Thank you, Dave. Appreciate that very much. Good to see you again. Give it up.
Inform. All right. I hope you're ready to rock and roll because we're going to pick up right where we left off yesterday in John chapter one. But a couple things to start off.
You remember that I gave you a homework assignment and that was to read the gospel of John. Now I tried this morning, got up early. I only got through John chapter 14. But here's the good news.
I wrote a blog to start this year and I said, do not read the Bible in a year in 2026. I'm not a fan of the Bible in your program. Now if it works for you, do it. I'm being somewhat provocative intentionally here.
But you missed a day. What happens? I got to double up and then you missed three days. I'm a pretty disciplined person and I've never made it through that.
But if you take something like John, I'm going to read it every day for a month. You get through 14, I just didn't have time. You can listen to it while you're driving on double speed or exercising or the next day, you're like, you know, I'm staring 15 to 21 and then I'm going to start over again. And then you just keep going and repeat it for that month and then you'll see patterns and connections so that anybody get through at least more than John chapter one today and notice anything and then just jump out to you that you learned.
Bigger, small. I never noticed this in John. One or two observations that just jumped out to you doesn't even have to be deeply profound. Anything you notice from reading John chapter one today in the back.
Yes. Got to be nice and loud. Okay. Good.
There are themes of light and darkness in the first couple chapters. This will come back in John eight and in John nine when he calls himself the light of the world and specifically heals the blind man and tells the Pharisees that they are blind. So he's setting this up to play it out more through the gospel John. Important contrast.
One more. I'm glad you noticed that. Go ahead. A lot of repetition John was not only disciple he was a teacher he explained stuff and there's sometimes like in John 12 when there's a section where he's like I'm going to sum up the gospel so far.
So there's a lot of repetition. Good. All right. So we are going to be in John chapter one verse forty three and we'll make my goal is to get through one and two tonight if we can do it and start three tomorrow because two ends with a cliffhanger leading right into John chapter three.
Okay. So actually one more question remind me really quickly together. What are all the things we learn about Jesus in John one through well verse around forty three so far. titles or truths we learn about Jesus so far.
Quick summary, just raise your hand and throw it out there. What do we learn? He is the word it starts with. In the beginning was the word.
So Jesus first described as the word. Good, what else? He's the creator of everything. So not one thing was created that he didn't make.
Good, what else? He is the light, excellent. Very important, that's also early chapter John 1. What else?
He is deity, he is theos twice. No one is seeing God, but the son who is at his side has made him known. He is himself God, good, what else? He is the Lamb of God twice who takes away what?
Takes away the sin of the world. That's his mission. Anything else you recall from John chapter 1? Go.
He is Yahweh. Now how do we know that? Remind me. Excellent.
Isaiah 43, they're like, who are you? John the Baptist, Messiah, Elijah, prophet. He goes, nope, I am like a one crying in the wilderness, preparing the way for the coming of the Lord Yahweh, which means Jesus is the one who's coming. He's Yahweh.
I can coospe on Jesus saying that. Anybody else? Really important. He's a Messiah.
He's preexistent. John the Baptist says that twice. What's that? Became flesh.
This is the irony. It's like he's the one who made the world. He's in the world. We didn't recognize him, but he's amongst us.
Excellent. All right, so we're in 1 verse 43. The next day, Jesus decided to leave. He'd been in Bethany for Galilee.
He found Philip and told him, follow me. Now, notice the authority Jesus just had. He has, when he first sees Peter, what does he do with Peter? He just renames him.
He's like, you know what? I'm going to rename you. There's a certain authority to do that. There's also a certain authority to walk up to somebody and say, follow me.
Right? Now, there could be more to the story that we're not given, but there's a certain authority that's like, follow after me. Either this person has that authority, or they're really, really arrogant. In the case of Jesus has the authority.
And just says to Philip, follow me. The question is, what happens? Now, Philip was from Bethsida, the hometown of Andrew, and Peter. Philip found Nathaniel and told him, we have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and so are the prophets.
Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth. Now, what is Philip the second of that we see in John? Second witness. So I'm not technically the second witness, because the first witness was John the Baptist, who was the second witness.
OK, Andrew. So you might say Andrew is the first evangelist. I called him a missionary yesterday, and one of you gently and kindly pointed out to me that a missionary is like cross-cultural, and I was like, you know what? That's fair.
We'll call Andrew the first evangelist who's preaching about Jesus. What does Philip do? Same thing. He's the second evangelist.
So right away, we have three examples in John 1 of people who are testifying the way Jesus wants to testify. John the Baptist does, clearly. Andrew goes and gets his brother. He's the first evangelist.
And then Philip, he says, follow me. He goes and gets Nathaniel. Now here's an interesting question. Who is Nathaniel?
Who is Nathaniel? Like seriously, who's Nathaniel? So far, who do we have following Jesus? We have Andrew, who else?
Peter and who? Philip, who are they all a part of? Well, besides John the Baptist, who Jesus goes and finds, Peter, Andrew, and Philip. They're all a part of the 12.
Nathaniel is never listed as a part of the 12. Who is he? He doesn't show up in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. He's only in John.
Who's Nathaniel? Any guesses? Quick guesses on who Nathaniel is? A dropout.
That's actually a theory that a lot of scholars have. Now, there's two options I've heard for Nathaniel. One is that Nathaniel was a part of the 12 and that actually dropped out and was replaced. And the other list, they named the other 12 that are part of it.
Now, there's no evidence for that, but that's a possible idea. Anybody know any other option of who Nathaniel was in relation to the 12? Maybe his name was changed as a possibility or we have a lot of people who have two names. That Peter has three names, right?
Cephas, Simon, and Peter. If you look at all Acts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, have lists of all the 12 apostles, John doesn't. But he lists some of them. He never lists Bartholomew.
So there's a number of scholars who think, and I don't know that I have a huge stake in this, that it's actually reasonable that Nathaniel was another name for Bartholomew. Makes sense, it's plausible. Wouldn't bet my house on that. But you'll notice what Jesus promises to Nathaniel.
Makes us sound like he's more than just a follower of Jesus that goes on his way. So hold that thought as we keep going with what happens when Nathaniel here. He says, we have found the one who Moses wrote about in the law and so did the prophets. Jesus the son of Joseph from Nazareth.
By the way, had it Andrew describe Jesus to Peter. He said, we found what? We found the Messiah. Now he says we found the one written in the law.
Now, in a sense, it's kind of two descriptions of the same name, but what you see in John is all these people that testify about Jesus. The Father testifies, the scripture testifies. Moses testifies, my works testify, John testifies, Abraham, Newmian testifies. So the difference is brought out here about how many different voices the scriptures testify.
And also he's the Messiah is testifying about him. So these different voices are important within John, all pointing towards Jesus. OK? All right, let's keep growing.
And then the response is, can anything good come out of Nazareth, Nathaniel asked? Now what's interesting about that question? What do we know about Nazareth? And we know where Nazareth is at, by the way.
It's a small, insignificant town in Israel. Why would he say, can anything good come out of Nazareth? Anyone? He must not be one option that would create issues for us if he didn't actually live there.
Yeah, that's the expectation. This is a great point. We're going to see that Jesus is predicted as Messiah in the Old Testament. But he doesn't fit the expectations.
If you think of a king that fit the expectations of the Old Testament, who would it be? He'd be the first king Saul. He's tall. He's handsome.
In fact, we know the average height was probably five to five, three at that time from skeletons. And Saul is head and shoulders above everybody in the land. So he's probably six, three to six foot six. He's tall.
He's handsome, walks by. And most people, especially if you're five to five foot three, are going to double take this person looks like a giant. He looks like a king. But what is Jesus?
He doesn't fit these earthly expectations. We see this early in the gospel. And you see this in themes of Lord of the Rings that would use the Hobbits. It's like, wait a minute.
That's not supposed to be the hero. Why would you have somebody who's small and not strong? And like, wait, wait. This doesn't fit the script of what we expect.
