularly recommend Hebrew chapter 8, 9 and 10. It would be good to read about that. So what are the shadow and the substance? Once we have the substance, this One, after He’s offered Himself as a sacrifice, one time for sin, sat down, which means the work was now satisfied or complete and no further sacrifice was required after that. That would certainly relate to this.

Now in John 2:17, “His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for your house will consume me.” You have this recall of His zeal for the house. It was bound to lead to His destruction and ultimately to His own death. That’s why Jesus answered to them after they said “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?”(v.18) He said, “ Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”(v. 19) Again we have His answers, prophetic of His death and resurrection. The implication is this; He’s challenging their whole system of sacrifice. The whole system of worship has to be destroyed so the new one can take its place. That’s really in part what is going on, His death and destruction, so it’s more than just the sacrilegious although that’s a part of it because they’ve made it a den of thieves and robbers. You don’t want to minimize that idea but there’s more to it than that. He’s actually going so radical in His claim that you’ve got to destroy the old so the new could come in. There must be a new covenant.

What does a new covenant imply in Hebrews 8,  9 and 10? If there’s a new covenant there’s got to be a new priesthood. There has to be a new sacrifice, a new temple and all that is seen. So the new of these is consistently called better than the old. His own death and the destruction of the temple are now being linked together. He foretold this destruction on the eve of the Passion. What’s happening here is that Jesus is making possible a far more direct approach to God because it’s a pure offering, a sacrifice of worship- His own body.

His mission was not merely negative. The Resurrection would make possible the emergence of a new spiritual temple. First Corinthians 3:17 is one of those texts I have in mind, “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.” That is radical in terms of its contrast to the physicality of the temple. Also 1 Peter 2:5 says something very similar, our understanding of the temple is changed now, “You also, as living stones, are being built as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” We are now living stones in this new temple as part of the body of Christ. He would be taunted by the very words that He’s using when he says, “Destroy this temple and in three days, I’ll raise it up”(v, 19) as He hung upon the cross. They said why doesn’t He deliver Himself if He can do that?

John 2:20, “The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six yeas to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” What He is saying here is that you’re missing the spiritual truth here as so often happens. Herod the Great in 20 B.C. decided to build a great temple to win or earn favor with the Jews because he was regarded as an outcast. He was a descendant of the Edomites and as such he decides to actually embellish the second temple, which was not really that impressive compared to Solomon’s temple but he wanted to make it so great it would actually rival Solomon’s temple. He consecrated a thousand priests to be trained to become stonecutters so that it would be ceremonially pure. Eighteen thousand people were working full-time for many years to build this temple. It was an impressive piece of work. The consequence was it took many, many years to complete- beyond Herod’s life. In fact they started it then but it wasn’t completed until 64 A.D.- over 80 years in the building of it. The Romans destroyed it six years later. In each of these cases with the temple worship, this becomes a very significant concept here- the centrality of this as a political, religious, spiritual and social centerpiece of Israel’s history. Thus when Judas Maccabeus wanted to attempt to defeat the Greeks, which he succeeded in doing in the 2^nd century B.C., he had to capture the temple first to win popular Jewish support, which he did. When the Romans occupied the land in 63 B.C., Pompeii wanted to be sure they were recognized so they created a fortress near that temple. They built a fortress called the Antonio Fortress in the northwest precinct of the temple. They would actually overlook the temple area. That’s exactly where Jesus, as you recall, was quote “prepared” for crucifixion under Pilate’s soldiers. The Jewish zealots when they stood against Rome in 66 A.D. again wanted to make the temple their fortress and rallying point. Finally when Titus came in and saw this impressive temple, he wanted to preserve it. He was so impressed and dazzled by the beauty of the temple but his soldiers destroyed it partly because there was gold in there and when it caught fire, the gold was actually seeping down through the stones. Some of these stones were huge. They would weigh up to 70 tons. They actually would remove every stone to get the gold that had seeped out. Not one stone will stand upon another. They kind of inadvertently fulfill His prophecy because when you go to Jerusalem, there are no stones in that temple. All you have is the outer courtyard wall, what we call the Western Wall or the Wailing Wall, but you don’t have the temple. You can see some of the stones that were actually used in it but they’re not actually in the temple itself- a very significant focus.

John 2:21-22, “But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.”

These last three verses in chapter 2 are intriguing to me. John 2:23, “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.” Again they saw the signs and believed in Him but this was not necessarily the kind of belief that led to salvation but at the least they believed that He had authority.

But if it was just that they were impressed by miracles and power and so forth because of these signs, it would be one thing but Jesus on His part says in verses 24 and 25, “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.” He had a unique insight into human nature. He understood then that all belief in Him was superficial if it didn’t have the idea of the need for forgiveness and the conviction of Him as the mediator of that forgiveness. You could believe about Him but entrusting one’s self to Him as the One who provides great forgiveness and newness of life is the key issue.

The point here is this. I see Jesus who knows us very, very well and there are many who straddle the fence. They want His works but not His word. The issue is always going to be one of the entrusting of one’s self to Him rather than merely being impressed by what He has done. In that sense, we have to approach Him on His terms and not on our own. He does not come just to meet our idea of our needs but He comes to meet our desperate need before God.

We see One who knows us through and through. To be perfectly frank with you, He has a knowledge that is divine. None of us can look and understand the motivational structure of others. We think we can. That’s the danger. Look at 1 Corinthians 4:3-5 where Paul speaks about this concept, “But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself.” For I’m conscious of nothing against myself, yet I’m not by this acquitted; the one who examines me is the Lord. (Note- In other words, I might have a clear conscience but that doesn’t mean before God all is well.) Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.” He’s been talking about the judgment seat of Christ. It’s not a judgment of condemnation but one of reward.

To be perfectly frank with you there is this tension. I was thinking about this before I came over here. I had heard about a particular minister who made a statement that troubled me. I wrestled with this concept but then on the other hand I wrestled with it because one does want to have an impact in this world. If you’ve been given great gifts wouldn’t you want to make an impact in this world? One struggles with this. How do we separate that desire to have an impact in the world with ambition? Here’s where it gets very tricky. We don’t even fully know our own motives. Is it possible for example for us to so assume that our zeal is for God’s house? That our zeal is to build something that will be honoring and pleasing to God but after awhile if we’re not careful, is it possible that our own identity gets so wrapped up in that thing that it becomes a projection of ourselves and yet we sacrifice supposing it’s other centered? It’s totally self-denying and yet at the very core of it, could it possibly be something that is just an extension of one’s ego? I ask myself these questions. These are questions all of us must ask. I heard of a minister who said, “I don’t want to play second fiddle.” I thought about that and who wants to be a second fiddle? But then I got to thinking a bit more about that. Is it possible because God’s economy is so radically different from our own that many who become, from the world’s point of view, second fiddle may have a greater reward in the kingdom of heaven than many who aspire to be first violin? God’s not impressed with how many people we have an impact on, how many people we touch but rather the fidelity we have with what we have been given. I wrestle with this issue of motives because God knows my heart. I don’t even know myself let alone can I judge the motives of another. I’m here to tell you I often do. That’s the problem. I often assume I know what their motives are. That scares me because I am not Jesus and I don’t know. He knows.

The amazing part about this text is He knows us through and through and still loves us. That’s the thing that stuns me. Remember that phrase I told you before- the One who knows you best loves you most. Now I can’t put that together but He knows all our imaginations, all our foolishness, silliness, our foolish pride and all that, the coveting, our greed, our ambition, our envy, our secret pleasure when competitors or people in our industry stumble and at their downfall, our grieving at their successes when we thought we should’ve attained that success and yet He loves us and invites us to take what we do know of ourselves and to recommit that to what we know of Him.

Question: Inaudible

Answer: He’s saying about prayer that this issue of outcome is a big thing. Remember and I’ve described this before- many of our prayers and mine are included- whenever I point a finger at you three go back to me. Many times my prayer strategy session with God is where I tell Him pretty much what I think my best interests look like and then try to wheedle and manipulate Him to accomplish them and give Him generous suggestions as to how to do it and when to do it. You see- that’s what my prayer will be. When actually a more biblical model of prayer is where I invite the Spirit of God to speak to me and reveal what His will is rather than trying to persuade God to do mine. That’s a harder matter of prayer because it requires a good deal more trust and particularly to let go of the ownership of the outcome, timing and way.

Question: Inaudible

Answer: As to the timeline matter, Jesus’ grasp of His own life was increasingly based upon the vision of that for which He came. That is to say the Son of Man has come to seek and save that which is lost. He had a clear vision that He did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many. He Himself saw the climax of His life. He came for this very purpose that He might give His life so that the cross, the passion, was the climax. He sees that with more and more clarity and as it approaches He communicates that to His disciples with greater clarity. The issue of His hour is absolutely critical because everything He does has to be in timing with the Father’s timing. He seeks to be in tune with the Father’s will and with the Father’s timing. He discerned in John 13:1a, “Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world.” That’s a very significant point. My hour has not yet come; My hour has not yet come He would say and now His hour had come. That’s when He spoke to His disciples and trained them because He was about to leave them. How does that relate to me? We all have an hour in a way. We all have a great moment. We all have a purpose. We all have a life that’s supposed to move in a direction that God would have for us. Though we do not know exactly what that script will be or what it looks like. It’s revealed frame by frame instead. Our desire though is to readjust and in prayer, hopefully that becomes a context in which we realign ourselves with God’s timing, way and purpose. Generally speaking, all things being equal, my timing is not God’s. Almost always He answers later than I want Him to. It just seems to be the way it is. On the other hand, how would your faith be stretched if He always showed up just when you felt He should do it? He always waits beyond what you think He should, the eleventh hour and all that. That’s part of the process. In my view, getting to know a person is a disclosure. It requires a receptivity and a willingness to entrust yourself especially to Him in advance. When you say, God I want to do Your will even though I don’t know what it is in advance, you’re entrusting yourself radically to Him. He also knows your heart through and through but here’s where I rest in the fact that God is not yet finished with us and will not be until we are perfectly conformed to the image of His Son. Nothing will prevent Him from accomplishing that purpose. It’d be wise for us however to cooperate with Him in the process.

