Introduction to the Gospel of John

Introduction to the Life of Christ — Steve Gregg

00:00

Introduction to the Gospel of John

Introduction to the Life of ChristSteve Gregg

Explore the unique perspective of the Gospel of John with Steve Gregg as he delves into the authorship and key themes of this significant biblical text. Gregg examines the identity of John and highlights his close association with Peter, shedding light on the beloved disciple's role in the narrative. By examining specific passages and the distinct language choices of John, Gregg reveals the emphasis on Jesus as the Word of God and the intimate relationship between the disciples and the Savior. Gain a deeper understanding of the purpose and message behind this important gospel.

Transcript

In this session we're going to take an introduction to the Gospel of John. Of course, the principal records we have of the life of Christ, of any value to us, are the Gospels. And the Gospel of John stands out from the other three Gospels as having many unique features.

It's often been observed, so much so that the other three Gospels, in contrast to John, are called the Synoptic Gospels, which means seen together. When you read Matthew or Mark or Luke, you almost feel like you're reading the same book, in some respects, because they cover essentially the same ground, each book having a little bit different information in a few places, and having their own unique passages. But for the most part, after you've read Matthew and you move on to Mark, you feel like you're on very familiar ground.

And as you go on to Luke, if you've read Matthew and Mark, you find that you're in extremely familiar ground. Most of what is there will be repetition. Whereas when you come to the Gospel of John, even if you've read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you don't feel like you're on that much familiar ground.

Although, if you've been a Christian for very long, you'll find much in John that is familiar, because it's probably the most quoted Gospel. Everybody and their brother knows John 3,16 and John 14, where Jesus said, you know, you believe in God, you know, believe also in me and my father's house, there are many mansions and many other passages in the Gospel of John. For some reason, many people have recommended new converts to read the Gospel of John first.

I've not necessarily followed that in my counsel to new Christians. I've to me, the Gospel of John is one of the hardest Gospels. It is probably the hardest Gospel to understand.

It's got more deep things in it. I would think it more profitable for a new Christian to read something more of the of the life of Christ as presented the other Gospels. But to each his own, I I certainly think the Gospel of John is a wonderful book and very unique.

Actually, very unique is a term that doesn't make sense because unique means one of a kind and something is either unique or it isn't unique. It's not very unique. But the point is that the Gospel of John is very different from the other three Gospels.

And therefore, I want to treat it or introduce it to you separately and make you cognizant of its unique features and of its salient points. First of all, I want to point out to you that every one of the Gospels is anonymous, although in your Bible it will say the Gospel, according to Matthew or Gospel, according to Mark or Luke or John. Those titles are not really part of the original documents.

They have come to be known by those names. But the actual writing by the apostles did not contain mention of who the author was. We know who the authors of the Gospels were largely from tradition, but also in many cases from internal evidence.

Matthew and Mark are books that are very hard to know from internal evidence who wrote them. There's really nothing very personal in them that would give away the identity of the author. Luke, on the other hand, clearly was written by the same person who wrote Acts.

And the person who wrote Acts sometimes says, we did this and we did that, which shows that he was one of the players in the drama. And you can, by the process of deduction, figure out who it was who wrote those books. And Luke is the is one of maybe two or three possibilities.

But Luke is the best choice for many reasons. And traditionally, the church has always recognized the book of Luke as being by Luke. John also has some personal things about it.

The the author of the gospel makes reference to himself from time to time. And he appears to be whether not only does he appear to be, he clearly is the one who in the gospel is called the disciple whom Jesus loved. And sometimes that disciple whom Jesus loved is mentioned only as an accompanying disciple to one of the others.

For example, in John chapter one, it says there were two disciples of John the Baptist who heard John speak about Jesus and they followed Jesus. And one of them was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. We're never told who the other one was.

Almost certainly it was the author himself. Likewise, from time to time, we'll read about how Peter and that other disciple. You know, did such and such the writer of the gospel includes himself as one of the disciples of Jesus and yet never names himself.

Now, there's many reasons to point to John, the son of Zebedee, as the author. One of those reasons is like that of believing in the authorship of any of the gospels from church tradition, very early church tradition. One of the church fathers named Irenaeus was himself closely acquainted with a church father named Polycarp.

And Polycarp was acquainted with John, the disciple, John, the son of Zebedee. Polycarp was a personal disciple of John and Irenaeus, as near as we can tell, was a disciple of Polycarp. Therefore, that's not very far removed from the actual source.

And Irenaeus taught that this book was written by John, the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve disciples of the Lord. The same as who wrote the three epistles of John, which also are anonymous. The author only calling himself the elder and also identified with the book of Revelation.

Now, the book of Revelation is not anonymous. The book of Revelation four times identifies its author as John, although it is not clear at all which John is intended, at least not from the material. Traditionally, and I certainly follow this tradition, I believe the evidence is in its favor.

I believe Revelation was written by John, the apostle. And and although it just says John, that's one reason to believe it was John, the apostle, is because he does just say John. He doesn't seem to feel it necessary to explain which John and only John, the apostle, which would be so famous in the church and so.

Well known that he could just identify himself as John without any further inundation to identify which John. Anyway, we'll talk about the authorship of Revelation another time. But Revelation has many things in common with the Gospel of John and with the epistles of John.

Some have felt that the same author could not have written both the book of Revelation on one hand and the other writings attributed to John on the other, because the style of Greek is very different. We'll again deal with that problem when we discuss the book of Revelation. But there are many terms and ideas that are found only in Revelation and in the other writings attributed to John.

There's quite a long list of terms that are found only in those places in the Bible. For example, Jesus is called the Lamb of God in John chapter one. He is also continuously called the Lamb in the book of Revelation, although he's not called the Lamb anywhere else in the Bible.

Likewise, in John's writings, Jesus is called the word and also in Revelation chapter 19. He's called the word of God, but nowhere else in the scripture is he called by that title. And a number of other things like that link the thinking of the writer of Revelation with the writings of these anonymous books that are attributed to John.

Now, as I said, Revelation gives the name of its author as John. These other books, the Gospel and the three epistles that we call John's, do not give the author's name. But there's so much parallel in thought that I have no difficulty seeing the same authorship of Revelation in these other books.

As far as identifying the author from internal evidences. There is much to go on. It's rather fascinating study.

If you just use the Gospel of John itself to try to identify which disciple wrote it, you'll find that he was one of the twelve. It would appear because he identifies himself as being present in the upper room with Jesus in John chapter 13 and verse 23. At the last supper in the upper room, it says, Now there was leaning on Jesus bosom, one of his disciples whom Jesus loved.

Simon Peter, therefore, motioned to him and asked who it was of whom he spoke. Then leaning back on Jesus breast, he said to him, Lord, who is it? Now that's that's the author of this gospel, the disciple whom Jesus loved. How do we know that? Well, because over in John chapter 21.

The last chapter, verse 20, John 21, 20, it says, Then Peter turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following. Then it says in verse 23, Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple, that is, the one whom Jesus loved, would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but.

If I will, that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Verse 24. This is the disciple who testifies of these things and wrote these things. So obviously the gospel itself claims to be written by the disciple who is within its own pages regarded to be the disciple whom Jesus loved.