Tolkien was intentionally taking biblical ideas. By the way, do we see this in the Old Testament sometimes? Wait, Joseph, he's the youngest. David is the youngest.
Moses stuttered. Now, of course, Jesus doesn't have a moral weakness. But from Nazareth, this is not what we expect. Which is maybe why John 1 tells us that we didn't recognize him.
Because our expectations doesn't fit who God is. So either God changes or we shift our expectations to understand who God is. Now, I don't know about you. I'm going with the latter one.
All right, so they don't. He's like, can anything good come out of Nazareth? Now, what does Phil have answer and say? What does he say?
He says, now, what's interesting about that response? Jesus said it first to who? Who did he say it to? It's Saint Chapter.
Andrew, do you remember? So John Baptist has two disciples. He says, Lamb of God. And they turn, ask him a question.
And he's like, what does he ask him? Where are you staying? And he's like, come and see. So now you have Phil doing the same thing.
Now, Phil presumably wasn't there. Some argue he was the second disciple of John the Baptist who's not named. He doesn't say that. It's possible.
Because they're also from the same town as Andrew and Peter. So it's possible that he was. But I think what we're seeing is Jesus says, come and see. And then what do his disciples do?
They say the same thing. This is what a disciple is supposed to do. Imitate his master. Follow his master in what he says and how he does it.
So Phil's being set up right away as doing two things right. Good to go tell Nathaniel. Now, I'm responding by say, come and see for yourself. Pretty cool.
I like Phil for different reasons. He says, how do you know me, Nathaniel? Oh, I'm sorry. Verse 47.
Then Jesus saw Nathaniel coming toward him and said about him, here truly is an Israelite in whom there's no deceit. Now back to our question about whether the gospel is anti-Semitic. John the Baptist was Jewish. Jesus is Jewish.
What's his disciples? Jewish. And who's their message first to? The Jews.
Okay, so just keep that in your mind. There's little hints that are dropped here that make it pretty hard when we add all this together to say the gospel's anti-Semitic. All right, he says, an Israelite in whom there's no deceit. How do you know me, Nathaniel, last?
Before Philip called you when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. Jesus answered. Rabbi, now here's another title for him, right? That's one we miss.
He's also called Rabbi, Nathaniel replied, you are the Son of God, the King of Israel. I mean, he's killing it right here, isn't he? He's like, you're a rabbi, you're the Son of God, and you're the King of Israel. He recognizes this right away.
More titles for Jesus. Jesus responded. Do you believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than this, he said.
Truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Now, we're sending dinner, and my wife asks a question. He's like, what's going on in this passage? And I gave an answer, and I want to take it back.
I was like, that was not a satisfactory answer. I gave to my own wife who had a great question. What is happening in this passage when he's saying you will see the heavens open, and you will see angels ascending and descending? Does that happen in the gospel of John?
We don't have the transfiguration described in the gospel of John. We don't have the baptism just hinted earlier, but not afterwards where the heaven is opened. We don't have the ascension where the heavens are opened. Where else is the heavens opened?
In Acts 7, when Stephen is being stoned to death, you see the heavens that are opened, we don't see it happening here. Now, one possibility that says you see the angels ascending and descending is in Genesis chapter 28 with Jacob's ladder, where in that story it describes angels who are sending up the ladder and coming back down, but it doesn't describe the heavens being opened, and it doesn't describe Jacob's ladder here. And by the way, one side note, it's really clear in John that Jesus steps into our world, that he is from above, and we are from below. And then Jesus returns back to heaven.
So Jesus starts in a sense in heaven, takes on human flesh, goes back to heaven, and sends the Holy Spirit. What are the angels doing here? Do you notice how it describes them? How does it describe them?
It says ascending and descending. What does that, what did Jesus do by the way? Did he ascend and then descend? No, he descended and then ascended.
The angels are ascending and then descending. Now, what does that tell us? Hey, I'm reading too much into this. That's a possibility.
I would fully concede here I might be. But I actually was reading a commentary by Dennis Prager, Jewish, on Genesis. We got to Genesis 28. He said, I think this suggests that angels primary home is here, and they ascend and they descend, rather than the home in heaven, descend and ascend.
