Back to sermon search

Full transcript

I have to begin with one or two confessions and explanations. The first is a confession of dire laziness or some other such evil, that I did not produce the handout for this particular work study, uh, in time for it to be printed in your book. The editors of the book, being very wise men and gracious, uh, solved the difficulty by printing the handout that I gave last year. Now, it so happens that I'm going to be talking about very much the same kind of principles as I talked about last year. But then it occurred to me that some of you were here last year anyway, and to hear exactly the same things twice over would be probably more than flesh and blood could endure. So I hastily wrote another set of examples, and uh, uh, they were kindly typed at the very last moment by Jane's skill and uh, graciousness. So now you have two copies of notes, last year's and this year's. That will put up the price of your week considerably, and you should consult Mr. John Jeffers afterwards as to the extra amount that you should be paying. Last year's notes were blue, and this year's notes are yellow. We could, uh, take advantage of that and from time to time look at both. One further explanation as to what I'm not going to do and what I am attempting to do. I have not come here tonight to offer you and advertise a method of Bible study designed to eliminate all other methods of Bible study, nor to claim that my method of studying scripture is either the best or the only one that should be used. Far from it. Any method of Bible study that you find helpful, brings you nearer the Lord and helps you to grasp the meaning of his word and the pulse of his heart, any method that helps you is a good method. And if the comments I shall make tonight on methods of Bible study do not appeal, appeal to you or help you, well then pray forget them. Nor am I suggesting that the methods that I shall be talking about tonight will solve all difficulties. All I am doing, uh, and attempting in this seminar is the very limited thing of sharing with you some ideas and methods and approaches that I myself have over the years found helpful, particularly in the study of the narrative portions of God's Holy Word. The narrative portions of Holy Scripture, of course, are very, very large. Only sometimes they present just a little difficulty. When we study scripture, we ask surely two basic questions. First one, exactly what is this scripture saying? And therein, of course, lies a lot of patient work with our Bibles, our translations, our dictionaries, and whatever helps we can get to establish exactly what is being said. But then, of course, in the second place, we shall want to ask another question, and that is, why does it say so? What's the point of it? I hear what it says. Pray, tell me somebody, what is the point of what it says? Two questions then. What does it say? The second question, why does it say it? Now, when we come to the epistles in the New Testament, it is comparatively easy to answer such a question, why does it say it, by examining the passage in its immediate context and watching the thought flow of the logical argument. Let me cite just one example, the oft-quoted phrase, you are all one in Christ Jesus. There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, bond nor free. You are all one in Christ Jesus. If we ask ourselves, but what is the point of the remark? So what? Then, of course, if we just take it out of its context, we might assume that it is, uh, about all sorts of things, that it is commenting on our church government, or is commenting on the use of gifts of the church or something. If we turn back to its original context in Galatians chapter three and verse twenty eight, we shall see that it is the climax of a long argument, logically continued, and it is not particularly talking about church government or the exercise of gift. It is explaining on what grounds believers in the Lord Jesus inherit their great inheritance. And that in turn, if we go to the larger context, will be found to be part of the argument that is establishing how are we justified? And the answer is we are justified by faith and not by the works of the law, nor by the ceremony of circumcision. And in order to prove that we are justified by faith, Paul proceeds in his chapters three and four to argue that not only justification is by faith, but the promises and the covenant and the inheritance, these all by faith. And so, in introducing the idea of the inheritance and the covenant that guarantees the inheritance to its heirs, Paul quotes his Old Testament that the covenant was made by God to Abraham and to his seed. And being a good lawyer, he points out that the, that the noun is a collective, not seeds, but seed. And he argues that the seed in question, strictly speaking, refers to the Lord Jesus and the great world inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed and guaranteed by covenant is in fact guaranteed and covenanted to the Lord Jesus under the terms of the covenant