If you compare John 21, 20 with verse 24 of that same chapter, it's clear that the writer of the gospel is the same as the disciple whom Jesus loved. And yet back in chapter 13, we saw that that disciple whom Jesus loved was in the upper room with Jesus in a situation where it would appear only Jesus was with his 12. And no one else was present.

So that would suggest that the gospel that we're looking at was written by one of the 12. OK, now we can, by the process of elimination, narrow down the possibilities. If you look at John chapter one and verse 40, it says now one of the two who heard John speak, meaning John the Baptist speak, followed Jesus and followed Jesus, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

Now here we have reference to Andrew and Simon Peter by name. Obviously, the author is someone other than those two. Further down in the same chapter, verse 45, says Philip found Nathaniel and said to him, we have found him of whom Moses and the law and the prophets also wrote.

Now, Nathaniel is believed to be the same as Bartholomew in the list of the 12 apostles elsewhere. We'll talk about that some other time more in detail. But here we have Philip and Nathaniel or Bartholomew, two more of the 12 mentioned by name.

Clearly, they are not the author. In fact, the author seems to be someone other than that, as is seen when. In verse where.

Verse 37, two disciples heard John speak and they followed Jesus. There's two of them. And then verse four, he says one of them was Andrew doesn't tell us who the other was, but almost certainly the author himself.

So we have eliminated Peter and Andrew and Philip and Nathaniel as being the author of the book. In addition to those, you can turn to John chapter 11 and verse 16. John 11, 16 says, then Thomas, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, let us go that we may die with him.

Now, Thomas is another of the 12 who's mentioned by name here and therefore is not the same one as the anonymous author. OK, so that makes five of them out of the running. Yes, man.

How does that work? Well, John always refers to. Well, the author refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved and studiously avoids mentioning that person by name. There seems no reason to to be as obscure as he was in some of these passages and referring to that other disciple or the disciple who Jesus loved and so forth.

Without mentioning the name, unless he was committed to not mentioning its name, you know, and there seems to be that commitment where. Well, we'll see. We'll see more evidence along these lines, but that that would appear to be the case.

Now look over at chapter 14 or actually before 14, chapter 12, verse four. I think we wouldn't need to see this to guess this, but we know it's not Judas Iscariot who wrote the gospel, because in chapter 12, verse four, it says, but one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, who would betray him, said now Judas Iscariot is obviously one of the persons mentions other than the author himself. But we know that Judas didn't write any gospels.

He committed suicide before the resurrection of Christ and therefore couldn't have written any gospels anyway. So we could have deduced that Judas was not the author without even having consulted that particular passage. But in John 14 and verse 22, it says now Judas, not Iscariot.

There's another Judas who, according to the gospel lists elsewhere, was also called Thaddeus and Lebeus. He had three names here. He's called Judas, not Iscariot.

To distinguish him from the more notorious, notorious disciple, Judas said to him, Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us and not to the world? Now, that would mean that Andrew and Peter. And Thomas and Nathaniel and Philip and Judas Iscariot and the other Judas are not the authors that eliminates what seven different persons. And then James, the brother of John, could not be included either because he died too young.

He died in Acts chapter 12. Verse two, he was put to death by Herod long before any of the gospels were written. That leaves only three possibilities.

If the writer is one of the twelve and if we're to assume that he is neither Judas nor James, because they both died too early to be the writers of this gospel, nor any of the others who are named by name in the book, then that leaves only the possibility of John, Matthew, James, the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotis, Simon the Zealot. Now, of these four, there's not much to commend any of them but John. James, the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotis are very obscure disciples in the gospels.

Almost nothing is said of them. They are never quoted as saying anything. It would be very surprising if one of the more important gospels, as well as some of the major important epistles, came from the pen of Simon Zelotis or James, the son of Alphaeus.

As far as Matthew is concerned, he has given us a different gospel. He's given us the gospel of Matthew, and that is so different in style that one would be very surprised to find him writing another gospel, that is another book, that covered lots of the same territory, the same life, and yet doing so in such a different fashion and with a totally different style. All in all, of the four possible disciples that are not eliminated by being mentioned by name, John is the one who stands the most likely to be the author, although even that would not guarantee it, but that would agree with the fact that Revelation, which has many points in common with this book, names his author as John, not as say Matthew or James or Simon Zelotis.

So if we consider the identity of the author of this book as being the same as that of Revelation, that would of course move another argument in favor of John the disciple being the one. Now there's more on this, because several times in the gospel of John, the disciple who wrote it is mentioned in close association with Peter. In John 13, we looked a moment ago, at verses 23 and 24, it says, Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom Jesus loved.

Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom he spoke. Now Peter motions to John. Now that wouldn't prove much, except that the author is frequently associated with Peter, but almost never associated with any other disciple.

There seems to be a close association between the author and Peter. Look also, for example, at chapter 20. After the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene came and told the twelve disciples, or the eleven since Judas was now dead, that the tomb was empty, in John 20, in verse 2, it says, Then she ran and came to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved and said to them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.

So Peter therefore went out and the other disciple, notice it doesn't name him by name, and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first, and he stooping down and looking in saw the linen clothes lying there, yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came following him and went into the tomb, and he saw the linen clothes lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but folded together in a place by itself.

Then the other disciple who came to the tomb first went in also, and he saw and believed. Now here we see Peter and the other disciple, obviously the author, who is studiously avoiding mentioning his own name, are associated here as well. At the table, Peter and this other disciple apparently sat next to each other so that Peter could whisper to him.

The two were together when the announcement came from Mary Magdalene and they ran together to the tomb. Furthermore, they are associated also in chapter 21 and verse 7 when they were in the boat fishing and Jesus was seen on the shore. It says, verse 7, Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loves said to Peter, It is the Lord.

Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment and jumped into the water. So, again, that disciple whom Jesus loved is associated as speaking to Peter. We don't find him associated similarly with any other individual disciples.

There seems to be a link between these two, a close link. Verse 20 of chapter 21 says, Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on his breast at the supper, and said, Lord, who is the one who betrays you, Peter seeing him said to Jesus, But Lord, what about this man? So here Peter and John are in the picture again, again and again. I say Peter and John, Peter and the author, whoever the author is.

But, of course, I believe the author to be John. And there's good reason even from this factor that this whoever it is, is one of the 12 who's closely associated repeatedly with Peter. If you look in the Gospel of Mark and you could find the same as what we're about to look at, you could find the same in Matthew or Luke, but we'll just follow Mark through to show this many times.

There are three disciples closely associated together in special situations. They are James and John and Peter. OK, now, in Mark, chapter five and verse thirty seven, Jesus comes to the house of Jairus, whose daughter is dead.

Mark five and verse thirty seven. And it says, And he permitted no one to follow him except Peter, James and John, the brother of James. OK, so Jairus's house, when Jesus went in to see the dead girl and raised from the dead, he didn't permit any of his disciples except Peter, James and John to go in.

If you look then later in Mark, chapter nine and verse two, which is the story of the transfiguration, Mark nine and verse two says, Now, after six days, Jesus took Peter, James and John, same three, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured before them. So here these same three guys are selected by Jesus to be taken up on the mountain to see what they saw on the Mount of Transfiguration.