I don't know if I can prove that, but that's at least enough for me to stop and go, that's kind of interesting. And that's telling, especially when Hebrews 13 to says, to show hospitality because many unaware have entertained angels. Now, what I think is happening here is the miracle that Jesus did. And it's not even super clear that it's a miracle.
It probably is. When he sees Nathaniel and recognize him, we're not told how far it is or where it was. So it's possibly psalm at a distance and is really smart. Like it doesn't tell us, but Nathaniel's blown away at this.
It's kind of like, that's not that amazing of a miracle that he saw that. I think Jesus is saying, look, you think that's a great miracle? You are about to see the heavens opened up as you travel with me and see this God who was from all eternity work miracles. You haven't seen anything yet.
I think that's probably the point of what he's saying. You're going to see the heavens metaphorically open. You're going to see angels. You're going to see supernatural phenomena.
If you think this is great, oh my goodness, you haven't seen anything yet. I think that's what he's saying to Nathaniel is my best take. Now, before we go on to John chapter two, questions, thoughts, clarification. Let me just sum up.
Basically, John chapter one, for we're going to sum it up. The first five verses is that Jesus is with God the Father and he is God. He's preexistent. John the Baptist shows up proclaiming he's not the Messiah.
He's not Elijah. He's not the prophet. This guy, Jesus, is the one because he preexisted before me. And then Jesus starts selecting his disciples and they start modeling what it means to be a witness and to testify.
And then we move in now to the actual first miracle in John chapter two. Questions quickly, something fast from John one, go. Say what in Revelation? He does.
So it's an interesting question. When Jesus says he'll see this, is he referring to Revelation in this passage to Nathaniel? Maybe that's a possibility. I don't know for sure if I could land that one, but maybe you could convince me if you could make the connection.
Same author, arguably. So yeah, fair point. Okay, John two, because we're going to rock through this one. Here we go.
On the third day, a wedding took place in Kana of Galilee. Jesus' mother was there. Jesus' disciples were invited to the wedding as well. Now, before we get to the drama in verse three, weddings in these days were sometimes five, six, seven days long.
First time I heard that I thought that was crazy. And I thought, you know what? When I bought us some family's weddings, we go in like three days early. And then sometimes you stay a day after.
It can turn into like a four to five day affair. You got to imagine for them, they're traveling in, and they can't jump on a plane to get here. This could be days to travel in, five to seven days of all the celebration and days leaving. Weddings were massive mega events, huge events in the ancient year east and of course in Judaism.
So Jesus shows up at a wedding with his disciples and with his mom. When the wine ran out, Jesus' mother told him, they don't have any wine. Now, normally we would read this and go, oh, they ran out of wine. Ah, that's a bummer.
Run to Costco and get some more. Like it doesn't work that way. But you also got to realize this is an honor, shame culture. If people travel in for a wedding and you don't have enough wine for the entire celebration, you have dishonored yourself and the guests and this is shameful.
Now I looked at a couple of commentaries that said, if you did this, you could actually open yourself up to liability from somebody. They could like sue you for this. I don't, I mean these are, this is like Carson's commentary here, right? So I was like, I assume he knows what he's talking about.
Bottom line, huge deal, massive embarrassment. And I think we missed that element in an honor, shame culture. Now, our culture resonates with this to a degree. Imagine you go to wedding and somebody's like, they whispered, he's like, dude, they forgot the wedding cake.
You kind of remember that. And that'd be embarrassing, right? It's like, hey, we showed up to dance. It's like, who booked the DJ?
We forgot the DJ. It's like, what is wrong with you? And you probably remember it. And another wedding you probably shared with is wedding one time.
And they didn't even have a DJ. That pales in comparison to the dishonor that is taking place here. So by the way, the story, Matthew chapter 20, about how Jesus hired, about the man of the vineyard who hires workers at a different time throughout the day. We as Americans read that.
We're like, wait a minute. That guy got hired at nine. That guy got hired at four. And he paid him the same.
