All right, so two homework assignments. The number one is, was it two days before Passover or six? That's the one we're going to look here at this morning. And then the second one was the Bethany Feast on a Saturday. As we sort of evaluate the question, where was Good Friday six days before Passover? It seems like the feast was on a Saturday. And then we have to figure out, why were they violating the Sabbath? Why didn't anybody object? Jesus had to travel on that Sabbath. So then the question would be, is John historical given these problems? I'm not going to resolve this one today. We're going to look at that as we get to the beginning of John 13, which describes the day of the feast, essentially the upper room meal. Is it a Passover meal? We'll figure that out. If you figure that out, then you can back up and ask, what day was that? that issue on. Well, we'll get there. So some according to some that could be because some have it be you know, they're they're preparing for the Passover, and then they have that feast. So many commentators say that that is a Passover meal. And then, in respect to the differences between the synoptics and John, some argue that one have the upper room feast as a Passover meal, but then John's gospel seems to have the Passover lamb being slain that night of his crucifixion, which is a discrepancy. Some have tried to resolve it in various ways. We'll look at that in a couple weeks. But this one is the one we're going to address this morning. So let's look at the beginning of John chapter 12 with this in mind. Six days before the Passover, Jesus then came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served. And Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. And so the question then would be, how do we resolve this issue between John's chronology and the events leading up to and following the Feast of Bethany? According to John, the feast was six days before the Passover, the day before the triumphal entry. The next day, we'll read soon, he entered the city triumphantly, you know, with the donkey. Well, in Matthew and Mark's gospel, he has already entered Jerusalem, and the Passover feast is only two days away. Here are the texts. Let's look at them specifically. Matthew 26.1, when Jesus had finished all these things, these sayings, in other words, the Olivet Discourse, He said to his disciples, you know that after two days the Passover is coming and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified. Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by self to kill him. But they said, not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people. And now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask." Okay, so you see how this seems to progress. He's already had the triumphal entry, there's the discussion of two days before the feast, and then you have this issue with the alabaster flask. Mark. It was now two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Here, it's not in Jesus' words, it's in the narrator comments. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth and to kill him. And while he was at the feast in the house of Simon the leper, he was reclining at table, and the woman came." So we see these two seemingly irreconcilable facts. So now the question I would have would be, which of these should we trust and which should we throw out of our New Testament since it's wrong? Says the liberal college professor. Who am I impersonating? Did any of you find a solution to this problem? If we're going to read this not as Aesop's Fables, this is not just about our personal enjoyment, what we get out of it. If it's really historical, we have to solve these kinds of problems, right? So what's the solution? Did anyone find any kind of solution in the commentators or in the books that you surveyed? Uh-oh, nobody found a solution to this problem. Anyone have a theory? Maybe? Of all we've been surveying and it's a maybe he has supernatural powers? Let's go with yes, he does have them. So he has the supernatural powers that he has also involves time. It can be both six days and two days. Stop time? Yeah, the question is did he stop the world from turning? so that it affected everybody in China, too? Or did he put this particular people in a battle in the time bubble, which their time was slowed down? I don't know. Who knows? All right. So the question is, How do we resolve this? Well, Craig Keener is a sort of moderate New Testament scholar. Sometimes he says conservative things. Other times he says sort of liberal things. Let's see what he says, all right? Mark strongly implies that the anointing occurred two days before Passover. Some think that John corrects Mark on the basis of independent tradition. Whether the difference involves a deliberate correction or not, it does emphasize the independence of the tradition. Mark may have moved the anointing closer to Passover to clarify the connection or to increase the suspense. John may wish to begin Passion Week with the anointing, using six days to allude to the waiting period for the revelation of God's glory at Mount Sinai. What do you think about that answer? Mark may have put it here for this reason, and John may have decided he wanted to have a sixth day. Well, what does that say about the historicity of the words? Yeah, it's sort of a... the facts are a wax nose, and we're gonna kind of... the facts aren't important. What's important here for John is the theology, matching this week with the famous week in Exodus. But it didn't really happen. Well, that's what a lot of scholars end up saying about John, that his isn't historical, it's a theological text. There's a hand way in the back, a little timid hand. Yeah, well we'll see. That is something that a few other commentators have noted. Go to the next one here. John Calvin. After mentioning the two days, Matthew and Mark, add the history of the anointing, they place last in their narrative the things which happened first. let's go back and read what john would uh... what uh... what matthew actually says uh... verse six of matthew twenty six now when jesus was at bethany in the