made by God with Abraham. Of course, if that great inheritance is covenanted by a legal covenant to Abraham's seed, which is Christ, well, it's no good you're arguing the case and saying, ha, ha, ha, half a minute, I should like to be included in this, so I think God really meant to say to Abraham, to his seed, and to me. That won't do. Once the covenant is signed, sealed, and settled, you cannot add any provisions to it. At least you can't add any conditions to it. Now Paul, coming to the climax of his legal argument, shows how it is possible for us to come into the benefit of that covenant and therefore into the benefit of the inheritance. For he says, you know, as many as you have b- as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, like a man might put on a great overflowing robe. If you've been baptized into Christ, you have put on Christ. Putting on the great robe of Christ covers all distinctions. In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, bond or free. You are all one in Christ, and if you be Christ, see the flow of the argument. If you be Christ, then you are heirs according to the covenant and promise given in Genesis of old. In the ancient world, you could tell the difference between a Jew and a Greek by the dress they wore. You could tell the difference between a slave man and a free man by the dress they wore. And in the ancient world, you could tell the difference between a man and woman by the dress they wore. But when it comes to the ground upon which we inherit our great inheritance, then for that purpose all distinctions go. We inherit on this ground solely. We've been baptized into Christ. We have put on Christ, therefore we are Christ's, and being part of him, are the legal heirs to the great promises covenanted by the covenant made by God with Abram and his seed. And as I say, even in the epistles, we have to take care not to read things out of their context, but to follow their place in the logical development of the, of the argument. But that is a comparatively easy thing to do in the logical arguments of the epistles. Not always such an easy thing to do in those large acres of narrative that fill both the Old and the New Testament. For instance, if you come to the Gospel of Luke, and you are told that, uh, when it came to the naming of John the Baptist, his father, who hitherto had been dumb, wrote upon his slate, his name shall be called John, in spite of all the protests of the neighbors who wanted him called after his father, Zacharias. And, uh, at that moment, when he wrote his name should be called John, his tongue was loosed, and he spake plainly and prophesied about his son. Well, that's a very pretty story, and surely it's a good story and a very profitable story, but what on earth are you to make out of it? So the Baptist was called John. Well, that's very good to know. Would it matter to view whether he was called, um, Elijah or Elimelech or, or Hesebar or whatever you like? And what's our point of it? What difference does it make? So what? Many other stories there are, are there not, in the course of Holy Writ? In the narrative sections, we can see what they say. The question of what the point of them is, so what? What am I meant to make of it and take out of it, can sometimes be a little difficult. It is in that area that I offer a few little, uh, observations that I have found helpful in my own, uh, study of Polish scripture. I point first to the help and the importance of observing thought flow and context. Let me take some examples from ordinary, uh, life. Suppose you and I are sitting throughout the evening in the comfort of our lounge, and you are reading an improving book, and I'm twizzling my thumbs. And suddenly, after the silence of an hour or two, I suddenly make the remark, Mrs. O'Reilly is a beautiful pianist. Well, you'll hear what I say. You'll understand what I am saying. You might be inclined to scratch your head and say, oh, so, but why am I suddenly gifted with this information, sir? I mean, so what? What is the point of it? It isn't in any particular context. I see what it says, but not why it says it. Ah, but suppose for the last half hour you have been rendering Chopin's some work or other by Master Chopin to the very best of your ability on the piano, and as your dulcet sounds die away, I am heard to comment, hmm, Mrs. O'Reilly is a good pianist, and your name happens to be Mrs. Brown. Ha. You'll be a strange person if you don't begin to suspect a connection of thought between my remark and your piano playing. You say, what is the man trying to imply? Saying something about my playing? Yes. I might have made it in an absent-minded moment. It might have nothing to do with your playing, but, but. And so when it comes to the narratives of scripture, we'll take an example in a moment to show how the same story put in a different context, can carry slightly different point and purpose. Now, when sometimes this is pointed out to believers in the inspiration of Holy Scripture, they get a little uneasy. And particularly