Like, that's kind of messed up. They didn't look at it through that lens. The owner was saying, I'm going to pay each of you a day's wage so you can go home and have the honor before your family that you worked for a full day. That's a different way of looking at that story, isn't it?
Up holding somebody's honor was so important in this culture. You show up at a wedding, and the wine runs out. People don't forget that. That is a massive, massive dishonor and a no-no to use modern parlance.
All right, here we go. So when the wine ran out, Jesus' mother told him, they don't have any wine. Now, the response here is interesting. It says, what does that have to do with you and me woman?
Jesus asked. Now, when we read this, it's like, dude, that's no way to talk to your mom. And if I'm at dinner with my kids and my wife goes, Anne, we're out of butter. And my son goes, what does this have to do with me woman?
That would not land in my house at all. It takes a lot to get me there. But that would get me instantly to the wrathful moment of my kid. I don't even know what I would do.
I would be so upset if one of my kids did that to my wife. But that's not what's going on here. It feels abrupt in English that it's more of a term of endearment. By the way, how do we know this?
When Jesus is on the cross, he turns to John, and he gives the same kind of reference woman that is now like your son. And he kind of appeals to her the same. So it seems abrupt here, but I don't think that's the primary way we're supposed to take it. Woman, what does that have to do with me?
No, that is not what's going on. He says, my hour has not yet come. Now, this didn't occur to me until today's going. I don't know.
Maybe some Johnine Scaller would tell me that I'm wrong. But I went back and I looked in Luke. When Angel Gabriel shows up to Mary and says, your favorite one, your son will be the most high, and has the most high, just amazing, messianic truth about her son, says nothing. You'll be burying a child who'll be crucified.
I wonder if she knew that. Because when Jesus says, my hour has not yet come. I just can't think of any mom on the planet. Ladies, correct me if I'm wrong.
Who'd be like, you're going to die for the world. Let's get this thing going and get you crucified. Yeah, I just don't think that's what was probably going on. I wonder if she knew who he was and his big mission.
When he says, my hour is not yet come. And his mom is pushing him to reveal himself to the world. And when does he say, my hour has come? In John 17, which is right before his arrest and crucifixion.
So I wonder if even his mom didn't understand. She strikes me as the least person on the planet who would have been pushing him into this. I mean, even dads wouldn't have been if dads, if there's one of two parents call me sexist. If you open up, there's one of two parents who's like, OK, it's time to suck it up and do it.
Probably going to be the dad. I mean, as a whole, even in this case, I'd be like, no. Humanly speaking. And by the way, who took Abraham?
Who did Abraham take to sacrifice his son? When he comes back after that story, he never goes back to Rebecca. He never goes back to her. It's so interesting.
He doesn't wake him and say, hey, goodbye. I'm taking him to my son three days to sacrifice him. He just leaves early in the morning. The father did it.
I don't think she knew it would be my guess. Can't prove that. That's my suspicion. Or she would not have been like, let's get this ball rolling.
Reveal yourself to the world. You're the Messiah. I just can't imagine that happening. That's my take.
All right. He says, do whatever he tells you his mother told the servants. So clearly she understands he has the capacity for miracles and the supernatural. Do whatever he tells you.
Fill the jars with water, Jesus told them. So they filled them to the room. They said to them, now draw some out and take it to the headwaiter. And they did so.
When the headwaiter tasted the water, he did not know where it came from. And he turns it in a wine. Now, notice in verse 7 and 8, what do you notice about the miracle that Jesus did? And I'm just going to answer this and free.
Notice how simple it is. Oftentimes, people try to explain away the miracles. Jesus is a magician. There's no incantation here.
There's nothing of a ritual of magic. It's just simple and straightforward. And he does the miracle. Buy his own authority and power.
Everybody else in the Bible who does the miracle, does it buy the power of the Lord? Buy the power, God, Jesus just does it by his own authority. And just notice how simple this is. There's no drama or magic.
Fill the jar with water. So they filled it. Now he said, draw some out and take the headwaiter. It's as simple as it could be.