Let me close in a prayer. Father, we thank You that You have loved us even to the end and manifested this love. And this is love, not that we loved You but that You loved us and sent Your Son to be the satisfaction for our sins. May we therefore be a people knowing that we are beloved of You. Give us now the power, give us the security give us the sense of satisfaction in this life in Christ so that we can become people who love others as You have loved us. We pray in Jesus’ name. Amen.

This is part 2 in a 23-part study on the Book of John. Below is a modified transcript.

Let’s begin in a prayer as we continue our study of John. Lord, we thank You for Your goodness, for the hope that we have in Christ Jesus, for the grace, the truth and for the understanding that you’ve communicated to us through Your revealed word. We pray that we would be people who not only hear Your word but also respond, in Jesus’ name, amen.

We’re going to continue our introduction to John and then launch into the prologue to the gospel of John and in doing that I want to talk about the contribution that John makes to the bible. Last time we looked at a number of themes; the structure of the book, its theme and purpose, the background, some things about John himself and the date.

How does this book make a unique contribution to the scriptures? My answer in part is that it provides an entirely theological gospel, more so than the rest. It is also very selective and highly topical in its very nature. I find John to be a profound gospel. It uses a very simple linguistic structure and a very, very simple vocabulary yet it’s layered in nuance. It provides more insight in the way that we can understand this book than other texts of scripture especially because of some unique contributions it makes.

About 90% of John is in fact unique to John. It supplements the other gospels, the synoptic gospels, which see together, that are really portraits of Christ written somewhat earlier as I take it. John was written somewhere between 80 and 90 A.D. Though it’s possible it was written somewhat earlier, my suspicion is a little bit later and probably written for Ephesus during the time when John was ministering as an apostle to a number of churches that were in Asia Minor. Ephesus as you know was the chief city of Asia Minor.

John, a very pastoral person indeed, was a man who really emphasizes love. You can see his pastoral dimension in the three epistles, I, II, and III John; a very profound desire that his children would walk in the truth. He always talks about this idea of walking in the truth and also understanding what that truth is as defined by the doctrine of the apostolic fellowship especially in view of the fact that there would be a great deal of error that keeps popping up. So much of the New Testament deals with erroneous thinking, doesn’t it? If you look at scripture, so many of the epistles have to deal with overcoming false doctrine and false practices.

When we look at this, John is no exception especially in his first epistle. By the time He wrote I John, where he’s criticizing and actually condemning the error of those who believe that Jesus did not come in the flesh but came in some kind of a Gnostic form. Doceticism was a later doctrine that basically said that Jesus didn’t really come in a full human form but rather that He was some kind of spirit who appeared to be human. That sort of doctrine was something that was really compatible with Greek thought. Greek thought was opposed to the idea of the body itself. The idea of Greek thought would be that the body is essentially something that is a product of some kind of demi-urge or some kind of evil, some kind of force, that the way things are- we have to get rid of this body and we want to be liberated from it’s shackles so that we can actually enjoy a disembodied existence. The gospel of the incarnation was an offense. It was also an offense to the Jews to say that God Himself has become one of us.

John wonderfully takes truth, combines it with love and communicates this. When we look at this prologue we have a backdrop that gives us insights we wouldn’t otherwise have- particularly about the pre-incarnate nature of Jesus Christ. His preexistence is going to be particularly stressed- the preexistence of the Word who came among us and took on flesh and pitched His tent in our midst.

I mentioned before John uses allegories where as the synoptics use parables. John uses themes, for example, and discourses that are actually more systematically developed whereas the sayings material in the synoptics is not as systematically developed. You do have the Upper Room Discourse. In John you have other discourses that discuss exactly what’s going on and they are very powerful pictures that help us understand how the signs in John’s gospel can be interpreted from God’s perspective. It shows us they are in fact symbolic of spiritual truth.

There are seven miracles in chapters 1-12 and of those seven miracles only the feeding of the multitudes and walking on water are found in the synoptic gospels, all the others are unique to John.

As we look at John, I want us to see it in several ways. I have a chart (this is available in the Open Bible) and this is what we will see:

Incarnation of the Son of God- It’s what we call the prologue verses 1-18 and it gives us an introduction to who the God Man really is. In looking at that we have a portrait of Him that gives the backdrop for all that follows.

Presentation of the Son of God- (verses 1:19- 4:54) Here in the presentation He presents Himself. We have the first 2 of the 7 signs that are found in John. In presenting Himself to Israel, He’s presenting Himself through the 7 signs or miracles that communicate truth about Him in powerful ways that point beyond themselves to spiritual truth. In my talk, Through the Bible, I mentioned that they symbolized the life changing results of belief in Jesus.

I will mention the 7 miracles again. The turning of the water to wine symbolizes how the ritual of law is replaced by the reality of grace in chapter 2. Law is replaced by grace and we’ll see that the water to wine miracle of the kingdom both in quality and quantity and of radical abundance and of great joy as well. It’s a picture of the life to come. It’s an illustration that God will save the best for the last.

The second sign is the healing of the nobleman’s son (John 4)- what we have here is that the gospel brings spiritual restoration- the physical restoration points beyond itself to a spiritual restoration as well. There’s always the spiritual and physical in John- keep this in mind so that we look in different ways at it. If we look at it from the physical standpoint we see one thing but the physical always points beyond itself to a spiritual truth about healing- physical but spiritual healing as well.

The third of those miracles, which begins in chapter 5, is the movement of opposition to the Son of God. In chapters 5-12 we see especially the theme of mounting opposition to the Man and His message. In view of the fact that the world itself is disposed to reject His actual offer, I want to say a word about the kosmos. John communicates the kosmos, the world, can be used in a positive, neutral or negative sense but John largely uses it in a negative sense. It is a way of seeing the world to be something, a system, which is organized to leave God out and to provide other alternatives. It pursues darkness over light.

The next miracle is the healing of the paralytic in chapter 5. In this case we see that there’s going to be opposition to the miracles themselves. Some believe- some reject. Another miracle. Some believe- some reject. In reading it this way you’re kind of forced to draw your own conclusions and make your own decisions. What do you do about this Jesus? Reading John will force you to move beyond the position of assumed neutrality to a position of commitment either to know Him or reject Him. One of the things you see when people have an encounter with this Jesus is that they can’t spend much time with Him without either receiving or rejecting. They cannot ignore Him.

I’m intrigued by the fact that the Visual Bible is now coming up with the third in its series and it’s going to be the gospel of John. Their intention is to slowly work their way through the scriptures in a visual way. They use a word for word biblical reading and they’re not distorting the message but they’re simply conveying it. We also have Mel Gibson’s, The Passion, which has recently come out. I can promise you these kinds of things will not be happily received by the world. You’ll have more objections especially to Gibson’s movie because you can’t ignore Him. John gives us a little better context of why that is. The world will certainly see no neutral system. It is not objective- especially when it comes to spiritual truth.

The fourth miracle is the feeding of the multitude. We have Christ satisfying our spiritual hunger, not just the physical. People are often looking for the physical handout. He’s offering them something a good deal better than that.

The fifth sign is in chapter six when He walks on water. The Lord transforms fear to faith. Again in each section we have these signs that are always pointing to spiritual truth.

The sixth miracle or sign is sight to the man born blind where Jesus overcomes darkness and brings in light- one of the most interesting narratives in the entire bible- the conflict between the man who was born blind and the Pharisees.

The seventh sign, the raising of Lazarus in chapter 11, is the gospel bringing people from death to a sphere of life.

Understand then if you put all these signs together we see how they converge. As you saw before in chapter 20 at the very end, John specifically says that there was a reason why he selected these. There are actually many other signs but he’s selected these so that you may believe that He is the Christ. His point is evangelistic. His desire is that people will come to know Him as the Son of God and that by believing Him they may have life in His Name.

Again last week I drew the contrast between bios and zoe. I was arguing that bios, physical life, we have all received at the first birth but zoe, spiritual life, no one receives in the first birth -that is a product of the second birth. This is the life of Christ, which is embedded in the life of the believer. I mentioned the word pisteuo, faith, which is not merely intellectual assent but personal reception that is the key to receiving the life of Christ in our lives. We have that important theme which runs throughout the gospel.

The next scene as we go through the opposition to the Son of God and looking at the reactions of belief and disbelief we then move into the preparation of the Son’s disciples. In chapters 13-17 we have what is often called the Upper Room Discourse. We see how Jesus prepares His disciples for His imminent departure. He prepares them as well for the way they are going to live, empowering them to live according to what the resources are that God will provide. He Himself will be with them and the Holy Spirit will be with them and furthermore the Father is in them.