In Mark, chapter 13, which, of course, contains the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13, three. It says, Now, as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James and John and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us, when will these things be? Now, here we see the same three guys, but this time Peter's brother Andrew is included. It makes it a foursome.

But Peter, James and John are obviously sticking together pretty much like, you know, like peas in a pod. And Andrew here is in the picture as well. But mostly these three guys are repeatedly mentioned together in Mark, chapter 14 and verse 33, when Jesus was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, says he took Peter, James and John with him and he began to be troubled and deeply distressed.

Now, you never see three disciples associated together as closely as you see Peter, James and John. And whenever Jesus selected a small number to accompany him for special purposes, it was Peter and James and John. These three are sometimes called the inner circle.

Now, the fact that the disciple whom Jesus loved in the Gospel of John is closely associated with Peter. Does not prove, but would strongly suggest he might have been either James or John. However, James was dead.

By the time that the gospel was written and before any books in the New Testament were written, therefore, it would leave only John if we were going to deduce from that that one of the disciples who was who was and remained closely associated with Peter was the author. Look, for example, at a couple other places in Luke, chapter 22, when Jesus needed to make arrangements for the feast. Luke 22.

Eight says, and he sent Peter and John saying, go and prepare the Passover for us that we may eat. Peter and John again, James this time was not included, but John remains closely associated with Peter and likewise in the book of Acts. After Jesus rises from the dead, if you'll notice in Acts, chapter three and verse one says, now Peter and John went up together to the temple at the hour of prayer at the ninth hour.

And by the way, the story that's told throughout Acts, chapter three and throughout Acts, chapter four, at least down to verse 23. Is about Peter and John, about their being arrested together and standing before the Sanhedrin. John does not figure very prominently in the stories because Peter always is the one speaking, but John is with him.

Peter and John together linked together closely. Likewise, in Galatians, chapter two, the apostle Paul suggests. That in Jerusalem, the head honchos in the church there were regarded to be Peter and John and James this time at this late date would be the other James, not the brother of John because he was dead, but the brother of Jesus.

James, the brother of Jesus became very prominent in the church in Jerusalem. But in Galatians, two, nine. Galatians, two, nine, Paul says, and when James, Cephas, which is Peter and John, who seemed to be pillars.

Perceive the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas, the right hand of fellowship. Now, he mentions that James this time, it's the brother of Jesus, not the brother of John. James, Peter and John, even at that late date, were still the pillars in Jerusalem.

So in Jesus lifetime, Peter, James and John were singled out for special involvement in the life of Jesus, where the other disciples were even left out. And it was Peter and John that were sent to prepare the Passover. And in the book of Acts, we see Peter and John still closely associated, both at the beginning of the story and even later when concerning Galatians, the visit to Jerusalem that Paul and Barnabas made.

Peter and John are still linked fairly closely there in in light of the fact that the writer of the Gospel of John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, is repeatedly mentioned in association with Peter, but never mentioned in association with any other disciple. Might suggest that there was a special status that he and Peter together enjoyed. And that would certainly point to John as the one.

But there's more. On this guy, James and John were brothers and they were the sons of a guy named Zebedee. They were fishermen.

And they were partners with Peter and Andrew. They they fished on the Sea of Galilee. Peter apparently had a house in Capernaum.

And where James and John lived, I'm not sure. But they were fishing partners, at least Zebedee, their father. And they worked for their father was a partner with Peter.

And that might suggest also that when we read in John, chapter one. Of two disciples. Who were just cycles of John the Baptist and then followed Jesus in John, chapter one, verse 40.

One of them was said to be Andrew. The other is not named. But.

And Andrew went and got Peter. So Peter and Andrew and this other unnamed disciple who is apparently the author of the book. Are fairly closely associated at that point.

The fact that James and John were business partners with Andrew and Peter might add additional reason to believe that the unnamed disciple is John. You can see then that the tradition. Goes back to Irenaeus that John is the writer of this, although the book is anonymous.

But the tradition is based on some pretty good internal evidence. And when you link that with the similarities between the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, the latter book actually calls itself its author, John. That would seem to support even further that we're looking at a document by John, the son of Zebedee.

Now, James and John were called by Jesus by another name. They were called Bohenergies. We read of this in Mark 3, 17.

In Mark 3, 17, it says that Jesus called these guys Bohenergies. The word Bohenergies means sons of thunder. In that place, Mark 3, 17, it nowhere tells us why Jesus called them the sons of thunder.

It's a strange name to give to them. And one would think that Mark would give us a reason, say, because of this or that. On the other hand, we read of Jesus giving other names to other disciples like Simon.

He renamed Peter, which means a rock. And we're never told quite why. But we can deduce in some cases why Jesus gave the names he did.

In the case of James and John, although John in his later years became reputed for his gentleness and his love. And when he wrote books like First John, for example, and Second John, the emphasis was on love. We usually think of John, the aged, when he wrote these books as a seasoned and gentle and loving character.

But apparently when they first began following Jesus, James and John were men of hot temper. They were volatile, like a thunderstorm. You never know when a thunderbolt's going to come from one of them.

They were the sons of thunder. We can see an example of this in Luke chapter 9, for example. In Luke 9, 49, it says, Now John answered and said, Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.

And Jesus said to him, Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side. Then a few verses later. This is Mark 9. That was verse 49.

A few verses later in verse 54, it says, And when his disciples, James and John, saw this, namely that the Samaritans were not being hospitable toward Jesus, they said, Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them like Elijah did? But he turned and rebuked them and said, You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Now, you might have a version that doesn't include the verses, verses 55 and 56, because they are not found in some manuscripts.

But the statement that James and John wanted to call fire out of heaven as Elijah did is found in all the manuscripts in verse 54, and may well be the reason that Jesus called them the sons of thunder. Lightning was often referred to as fire from heaven in ancient times. And no doubt the fact that they wanted to call lightning bolts down was one of the reasons that Jesus gave them that name, if not the only reason.

The same two guys get themselves in a little trouble with Jesus, although Jesus is very, very kind in the way he rebukes them. But in Mark chapter 10, James and John are seen together conniving for mastery over the other disciples. Really, Mark 10, 35 and following says.

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him saying, Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask. That's a modest proposal, isn't it? And he said to them, What do you want me to do for you? And they said to him, Grant us that we may sit one on your right hand and the other on your left hand in glory. And Jesus said to them, You don't know what you're asking.

Are you able to drink the cup that I drink and be baptized with the baptism that I'm baptized with? They said to him, We are able. So Jesus said to them, You will indeed drink the cup that I drink. But and the back end with the baptism I am baptized with, you will be baptized.

But to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared. Now, as far as them eating, I'm sure the drinking of the cup and being baptized with the baptism that Jesus was to be baptized with. That is a clear reference to his sufferings.

And Jesus predicted that although he couldn't guarantee them the places that is right and left hand in the kingdom. Nonetheless, they would get the privilege of drinking the cup and being baptized with the baptism he was baptized with, which would seem to suggest martyrdom, though not necessarily. James was martyred and he was the first disciple to be martyred.

John, on the other hand, was the last disciple to go. He was the last surviving apostle. So these two guys, you know, their deaths really kind of sandwiched all the other disciples lifetimes in between them.

James was the first and John the last of the disciples to die. There is a tradition that the emperor Domitian commanded that John be dipped in boiling oil. In which case it was expected he would be the last apostle to become martyred.