When the headwaiter tasted the water after it become wine, he did not know where it came from. Though the servants who had drawn the water knew, he called the groom and told him, everyone sets out the fine wine first. Then after people are drunk, the inferior, we have kept the fine wine until now. I always envision that everybody in the wedding is like, Jesus, thank you for the good wine.
You're the man. But that is not what happened here. Who knows about the miracle that Jesus did? The servants and his disciples and his mom.
Even the groom doesn't know. Is it that interesting to think about? So Jesus reveals his glory to his disciples. They're now trying to go, OK, who is this guy what's happening?
He's not revealing himself to the world. But what did he just do with this groom? He just saved his honor. He just saved his dignity.
He spared him from shame. That's a symbol of what Jesus did in the cross for all of us, by taking our shame upon himself. The other cool thing about this miracle I didn't know for years is it was a messianic expectation that when the Messiah came and we entered the messianic rain, the wine would flow from the mountains. That's Amos, I think it's 9-3.
So on Hosea 16, also hit it out in Jeremiah, is that a messianic sign. Let me make sure I think I wrote down the exact verse, get right here. It's Amos 9-3, and there's two or three other passages that tie wine flowing to the messianic age. Now, notice how much wine Jesus made here.
I don't know how big this wedding was, but look at how much wine it says here. It says, I skipped over. Six stone water jars for Jewish purification. And each had 20 or 30 gallons.
So some of your math whizzes do the math, how many gallons is this? Like 180, you mentioned 180 gallons of milk up here? That's a lot of milk, let alone wine. So what's happening with the wine?
I don't know how big this wedding was. I can't imagine they needed that much wine. What's happening? The wine is flowing because the messianic era is here.
It is a new creation that Jesus is doing through his life. So his first miracle, out of wedding, water into wine is a clear messianic claim. And I think it tells us there's so much wine here to make this connection with the Old Testament expectation. All right, we'll keep going then.
We'll pause and see what questions you have. Let us get here. Jesus did this, the first of his signs in Cana of Galilee. By the way, kind of a side note here, we know where Cana's at.
And we found huge stone jars that date to this time and date to this place. So if this miracle happened and they're describing it accurately, this is the kind of thing we would expect to find. That doesn't prove this story is true. But you notice how the details are given in here by someone who claims to be an eyewitness.
Then we go find and discover, in the archaeological record, the exact kind of stone pots that match this give some credibility to the writer. Compare that with Mormonism. There's not a single of archaeological confirmation of anything in the Book of Mormon period, let alone one stone jar that's found in the very place where this miracle took place. There's no clear miracle archaeological discoveries in the Book of Mormon.
All right, he revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him. After this, he went down, took a part of him together with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples. And they stayed there only a few days. Now here's an interesting question.
It didn't mention his brothers at the beginning. It mentions his mom and his disciples. So who's his brothers? And are these biological brothers?
I don't want to spend too much time on this, because this gets into Protestant Catholic debates. But in the second century, you have ideas starting to emerge about the perpetual virginity of Mary and that he doesn't have other brothers. This is a Catholic idea. I think at least minimally, the most straightforward way to take this is his mother and his biological brothers and his disciples.
Now some would argue these are Joseph's kids from a previous marriage, possible. They're adopted kids. I mean, there's ways that people try to get around this. But if you actually read in Matthew what passages you hear, Matthew 125, well, someone read that for me quickly.
Matthew 125 and Luke 27, who can read it? Like find it fast. Matthew 125 and read it for us. Matthew 125, go.
You have Matthew 125, ninth and then hang on Luke 27. Can you read that for us? 27, go. OK, one more time, nice and loud.
OK, he knew her not is an old testament way of saying he did not have sexual relations with his wife until when. Until after she gave birth, which means he was sexually active with his wife. The natural result would be biological children. Seems to fit.
Luke 27, go. Then she gave birth to her firstborn son. And she gave birth to what? Her firstborn son.
Now there's ways around this. And if any of you are here in your Catholic, I'm not trying to open up big debates here. It is interesting that it's his mother and his brother and his disciples. I think the most straightforward way to take this is his actual biological brothers.