house of simon the leper you see the thing is when you have seen elements of of uh... things being placed out of order in various gospel writers they will do it uh... in one place you know it could happen again It does say that there's this, you have this somewhat chronological order in Matthew's Gospel where certain elements are clearly revealed. But then, when you have this indicator here, now when Jesus was at Bethany, is that saying, does it literally say, particularly the day after we just described this two-day period before Passover, it just is describing that which took place before There's nothing in the text that says this happened exactly on this day. There's some flexibility. And we've seen this happen before with the synoptic authors. One great example is the cleansing of the temple, which they sort of place there at the end of their gospel because they only have the one entry into Jerusalem. And this is a great example. Calvin, I think, is right. Here they place it in the narrative after this recording of the two days, but it doesn't actually say specifically that this event took place two days before. It has the appearance of it until you find a clearer message, a clearer chronological order, which we find in John's Gospel. Here's what Craig Blomberg says. He is a conservative scholar at the Denver Bible Scholar, Denver Bible Seminary. begins by observing that the Passover week was still two days away. Mark 1 verse 3, on the other hand, is linked with verse 2 by a mere chi, the word and, and goes on to describe an incident that takes place at some unspecified time while Jesus was in Bethany. Once we observe that both Mark and John have Jesus interpreting the anointing as a preparation for his burial, One can understand why Mark would insert the story immediately preceding a description of the other foreshadowings of his death, including the last meal with the Twelve. So there he's saying there actually are thematic reasons why he places it here. And this becomes even clearer in the next page when we look at the comments of Richard Bauckham. Bauckham has some, he finds, there's something called a Marken sandwich, in which you have one idea sandwiched between two other issues that kind of makes you interpret the middle part of the sandwich in a certain way. He says this. Mark makes the supper at Bethany the filling of a typical Markin sandwich, an ABA pattern. He frames the event with the two stages of the plot against Jesus. Number one, the authorities determined to put Jesus to death but hesitate to provoke the people to riot. 2. Judas offers to betray Jesus, thus enabling the authorities to arrest him secretly, away from the crowds. Mark and sandwiches are contrived for thematic rather than chronological reasons. Thus, for example, the sandwiching of Jesus' demonstration in the temple in 1115 and following, between the two-stage narrative of the cursing of the fig tree, makes the fig tree a symbol of the temple. Recognizing that Mark's apparent chronology here is artificial makes it entirely possible that John is historically correct in the placing of the anointing before the triumphal entry. It's an example of John's habitual precision in chronological and geographical matters, a precision that distinguishes John markedly from the synoptics. What do you think? If you've seen a lot of chronological and geographical accuracy, you begin to trust the witness as one who is the most trustworthy witness in the things you can't verify. This is the way it is with normal courts of law. If you have seen that he's trustworthy in the things you can know, then you trust him in the things you can't know. There was a hand over here. You answer it. So in this case, the synoptics have shown themselves to have all these thematic structuring. They're kind of placing things topically. Luke, the most flexible in terms of the topical ordering. Bauckham, I think, has a good sort of way for us to picture this. Sometimes it's hard for us to see how this can be inspired and literally true, and yet also flexible. But the chronology is—here's a good example. If you look at the temptation accounts of Jesus, there are three things that Jesus is tempted with. The devil tempts him with, you know, turn the bread into turn the rocks into bread, and worship, all these different three elements, if you look at one of the Synoptic Gospels, it's in one order, and you look at another of the Gospels, it's in a different order. They literally happened, but the order isn't the same. So the word then that connects us to this happened, then this happened, then this happened, shouldn't be taken literally as in this is a literal chronology. Rather, we should see it as the narrator saying then, The next thing I'm going to relate to you is, this happens all the time with us as we tell stories. Sometimes we relate events, strange things that happened as we were driving to the library. And if you compare that to someone else who had the same report, the same event, then it won't be in the same order. That's the way, that's a nature eye witness testimony. All right, so. John's gospel, once again, has been shown to be the most chronological. Don't let these kinds of things make you, like the liberal scholars, make you think... Basically what happens, I think, in my view, is that the liberal scholars have the presupposition that this isn't historical. And so they kind of are led by that presupposition to find what they already believe in that this is not historical information, it's a theological text. Yes. It's called the confirmation bias. Yes, we do it all the time. Absolutely. And that's what we're, here's what I'm asking you to do, is to challenge your own presuppositions regularly by asking the question, can this really be solved? And really think it through. Are the liberals right? Is this really, you know, a real chronology or is it, can there be a resolution to it? I think there can be. Jack. irrelevant to bring up Machen. Yes. Yes? There you go. I have to be able to defend my position, which is, I think, where you're saying. Your author that you read had a presupposition. I