All the other disciples at this time had been martyred. And apparently either either he was dipped in boiling oil with no evil effects and was miraculously spared, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were in the fiery furnace. Or else the order was never carried out because he was later banished to the island of Patmos.

And that's where he was, according to tradition, the author of the book of Revelation. And then after that, he went back to his home church in Ephesus where he spent his final years. And there's a number of interesting stories about John's old age that have been preserved by the church fathers, including one of a young church leader that he had converted and raised up and put in leadership who backslid.

And John went after him. And when the guy heard that John was after him, he jumped on a horse and started running away as fast as he could. And John jumped on a horse and chased after him and overtook him and grabbed him.

And basically talked him into repenting and getting back with the Lord again. But this story is supposedly something that happened after John came back from Patmos. And so even as an old man, he must have been fairly limber if he could hop on a racehorse and chase after this guy like a jockey.

Another story from John's old age that is told by some of the church fathers, and of course these are not found in the Bible, so it's hard to know whether they're true. They may be legends, but they may also be true. There was a Gnostic heretic named Serentis who lived apparently in the same town with John.

He was a major heretic and a major problem to the church. And it is said that John and some of his disciples once went to the public bathhouse in Ephesus and heard that Serentis was in the house. And he fled from the house with his disciples and said, quick, get out of this place before the walls cave in and fall in judgment on this man.

Well, whether that really happened or not, we don't know. The walls never fell in, so whether that was just a way of emphasizing his displeasure for the man, or whether there was some apprehension on his part that the walls really would fall down, we don't know. There's also a story told of John in his old age that when he was old and infirm and could not even stand any longer, that he was kept on a pallet and carried into the church service.

And every church service in Ephesus, they would give him an opportunity to speak. And he'd always do exactly the same thing. He'd raise himself up on one elbow and put his hand up in the air and say, little children love one another.

Then he'd fall back down again and they'd carry him out. And he'd do the same thing every church service until his death. He had only one message for the church.

Very likely because on the island of Patmos, Jesus had sent him a letter to send to the church of Ephesus, his own church. And the message in the letter was, return to your first love or else I'll remove your candlestick from its place. No doubt this motivated John to emphasize the need for them to love when he got back there.

In any case, all those stories are apocryphal stories of John. They may be true. They come from very early sources.

Some of them probably are true stories. In any case, that's the John that is believed to be the author of this letter. Something else that is known about James and John, but most Christians are not aware of, is that they were probably first cousins of Jesus.

Let me show you some evidence of this. Three different gospels give us the names of women who were at the cross of Jesus. In John chapter 19 and verse 25, the names of the women who were at the cross are given.

John 19, 25. Now they are stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. Now, scholars are not certain whether there are three or four women mentioned here.

Is the sister of Mary, of Jesus' mother, is that Mary the wife of Clopas? It seems unlikely that two sisters would have the same name. Have you ever heard of a family where they had two daughters and they both were given the same name, Mary? You see, some have understood it to mean that. That there stood at the cross of Jesus, his mother, who we know from other records to be named Mary, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas.

Some think that that's how it should be read, that Mary the wife of Clopas is Jesus' mother's sister. And then there was Mary Magdalene. So there would be three women mentioned here.

However, the unlikelihood of there being two sisters who are both named Mary suggests to many, and I think this is reasonable, that there are four women mentioned here. One was the mother of Jesus. The other is not named, but is said to be the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Then the third woman was Mary, the wife of Clopas. And then there was Mary Magdalene. Now, bear that in mind.

In fact, keep your finger there if you would, just so we can check back at it to clarify. Let's look at Mark 15, 40, a parallel passage about the woman at the foot of the cross. Mark 15, in verse 40, says, There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, which she was listed in in the passage we just saw in John 19, 25.

Mary, the mother of James, the less that must be Mary, the mother of the wife of Clopas mentioned also in John 19. Mary, the wife of Clopas, would be the mother of James, the less and of Joseph and Salome. Now, we don't have any reference here to Mary, the mother of Jesus, unless, of course, James, the lesson and Joseph are Jesus brothers.

We are told that Jesus had brothers by those names, but two others as well, Simon and Jude. So it doesn't seem likely that if this was Mary, the mother of Jesus, she would be identified as the mother of James and Joseph. Probably just would say the mother of Jesus.

Therefore, we have to assume that here we have three women and omitted from the list is Mary, the mother of Jesus. John mentioned Mary, the mother of Jesus and three other women. Here we have the three other women, but not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Therefore, Mary here would be Mary, the wife of Clopas. In the other passage, Mary Magdalene is easy to identify. But then the third is Salome, who deduction would tell us is the unnamed woman who is said to be the sister of Jesus' mother.

In John 19, 25, we're assuming that John 19 gives us the full list of all the women who were there. Four are mentioned in John. Here only three are mentioned.

The one that's not mentioned would be Mary, the mother of Jesus. If these other three, if these three are the other three that are mentioned in John, then Salome would be the one who is described there as the sister of Jesus' mother. So Mary, the Virgin Mary, as we have come to know her, although she didn't remain a virgin after she got married, had a sister named Salome.

Now look at Matthew chapter 27. And this is the parallel to these verses found in Matthew. Matthew 27 and verse 56.

Again, talk about the women who followed Jesus to the cross. It says, among whom were Mary Magdalene, where she's been in all three lists now so far. Mary, the mother of James and Joseph.

We deduce that she's the wife of Clopas. And the mother of Zebedee's sons, who deduction would tell us was Salome, who we also deduce to be the one that John refers to as the sister of Jesus' mother. Now, this is the most reasonable way to understand the material, it seems to me.

Unless we would deduce that there were, say, five or six women and that none of the gospel accounts give us all their names. But if we would deduce that there are four, such as John tells us, Matthew and Mark only mention three of them. They don't mention Jesus' mother.

But if we are talking about the same women here, then it would mean that the mother of Zebedee's children, that is, James and John's mother, was Salome. And that she was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Anybody lost, everyone follow that line of reasoning.

If that is true, and it seems likely to be, I mean, it seems the most natural way to take these passages together. James and John were first cousins of Jesus, which is interesting. And it's further interesting in view of the fact that when James died, he was apparently replaced by the other James, who was Jesus' own brother.

So Jesus kept the leadership in the family, pretty much. Whether Peter bore any relationship to them, we don't know, but he was a business partner of the family. So when Jesus called some of these disciples, though we're not told it in many places, sometimes he's calling people who he surely must have known as his own cousins and his own relatives.

Anyway, that is just a little bit of extra information about John for no extra charge. Now, the author is clearly an eyewitness of the events. The Gospel of John is the only gospel that claims to be written by an eyewitness.

That Matthew and Mark are also eyewitness accounts would appear to be true from the tradition of who wrote them. But this author, within his own pages, claims to be an eyewitness. He says in John 1935, where he talks about Jesus' side being pierced and the water and the blood flowing out.

John 1935, he says, and he who is seen has testified and his testimony is true. And he knows that he is telling the truth so that you may believe. Now, this is the author speaking about himself.

He says, I am he who saw it and testify of it. So the author claims to have been an eyewitness, at least of that. But there is evidence throughout the Gospel of John that whoever wrote it was an eyewitness of many of the things in it.