With that said, let's keep going, because we're getting tired on time. And we got to finish chapter two. Says the Jewish Passover's near. And so Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
By the way, it was up to Jerusalem. There's so many details that the writer gets right. It's not down to Jerusalem. It was actually up to Jerusalem, which gives credibility in my mind to the writers.
In the temple he found people selling oxen cheap and dove. He also found the money changer sitting there. After making whip out, of course, he drove every other oxen. He poured out the money changer's coins and overturns tables.
He told those who were selling delves, get these things out of here. Stop turning my father's house into a marketplace. Now this raised a huge apologetic question, which is, when did Jesus overturn the temple? Because in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it's at the end of his ministry.
Mark 11, what is it, Luke 16? Matthew 21, I don't remember his active passage. And John, it's where? It's at the beginning.
There are dozens and dozens of apparent contradictions in the text when you read it that skeptics point out regularly. Now, I would say there's a couple of options here. We're not told how to reconcile these. We have to try to piece it together and ask, is there a reasonable way to do so?
And I think there's two general responses. One is that Jesus cleared the temple twice. Once at the beginning of the ministry, and then roughly three years later at the end of his ministry. Given how big the temple was and where this was housed in the temple, it was not as dramatic and mega as we probably envision in our minds that it was.
But why I wouldn't say he did it twice. But this is a plausible way to show that there's not a contradiction there. The other one is that people would argue that one of the writers, or I could say either John or Matthew Mark and Luke, took the temple and took the story of Clare and the temple, placed it elsewhere for theological, not chronological reasons. And that's how they would tell the story.
The problem here is when you read John, it kind of seems to be embedded in the narrative and the flow and the chronology itself. So I have a hard time believing that John would have taken something from the end and placed it here for thematic reasons when he goes up to Jerusalem. He went over to Galilee. It's really tying together.
I win this account. We don't have to solve that here. But those are two options to make sense of why it differs in the Synoptic Osples from John. The bottom line is the stories are actually very similar.
The same person, same action in the temple. We can't miss this amidst the difference. But what's the key here? A friend of ours sent us a social media video like at dinner, and we were watching it.
This guy who says this shows that Jesus was again sacrificing animals. I'm like, no, that's not the point. And of course, on social media, if you look at the original Hebrew and the story gets all these likes, I'm like, I just want to die when this stuff happens on social media. That was not the point.
What was the point? They had taken my father's house, by the way. My father's house. And turned it into what?
A marketplace. They've missed a point of it, and they're abusing it. This is a messianic claim by Jesus to come in and show that kind of authority in God's temple. That's the point of what he's doing.
Now, it is really important to sense here. It says, and his disciples remember that it is written, zeal for your house will consume me. So the Jews replied to him, what sign will you show us for doing these things? Jesus answered, destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.
Now, the normal sign, Jesus, when asked for a sign was what? The sign of the sign of Jonah. Now, that was three days in the belly of the whale, of course, for a new death and it was resurrection. Similar here, but he phrased it differently.
Destroy this temple. He doesn't say he will destroy it, and I will raise it up in three days. Now, Jesus does predict in Matthew 24 and in Luke 19 that the temple will be destroyed, and that no stone will be left standing. But here's what he's talking about.
He's talking about the temple of his body. Remember John 1, what does it say? Remember this? And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.
And dwelt kind of means tabernacled among us. That's the term. So he's making sure we understand that his body is the tabernacle. His body is the temple.
God was and is present everywhere, but manifested himself in the temple so we could see his presence and activity in a unique way. Now God is manifesting himself in my body, Jesus says. Destroy this, and in three days I will raise it up. That is an early prediction of the death and resurrection of Jesus, an early prediction of what his mission is.
All right, therefore the Jews said, this temple took 46 years to build, and you will raise it up in three days all through John. Jesus will say something and they just don't get it. So in the next chapter of what happens, he goes, you must be born again. He's like, what are you talking about?
How do I get back in my mother's womb? I was born once. Eat my flesh and drink my blood. What are you talking about?