have a presupposition. Let's see if they won't work. And then you make the decision, bud, because I can't make it for you, I can only pray for you. But I can no longer in this world and day and age say the Bible is the truth because no one believes it anymore. No, you can say it, but you need to be able to defend that. It's not as easy as it was in the 50s. Way in the back, Heidi. Yeah. This is something that Machen actually says. He says, in one part of Machen's writing, he says, sometimes we have this view of inspiration and we're kind of up in this tree, really high and exalted, and then we kick the ladder down so nobody else can climb up. In other words, we just have this view, this faith, this idea, but we don't allow others to get to where we're at. And that's what, it's not only inspired, but it's also historically true. It really happened. So give reasons for why you believe in the inspiration. Yes, yeah. Yeah, just in doing the giving the reasons, you're not, you can, I do this all the time with my family members who are not believers, and you can do it to your blue in the face and nothing will happen apart from the spirit. But it doesn't mean that we don't do the giving the reasons. Paul is in the synagogues reasoning with people and sometimes they're believing and sometimes they're trying to kill him. But you do the giving the reasons anyway. Yeah. There was an assumption a generation ago that the Bible was the Word of God, and that assumption is no longer there. The assumption now, with the average non-Christian, is that it's a bunch of hooey. Yeah, Heidi. It's a more robust view. If it's a really 100% man and 100% God, like the two natures of Christ, the scripture has the two natures as well. Yeah, right. The other thing is people who are raised in our communities. So you may be raised in a community of faith, and you believe this is inspired scripture, partly because you've had such long experience with this text, and you've seen all the connections of the Old Testament prophecies. But as you express that faith to the next generation, to the young in our midst who grow up, at some point, they're going to bump into friends who say, well, why do you believe this sacred book rather than the one I like, which is the Quran or the Book of Mormon? We're living in that pluralistic world. We can't take for granted anymore that our holy book is the only one. We need to raise them in a way that says, look, a lot of people claim to have holy books, inspired literature. What's the reason that this one stands out? And that's where we need to emphasize it's not just inspired. It's also just, in an ordinary sense, true. Joe. Yes. Yes, I agree. The question is, can a person go to heaven apart from believing that? I think the doctrine of inspiration is not a part of the Apostles' Creed. It is something that is one of, it's a doctrine that we come to believe in over time. You can go to heaven if you believe in Jesus as your savior who died and rose again from the dead, and he is your advocate. And then five years later, if you hadn't died, then you could say, you know what, I'm coming to the conclusion that these scriptures are inspired, and I'm really, the full implications of that verse are now a part of me as well. if you hadn't come to that conclusion i think you could still go to heaven so the issue is are we presenting a real, you can also have a view where you have the inspiration of the scriptures and yet you're believing that these are inspired Aesop's Fables like documents. You believe in the inspiration of scriptures but you're not a Christian. If it's Aesop's Fables, Jesus never really died on the cross, it's just sort of this nice lesson for me, then it's not really going to do you a lot of work. Exactly. It's inspired by the great spirit, you know there are a lot of people like this, Oprah, And so what my argument is, the bedrock of Christianity is that these things are true. and then over time once you establish these things really happened g you get a real historical jesus saying my words are true the scripture can't be broken let their historical real jesus who really lived convince you of the scriptural character if he was really who he said he was go with his view of scripture he he had a very high view of the old testament uh... but that maybe a process that we need to go through where we don't merely say, because I think a generation of fundamentalists grew up with that sort of one-dimensional version of inspiration. This book came out of heaven and then they see the humanness of it and they say, wait a minute, it looks a little more human than I thought. This doesn't look like a divine book if you only have that one-dimensional view of it. Does that make sense? It's both And that's what Heidi was saying. Providentially, God used these books, these writings of men to show that there was also another voice. It's not merely the writings of men, but it's also a divine text. And I think we can maintain that. But if it's divine, it has to be true. Like Jesus said, the scriptures cannot err. Well, does this err? No, I don't think it does. I think we have to recognize, though, that sometimes the scriptures are presenting topical information truly, but not necessarily in a chronologically literal way. So to believe it's literally true doesn't necessarily mean it's literally chronologically true. Does that make sense? I think that's the best way to resolve issues like this. Calvin had it right. Sometimes things are presented in a narrative sequence that were not actually in that part. They actually happened over here. Yeah. So a lot of the commentators talked about this. They were talking about Mark. Why do you think they were talking about Mark and not Matthew? The presumption among New Testament scholars today is the Markan priority, that Mark was first. And Matthew is merely copying. That's why the similarities are there. That's the common view. And I think that's just silly nonsense. In fact, it's a problem. If you start with Mark here, where the narrator comment says, and it was two days before Passover, then you say, Matthew copied. Well, Matthew actually puts those words into Jesus' mouth. So the idea that Mark is first and that we shouldn't really even worry about Matthew has huge problems for, you know, are the gospel writers putting words into the mouth of Jesus? Did he not really say that? I actually take a Matthean priority. I think Matthew comes first. And that would make better sense in terms of the flow, because Mark is sort of putting into narration some facts he got from Matthew's gospel. But those are questions that are long and slow and tiresome, in terms of which gospel came first. But what you don't want to have happen, you don't want to have narrators putting words into Jesus' mouth. That doesn't work. Because they're true and inspired and historical and all the above. John 12, 3. Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from Purinard, anointed the feet of Jesus, wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. Again, I love that as a historical remembrance. It's the kind of thing that you would remember had the house been flooded with that smell, but it's not the kind of thing you would think to add unless you were a brilliant writer writing brilliant fiction. It's either brilliant fiction and lie, or it's real history. But Judas Iscariot was one of his disciples. He was about to betray him, said, why was this ointment not sold for 300 denarii and given to the poor? He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief and having charge of the money bag used to help himself to what was put into it. At this point, Andrew Lincoln, who is a little bit more on the liberal side with a lot of conservative conclusions, which is why I love him. I love reading guys like that, he says, coming from a liberal viewpoint. John's additional note to the effect that Judas was a thief who helped himself to the money bag seems unlikely to be reliable historical tradition because it raises the obvious question of why Judas was left in charge of the money box if it was known that he was in fact stealing from it. So how would you respond to your co-worker at the water cooler who says this to you? or your relative at the thanksgiving table if somebody presents that liberal argument is it a good argument? why? maybe they didn't know at the time it was embezzling it could be that they found out later like hey the last time we checked there was uh... you know two hundred denarii in here and now there's only like fifty exactly Or there was someone who thought they saw him do something, but they didn't want to bring it up because it was the bad timing, and then it comes up later. There's all kinds of explanations. But again, oftentimes our presuppositions lead the events. We end up finding in the text what we already believe. Be careful of that. Don't do that. Let the text tell you what it's telling you. And then you ask the question, what are the possibilities here? John 12, 7, Jesus said, leave her alone that she may keep it for the day of my burial, for the poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. That line, the poor you will always have with you, is sometimes interpreted by liberal critics as being insensitive. Yet in reality, Jesus is actually just echoing the words of Deuteronomy 15, 11, which says, for there will never cease to be poor in the land. And then it continues, therefore I command you, you shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy, to the poor in your land. Though Jesus clearly taught about caring for the poor, Luke 14, 12-14 is a really good example. Here he simply teaches that it's as important as caring for the poor is. There's something more important going on here at this stage of redemptive history. In other words, Jesus is not advocating a social gospel. If he were, This would be the gospel. Stop. Don't waste this money. Give it to the poor. That's the good news that we're presenting to you. No, he says, let it happen because something's more important right now. What I'm about to do is the most important event in history, and that's the gospel, not the social gospel that a lot of people like to focus on, but the gospel of Christ and his coming death and burial and then triumphant resurrection. Verse nine, when the large crowd of Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came not only on account of him, but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priest made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, because on account of him, many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus. So this large crowd forms outside of Simon's home in Bethany. the opposite side of the Mount of Olives and near the road on which pilgrims traveled in from the countryside into Jerusalem during this feast day. So many people are there already. They're preparing and they're doing the various rituals. Some are still arriving and now they're hearing about what had just happened. Some had heard of it before along the way because it may be one or two weeks after the resurrection of Lazarus. And news is traveling and spreading, and there's a number of people at the feast. And now people are beginning to say, oh, yeah, and he's here. The guy who did this is here. And there's starting to be a large crowd around this house. The chief priests plan to put Lazarus to death as well. It's important to remember the high priests were Sadducees. And they did not believe in the afterlife or in predictive prophecy. They were basically Epicureans, Jewish versions. Recall Luke 16, 19, there was a rich man, clothed in purple and fine linen, who feasted sumptuously. That's a great example of Epicurean sensibilities. This daily feasting, this is, let us eat and drink today, for tomorrow we die. That sounds like a, you know, when Paul quotes that, it sounds like a Greek, you know, Epicurean philosophy. It's also the view of the Sadducees. Yeah, question? An Epicurean is the, Acts 17, is it 17? where there are Stoics and Epicureans, the two dominant philosophies in Greek, or ways of life. So on the one hand, it's let's eat, drink, and party, because there's no afterlife. And the Stoics is like, no, restrain your