We have an extraordinarily important section here in chapters 13-17. This is one of the most important sections in all of scripture in terms of really encapsulating the essence of the spiritual life. These are Jesus’ parting words to His disciples and you and I are privileged to listen in to those words. They were communicated only to a handful of men at the very end when He knew there would only be a few more hours before He would then be glorified, lifted up, which is His term really for crucified. It is very interesting how He uses that idea, now the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified when the Son of Man is lifted up then He will draw all men to Himself. This image here rather than portraying humiliation actually shows it ultimately will lead to true glory and victory. So we have this preparation, a season of revelation from Christ, followed by the narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection of the Son of God.

As we move from this little kernel of the epistles, all the patterns and key principles, we now end up with this scene of the crucifixion and a glorious scene in the last chapter of the resurrected Christ communicating Himself to His disciples. We move from introduction to revelation to rejection and then we have another revelation and another rejection of Christ and so on.

There are 7 miracles in chapters 1-12, and then the Upper Room Discourse in chapters 13-17 followed by what I call the supreme miracle, which is the resurrection itself. This is the key miracle. All the gospels point to this and this is supreme. The point is that you may believe and that you may have life. These were written so that you may believe and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 21:31) So this theme of life becomes very critical.

In chapters 1-12 we have a few years in our Lord’s earthly life but then he slows the clock down to a few hours. All of a sudden everything hones in to a few hours of teaching and really boiling that down to these chapters. Then there are a few weeks at the end of John.

In looking at this then I want to launch into the prologue to John’s gospel, chapter 1:1-18. There is good evidence especially if you examine the nature of this prologue, it gives such skill and remarkable profundity, an economy of words, that it may well have been John’s earlier draft of this because you can see that there may have been some sources that are evident. There are some scenes, literary scenes and so forth that can actually be seen to come together and there are bits and pieces here- some things seem out of order like chapter 6. Most scholars would seem to say it might have preceded chapter 5 and things of this sort. There are elements in here, which might cause us to see that originally he may have actually started with verse 19 as the other gospels essentially do. The other gospels essentially start with the ministry of John. Later on, it may be especially during the time when he was writing his other epistles that he added this material to emphasize the theological truth- and the Word became flesh. This is something he was wrestling with in some churches and it would make good sense to see it in that way.

There are other passages that are of this nature as well as we’ll see later on. For example if you jump ahead with me just for a moment and you went from chapter 14:31 and you jumped to chapter 18:1 and skipped chapters 15, 16 and 17 it would move very smoothly. It may be that this was material that he later added. You’d have a very smooth transition because He really seems to imply that He’s going to be leaving now, “Arise, let us go from here” (John 14:31) and then “When He had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples”(John 18:1) you see it would smoothly connect. It also may be, for example, that some scholars would comment it appears that John’s real ending may have been chapter 20:30-31 but then this extra material was also added then in chapter 21. It wouldn’t be likely that John just sat down in one sitting and wrote the whole gospel. It’s evident that like the other gospel writers, he used various sources. It was a product of a great deal of reflection. I think it was something that took a good deal of time for him to encapsulate so he goes back. Have you ever done this before yourself when you’re writing a paper? You write something and say hmm, I’m missing something here. I’d better add this here and that bit there. That sort of thing is done quite a bit. I think that is what we see in that structure.

Remember scripture is fully human, fully divine. What we have in the humanness of this gospel, which is an illustration, is it not- the process of revelation is actually an illustration in the written word, an analogy of what we have in the living Word. When you think about how Jesus, fully God and fully man is in fact without sin so the written word, fully God and fully man is without error in it’s original. You see the idea that there would be an analogy. What we have here is John’s style, his vocabulary and a variety of things indicative of the man himself, just like the gospel of Luke reveals a totally different style, a very different vocabulary and a different approach and structure yet still superintended by the life of the living God.

I’ll point ahead to II Peter 1:20-21 just to see about this process of inscripturation which is the closest we may get to the process of inscripturation, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. It’s not dictation. It was actually something that fused to the life of the person himself. We see John’s character come through and so does Jesus. That’s why the four gospels reveal those four aspects of different facets of His life and character.

As we look at the prologue some scholars have suggested the first 18 verses may in some aspects of it at least, have been an early Christian hymn. We have those in Ephesians 5, Philippians 2 and Colossians 1. We have some evidences that some early Christian hymns would be memorized and this may well have been used here. I’ll tell you this though, it was known right away. This is so significant. The medieval church venerated these 18 verses. In fact some people actually wore them in amulets. It was written out and put in an amulet around their neck or it would be read over the sick and newly baptized. It was actually used as the final prayer in some Roman Masses. It was that important, very, very critical because what we have here is an overture to the rest of the gospel. Themes that are wonderful that are going to be developed in John’s gospel in full are already hinted at here. For example the theme of the preexistence of Christ is going to be seen here but we also have the theme of light versus darkness that immediately appears here and then is developed throughout the gospel especially in John 3.

I also think about the idea of the only Son. Christ is God’s only Son. Jesus is the only Son of the Father. He had a divine birth and His life and ministry is characterized by glory.

Let’s take a look then at the very beginning and look at the first portion of this. It’s kind of like a stanza almost. Let us hone in on the Logos which is found especially in chapter 1 and then after that we don’t have that theme of the Word or the Logos being developed in John but we see Him here. John 1:1-2, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” We have here His relationship to God Himself. We are invited to see the parallels between this and Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 we have the theme where you have the darkness and then the light appears and illuminates the darkness, the Spirit of God brooding over the face of the waters and so forth. In Genesis 1 we also have God who breathes into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life and the whole idea here of a new breath as well.

Something very significant here is that John 1:1 precedes Genesis 1:1. You have to understand that. Effectively the bible begins now with John 1:1. This precedes the creation of the heavens and the earth. This brings us back far before the created order itself. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth but this is prior to the beginning when there was simply the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3, “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” He is the very source, the very well spring, and the very fountainhead of life itself in all things. Looking at the parallels, I’d like you to turn to Hebrews 1 and also Colossians 1 just to see two important New Testament parallels. “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in may ways, (of course portions and ways would include dreams, visions, prophecy and other ways in which He revealed Himself to them- through narrative and poetry, song, historical events of the deliverance, miracles - all these were revelatory acts in which God manifested Himself to the fathers and prophets) in these last days (the highest form of revelation) has spoken to us in His Son, (The most decisive revelation because it’s personal revelation. It’s not merely revealing an idea; it’s not even revealing God’s power in nature or miracles or in redemptive acts. There’s something even bigger than that, it’s God revealing Himself and coming among us. He has spoken to us in His Son. Notice how He refers to the Son.) whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”(Hebrews 1:1-2)

Hebrews 1:3a, “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.” That’s well worth reflecting on. The more you put that together the more you are impressed by the vastness of the created order and the more you are impressed by the humility that was involved in the Incarnation. The more you are impressed also by the reality of Christ in you the hope of glory, which is profoundly mysterious. That this One who crafted the heavens is now making His dwelling in us. We become the temples of His very life. It’s deeply profound. Who could’ve made something like that up? It’s without parallel in the world. There’s nothing like it.

In Colossians 1 an additional portrait of the cosmic Christ in this regard is given and I have particularly in mind verse 15 speaking of the One in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of sin (v. 14) Verse 15 calls Him the image of the invisible God, (very similar to the image in Hebrews 1 isn’t it?) the first-born of all creation. This means the One who is pre-eminent over all things, the Word, the first born, has authority, preeminence over all things –the heir of all things as Hebrews puts it. “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things have been created by Him and for Him.” (v. 16) This particular text invites us to see that these are apparently referring to various orders of angels and the medieval thought eventually arrived at seven orders of angels. Satan by the way imitates God’s hierarchy because if you go to Ephesians 6 it talks about the forces in the world and he calls them the rulers, the powers, the world forces of this darkness, spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. My own belief here is that the enemy will typically counterfeit what God has done and distort it in various ways so that they too have a kind of hierarchal order and a sequence as well.

The point is Jesus, who spoke all things into being spoke that which is seen and unseen, both the heavens and the earth, both the realm of men and the realm of angels, all these things are under His authority. Furthermore it says all things have been created by Him and for Him. In verse 17, “And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” That word, sunistemi, means that He keeps it together and keeps it from dissolving, from dissipating. When I did my Powers of Ten presentation I mentioned my theoretical speculation that it may well be that one thing that He could certainly or that would be related or pertinent to this is what we in our ignorance call the “strong force”. This binds the nuclei of atoms together especially in so far as they are positively charged particles and the protons with the neutrons which are neutral in their charge, what on earth holds those protons together when they’re so incredibly close because the closer they get the more repulsive force there will be? Well, we call it the “strong force”. That’s nice but nobody knows exactly or really what that is, where it comes from or how it works. I promise you this though if that “strong force” were removed even for a microsecond the whole universe would turn from matter into energy that quick. When we look at it all that we call matter is slowed down energy. What is energy? Nobody knows the answer to that. It manifests itself in different ways, heat, mechanics and such but nobody what energy itself is. That’s why Hebrews tells us the things that are seen are made of that which are unseen. Here, Jesus hold it together.