What kind of water gives eternal life? Like over and over again, Jesus is speaking spiritually and people are thinking earthly, and they miss his teaching. 46 years you're gonna do it in three days, but he was speaking about the temple of his body. So when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had this and they believed the scripture and the statement about Jesus had made.
So it's important to tell us during the lifetime of Jesus the disciples are not getting it. They're confused, they don't understand, but they're progressively learning. Then when Jesus resurrects and then they look back at their field of Holy Spirit, then they start to get it and understand it. I actually think in Matthew 28 of the Great Commission when it says and they worshiped him and some from what?
Doubt it, I still think in their minds they were trying to make sense of, wait a minute, we are worshiping God and human flesh. I still think they were trying to make sense of what that meant at that point in their life. It was so radical for them. All right, last raise and we did it tonight.
John chapter two, while he was in Jerusalem during the Passover Festival, many believed in his name. When they saw the signs he was doing, I'll only pause right there. This is the theme of the gospel, John. It was very end in what does it say?
John 20, 30, 31, he did many other signs in the presence of his disciples and in the presence of others so that you might what? Believe. That's what this whole gospel is about. John is testifying about him.
He turns water into wine. His teachings are profound. This guy, Jesus, believe in him. That's the whole point and theme of the gospel, John.
Then it says, Jesus, however, we're not and trust himself to them since he knew them all because he did not need anyone to testify about man. For he himself knew what was in man. Now, there is not as clear of an affirmation of human sinfulness in John as I think there is in like Mark 7, where Jesus out of the heart comes sloth and laziness and lust and envy and pride. He makes it clear.
Here the statement is made. Oh, Jesus would not trust him because what? He knew what was in human beings. He knows what's in all of them.
Now, contrast that with John 846. What does Jesus say when the religious leaders are challenging him? He says, which of you can convict me of sin? The answer is none.
So we have another contrast here. Humans are born and their life begins now. Jesus is pre-existent. Humans are sinful.
All of them. No one can convict Jesus of sin. He knew we're all in sin. So what's the remedy for sin?
And the answer is, John chapter three, we are born into sin. And as a result, we must be born again. John 2 ends perfectly. Does a miracle.
He's showing that he is the Messiah by clearing the temple, by the wine flowing, and then says what? I'm not going to trust myself to you because you're sinful. What do you need to do? You need to be born again.
All right, the ton more could be said. Any quick questions, anything that didn't connect? Yes, go. Part of me wants to say because Jesus was God and he was human.
And he was a dutiful son. And when his mom asked him, he listened to his mom. Part of me wants to say that with a reverence and respect for his mom. But I also think you see the way Jesus talks to his family sometimes, like in Mark 3 and John 7, when they want him to do something that's not in line with what he has called to do, he says no and does it on its own accord.
So he loves and respects his mom. But his time had come to start his ministry. He had called disciples already. And he already told them they're going to see greater things.
And he does this miracle locally within them. So I think the time had come in a sense. And she was encouraging them to fall through that. That's my best sense.
I wish these details were filled in. We're not given those details. But clearly, Jesus would not have done it if the time was not right. Now, what does it mean the time has not come?
He clearly doesn't mean the time is not come to do miracle because he's about to do it. So that's not what he means by it. He means something else by it. He might mean the time has not yet come, the hour's not here.
And I'm not sure you really know what you're asking. That's actually my suspicion. You were stuck on a thing of this whole time. Tell me what you think.
In John, I think he was the first one who said he's the son of. We're using that term, right? Because Andrew says he's the Messiah. And did John the Baptist use that term for Jesus?
I don't recall that he did. That's right. That's correct. Good observation.
Their expectation was a king in the line of David understood the way that David and Solomon had ruled. And that's why they don't recognize Jesus from Nazareth. It's like, wait, Nazareth, this is not where kings are born. That's right.
Well said. Great, great point. All right, so tomorrow we're starting on John 3, but you have homework, which is to read as much of John as you can. And we're going to start tomorrow night with a question.
Did you just notice anything jump out to you from reading it? Good conversation. I'm already looking forward to it. Have a good night.