the historians, God bless them, who are very much and rightly concerned to know whether the Gospels are historical narrative. And of course, my answer to them would be absolutely and without question and altogether historical. These are not myths. This is history. But yet again, folks who attach, rightly attach the importance of history to the narrative of the New Testament... get themselves a little bit uneasy when they find that Luke, say, has put a story in a different context from what Mark has put in. And sometimes the evangelists appear to have put stories in a slightly different chronological order. They think it, you know, weakens the claim that this is history a little bit. So let me use that delightful and classical story, uh, that I used last year. If you have a blue sheet near you, you'll find its, uh, its mysteries there, uh, uh, under number one of last year's blue paper. Marvelous story, I guarantee the historical truth of it because I wrote it myself, I made it up myself. So, for the moment, count it historical, and there it is, and it runs like this. Every Saturday, Mr. Smith was to be seen mowing his immaculate lawns with an old-fashioned hand-propelled mower. And immediately you can see what it says. What's the point of what it says? Let me put it in one context for you. I can guarantee the truth of it anyway, if you'll let me. In the great factory where Mr. Smith worked, and in the office in which he was employed, there was an office manager, Mr. Smith himself, there was a typist, and there was an office boy. The works doctor examined each and decided every one of them must take up some physical exercise. The secretary took up badminton, the office boy took up football, and every Friday, every Saturday, sorry, Mr. Smith was to be seen mowing his immaculate lawns with an old-fashioned hand-propelled mower. Oh, this I see the point of it. This is a comment on the steps Mr. Smith took to, um, uh, provide himself with physical exercise. I see, I see the point of the remark. Yeah. Let me put it in another context. In the gardening club to which Mr. Smith belonged, there were many different views on the style of garden that was most appropriate. The majority were for the modern look of gardens. They said formal lawns and flower beds were anathema. What you want to do is to plow them up and get more back to nature with an apparent disorder here, and a lot of the garden growing virtually white. But every Saturday, Mr. Smith was to be seen mowing his immaculate lawns with an old-fashioned hand-propelled lawnmower. And it's exactly the same story, isn't it? But now I put it in a different context. And now you perceive it's a comment on the views held in the garden club as to what kind of the garden was the best kind of garden to have in this modern world. And you see that Mr. Smith is an old-fashioned traditionalist, who, in spite of all modern theories about gardens and landscaping, prefers the old-fashioned lawn that has to be cut with an old-fashioned lawnmower. And it's the same story, and I haven't altered a word. But putting it in different contexts brings out a different point of the story. And I'm not cheating, because even a little Mr. Smith, with his tiny little doings, it is true of him that what he does is not necessarily just possessed of one significance, it is multi-significant. If that is true of our little lives and our little actions, that they can have implications in all directions, how much more true is this of the actions of our adorable Lord, the significance of whose actions was so infinite that John says that if the whole would be written, the world wouldn't contain the books. The gospel writers are not cheating and are not perverting history, and they will take an action of our Lord, and one of them put it in one context, and one of them put it in another context. Let us take an example, and if you have a Bible near you, you may care to s- to to uh uh look at the page. Let's take the story of the blind man who was given sight by our Lord Jesus, and first of all, look at Mark's account of it. You will find Mark's story of the blind man at chapter ten of Mark, verses forty six to fifty two. And if we would now put it in its larger context in, uh, Mark's record, we might go back to chapter ten and verse seventeen, story of the rich young ruler who came saying, Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? You will remember our Lord's reply and how the young man's countenance fell at the saying, verse twenty two, and he went away sorrowful, for he was one that had great possessions. That led to a discussion, uh, between our Lord and his apostles. And our Lord saying in verse twenty three, how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God. Whereupon in verse twenty eight, Peter began to observe, lo, we have left all and have followed thee. Jesus said, verily I say unto you, there is no man that has left house or brethren or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time houses and brethren and sisters and mothers and children