One other test that supports these ideas would be I Corinthians 8 where Paul talks about this theme in verse 6, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” The gospels the epistles, scriptures teach us that all of human life is derivative existence. You owe your biological life as well as your spiritual life to the One who is life. (I am the way, the truth and the life.) This is a very high Christology; we’d call this a portrait of who Jesus Christ really is.

This Word, this Logos, which you see in the beginning wasn’t just matter and energy and the impersonal plus time and chance as Francis Schaffer used to put it. If you’re a naturalist that’s all you’ve got. You don’t have anything more than that. Here it says in the beginning you have Personhood. In fact when it says, the Word was with God, the Word was God you right here have a portrait of Trinitarian theology. We’ve all seen this chart before but it bears repeating. When we look at this ancient chart where we have the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and we can certainly say that the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit and neither is the Holy Spirit the Son. They are not each other but we could also say on the other hand that they are all God. So the Son is God, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God but they are not each other. That’s really a great way of summarizing this Trinitarian truth. In the deep abundant mystery of the Trinity we see that God is not a monad but a trinity. Because He is a trinity we have an ultimate foundation for the Lover and the Beloved and the love that flows between them. We have an ultimate basis for unity as well as diversity; for oneness and community- the idea of relationship and of communication.

Logos is an interesting word because at the very least it means that there is intelligence. One of the beauties of this intelligent design movement that is now developing is the idea the universe now points to an intelligent source to account for the complex systems that we observe. We have now in the beginning an intelligent personhood and this was all in the beginning, timeless outside the boundaries of time and space.

All things came into being through Him and through Him was life and the Life was the light of men. We have this idea of life and light. In looking at the idea of life then we see that this life in Him, again zoe, is that which provides light for us. Now he goes on to speak about this light and speaks in terms of it as light that shines in the darkness and the darkness does not comprehend it. The darkness cannot defeat or overcome the Word. There seems to be an opposition, there’s a hint of struggle here already going on between the light and the darkness. In one sense we can certainly say that the darkness cannot understand it; cannot comprehend the light. That’s why it’s very intriguing to me that you can be in a cave that’s totally black and off in the distance the smallest pinpoint of light would be enough to tell you that that’s the way to go. The slightest pinpoint of light shines in the darkness.

Remember that wonderful theme of light and darkness found in II Peter 1:19, “And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.” Imagine then a moonless night without electricity. In Palestine, Canaan, you didn’t have electric lamps so you’re in a wasteland here and suppose you’re not at a village so you don’t have artificial light. Imagine then how important it is for that lamp to illuminate your pathway. It’s sufficient to illuminate your pathway one step at a time but what happens when the sun rises? You’d feel rather silly wouldn’t you having this lamp that now becomes hard to tell if it’s either on or off? There comes a point when the sun rises and you turn it off. So he goes on to say, which you would do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. The day will come when the light of God’s manifest presence will be so great that you will no longer need now the revealed word in that regard but you’ll have the light of God Himself that will illuminate your understanding on your path. So right now we see things darkly but then we will see face to face.

We have this picture of darkness. Darkness is an image then of the response of the world. He goes on to discuss this concept, which I’ll talk more about later.

He talks about the idea of John and says, “There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. He came for a witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. (John 1:6-8) One of the important things to understand about John’s mission is the denial of his own significance as an end in himself. John continually emphasized, I’m not the one to be pointed to, I point beyond myself to the One who is the Life. By the way, is that not our mission as well? You truly find your significance in pointing beyond yourself to the One who has utter significance but in understanding that it doesn’t mean you’re a worm. It just means you have a great calling to participate in His life and plans and purpose. You have great significance but the idea is to find your significance in Him. Remember the key to humility is not thinking of how weak you are or how foolish you are or how sinful you are. That’s not going to make you humble, in fact it will be a perverse form of pride. Humans are very strange that way. The key to humility is preoccupation with Jesus. The more you’re consumed by His greatness- the more you get your eyes off of yourself.

It’s the same as if you went to a great concert. A concert can be a very humbling experience in the sense that the glory of the instruments and music can so enrapture you that you’re transported and you don’t even think about yourself at all. If it’s a great concert you’re not even aware of your own presence. All you’re doing is enjoying the presence of the music.

So it is with a great scene in nature as well. One of my favorite things to do with Karen when we were in England would be to go to great gardens and we’d often go and look for a particular vantage point on a bench. I can think of each garden we visited and 2 or 3 benches in each garden. We’d typically spend 10 or sometimes 20 minutes just sitting there and taking it in. Those are the most vivid moments of my trip because I can see them. I can see what everything looked like because I kind of burned it in like a photographic plate gathers light from the stars the longer it’s exposed the more light it gathers. So I received that and what I was doing was basking in the glory. To be frank with you we’d get to the point where it wouldn’t be a matter of us looking at it but it would be pure enjoyment itself. Extasis means that you’re outside of yourself, standing outside of yourself, so that ecstasy or the idea is a very other centered notion and the best things that we see we wish to share with another. So we share that beauty with another and enjoy that together.

So it would be as well in this- that this One here created all things then, this community of being. He Himself is the light to whom John points. His role is assigned as to being the forerunner, the one who would prepare His way as Isaiah and Malachi indicated that he would. He’s the one who would come in the spirit and power of Elijah. He said, “I’m not the One.” We’ll see 3 denials in the next section. I’m not the One, He’s the One and he’d point beyond himself. Similarly we need to do that as well. Our mission would be to point beyond ourselves to the presence and person of Jesus Himself- not to an idea but to a Person. The emphasis on the personhood of the truth is really very, very clear.

Now in verse 9 we move on to the theme of genuine revelation. “There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.” Actually it’s an image here of how natural revelation, written revelation and personal revelation all bear witness to this Light. No one can say that they are totally ignorant because nature itself points beyond itself to spiritual realities in the sense that Romans 1 tells us about God at least in terms of eternal power and divine majesty. It is clearly seen by what’s outside of us and also that testimony is embedded in us. We are also aware of a problem in our lives namely the conscience and how we can try to defend ourselves. In any case, what we have here is this Light that enlightens us.

“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him and the world did not know Him.”(John 1:10) Now this kosmos, which appears 78 times in this gospel alone, from which we get the words cosmic and so forth, can really mean 3 different things. It can refer in a positive way where God so loves the world- that world would be the people who are in the world. But there’s also a sense in which we could say that it’s neutral- for example he says, what I have heard from Him I tell the world. But then there’s this mostly negative use of the word where it’s the sphere of creation that lives in rebellion against the person and the purpose of God. If you look at the epistles of Paul you discover the human heart is at enmity with God. Romans 5, Colossians 2, and Ephesians 2 make that very clear. We are dead in our trespasses and sin. We are in fact in rebellion against God. That’s why it says, even when we were His enemies; Christ died for us. It’s not neutrality but there is hostility. The human heart is not bent to receive and respond to light. That requires God’s previous initiative and the grace of illumination so that we would be willing to respond to the light that God gives us.

That’s the picture we have in this book- while some receive the revelation because their deeds are true (John 3:21) many flee because their deeds are evil. John 3:19- 20 says, “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather that the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” This theme of light and darkness runs through the gospel. It’s interesting that Nicodemus comes by night. It’s also interesting as well that John adds that chilling phrase after Judas departed to do his worst- and it was night. The deeds of evil are done in the dark in that scene. This theme of light and darkness is more than just physical; it is also spiritual.

When I was going to New York University and teaching at Kings College, I spent the night at a friends apartment on Broadway and 11^th street that was close so that I could walk right down to NYU. I’ll never forget staying in their apartment because the down side was that the place was totally filled with roaches. I mean they had these roach motels all right. Do you remember those roach motels? They say roaches check in but they don’t check out! The problem with the roach motels was they immediately became filled with guests and no matter how many you put out it seemed like there’d be a hundred more roaches to replace the captured ones. At night, you’d have this eerie noise of things moving around and if you’d turn on the light they’d be gone! You see- we’re like that. When you do something wrong and the light comes on you scurry away and say I’m out of here!

The light comes on and you scurry for the nooks and crannies because we do not want to be exposed. It’s almost like Adam- who told you that you were naked? The idea here is that he’s been exposed. What’s his first reaction when he realizes that now as a fallen man God’s penetrating gaze exposes His nakedness? It is a wonderful theme that can be traced profitably from Genesis to Revelations- this idea of being naked and being clothed. Adam’s first reaction is to cover up his nakedness but it is inadequate so God Himself is the One who has to cover them with the skins of animals. Hence, the first sacrifice was made by God and not by men. God’s the One who had to bring about the first sacrifice. He sacrificed animals to cover them up which is a powerful picture, is it not, of being covered as well by that animal sacrifice and the later assistance of animal sacrifice we see in the Old Testament. The point here is that this is part of the human condition. John is exposing that very perceptively. We are enlightened but we have to respond to the light or it will do us no good at all.