For example, there are details in some of the stories that would hardly be expected to be passed along by the oral traditions. They're just not that important. But the author mentions them probably for no other reason than he was there, saw it, and it was a graphic memory on his part.

For example, in the first miracle of Jesus in John chapter 2, the author tells us that the water jars that Jesus had filled up so that he could turn them into wine, that they contained 20 or 30 gallons each. This is in John chapter 2 and verse 6. The contents of the jars would be irrelevant to the telling of the story. It doesn't matter how many gallons they held.

And it would seem unlikely that if the author heard the story secondhand, that that would be a detail that would have been passed along with the story. Who cares? But since he was there and an eyewitness, he knew something about the size of the jars. And he mentions it just as a detail.

In John chapter 1, in verses 19 through chapter 2, verse 1, we won't look at all these verses, but the writer says, the next day, such and such happened. And then the next day, such and such happened. And then the next day.

Four days in a row are mentioned with the specific time marker. The next day this happened. The next day this happened.

Which gives us, of course, the idea that the author can remember the exact order of events even to the day. Whereas the other gospel writers don't give us that kind of clear detail as far as the time reference to things to each other for the most part. On occasions you do get the number of days, for instance, between Caesarea Philippi and the Mount of Transfiguration.

But for the most part, stories that were passed down about Jesus didn't contain, as it would appear, didn't contain the kind of details that are, at least were not preserved in the other records, of what happened the next day and then the next day and the next day. Even in the final week of Jesus' life, it's hard to deduce from the synoptic gospels what happened on what day in some cases. They're not that specific, but John is.

And that specificity seems to suggest that he remembers graphically from from having been there and being a participant in those events. Likewise, when the disciples were rowing out from shore and they were caught in a storm and Jesus came walking to them on the water in John 6, 19. He tells how far they were from shore.

He says they were about three or four miles out. Again, that detail could have been passed along orally from someone who is not an eyewitness, might have that information. But it's just the kind of detail that a person who was there might remember, just how far the boat was from the shore.

It's not that important. Not so important that you'd expect it necessarily to be passed along with the story if he got it by second hand. But as an eyewitness, he would, of course, remember how far the boat was from the shore.

Also, when the woman in John chapter 12 poured the ointment over Jesus' head, John tells us that it was a pound of ointment and that it was worth about 300 denarii. For him to know specifically the weight and the value of the ointment is again a detail that one would suggest. It's a very graphic illustration.

Also, when he tells that story, he says, and the aroma filled the house where they were sitting. Again, a graphic memory that the other Gospels do not record and which John probably records because he remembers the stench of this perfume filling the whole house. Jesus was very gracious not to run out of a house to get that stuff off of him and jump into a pool of water.

She poured this pound of fragrant perfume over his head and when she was criticized, he came to her defense. Although that would be, I've sat in restaurants before where some old woman who's poured a jar of perfume over her comes and sits two booths away and I have to almost leave the room. But John remembers how the aroma filled the whole house of this perfume.

He remembers the weight of the ointment and the value of it and so forth, which suggests, again doesn't prove, but it just has the look of somebody who was there and remembers some of those details and is reminiscing. Likewise, in John chapter 21, the second time Jesus gave them a miraculously large catch of fishes. John gives a detail that the other Gospels don't give when they record the earlier catch.

He records only the second, but John says there were 153 fishes as a fisherman. He wants to keep note of the ones that got away because he didn't get to take him with him. You should have seen this catch, man.

We had 153 of them. We counted them. You wouldn't expect somebody telling the story who wasn't there to know the exact number.

It's not significant, except that it was a large catch. The other time that Jesus miraculously helped them catch a large catch of fishes recorded by the other three Gospels doesn't mention how many there were in the catch. Of course, they were called away from their nets immediately.

Maybe they never counted them. But on this occasion, John gives the exact number of fishes down to the very one. 153.

Not about 150 or something like that, but the exact number. All these things just have the marks of an eyewitness account, someone who remembers the small details. Now, as far as when the book of John was written, we do not know for sure.

Traditionally, it was written late in John's life. Papias tells us that it was when John was an old man. The elders of Ephesus urged him to write his memoirs and almost almost certainly this would be after his exile in Patmos, which would suggest that the Gospel of John was probably written after the book of Revelation.

And I've suggested to you on other occasions, I thought that was the case anyway, because in the book of Revelation, John sees Jesus come in on a white horse in Revelation 19 and 11 through 15 and says his name is called the Word of God, which appears to be something revealed to him there on Patmos. And then when he writes the Gospel of John, he introduces Jesus by that very title, the Word of God, which to my mind makes most sense that he saw the vision on Patmos first and later incorporated what he came to know about Jesus from that vision in his writing of the story of Jesus in the Gospel of John. So, the Gospel of John may have been the last book of the Bible written.

Of course, we don't know when his epistles were written, but they, 1 John and 2 John in particular, are full of passages that look very much like the Gospel of John, very much in the same style. And he calls himself in both of those epistles the elder, which suggests that he's advanced in age. According to Irenaeus, John lived until the reign of Trajan, the emperor of Rome, Trajan, and he came to reign in 98 A.D. So, if John wrote this book near the end of his life, when he was the elder from Ephesus for the sake of his own church and maybe for other churches as well, then if he lived to the reign of Trajan, which is 98 A.D., he may have written this in 98 A.D. or right around there.

That would certainly make it a very late New Testament book, almost at the turn of the century. Traditionally, John lived to be about 100 or so, though we don't know how old he was when he was first called by Jesus to be a disciple. Now, the value of the book is multifold.

The stated purpose of writing is found in John chapter 20, verses 30 and 31. John chapter 20, verses 30 and 31. He gives his purpose for writing the book after he's pretty much almost done telling the story.

Chapter 21 is sort of like an appendix, it would seem, because at the end of chapter 20, it looks like he's winding down and closing the book. Because in verse 30 of chapter 20, he says, And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written, that is, these signs that are included, are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. So he says, The reason I've written this down is so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

He wrote it to evangelize. He wrote it in order to convince people of who Jesus was and that they might, as a result of believing, have eternal life. It's very clear that one of the principal words in the book of John and his vocabulary is life.

And he's writing so that people will be drawn to a participation in this life that he speaks of throughout the book. And that life, he says, can be had by believing in Jesus. Therefore, John has selected some of the signs that Jesus did.

He says, Jesus did many other signs that are not written here, but I've included these ones to encourage your belief so that you might come into life. Now, the word signs, the Greek word for sign is simeon. And it's only one of several words in the Greek language that the New Testament uses to talk about Jesus miracles.

The miracles of Jesus are referred to by, I think, three different Greek words in the Gospels, maybe four. Simeon is a specific word, sign, which means a miracle that has a message behind it. Now, Jesus did many miracles that were no doubt simply acts of compassion and nothing more.

He saw someone in need and helped them, even calling upon miraculous powers to do so. But some of his miracles had a message that they did behind them, sort of a thought behind them. And John is the one who uses this expression signs most often to speak of Jesus miracles.

And so it would seem that John, in using this word for the miracles of Jesus, saw the miracles of Jesus, at least the ones that he included in the Gospel. He saw them as illustrating some message. And that becomes evident, interestingly enough, when you look at the actual miracles he records.