passions, restrain your pleasure. It's fatalistic. There is a god or a world force or something, and you shouldn't emphasize pleasure and passion. You should restrain the emotions. And the Pharisees are more stoic and the Sadducees are more on the Epicurean side. All right. So the fact that many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus, many of these Jews were seeing this as a threat to their power base. If they're believing in Jesus, they're not going to, and they're seeing Him as the ultimate temple, you know, what's going to happen to our business and our power? uh... so there were many especially among the pharisees who thought this was blasphemy and sacrilege but if you're on the if you're on the Sadducee side it's not blasphemy so much because again you want to think in terms of the closest parallel we might have would be those in a catholic worldview you go to the latin mass it's all this liturgy it's part of your family culture and tradition but you don't really think about it on a daily basis it's just you going through the motions because that's what my family always does Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, there are a lot of people who go through, I did it when I was going to synagogue as a kid, it's a lot of the services in Hebrew, you go, that's what our family does, and you kind of get into the rhythm and the culture, but I didn't believe, as I was doing that, in God. But I was going through the motions. The Sadducees are kind of like that. It's, this is who we are as Israelites, but they don't necessarily believe in the afterlife. Or they may believe in God, but they don't believe in the afterlife. All right, the next day, the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. The large crowd that had come to the feast. So this is the crowd, not necessarily in the house, but that had come to that place to check out, hey, Jesus is here. And some of those people who were at the feast, but there probably isn't a whole lot of people because the houses at that time aren't huge. But that crowd is the seed for the triumphal entry, which is why it has to be distinguished between what John says versus what Matthew and Mark says. Matthew and Mark, since it seems like it happens later until you ask the questions of the text, John says that seed of this crowd is the seed that lays the groundwork for the triumphal entry, the crowd that gathers there. So they took palm branches and went out to meet him, saying, Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the king of Israel. And Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, just as it is written, fear not, O Zion, daughter of Zion, behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt. The first thing that is interesting is, I just discovered this morning as I was looking over my notes, is that the Synoptic Gospels don't mention the palm branches. The only gospel that mentions the waving of the palm branches is John. So the whole idea for Palm Sunday comes from John's gospel only. They don't have, there is one line in Mark where it has, they took some branches and put the, not palm branches, some branches and leaves and their coats, and they put them on the road. But that's a different thing than the waving of palm branches, which is a liturgical thing. So here's the research that I did on the palm branches. In the Mishnah, the oldest part of the Torah, some say as early as 150 or 200 AD, they wrote down these oral sayings that went back to what happened at the temple during the time of Jesus. The townsfolk of Jerusalem bound up their palm branches with gold threads. So you typically, probably in your mind, thought they went out, chopped something down, and came and waved it, right? They actually had these for sale. And they were used in Jewish liturgy. Here's what it says. At what point did they shake it, meaning in the liturgy of the temple? At the point in which it says, oh, thanks, give thanks unto the Lord, which is from Psalm 118, which is what they're reciting in our text this morning. And at save us, now we beseech thee, That word save now is where we get the word Hosanna. uh... which is some one eighteen twenty five mish uh... that so and also in met and first maccabees fifty one eleven fifty one this is the period into in the intertestamental period uh... hundred fifty years for jesus and you had and takis epiphanies capture jerusalem sacrifice pigs on the alter when they finally kicked him out and then they came back to jerusalem we read uh... the people returned with thanksgiving and palm branches and hymns and songs, just like we find here in our text. In other words, what John says about the palm branches is very historical and it's something that he might remember with my thesis as him being a member of the high priestly family. It fits well because he's highlighting that sort of liturgical element to this You know, even the liturgical palm branches that they wave and shake with the recitation of Psalm 118 as he's coming. But it's also connected to this reception of the king here in 1st Maccabees. It's the restoration of the temple with the Maccabean authorities. And here Jesus comes in and they're doing the same thing. we also find that uh... palm branch although slightly different word in greek but it's like the date palm in revelation seven nine a great multitude from every nation is found standing before the throne of god the throne and before the lamb with palm branches in their hands again that's written from a jewish perspective with here we here's how we worship the king right with palm branches because that's what they did and revelation is i'd take that as a lots of symbols like the white stone which meant something to them but not to us you know it's the not guilty or it's the uh... it's like kinda like a credit card you get the credit card if you win the olympic race here you get a white stone with the with a note that the government rome will provide for your income in the same way so that you have to know the first century world or the jewish world to make sense of what this means if they are jewish and first century