It goes on to say in verse 10 and 11, “He was in the world, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.” He’s referring to the Jewish people here. That’s a sad picture because there should’ve been readiness and receptivity instead there was only rejection. It reminds me of Isaiah 53 that wonderful song of the Suffering Servant written some seven centuries before the birth of our Lord- specifically in verse 2, “That He grew up before Him like a tender shoot and like a root out of parched ground.” What’s that parched ground? It’s an image here of the spiritual desert that Israel had become at this time. Oh they had become very orthodox in their practices but it was all externalism and not an internal reality. It was religion without relationship. We’ve all seen this happen. I think its humans’ natural bent. They get religious and get into all these external things but it’s always trying to be outside in and not inside out. It’s religious practices rather than the emphasis on a relationship. You can measure practices but you can’t quantify relationships. We’re not comfortable with that.

Scripture makes it very clear that He would in fact be rejected and despised and forsaken by men. A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:3-4) That is to say they thought He was on the cross because of some evil that He had done. But now it goes on to say, “But He was pierced through for our transgression, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.” (Isaiah 53: 5) You have this wonderful portrait here so prophetic and so clear that’s outlining the response that Israel must make in order for Him to come. The point is that He came to His own people and they rejected Him.

John 1:12 says, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God even to those who believe in His name.” It’s the same idea of reception and rejection. You could almost say that chapters 1-12 portrays many who rejected Him and chapter 13 and following focuses on those few who did receive Him. This is like a mini portrait of the theme in this gospel of acceptance and rejection. I want to stress and have you remember the words, received Him. You have a connection between the words believed and received. You’ll notice in your bibles the word, even, is in italics. It should be unless you have a paraphrase but most regular translations will say- become children of God even to those who believe in His name. The word even is actually supplied. That’s why it’s in italics. Actually what we have here in the Greek is apposition. It’s when two things are being called equivalent without a connector. We could say in effect that what is happening here in the structure is to receive Him and to believe Him are being equated as one and the same. Reception here, remember pisteuo, has to do with personal trust not merely intellectual assent. In my opinion this is the thing that is typically missed in many, many churches. Many churches talk about belief as if it were a cognitive assent to the creeds. I think there are many people who do not know Jesus who recite the creeds. It’s a sad story. It’s very possible to say I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord and affirm it intellectually without ever knowing Jesus. Some of us will bear witness to that experience where we might have had that in our own lives at one time.

The real key here is to grasp that to believe in Him is to receive Him. I always use some kind of a homely illustration if I’m trying to share this message say with a friend. I offer them this pen and they believed I wanted to give it to them; they believed it would be a good thing to have but until they reach out and receive it they don’t have the pen. It’s one thing to know you need it and another thing to receive it. There comes a point of choice where a person then simply does this and it’s not easy. It’s simple in one way but it’s extremely difficult in another when you have to come to the end of your own resources and acknowledge that you don’t clean up your act to come to Jesus and that He actually offers Himself to people who know they can’t clean up their act. That’s the whole point of the message- to receive His gift is to simply invite Him into one’s life and to personally transfer one’s trust from one’s self to Him. Now you’re inviting Him to come into your heart and transform you from the inside out- make me be the kind of person You want me to be. That is the essence of the good news.

He goes on to say in verse 13, “who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor or the will of man, but of God.” This is not an earthly birth but it is something that is done of God.

One of the most important verses in the entire bible is, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” (It’s extremely important. It’s radical. It would stun the Greek mind for who the separation of the divine spirit and the mundane world would be the idea of the complete separation. It would also stun the Jews to claim that this Word actually came among us and became flesh. It’s an incredible and awesome idea that He became flesh. It says He dwelt among us and in effect you could call that- He pitched His tent. skenoo is the word and it means tabernacle. In other words it speaks of the Old Testament tabernacle. Remember how God manifested Himself there- the glory, the pillar of cloud, the pillar of fire and the Most Holy Place. He pitched His tent in our midst and manifested Himself in a very personal way. This is localized divine presence.) “and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1: 14) The idea here is that God displays His actions in grace and truth is displayed in His words. Curiously this word grace only appears here in the prologue four times and then it disappears from the rest of the gospel. He does develop this theme though.

John 1:14 says, “John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” How old was John relative to Jesus? He was six months older yet he says He existed before me. You get the important understanding of the emphasis on the preexistence of Christ. So in chronological years John was born six months before Him but he affirms this One existed before me. He’s been telling them about the One who was to come and John tells them, this is the One I told you about. He has a higher rank and He existed before me.

Verse 16 says, “For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.” There’s a wonderful portrait here of how it’s lavishing, almost like waves of grace that have been bestowed upon us. I surely do believe that the more we understand about the work of the preincarnate Christ and the work of His creation and the work of His redemption and the work of His indwelling presence, the more you grasp that the more I think you’ll realize grace upon grace. You’ll see for example in II Corinthians 3:18, “But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” I think it’s a process that as we continue to set our eyes and fix our eyes on Jesus the Author and Perfecter of our faith that we begin to see it’s bigger than we thought. It’s far bigger than you ever guessed. It gives you true dignity, security and true significance because you are a person of dignity and destiny. The living God who pitched His tent in our midst did so in order that we might have life.

That’s John’s theme, in spite of the darkness of this world we receive life. As we tie our thoughts together he says, “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17) It’s not to say now that the law was untrue or didn’t have grace by contrast it’s like looking at a 60-watt light bulb in the middle of an extremely bright day. You surely had hints of grace, truth and the love and compassion of God but by comparison to the progress of revelation it’s really now very dim in comparison. The contrast between law and grace are themes as well that will be picked up especially in Paul and particularly in Galatians.

He concludes, “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (John 1:18) He has explained Him. He’s communicated Him. He has given us an understanding that you don’t see the Father but you see the Son. He said, he who has seen Me has seen the Father, he who hears My words hears the Father’s words, he who believes in Me believes in the Father, he who obeys Me obeys the Father and he who rejects Me rejects the Father. Whatever you attribute to the Son is also going to be associated to your relationship to the Father because Jesus and the Father are One. (John 10) We see this theme here of how He has revealed Him in a powerful way- the One who was in the bosom of the Father.

I want to stress a few thoughts here. I want to stress that this book then is not about an idea. It is about a Person. It is a book that tells us about the way that life truly is. We see certain themes in this gospel that tells us especially about who Jesus Christ is- His true identity and the true meaning of His revelation and redemption.

We see how it tells us as well of the nature of the world. The world is in darkness and the world is not a neutral place. It is not a place of open inquiry and curiosity about God, the new religious synthesis. There is a new religious synthesis redefining Jesus into a therapeutic person and basically reducing Him down not to the Jesus of the gospel but the Jesus of our own time, watering down that message and decontextualizing the gospel. All these then are things that come out of darkness, not out of light.

Fundamentally what comes from God is the light and because people’s deeds are evil, we have a natural disposition like those roaches to hide or like Adam to clothe themselves but even there the clothing is not adequate. The point here is only God can expose your true nakedness but He also is the One who can cover you with the garments of righteousness. Only when you come before the cross, naked with no excuses and come to embrace the wonder of the revealed love of Christ that is now made manifest by His being glorified by His offer of Himself, only then do we discover that He Himself can clothe us with the garments of His own goodness and righteousness. As I like to put it, the One who knows you best loves you most. The One who knows you through and through also is the One who loves you most- which is great. You don’t have anywhere to hide and on the other hand you’ll discover He lays His hand upon you not to crush you but it is in fact to welcome you into the heart of all things. That is a great and glorious good.

Finally we see about the possibilities, this is the theology of hope and the more you study this gospel, the more you see that it is embedded in a true, real hope- a hope for a form of life that begins now but continues on. This is eternal life that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. So this life isn’t something in the future but is now a present gift, John 5:24 makes this particularly explicit.

Answer: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth so Genesis 1 begins with the creation event whereas this speaks about the Word who preexisted the created order. The Greek word arche can mean a number of things but essentially it means, in a sense, timelessly. Before all that was this is the beginning of all things. He is preeminent over all creation; all things have been handed over to Him. It’s really very difficult to describe timelessness but what you’re dealing with is before things come into being, understand there was one time when Pantheism was true. Pantheism means God is all and all is God. That was true before He created the world. He was It. There was no other thing than God. When He spoke the world into being there was now the Creator and the creation. I think it’s deliberately alluding to the Genesis account as a beginning of the narrative that we have here. There’s a beginning in a sense without a beginning. It’s a beginning that’s endless because it goes beyond the actual realm of time and space itself. To be frank, it’s incomprehensible to us because we’re bound by time and space.

Answer: The Holy Spirit is not developed in the prologue. We’ll see the Holy Spirit particularly discussed in John 6, 14, and 16. Here in the prologue He’s not developed although the Spirit brooding on the surface of the deep is seen in Genesis 1.

Answer: In a very real way we’re in the end times, the last days the summary of all things. Paul stressed, especially in Thessalonians, look, understand that He will make His manifestation at any time.

Let me close with a prayer and next week we’re going to pick up from where we left off and look at the end of this chapter. Study verses 19 to the end of this chapter and please when you study it, take it in small chunks. Don’t read fast. Most people when they read the bible, they speed through it and get this vague fuzzy idea. Read it slowly and drink it in and take it in bit-by-bit, a little here a little there, and stop and let the Spirit of God make that become a real in your life and experience.