He has only seven of Jesus' miracles recorded in this book. Eight, if you include Jesus' own resurrection from the dead. Of those seven, only one of them is found elsewhere in the Gospels.

And it happens to be one of the few that's found in all three of the other Gospels. That is the feeding of the five thousand recorded in John chapter six. It's the only miracle found in all four of the Gospels.

The other six miracles that John records are unique to his Gospel. They're not found anywhere else. It's possible that the only reason he recorded the one in chapter six of the feeding of the five thousand is because of the sequel.

Because it was important to include the sermon Jesus gave that's related to it. Because the people came to him afterwards and wanted him to feed them again. He said, no, you need to seek the bread that comes down from heaven.

I'm the bread that comes down from heaven. Which brings us to a very important point. There are seven miracles of Jesus in the Gospel of John.

And seven I am sayings where he said, I am something. One of the things that John is doing is, in addition to showing us the miracles of Jesus, is showing us what kinds of claims Jesus made about himself. When you read the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, he says very little about himself and his mission.

He has some things to say about it, but mostly he just talks about what people should do and how to live to please God. A lot of the teaching in the Synoptic Gospels is ethical teaching, teaching about how a person should live. In the Gospel of John, however, the majority of the teaching is not ethical.

It's not about what to do. It's more theological. He talks about who God is and more frequently who he is and what his particular relationship is with the Father.

And in John, we have seven distinctive I am sayings from Jesus. They are I am the bread of life. I am the light of the world, which he says twice.

I am the door of the sheepfold. I'll give you these references. We'll go over them again in a moment.

I am the good shepherd. I am the resurrection and the life. I am the way, the truth and the life.

And I am the true vine. All of these statements, of course, all of them are metaphors. He says, I am something.

Now, it's interesting that there are seven of these sayings and there are seven miracles. Some of the sayings are directly connected to some of the miracles. For example, the first I am saying is found in John 635.

In John 635, Jesus said, I am the bread of life. Interestingly, this statement follows immediately after his feeding of the five thousand with bread. And they're coming to him afterwards asking for more bread.

And he's saying, no, you need to strive for the food that endures eternal life. I'm the bread that you should be eating. But there's a direct connection.

The feeding of the five thousand is treated by John as a prelude to the claim of Jesus that he is the bread of life. He gives them physical bread miraculously in order to prepare them for the saying that he has himself the bread of life. Another of his I am sayings is connected with another miracle.

In John 11, 25, he said, I am the resurrection and the life. This is connected with his last miracle recorded, which is raising Lazarus from the dead. In John 11, we have the story of Lazarus dying and Jesus raising him from the dead.

It's in the context of that miracle that Jesus says, I am the resurrection of the life. He raises a man from the dead and makes a claim about himself. I am the resurrection and the life.

Perhaps we should link also John 14, 6, another I am saying with the same miracle, although it's not mentioned in the same context. In John 14, 6, Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. The reason for linking these two would be simply because in both places he claims to be the life.

In one place, it's the resurrection and the life. In the other place, it's the way, the truth and the life. But life is what he claims to be.

That is, of course, those two statements are John 11, 25 and John 14, 6. In both places, he claims to be the life. In one case, he raises a man from death to life in order to make the point. Another of his I am sayings occurs twice.

I am the light of the world. This is found in chapter 8, verse 12, but also in chapter 9 and verse 5, where it is associated with the miracle of healing a man who was born blind. In John 9, we have Jesus' sixth recorded miracle, healing a man who was born blind.

In John 9, verse 5, he says, I am the light of the world. Then he proceeds to open a man's eyes who has not seen light ever before. A man who has lived his whole life in darkness, he opens his eyes and gives him light or sight.

So, here are three cases, very clearly, or maybe four, where the I am sayings of Jesus are directly associated in the same context with three of the miracles. I am the bread of life is associated with his feeding the 5,000 with bread and fishes. I am the resurrection of the life is associated with his act of resurrecting Lazarus from the dead.

I am the light of the world is connected with his opening the eyes of a blind man so that he, for the first time in his life, sees light and comes out of darkness. You can see that John is selecting the miracles in order to illustrate something about Jesus, not just treating them as acts of kindness or acts of power, but as demonstrations of some theological claim that Jesus makes about himself. He does something physically to illustrate something spiritual about himself.

As he opened the eyes of the blind man, he opens people's eyes who are spiritually blind. As he raised Lazarus from the dead, he raises people who are spiritually dead to life. As he fed with physical bread, he gives his body to be the bread of life.

Now, what about the other miracles and the other I am sayings? The temptation is to try to find some connection between them all, but that's not always easy. One would expect, since there are seven I am sayings and seven miracles recorded in John, that you would be, and since some of them have direct connection with each other, you'd expect it to be so in all the cases. It just, maybe it's hoping too much to find that.

However, I have found, although they're not in the same context, I have found some other correlations between some of the miracles and some of the I am sayings. For example, when Jesus said, I am the true vine, his last saying, his last I am saying, which is in John 15, 1, I am the true vine. Can you think of a miracle of his that may have illustrated that? Turning water into wine, his first miracle in John chapter 2. In John chapter 2, he turned water into wine.

Isn't that what vines do? Isn't that what a grapevine does? It takes water out of its environment and eventually transforms it into wine. Therefore, I believe that turning water into wine was Jesus' way of illustrating a claim that he would later make, that he is the true vine. A lot of people have been stumbled by Jesus making wine, but the miracles recorded in John would seem to be there, again, not just to show that Jesus could do miraculous things, but to illustrate something about himself and to give him a platform to make a claim about himself.

In turning water into actual wine, he prepares the way for him to call himself the true vine. A vine is for the very purpose of producing wine. But where does it get the wine? It takes it from the environment in the form of water.

Through the regular process of producing grapes and then being squeezed and fermenting, they get wine. So, even the miracle of turning water into wine would seem to correspond with one of his sayings about himself. Then there are a couple of other sayings that are not that easy to connect with one of his miracles.

There is, for example, in John 10, 7, I am the door of the sheepfold. And in John 10, 11 and 14, twice, he says, I am the good shepherd. These are all in John 10.

John 10, 7, he says, I am the door of the sheepfold. And in verses 11 and 14, he says, I am the good shepherd. Now, how would that connect to any of his miracles? I think, I could not be dogmatic about this, but I find it interesting, that in John chapter 5, Jesus' third recorded miracle, where Jesus gives strength to a lame man, who is waiting for the water to be moved so that he can be healed and jump in the water.

But he is lame, so he can't do that. It says in John chapter 5, in verse 2, Now, there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate, a pool which is called in Hebrew Beth Phesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water.

This is where Jesus found a man and healed him and told him to take up his bed and walk. And the man did. Later, he revealed himself to the man and the man became a believer.

Now, look over at Ezekiel 34. In Ezekiel 34, God is rebuking the leaders of the nation of Israel, who are supposed to be shepherds of Israel, but they are not doing a very good job. And he rebukes them and says he is going to replace them with Jesus.

And in Ezekiel 34, it says, The word of the Lord came to me saying, Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. That would be the leaders of Israel, the priests, the prophets, the kings, the princes. Prophesy and say to them, Thus says the Lord God to the shepherds, Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves.

Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool. You slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost.