greco-roman uh... words that make sense in that world so are you saying that the palm branches would have been there anyway that they didn't say oh here's jesus let's go get the palm branches you're saying that the palm branches It's a natural thing. They would have had them in troughs. One of those sections has their in troughs and water with gold threads and other kinds of binding for the purchase of people to celebrate the Feast of Passover and Sukkotah, which is tabernacles. Exactly, exactly. Exactly. Well, actually, we don't see a lot of palm branches in Jerusalem now, because at 70 AD, they chopped down all the trees. And if you go to Jericho, there's lots of palms. Not in Jerusalem today, but there were. If you look at the coins in first century Jerusalem, they have the symbol of the palms everywhere. Because there were tons of palm trees then, but they were all chopped down as Titus used them for barricades and for weapons of war. Would possibly Matthew, Mark, and Lou not have even necessarily understood the significance so it's it's um... matthew mark and luke it maybe you know you can ask the question why didn't they emphasize this it's just it's very common for two out of the three to spotlight something that others don't and we don't have to ask the question why they didn't it's just we can say there's something under the thesis that he is a member of the high priestly john is a high priestly member of the high priestly family that would emphasize that but he may just be that It's just something he wrote because he's recording things. And we all do this all the time. We'll emphasize the guy wearing the weird Rush Limbaugh tie came in and started yelling, where nobody else mentions the Rush Limbaugh tie. That happens all the time. All right. You never met any guy with a rush limbaugh tie, they're very pronounced. All right, Psalm 118 is the psalm that they're reciting, and this, as Jesus is coming in riding on the donkey, and so let's read some of the words of this famous psalm. Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for he is good. His steadfast love, that's the word that is often translated grace, In the translation from the Hebrew to the Greek Old Testament, the steadfast love, chesed, is what becomes grace. His grace endures forever. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes. The Lord is my strength and my song. He has become my salvation. The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. Jesus will use that a lot. This is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. The Lord is God and he has made his light to shine upon us. Wow. There's so many themes in there that end up being really used by both Jesus or the New Testament writers in the epistles. But what I want to do now is I want to focus on two things in the time remaining. Number one is how this parallels something that we find in 2 Samuel with this story of David and his son Absalom. And then we'll look at the prophecy that John highlights here of Zechariah 9, the one who comes riding on the donkey. But first 2 Samuel 15, 12 and following. David, of course, has been given this promise that he, in 2 Samuel 7, will be the one who, he won't be the one to build the temple, but his son will. And that will be an everlasting temple. And he will be, one of his sons will sit on the throne forever. which is a very interesting promise. His son, Absalom, whose name means, you know, Salem, Shalom, Ab, Abba, father of peace. He is supposed to have this kingdom of peace, which is the Zechariah prophecy, you know, you have this great peaceful king, you know, Isaiah 9. Let's see, for unto us a child is born, a son is given, The government's upon his shoulders, and here is named, mighty God, Prince of Peace. This is a different kind of reign. Maybe Absalom's the guy. He is the father of peace. Maybe he's the son of David who will usher in this messianic thing. Well, what happens? He seizes the throne in a conspiracy, and then David, while David's still alive, And David is forced to flee. David and a lot of the people in Jerusalem who are siding with David are fleeing before the forces of Absalom arrive. And where does he head? He heads up the Mount of Olives in this opposite direction that Jesus comes down. Now, notice here's what the text says. And the conspiracy grew strong, and the people with Absalom felt and the people with Absalom kept increasing. A messenger came to David saying, the hearts of the men of Israel have gone after Absalom. Then David said to all his servants who are with him at Jerusalem, arise and let us flee. And David went up the ascent of the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went, barefoot with his head covered. And all the people who were with him covered their heads, and they went up, weeping as they went. When David had passed beyond the summit, so the top of the Mount of Olives, going down to the backside, guess where you end up if you go up the top of the Mount of Olives and to the backside? You end up in Bethany. And then he meets a guy named Ziba, who gives him a couple of donkeys. Isn't that interesting? A couple of donkeys. It's the exact opposite course. Jesus starts in Bethany with a couple of donkeys and comes down in a triumphal entry. But here, because of Absalom's uh... it's a great it's a good anti type here is not the prince of peace it's a print of war essentially and it causes amenities even seizing the throne while david still sitting on it and david has to flee up the mount of olives over the top and then he get some donkeys and goes on what happens when he gets the donkeys he has people saying get out you man of blood you worthless man the lord has given you the given the kingdom into the hand of your son absalom see your evil is on you for you are a man of blood." That's actually something that he was told specifically. This is why you can't build a temple, you can't build a house for the Lord, because you are a man of blood in 1 Chronicles 28. We have time for the one more discussion about Zechariah's prophecy. This prophecy is so beautiful. I encourage you to read it as, and this is also, I think, one of the best ways to read your Old Testament, is to always go back and to look at the various prophecies that are alluded to or directly quoted, and then to look at them in light of the discussion. So if the New Testament authors or Jesus himself is quoting an Old Testament text, then you know that it's relating to Jesus. He will say, strike the shepherd and the sheep are scattered. So go back and look at the passage where He says those things. Zechariah 9, verse 9 through 17. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, your King is coming to you, righteous, and having salvation is He. That's what they're saying when they say, Hosanna. Save us. Save us now. Humble and riding mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. Here, notice that it's a donkey. Notice the next verse here, verse 10. I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem. He's not coming on a war horse. He's coming in humility on a donkey. This is not the triumphant general, which is what Titus did, you know, just a generation later on this white horse. My horses are supposed to be good. He comes on a white horse in triumph, and he takes over, like Absalom, just destroying the city. Jesus comes humble on a donkey in fulfillment of this prophecy. The battle bow shall be cut off. He shall speak peace to the nations. He shall speak peace to the nations. I mean, it's really good. His rule shall be from sea to sea. His rule. So he is a ruler. We don't want to merely think of him as a rabbi, a nice teacher, the one who can help us, a coach. He's a ruler. And his rule shall be from sea to sea. He's a great ruler. He's an emperor. He's God. And the river to the ends of the earth. And as you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit. Such good stuff here. Wait a minute. I just, excuse me, Zechariah, you just said the war horse was to be cut off. And this Jesus, this guy coming on, this Messiah is coming in to speak peace to the nations. But now you're talking about arrows and warrior swords, what's going on? Has war been cut off or not? Is he gonna speak peace? Or is he gonna wield the warrior sword? I've confounded you again. All right, so here's what happens. When you look at this last section here, you want to continue this theme that the war horse has been cut off, and that peace is being spoken, and focus on the word here, like. He will wield Zion. as a bow and like a warrior sword. This, I believe, is the evangelistic consequence of the triumph of the cross and resurrection. So now Jesus says, go into all the world, and then the epistles do that as well. The men are sent and epistles are sent. Apostles and epistles. Words are related. They're sent, and the word is like a sword that pierces to division and marrow. So this is the sword of the Spirit in our day. And it's the sons of Zion who are going into the world of Greece and beyond. That's, I think, what Zechariah's prophecy is getting at. It's not actual warfare. Sometimes the church has confused these things, and it has proceeded with actual warfare. But recall what Jesus says. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. This is not the way. Put your sword down, Peter. Put your sword down. That's not the way this kingdom advances. All right, I think we can do, we could spend a little bit more time, maybe five more minutes. Verse, any questions about Zechariah or any of the other things? Okay. Verse 16, his disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, Then they remembered these things had been written about him and had been done to him. This is a common theme of they didn't understand these things at the time, but they remembered them later. One of the reasons why they remember them later with clarity is because we'll see coming in the farewell discourse, Jesus promises to give them the spirit to give them complete remembrance. But there's another thing that's going on that we find from Luke's gospel. Luke 9 45, but they did not understand this saying and it was concealed from them so that they might not perceive it. There's actually something happening in the Sometimes you look at the disciples and you say, what are they, clueless? Why did he pick these guys? They don't get it. Part of the reason is they're meant to not get it because it's supposed to explode with insight later. So they're kind of kept from seeing and perceiving the full implications of these things at the time, which explains some of their confusion. We find in John 2.22, when therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. Or John 14, there's the part where he will give us remembrance, we'll get to that later. But here in John 12.16, it's They didn't remember these things that had happened, or they didn't think about the significance of these things, particularly in light of their Old Testament background. And that's what really, when they start thinking about the events combined with the Old Testament background, that's when you get the aha. And I think that's what Peter is getting at in his epistle when he says, we have the words of the prophets more even more profound now, in light, I don't remember the specific words, but basically it's now, in light of their fulfillment, they're more, what's the word he uses? Does anybody know? They're better. They're better. More better. Thank you, Peter. John 12, 17, the crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead, continued to bear witness. That bearing witness theme is really huge in John's Gospel. The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard that he'd done this sign. So they came to the triumphal entry because of the sign that they'd heard about with Lazarus. So the Pharisee said, you see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him. Of course, that word world is not literal. It doesn't mean the globe. It doesn't mean everyone who's ever lived. It's just a large sort of metaphorical symbolic. A lot of people went after him. Words are always used that way. I just said it right there. Always used that way. It's figure of speech. And so that's one of the things that we need to remember. A lot of times, especially when it comes to chronology, we have this sort of idea that the way we think, especially with our chronology and precision after the invention of the clock, we impose that assumption on the first century world, before the invention of the clock, they tended to round things off and speak more general. We do it too, but we're just not aware that we do it as much. But especially with regard to time, they were much more less precise than we are. And that assumption of precision affects the way what we assume they should do too. We have to not assume a high sophistication of precision. They were a little bit looser than we are, and we just need to realize that. So they summarize things, they generalize things, and they use words in symbolic ways, just like we do. Now, verse 20. Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked, Sir, would you wish to see Jesus? So Philip went and told Andrew, and Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." I think Jesus here is responding to Philip and Andrew saying, It's one of the first signs that Jesus is ending his public discourse. This is his last speech before we'll get to the next scene where he goes to the upper room. So I think he's saying, now it's time for me to give the farewell speech here. I'm not going to go to everyone who's asking for me now to reveal myself. There are different, although there are different commentators who say various things. Now the Greeks in verse 20 are likely Greek-speaking Jews. Some, most people argue that these are Gentiles. I argue that they're Greek-speaking Jews. Partly because there are two, there are a couple different words. You could use the word Gentiles. He uses the word Greeks. But the word Greeks has been used by John to refer to Greek-speaking Jews. 35 of chapter 7, we see there are Jews at the temple beginning to wonder whether Jesus intended to, quote, go to the dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks. Well, the dispersion, the diaspora, is the uh... that the various jews that are dispersed throughout the world but they're jews who are dispersed throughout the world so we actually have synagogues in jerusalem from people who had moved from those places throughout the world back to jerusalem and now it's a greek-speaking synagogue you see this in the book of acts two where there there's a division between the hebrews the hebrosti and the uh... the hellenists the greek-speaking uh... and they're discussing so sometimes we think we get confused over the difference between the language culture and the geography. So we've seen this with the word the Judeo or what's often translated the Jews. We hear whenever we read in John's gospel, the Jews did this and that. Mostly we think in terms of race and religion. What's usually intended, though, in John's gospel is more geography. It's the Judioi, the Judeans, versus the Samaritans. It's the feast of the Judeans, because they had a different feast over here in Samaria. It's more of a geographical idea. Here, I think the best way to look at this text is that these are Greek-speaking Jews. They're coming to the feast. Now, they did have God-fearers who came to the temple. and they couldn't go past a certain place. But in that case, they would have been told, the text would have said, God-fearing Gentiles came. That's usually the way that they're described. Now, final thing that I want to talk about is this parallel between what Jesus says in verse 23 and 24. about the seed and what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15. What you sow does not come into life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen. So it is with the resurrection of the dead, what is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. So in the synoptics, Jesus' use of the seed metaphor is a picture of faith, which is implanted in our hearts. But in 1 Corinthians 15, this use of the seed metaphor is exactly like John's use of the seed metaphor here in John 12. It's a metaphor for death and resurrection, and that's found exclusively in John's Gospel. So, before we go, just take a look at this sheet here, and you'll see the sort of, page 5, the language parallels. You know, you have, here in Jesus' discourse and Paul's writings. He mentions a grain of wheat, and then also Paul mentions a grain of wheat. Falls to the earth and dies, Paul mentions dies. And then you have the idea of eternal life. There are some very remarkable parallels. Then follow along with the remaining section here, other parts of John 12. There are other very structural parallels, including parallels to what the narrator says in John 12. In other words, if these structural parallels, in the midst of 17 verses, end up showing that Paul has a lot of similar structural ideas in the way he paraphrases it as an ambassador for Jesus, it doesn't merely look like he's paraphrasing teachings of Jesus that are in the church in his day. First Corinthians was written in 54. First Thessalonians, which has some parallels here, 48. If this is stuff he's If it's just the teachings of Jesus, then it wouldn't have any of the narrator comments. If he has the narrator comments, and he's structurally paralleling what John's gospel narrated, then that's a good argument for the fact that John's gospel was around when Paul wrote his epistles in 54. I've argued that John's gospel was around as early as 65, but there are, I think, some, at least, arguments for arguing that it was maybe earlier, and this is a good example. So take a look at that at your time. Any thoughts before we conclude? All right, let's conclude in prayer. Gracious Father, we have seen in your word this triumphal entry as Jesus comes humbly riding on a donkey inaugurating his kingdom of peace. Help us to really understand these words, that we may perceive in them all that you would have us to see in the prophets and the fulfillment of Christ as He comes as Israel's King, but also the King from sea to sea. May He be the King who subdues and rules our hearts, even this morning, and even as we worship Him in spirit and in truth. We pray all this in His name. Amen.