Lord, we thank You for Your grace and truth. We thank You for the Incarnation and how the Word became flesh and pitched His tent in our midst and how He has overcome the darkness and the spiritual forces of wickedness and for how He has created all things in heaven and on the earth, things that are visible and invisible. He is preeminent over all things and He is in fact the One who is in true rule and authority in the heavenly places. We anticipate His coming again. We walk in hope and expectation that we will see Him face to face and thus we pray Lord that Jesus would become more real in our lives and experiences as we come to see Him more and more not as a proposition but as a Person, a Person to be trusted and loved. We pray in His name, amen.

As we look at John chapter 19 tonight, I want us to consider some key issues concerning the crucifixion of Christ. John 20 looks at the resurrection of Christ and John 21 focuses particularly on resurrection appearances of our Lord. In looking at the crucifixion, many that say the Gibson film, The Passion, of course, have that vividly in their mind’s eye. I want to look at this chapter and recall how last week we saw how Judas betrayed Jesus, how Jesus stood before the priests, and then before Pilate and you recall that there were three religious trials and three civil trials. First, there were three involving the Jews and then the last three involved the Gentiles, one before Pilate, another before Herod, and finally back again, to the last one, with Pilate. This was a grueling and gruesome ordeal, taking all night, and Jesus was being mocked, vilified, beaten, and spit upon. This treatment lasted virtually all night long.

So, it was a night of tremendous agony for our Lord, and He knew this coming, and He knew, still, the worst was yet to come. I am referring not just to the crucifixion, but to the bearing of the sins of the world. For that, He would sweat drops of blood. As we continue with the story, and after Jesus has been talking with Pilate and, remember, Pilate asks Him, “What is truth?” He then goes out to the Jews and says, “I find no guilt in Him.” The Jews don’t want to let loose on that score and they say, “Not this Man, but Barabbas.” They wanted Barabbas freed and Jesus crucified. Chapter 19, then, begins, “Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him.” Now, he tried an approach of sympathy, because he really did not want to crucify Jesus. By scourging Him, he hoped to evoke the sympathy of the crowd. Scourging involved a leather whip, which was knotted and weighted with pieces of metal or bone, and many people would not even survive the whipping involved in that process. Thus, they had to do a careful job to keep victims alive if they were going to crucify them as well. The portrayal in The Passion, of the beating with the rods, is not specifically mentioned in the Gospels.

At the very least, the scourging, which was the second part of that, was, in fact, historical. This is not to say he wasn’t, it is only to say it is not a part of the Biblical accounts. As I said, He had previously been slapped in the face in front of Annas, spat and beat upon before Caiaphas, and then after the scourging, of course, was the crown of thorns, the mocking. I must point out something about the thorns that He wore. Remember they created sort of a skullcap out of these thorns that are indigenous to that area. The thorns and thistles have a theme in the Garden, don’t they? They were brought about by sin. Now, the Creator would wear a crown of thorns as He bore the sins of the world. I don’t think it is accidental. Thorns and thistles will come up as a result of sin and Jesus will bear the sins of the world and actually have a crown of thorns and thistles, which were actually beaten into His head. You see the idea here?

So, you have a very clear idea of how God reverses the work of the Fall, and reverses the work of the first Adam in the second Adam. So, the story continues, “And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head and put a purple robe on Him; and they begin to come up to Him and say, ‘Hail, King of the Jews’ and to give Him slaps in the face. Pilate came out again and said to them, ‘Behold, I am bringing Him out to you so that you will know that I find no guilt in Him’.” Let me stop here for just a moment. It is interesting that the Jews mocked Jesus in His claim of being a prophet. In Matthew chapter 26, verses 67 and 68, we see a mocking that has to do with Him being a prophet. “Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, and said, ‘Prophesy to us, You Christ’,” in effect saying He is a false Messiah, “Who is the one who hit You?”

So, the Jews mocked His claim to be a prophet and the Gentiles mocked His claims here to being a king. Here is was, “Hail, King of the Jews.” Why would that be? Well, the Jewish understanding and concern would be that of the prophetic, Messianic claims, whereas the Gentiles would see Him as an interloper, or a subversive, or simply as a trouble maker claiming to have pretense to political authority.

So, he would be mocked by both, but for different reasons. Now, in verse 4, “Pilate came out again and said to them, ‘Behold, I am bringing Him out to you’,” and this is the third time that Pilate faces the people, ‘“So that you may know that I find no guilt in Him’. Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and purple robe. Pilate said to them, ‘Ecce Homo’,” or, ‘Behold, the Man’. My suspicion here is that he was saying it as in, ‘haven’t we done enough’? Pilate was hoping to gain the sympathy of the Jews. I must tell you, though, that we are never saved by a moral example. We are never saved by sympathy, but only, and ultimately, by turning away from our sins and trusting in the sinless substitute. The Gospels are very clear about this. If He were just scourged and beaten, it would not have been enough. As believers, we don’t just contemplate the Cross, in a way we also carry it.

So, there is this idea of the Cross but also of the crucified life as well, because we are followers in His steps. In this case, the crucifixion is that one dies with Christ, and we crucify the flesh, with its desires and so forth, and put on the Spirit instead. In verse six, we see, “So when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out, ‘Crucify, Crucify’!” They were rousing up the mob, a fickle lot, and eventually everyone was saying it. “Pilate said to them, ‘Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him’.” Now, this was the third time that Pilate declared that he found no guilt in Jesus and he wanted a compromise that would somehow please everybody, but he figured he was better off letting them take Him off and crucify Him, but even that was not enough. We now see that, “The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God’.” The verse that follows is very interesting. “When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid.” Now, Pilate was already plenty afraid. Turn with me to Matthew 27:19, and we see something which took place right before this moment. “While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with that righteous man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him’.”

So, he was already wondering who this guy really was. Remember that idea? He claimed to have an authority that was not a human authority. “My Kingdom is not this world,” that kind of an idea. That, in addition to the statement, here, that He was claiming to be the Son of God, actually made Pilate afraid. The significant part here is that Jesus was silent. It goes on to say, in verse nine, “He entered into the Praetorium again and said to Jesus, ‘Where are You from’? But Jesus gave him no answer.” He was silent before His accusers. Turn, for example, to 1st Peter chapter two, where it gives us an illustration of the prophecy found in Isaiah 53, where He did not open His mouth. In 1st Peter 2:20-23, we see, “For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience?

But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, ‘Who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth’,” and that is from Isaiah 53, “And while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously. And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the Cross, so that we might die to sin,” and here you see the image of our dying with Him as well, “and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” The next verse says, “For you were continually straying like sheep,” and this is another allusion to Isaiah 53, “but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.”

So, we have a very clear portrait here of the fulfillment in part of Isaiah 53. Looking back to the text, in verse ten, “So Pilate said to Him, ‘You do not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You’? Jesus answered, ‘You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin’.” Pilate is making a boast that he has authority. But, if you consider Romans 13:1, it says that all authority comes from God. He is the One who empowers. He raises some up and then He deposes them. We suppose we are in authority, but ultimately it is God who is in authority. It goes on to speak of how Caiaphas knew the Scriptures, but it hardened his heart. This we learned in chapter eleven, verses 47 through 54.

So, it was he who had the greater sin. Then, in verses 12 to 15, we read that, “Because of this Pilate made efforts to release Him,” because, again, he can not comprehend matters and that this is not an ordinary criminal. He is wrestling with this concept. “But the Jews cried out saying, ‘If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar’. Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.”

You can see that actual pavement today because it has been uncovered there is Jerusalem. As you know, the city of Jerusalem was razed in the year 70, and then it was rebuilt around 135 AD, and it was called the ‘Aelia Capitolina’ and then that, too, was destroyed. It was a hard job to find where the authentic sites were. You do know, of course, that when you look at Jerusalem, it looks like an ancient city from the outside, but those walls are from the 15th century and what we call the ‘Via Della Rosa’ is not where Jesus walked. He would have been in that area, but the streets have been rebuilt.

So, what we see here is that when Pilate brings Him down, he brings Him to The Pavement. “Now, it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour, and he said to the Jews, ‘Behold, your King’.” This might have been about six o’clock in the morning. “So they cried out, ‘Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him’. Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King’? The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar’.” May I tell you, that must have been a hard pill to swallow, because that was thing they did not believe. They did not think that Caesar was the rightful king over them.

So, for them, on a high and holy day, to crucify their own Messiah, and then feign loyalty to Caesar, was a double whammy when you think about it that way. I want to stress again, though, from the standpoint of the Scriptures, it would be wrong to say there was an anti-Semitic bias in the New Testament. The idea here is that the Gospels are really focusing on the death and resurrection of Christ and the fact is that when we look at the loves of the disciples, you have the life of Christ with the disciples, the life of Christ with the multitudes, you see a strong narrative structure. It is not biographical, but topical and thematic and it emphasizes the crucifixion in a disproportionate way, because this was the ultimate purpose for which Jesus came. The New Testament teaches multiple causation in the death of Jesus.

It was not just the Jews, it was everyone. His Jewish opponents were involved, but His own disciple betrayed Him. A Roman judge, Pilate, issues the sentence, and it was the Roman soldiers who carried out the execution. You have to keep in mind that the early Christians were all Jews. For probably the first 20 years of the Church all believers in Christ were Jewish. You can not forget that. Jesus was Jewish, the disciples were Jewish, and the whole New Testament was written by Jews, with the possible exception of Luke. At the same time, the Jewish leadership, the Sanhedrin, and the temple priests, they rejected their Messiah. And so, it was rejection by the Jewish leadership. In verse 16, then, we read, “So he handed Him over to them to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own Cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha.”