But with force and cruelty you have ruled them. Now, skip down a little further. Down in verse 11.

For thus says the Lord God, Indeed, I myself will search for my sheep and seek them out, as a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among the scattered sheep. So will I seek out my sheep and deliver them from all the places where they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day. Look down at verse 16.

I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken, and strengthen what was sick. But I will destroy the fat and the strong, etc., etc. Now, he says the leaders of Israel, the shepherds of Israel, were not taking care of the broken, the lame, the weak, sheep.

But he says, when I come to gather my sheep, I will do that. I will strengthen the sick. I will bind up the broken, and so forth.

This is what the good shepherd would do when he comes. Now, notice in John 5, verses 2 and 3, we just read it. There was in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, and these lay a great multitude of sick people, lame, blind, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water.

Here are some weak sheep that need to be healed, some broken sheep that need to be bound. And Jesus comes to them. I don't know if it's just incidental or significant that John mentions this pool happened to be just inside what's called the sheep gate in Jerusalem.

The sheep gate would be the gate that people would bring their sheep in for sacrifice, and so forth. There were separate gates in the city that were for separate purposes. And the sheep gate was where the sheep went in and out.

John would not have to mention that particular detail, but perhaps he was trying to point out that here in Jerusalem's sheep gate, there were a lot of sick sheep. Now, Jesus later says, I am the door to the sheep fold. Could he be referring to the sheep gate, the gate that the sheep go in and out? And I am the good shepherd who comes to strengthen the sheep that are weakened and the sick, and bind them up.

These statements he makes later in John chapter 10, as we saw. But it seems possible to me, though I wouldn't press it too dogmatically, that there is an intended connection here. The miracle Jesus did in healing this lame man who was inside the sheep gate, perhaps significantly because he was one of the lost sheep of the house of Israel and one of the lame that the elders did not want to see fixed.

This man was still under discussion in chapter 10 when Jesus made the statements about himself being the good shepherd. Although it was a different visit to Jerusalem that John 10 takes place. It's quite clear that there is still concern about the healing of the lame man.

I'm trying to find here. He talks about his sheep hearing his voice. Let me see here.

I can't locate a particular verse that I was thinking of. But there is still a hubbub. I guess it's at verse 30 where it says, Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

This is a second time. But the first time they did it was in chapter 5 over this incident of healing the man on the Sabbath. Jesus healed this man on the Sabbath in John chapter 5. And in verse.

John 5, 17 or verse 18 says, Therefore, the Jews sought all the more to kill him because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his father making himself equal with God. They took up stones to stone Jesus here, but he escaped from them. And then they do it again in chapter 10, very possibly because of the thing he had done in healing the lame man anyway.

And the claims he made about himself in connection with that. Whether there's intended by John, the writer, a connection here or not, I can't say for sure. But there are at least several of the I am sayings of Jesus that are in John that correspond with several of the miracles.

It does not seem to be possible to do something quite so neat as to make one miracle correspond with one of those statements. But it seems that there is frequently in John's intention the desire to show by a miracle to a recorded miracle to illustrate one of the claims of Christ about himself. And he certainly makes it.

He spells it out in a couple of cases or three of the cases or so. OK, now about the discourses in. Did I give you all the miracles? I didn't list them for you.

Let me list you all. We talked about each of them, except for I think one didn't even come up for discussion or maybe two of them. Let me give you the seven miracles of Jesus in their proper places.

And then the seven I am saying just so you'll have them. The seven miracles are one turning water into wine. John, Chapter two, number two, the healing of a nobleman's son from a distance.

The healing of a nobleman's son. This is in John, Chapter four. At the end of that chapter, probably the first miracle of the great Galilean campaign.

Healing a nobleman's son. Number three, healing the lame man at the pool in John, Chapter five, healing the lame man in John five. Number four.

Feeding the multitude. That's in John six. Also, number five was also in John, Chapter six, walking on the sea.

Jesus walked on the water to come to his disciples in the boat. In John, Chapter six, also walking on the sea. That's the fifth miracle.

The sixth. Was the healing of a blind man. In John, Chapter nine, the healing of a blind man.

John, Chapter nine. And finally, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The seventh was the raising of Lazarus.

That's in John, eleven. John, Chapter eleven. Let me give you now the seven I am sayings in their order.

That is in the order they occur. I am the bread of life is found in John, six, thirty five. I am the light of the world is found twice.

John, eight, twelve. And John, nine, five. I am the door of the sheepfold.

John, ten, seven. I am the good shepherd. I'm going too fast.

Just hold me up. I am the good shepherd. Twice.

John, ten, verses eleven and fourteen. The fifth. I am the resurrection and the life.

It's chapter eleven. In verse twenty five. The sixth.

Well known. I am the way, the truth and the life. It's John, fourteen, six.

I am the way, the truth and the life. John, fourteen, six. And finally, the seventh.

I am the true vine. It's found in John, fifteen, one. Anyone need a repeat on any of those? Everyone got them? Now let me say something about the discourses of Jesus in the book of John.

And then we'll be pretty much ready to wind it up. The discourses of Jesus in the gospel of John are so different from the discourses of Jesus in the other gospels that it has raised questions in the minds of some as to whether John really made these up or whether Jesus really did say them. The reason some people ask these questions is because the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, contain teachings of Jesus.

As I said earlier, they're largely ethical. They're largely pithy. Short, to the point sayings.

Simple. Uncomplicated. These sayings, you know, are like moral teachings of a rabbi in the synoptic gospels.

But in John's gospel, the sayings of Jesus are very different. They're mostly not short and mostly not ethical. They're mostly long, protracted statements of theology.

And they're full of kind of mystical terminology that isn't found so much in the other gospels. It's always found to be talking about life and light and darkness. There's a strong emphasis on the contrast between the disciples and the world.

The expression the world is a major term in the book of John and in the epistles of John. The world. Also stress on believe.

The need to believe in him is not found so strongly in the other gospels, but it's very prominent in the gospel of John and his discourses. The word abide is very, very common in John's writings. Now, which is not found prominent in the other sayings of Jesus.

Some of these concepts, which if we are to take John's writings at face value, are were very, you know, very major words in Jesus vocabulary. For the most part, they're not found or not, not emphasized in the sayings of Jesus in the other gospels. Furthermore, these very words that I just gave you, that are key words, light, life, darkness, believe, abide.

These are words that are known to be in John's vocabulary a great deal. When he's talking about Jesus or when he's writing in his epistles, he uses these words a lot. Therefore, some have thought, well, maybe what we have in the gospel of John, when he's professing to give a discourse of Jesus, he's really making something up because it's got John's vocabulary more than Jesus vocabulary in it.

And John's style of writing more than Jesus style of preaching. And also they say it's so theological, very probably John's discourses of Jesus really reflect the later theologizing of the church in their later contemplations about Jesus. And they put these claims back into Jesus' mouth by retrospect that he never really made because they intended to rather deify him.

This is the way liberals have talked and believed. Let me answer these objections, however. First of all, as far as the vocabulary being that of John, we could as easily argue that John got his vocabulary from Jesus as the other way around.

In other words, to say that these words were in John's vocabulary and therefore he put them into the mouth of Jesus when he made up sayings for Jesus is only one way to look at it. You could see it the other way. Maybe in fact, Jesus really did say the things that John says and John picked up on the vocabulary from Jesus and used it in his other writings.