So, what you have here is, from a human standpoint, the crucifixion was, indeed, a great crime. From a human standpoint, it was a tragedy. But, from a Divine standpoint, you see it totally differently. From the Divine standpoint, it was the fulfillment of prophecy and an accomplishment of the will of God. “It was for this reason I came, It was for this reason I came to serve.” Now, Roman citizens, I should point out, were never crucified. That was too ignominious a death. It was reserved for the lowest criminals because it was an agonizing method of punishment.

The criminal would customarily carry his own cross or the crossbeam, not necessarily the whole cross. It was more likely that it was the crossbeam that Jesus carried. In an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the drawings shows what position Jesus would have been in during the scourging and another drawing shows how He would have carried the crossbeam, or ‘patibulum’. The ‘stipes’ would be the vertical portion on which it would be placed.

So, He likely carried the crossbeam, but remember they pressed Simon of Sirene into carrying it, because of Jesus’ physical condition. It was about a mile and quite a long walk. And so, it was necessary for them to do that. In any case, the Place of a Skull, where He was crucified, was outside the city. This is an important point. I want to read to you Hebrews chapter 13, verses 11 to 13, and they relate to this very issue. “For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.” See the imagery there? Now, where He was crucified is now inside the city walls, but in the first century it was clearly outside the city walls. (Q)(A): Are there any other accounts, outside of Scripture, where the Romans were asked to carry out Jewish law? I can not think of any and I think this was an unusual occurrence because of the complexity of the case. The Jews were clever and knew that Pilate was in some hot water already with Caesar and if it was reported that he let this Man go, who was a claimant to the throne, then he could have lost his position altogether. Knowing that, they said, “We have no king but Caesar.” Let’s continue on. Frankly, we are left to guess as to the exact location of this Place of a Skull. There are two traditional sites and one is Gordon’s Calvary and it is the most impressive because it has a nice garden.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is an older traditional location. That locale has better historical connections, but it is not as fun to see. If you have the opportunity, go see them both. One gives you the sense of what it might have looked like at the time, whereas the other is more likely the locale. Returning to the text, and to verse 18, “There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between.” Again, this is not an accident. I believe it is a symbolic picture. It is historical, but it speaks of something theological as well. On the one hand He had the response of rejection and on the opposite hand He had the response of acceptance and those are the only two options you have. To ignore Him is, in fact, covert rejection.

So, not to choose is to choose. There is no way around this one. People say that they didn’t ask to be born. Deal with where you are and don’t whine about where you aren’t.

So, my point is that you are in a condition here where you don’t get to make the rules. God, the Scriptures teach us, is gracious and compassionate and those who wish to know Him will find Him. The point here is that a response is needful. Just mere intellectual assent is not enough. There has got to be the issue of personal reception. As I often put it, belief in Jesus is not assent to a proposition, but trust in a person.

So, I say that propositional truth always points beyond itself to personal truth. But, revelation demands a response. The Gospels are not there to inform us but to transform us. Therefore, it requires a response and that is the uncomfortable position that the Gospels leave us in, frankly. It is one of the reasons, by the way, why the Gospels have been subjected to more scrutiny and more vilification than any other ancient texts. This is because of its power. Whenever there is something that powerful, it will cause trouble. It is like stirring up a hornet’s nest. Demonic desires would be to keep people from reading the Gospel to see what it really says; better to hear it from a second, and third, and fourth account. My desire is to get people to read these Gospels directly. I have this special little book and it is the message of John. I often give it to people. It is small, so I’m not giving them some giant text. If I can get them to read that, at least I have them in a situation where they can more intelligently assess who this Jesus was and what He really said. You need to make an intelligently informed decision.

You will make the decision to either accept Him or reject Him, so wouldn’t it be a good idea, at least, to check out the evidence instead of relying on what others have said? Now, we these two transgressors here and in Isaiah 53:12, and this text was written some seven centuries before the Crucifixion, and it reads, “Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.” We have a remarkable image here of how Jesus fulfills prophecy and we will see that many more are fulfilled as well. A criminal would wear a placard identifying his crime and this was Pilate’s insult to the religious establishment. In verse 18 we see, “There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between. Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the Cross. It was written, ‘Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews’.

Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.” The point is that the “chief priests were telling Pilate not to write, ‘King of the Jews’, but that He said, ‘I am the King of the Jews’. Pilate answered, ‘What I have written, I have written’.” What do you suppose was going on in Pilate’s mind when he did that? I think it was more than just getting back at the Jewish leaders. I think there was some doubt in his own mind that He had been the King. It was against his own will to crucify Him, and so this might have been a last possible tribute to Him. Again, however, regret is not the same as repentance. There are some apocryphal books that talk about the conversion of Pilate and Claudia, his wife, but they are just that. There is not much historical warrant for it. Now, it is interesting here that Hebrew is the language of religion, Greek the language of philosophy, and Latin the language of law. All three combined to crucify the Son of God.

A Centurion and four soldiers would usually be assigned to do these executions. In verse 23, “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer garments and made four parts, a part to every soldier and also the tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece. So they said to one another, ‘Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it will be’. This was to fulfill the Scripture: ‘They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots’.” This is a fulfillment of Psalm 22, verse 18. At this time the people would revile Jesus and so we also have this account in the parallel Gospels. Look at Psalm 22:18, to vividly see, again, that reviling. Part of that reviling is also in Psalm 22, verses 12 to 18, “Many bulls have surrounded Me; strong bulls of Bashan have surrounded Me. They open wide their mouth at Me, as a ravening and a roaring lion.

I am poured out like water, all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; it is melted within Me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue cleaves to My jaws; and you lay Me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded Me.” The word ‘dogs’ is often used in reference to the Gentiles. “A band of evildoers has encompassed Me; they pierced My hands and My feet. I can count all My bones, they look, they stare at Me;” and then, again, verse 18, “They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” This is very strong picture of the fulfillment, particularly in Mark’s Gospel. I Will read you some verses from Mark 15 and this supplements what we are reading here in John. In Mark 15:29-32, we see, “Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, ‘Ha, You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself and come down from the Cross’. In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes, were mocking Him among themselves, and saying, ‘He saved others; He can not save Himself. Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the Cross, so that we may see and believe’. Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him.” At first both did, but in the end one changed and repented.

So, you have a picture here of tremendous rejection, a culmination of that rejection. Going back to our text, we see in verse 25, “Therefore the soldiers did these things, but standing by the Cross of Jesus were His mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” If you put the Gospels together, you get three Marys and Solome who were near the Cross at first. Then we see them again and they are further away from the Cross, standing at a distance. Mary, I believe, was experiencing something that was predicted even before Jesus’ birth. Turn to Luke, chapter two, and it illustrates this very point. It was on her heart even before her son was born. In verse 34, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed, and a sword will pierce even your own soul,” speaking, here, to Mary, “to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

So, she understood these things, but she also knew what would ultimately take place. Now it is being fulfilled. What is interesting, as we go on to the next verse, when we look at Jesus, even on the Cross, He fulfills His responsibilities as a son. He gives His choicest disciple the responsibility to care for her. Verse 26, “When Jesus saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son’. Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother’. From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.”

So, He was making provision for her. We later see her, in Acts 1:14, and she is awaiting Pentecost with the other disciples in the Upper Room.

So, she is found yet again in the book of Acts. If we go to verse 28, we see, “After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, ‘I am thirsty’.” This is also a fulfillment of Psalm 22 and also Psalm 69, as well. A few verses from that Messianic Psalm and you have a feeling for that. It is good to know of these Messianic prophecies, and Psalm 69 has a number of them. Beginning with verse three we see, “I am weary with My crying; My throat is parched; My eyes fall while I wait for My God.” Verse 15 reads, “May the flood of water not overflow Me, nor the deep swallow Me up, nor the pit shut its mouth on me,” and verse 21, “They also gave Me gall for My food and for My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink.” Back to verse four and we see, “Those who hate Me without a cause are more than the hairs on My head.” You will recall that Jesus quoted this earlier, in John 15. Verse eight of this Psalm is also something He quoted, when He said, “I have become estranged from My brothers and an alien to My mother’s sons.” This He spoke in John 7. There is an emphasis here on reproach as well. From verse 19, “You know My reproach and My shame and My dishonor; all My adversaries are before You.” Returning to John, and verse 30, “Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished’.” It is possible that He received this so that He could speak. His mouth could have been so dry that He was unable to speak. The verse concludes, “And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” There are actually seven statements made from the Cross. “I have completed the work that You sent Me to do.” Tetelestai—it is finished—is what He cries out. The debt was paid on full.

The blood of the sacrifices could only cover sin, but the blood of the Lamb of God took away the sins of the world. Again, from John 1:29, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Also, I would invite you to consider the words of Hebrews chapter nine, verses 24 to 28. “For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed and for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.”

So, this is an anticipation of His Second Coming, which will be coming of power and glory. Let’s consider, then, seven statements from the Cross. The first three, actually, relate to the needs of others. The first one was to those who crucified Him. That would be found in Luke 23, verse 34. “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do,” are the first words uttered by Jesus on the Cross. The second statement is found in Luke’s Gospel as well, and it is to the believing thief. It is told in verses 39 to 43 of Luke chapter 23. “One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, ‘Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself, and us’. But the other answered, and rebuking him said, ‘Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong’. And he was saying, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come in Your Kingdom’. And He said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise’.”

So, he actually promises to this criminal, the one who believed, that he would be with Him in Paradise. The third saying from the Cross is found here in our Gospel, John 19, and particularly in verses 25 to 27 and it involves His mother. We just read how He made provision for John to take His mother under his wing. Then, in the fourth case, it turns from the need of others to His relationship with His Father. It is found in Matthew 27, verses 45 to 50. “Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani’, that is, ‘Father, why have You forsaken Me’?” This is a quote, as you know from the first verse of Psalm 22, that same Messianic Psalm we looked at before. It is a fulfillment of that as well. “And some of those standing there, when they heard it, began saying, ‘This man is calling for Elijah’. Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. But the rest of them said, ‘Let us see if Elijah will come and save Him’. And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up His spirit.”

So, we have the original theme of others, and then His Father, and the fifth statement from the Cross has to do with Himself. The last three, in fact, focus on Himself, and first of all, His body.

So, in John 19:28, we see, “After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, ‘I am thirsty’.” Earlier Scriptures we looked at indicated that it would occur on the crucifixion. The next statement is found in verse 30, the sixth statement, and this is concerning His soul and it says, “Therefore when Jesus received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished’. He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” But, there is one more that takes place. The seventh is in Luke’s Gospel. In Luke 23:46 we see, “And Jesus, crying out in a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit’. Having said this, He breathed His last.” Jesus did not die by asphyxiation, although that was what crucifixion was designed to do. He died of His volition, and He gave up His spirit. The soldiers, when they saw that He had died, were quite surprised. It was not an ordinary sequence. In any event, we see that the first three statements deal with others and then with His Father and then with Himself. And so, if we tie all these seven statements together we see a kind of ‘mini-theology’ and how He is concerned for the needs of others, and how He wrestles with the separation from His Father, and how He is obedient; body, soul, and spirit, to the work that God has called Him to do. The death of Jesus, as you know, is a major theme in John’s Gospel.

It is pictured as the slaying of a lamb in chapter one. It is depicted as the destroying of the temple in chapter two. It is seen as the lifting up of a serpent in chapter three. It is focused upon as a shepherd laying down his life for his sheep in chapter ten. It is seen as the planting of the seed in the ground in chapter twelve. Jesus’ death was not an accident. It was a Divine appointment. We have to keep this in mind. His death was voluntary; He willingly dismissed His spirit. Again, I refer you back to John chapter ten, and a very important statement. He says, in verses 17 to 18, “For this reason the Father loves Me because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” It was a voluntary submission to His Father.

Jesus dismissed His spirit at three o’clock, about the time the Passover lambs were being slaughtered, although the horrific agony went from twelve o’clock to three o’clock. From nine to twelve He was hanging on the Cross, but then it turned dark. Now, interestingly enough, in verse 31 to 37, the Roman soldiers did not do what they were commanded to do. We see, “Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.” As you know breaking their legs would prevent them from holding themselves up. Again, the article in the Journal of the American Medical Association describes this very reality. When He is inhaling, He is having to push down because inhalation is active in normal breathing but is passive in a crucified victim.

So, to exhale, which is passive in normal breathing, becomes active in a crucifixion, you have to push down to do that. Of course, that becomes an agonizing process. So, the cruelty of this death is caused by your instinct to live. You see the idea there? The only way that you could hasten the crucifixion, then, would be to break the legs so that the victim could no longer push Himself up.

So, they wanted to get Him down for the high, holy day, because, as you know, the Jewish day was from six o’clock to six o’clock. So, Jesus, by the way, was crucified on Nisan 14, which is the day of Passover and He was crucified at the same time as the Passover animals were being slaughtered in the temple. This was not an accident. He was raised, and not accidentally, on the feast of First Fruit and He sent the gift of the Holy Spirit to fulfill the symbolic meaning of the feast of Pentecost. All of these fulfillments took place. Let me continue on in out text. “So the soldiers came along and broke the legs of the first man and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.” Now, if we turn to Zechariah chapter 12, we see in verse ten, “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.” As I understand it, this is an image of how the people of God will eventually acknowledge that this was really the One who was their Messiah. Also, in Revelation chapter one, you see this imagery as well. In verse seven, “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.”

So, the piercing is the fulfillment if the Scripture in Zechariah. It is intriguing to me that by not breaking His legs, they fulfilled Exodus chapter 12, which said that not a bone was to be broken in the Passover lamb. It is also repeated in Numbers chapter 9, verse 12. But, they did do what they were not supposed to do, and that was piercing His side. But, by so doing, they fulfilled the prophecy inadvertently. Now, John makes an unusual comment next, but there is a good reason for it. In verse 34, “But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.” I think that he is saying this here as proof that Jesus did have a real body. It is proof of that. In 1st John chapter one, verses one to four is really a commentary on how he saw and beheld. He experienced a real death, then, and this is to counteract an early form of Gnosticism that actually denied that Jesus was the Christ and this developed more and more in the second and third centuries with these Gnostic Gospels.

Now, he goes on to say, “For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, ‘Not a bone of Him shall be broken’.” Verse 38 reads, “After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. So he came and took away His body. Nicodemus, who had first com to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.” It is interesting that from this point on no unbelievers touched the body of Jesus. Once He had accomplished His work, no unbelievers touched His body. God, I think, prepared these two very influential men, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus, to prepare His body for burial. Otherwise the body would have been carried off and thrown in a ditch, along with the other thieves. I think this a clear fulfillment of Isaiah chapter 53, another text we were looking at earlier. Specifically, in verse nine, “His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth.”

So, again we see fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. It is interesting that Joseph and Nicodemus had enough cloth and spices necessary for His burial. We also know that Mary and the other women planned to return after the Sabbath and complete the burial procedures. We see this in each of the Synoptic Gospels, although it is not recorded in John. Now, the text goes on to say, “So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid.” A new tomb like that, hewn out of the rock, would have been a very expensive proposition. “Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.” Jesus finished the work of a new creation. If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away, and behold, new things have come.

So, now He would rest as the Sabbath was about to begin. Then, on the third day, He would rise from the dead. Let me point out something here. A lot of people are troubled with this idea of three days and three nights, thinking He was going to in the grave three days and three nights, just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights. How, then, could He have been crucified on Friday and raised from the dead on Sunday, if it is supposed to be three days and three nights? The answer to that is that is a Jewish idiom. There are a number of texts, for example, in Esther, which talk about how they prayed for three days and three nights, and then it says, “On the third day.” Here is how it worked. In the Jewish reckoning, and it is even in the Talmud, a portion of a day shall be reckoned as a whole.

So, you had a portion of the first day, all of the second day, and a portion of the third day. That is three days and three nights in the Jewish idiom.

So, this indicates a Friday crucifixion and I think it holds best with the text. Now that we have tied these threads together, are there any closing questions? .

(Q)(A): No, He did not die of asphyxiation, but rather He gave up His spirit. Asphyxiation, that is to say, the inability to breathe, would finally take over. A person could only hold themselves up so long. Typically the victim would die from an inability to breathe. This could often take many hours and the Jews, knowing this, had to hasten that process because they wanted the bodies off before sunset because that was the beginning of a high day and it was associated with the Sabbath connected to the Passover. .

(Q)(A): Yes, He chose to die. I think that is why the Centurion said, when he saw the way Jesus died, “Surely, this Man is the Son of God.” My point is that a Centurion, who does the grisly work of execution again, and again, and again, said, basically, that this one is different. He never saw anyone die as this Man died. You see the point there?

So, that is an extra addition that would intimate that Jesus, having said it was finished, then said, with aloud voice, “Into Your hands I commend My spirit.” Then He breathed His last. Again, I think it illustrates the point that, “No one takes My life from Me. I have the authority to pick it up and I have the authority to lay it down.” I think there is a consistency about that and it would make perfect sense. He did die a real death, but He died volitionally, not as a tragedy, but as a Savior. He came for this purpose and it was His submission to His Father’s will so we can now actually have a relationship with God. Keep in mind that Christ did not die for our sins merely to cleanse our sins. That is the basis on which He can now have a fellowship with us. The cleansing of sin is needful, but that is only the means by which He could be restored to an intimacy with us. Do you see that point? It is the means for the restoration of a right relationship. We now have peace with God, before we did not. .

(Q)(A): That is correct. The very time was not accidental. He died at the very time when the Passover lambs were being offered. It was even said in Exodus 12 that it would be in the afternoon, and so it on the same day and at the same hour and it is no accident. He had authority to lay it down. He also had the authority to take it up, which we will see next week in John 20. .

Let me close, now, in a prayer. Father, we thank You for Your goodness, Your grace, Your love, this inexpressible gift is beyond our ability to really comprehend, but we want to thank You again for the imperishable and infinite gift of forgiveness through this price that was paid through the blood of the sinless One, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. I pray that we would respond. I pray that if any of us don’t know Him that tonight would be the night we would come to respond to His gift and invite Him into our lives, thanking Him for the freedom and forgiveness of sins, and for coming into an intimate relationship with Him. For those of us who have done that, I pray that we might press on to a heart of gratitude and of discipleship, that we might become conformed to the image of Your Son. We pray in His name. Amen.