Why wouldn't that be likely? Jesus was not a disciple of John, but John was a disciple of Jesus and therefore might well have picked up on the major concepts that he heard Jesus teach about and repeat them in his own writings. Certainly the major thing in John's writings is the emphasis on love. And we know that that was Jesus' emphasis even from the other Gospels.

So it's likely that John picked up his own vocabulary from Jesus' actual words rather than wrongly representing Jesus as having spoken things and John putting his own preferred vocabulary into it. You understand what I'm saying? Another factor is this. The sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels are almost entirely from his Galilean ministry.

Almost entirely from his Galilean ministry. And the sayings in John, or the discourses in John are almost entirely from his Judean ministry. Now this is important.

Because he had a different audience in the two cases. The Galileans were largely uneducated peasants who followed him because of his mass appeal, because of his miracles and so forth. And it would not be surprising for him to speak to an uneducated crowd in simple, pithy, ethical dictums.

Which is what you find to a large extent in the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. That Jesus would speak in simple terms, not lofty theological terms, to these peasants who came in large numbers to hear him. We would expect him to speak that way as we find him represented in the Synoptics.

However, in the Gospel of John, most of his discourses are with the theological elite. With Nicodemus. With the chief priests and the Pharisees and those who came to examine him.

Or the Jews in Judea who would tend to be more theological in their orientation. And Jesus shows himself capable of speaking to their level. Charlie, did you want to say something? The fact that Jesus was capable of speaking both ways can be illustrated from a passage in the Synoptics.

Because in the Synoptic Gospels, there is one statement of Jesus represented which sounds like it was extracted directly from the Gospel of John. If you look at Matthew 11, verse 27. Matthew 11, verse 27.

Now, your appreciation for this point will depend on the extent of your familiarity with the Gospel of John. If you've read the Gospel of John a few times, you'll know exactly what I'm getting at. In Matthew 11, verse 27, Matthew represents Jesus as saying, All things have been delivered to me by my Father.

And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and the One to whom the Son will reveal Him. Now, this verse is just chock full of concepts that are the major concepts of the Gospel of John.

All of these statements are found in the Gospel of John in slightly modified form. And the state is very, what scholars have to call, Johanine, very much like in the style of John's Gospel. This statement is very out of character for the Synoptic Gospels, and yet it's found in the Synoptic Gospels.

It's just the kind of style of statement that John's Gospel is full of, but which is rare in the Synoptics. Yet, this is recorded also in other Synoptics. So, we know it's an authentic statement from Jesus, there's no question about that.

And what we can say is that the Synoptic Gospels represent Jesus as being able to speak both ways. The way we usually find Him speaking to the Galilean masses in the Synoptics, and also on occasions to make a statement like this, that sounds exactly like His discourses and statements in John. Therefore, to say that Jesus was incapable of speaking both ways would be not giving Him much credit.

The fact that He could rise to the occasion to speak in theological terms and abstract deep issues about theology to an audience that spoke and thought and appreciated those kinds of terms, and that He could also speak simply to the uneducated masses in Galilee would simply mean that He's a good teacher, that He's versatile. He could adjust His style to a person's needs or comprehension levels. And therefore, I would reject, of course, any suggestion that the Gospel of John contains falsified records of Jesus' sermons.

Obviously, there's every reason in the world to believe that He gave these discourses exactly as they occur here. Let me just make a few other real quick observations. We're just about out of time here.

The Gospel of John also includes some personal interviews, such as we don't have in other Gospels. In John chapter 3, Jesus has a private interview or discussion with Nicodemus, a religious leader. In John chapter 4, almost for the sake of contrast, we have Jesus in a private interview with a woman of Samaria.

The contrast between these two private talks is no doubt deliberate. Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He was regarded to be the teacher of Israel.

He was about, as far as Jewish pedigree goes, and credentials in the Jewish community, he ranked highest. And Jesus has a conversation with him, and John follows that immediately with a conversation between someone who had no rank whatsoever in the Jewish community, a Samaritan and a woman. And a woman who had had a number of marriages, which suggests that she was not, you know, there was a certain amount of scandal attached.

She was a person who, because of being a Samaritan alone, would be rejected from Jewish society. Being a woman would have rejected her from a man talking to her, even in Samaria, even Samaritan men would not talk to women, and a Jew wouldn't talk to a Samaritan at all. Jesus, being a man and a Jew, surprised everybody by talking to a Samaritan who was a woman, and that she was probably a sinful woman by what we judge from what he said about her, particularly sinful, may be deduced that Jesus can talk to all kinds of audiences.

He could have an engaging discussion with the leading Pharisee, the leading Sanhedrist, who must have been a great intellect, the teacher of Israel, and a man of impeccable pedigree and standing in the Jewish community, and he could follow up immediately with a discussion that really struck to the heartfelt needs of a woman who was an outcast from her own society and whose own society was outcast from Jewish society. From one extreme to the other are mentioned side by side in the Gospel of John, two private discussions. Also, there is extended discussion between Pilate and Jesus in the Gospel of John, omitted from the other Gospels.

But only John tells us some of the things that transpired in the discussion between Jesus and Pilate. So John, in addition to giving us other discourses than the other Gospels give, he also gives us some private conversations Jesus had that are not found in other Gospels. Perhaps the main distinctive of the sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospel of John, as opposed to the other Gospels, is that all the statements where Jesus directly claimed to be God or claimed to be equal with God are found in John's Gospel.

You don't find any direct claims of that sort in the synoptic Gospels, but John gives them. Jesus claimed to be God at least three times in the Gospel of John. In John 8, 58, where he said, Before Abram was, I am.

We'll discuss these individually as we come to them later. That's John 8, 58. Also in John 10, verse 30, where he said, I and my Father are one.

John 10, verse 30. And John 14, 9, where he said, If you've seen me, you've seen the Father. John 14, 9. These three statements of Jesus are found in John and not in the other Gospels, but all three of them are his claims to deity.

Furthermore, John makes that claim for Jesus in ways the other Gospels do not. Of course, in John 1, 1, he says the Word was God, referring to Jesus. And in John 20, 28, John chapter 20, verse 28, John records Thomas falling down before Jesus and saying, My Lord and my God, calling Jesus God.

John 20, verse 28. So no fewer than five times in this Gospel, Jesus is referred to as God. Three times from his own mouth, twice from either the author or from Thomas.

And then in other ways too, in saying things like, I am the good shepherd of the sheep. No doubt that was tantamount to a claim to being God since David said, Jehovah is my shepherd. I shall not want.

And Ezekiel said, Jehovah would come and be a shepherd to his sheep. So Jesus is clearly, in the Gospel of John, it is emphasized that Jesus is God. Something not emphasized at all in the other Gospels, though one could deduce it from some things that Jesus said or did in the other Gospels.

The clear claims to deity are found only in the Gospel of John. That's about all we have time for as an introduction to John's Gospel. We give it early on because John's Gospel is the first Gospel we look at in our harmony of the Gospels.

Of course, the prologue of John, chapter 1, verses 1-18, is chronologically the first piece of material for us to look at. And so we'll get into looking at that prologue in our next class.