and lands with persecution, and in the world to come eternal life. But that's, but many that are first shall be last, and the last first. So this episode of the rich young ruler has raised in Peter's mind the question of reward for sacrifice to the Lord Jesus. Now, if we look down to our story, the story of Timaeus, the blind man, we should see that in Mark it is immediately preceded, on verses thirty five to forty five by the story of the sons of Zebedee. Let us ponder then the effect of the larger thought flow, the question of reward for what you may surrender for Christ and the kingdom of God's sake, its present reward, its future reward. Let us consider then the immediate context of the blind man's story, the story of John and James. And of course, when they come to the Lord Jesus, John and James are concerned about this matter of reward. Give us, they say, to sit on your right hand and on your left hand in your kingdom, said our Lord, can you drink of my cup and be baptized with my baptism? Yes, we can, they said. We don't care what we pay for it, but to get that honored post of, of sitting on your right hand and on your left hand in the glory, we'd give anything for it, we'd pay any price to get that reward. We see how the idea of reward for sacrifice to Christ is coming down the thought flow of the chapter. But now see what happens when you follow the son of Zebedee's story with the son of Barzamaeus. And notice the superficial literary similarities. There came, says Mark, you'll see, as they were in the way, Jesus was going before, and they that followed were afraid, verse thirty two, They were in the way, and the disciples were following. Verse thirty five, there come near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? And they said, Give us, that we may sit one on thy right hand and one on thy left hand in thy glory. But Jesus said unto them, You know not what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We are able. Verse forty, But to sit on my right hand or on my left hand is not mine to give. It is for them for whom it has been prepared. Finally, verse forty four, and whosoever would be first among you shall be servant of all, for verily the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many. They were following in the way, and they came with their request, give us. And our Lord said, what would you that I give you? They said, give us to sit one on the right hand and on the left. And he said, you know not what you ask. We pick up the repetition of the idea, people following, coming to ask. It turns out they're concerned about their sitting down at the end of the road, and they're asking to be given, and they don't really understand or know what it is they are asking for. And at the end of the story, Mark adds the story of, uh, the son of Timaeus. You will notice Mark has made no reference to, uh, Zebedee's wife. He concentrates simply on the sons of Zebedee. Now see this other son, the son of Timaeus. And if you don't know how Mark got that, uh, that, uh, translation, well, be warned, says Mark, be advised that his name in Aramaic is Bartimaeus, which being interpreted, and you better realize it, means son of Timaeus. For here are sons of Zebedee, and here are, is the son of Timaeus, and they are coming asking. And Mark has chosen to describe Bartimaeus, the blind beggar, by one particular Greek word for beggar. There are several words in Greek for beggar, but the word that Mark has chosen is cognate to the word that John and James are using. Give us, they say. Mark says that Bartimaeus was a blind asker. They asked Christ. Bartimaeus was a blind asker. He begged, give me. What he'd been doing all his life since he was blind, give me. When John and James came saying, give us that we may sit. Our Lord said, you don't know what you ask. Asking blindly then. Mark's beggar story is of a man who was blind and begged, he asked. Jesus said to the sons of Zebedee, what will you that I do for you? He said the exact same to the blind beggar when he was called. So Luke, uh, marked by his verbal contrasts and similarities, is building up a relationship between the two stories. See its, uh, implication for the context. They've been talking about reward. And John and James, sons of Zebedee, who have been following, yes, have their eyes on the end and the time when possibly they could sit down, and they're asking for the reward to be given them. They shall sit down. But says our Lord, uh, in the first place, you don't know what to ask. And anyway, it's not mine to give. And thirdly, you've forgotten this, haven't you? That the Son of Man has come not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life. Not to receive, not to be given to, but to give. You have any idea, James and John, and the rest of you, he said to the twelve, what it will mean to sit on thrones of glory? The highest is the one who gives most. The highest ruler is the one who serves most. You see the Son of Man himself, highest of the high, is marked by his willingness to give his life. By contrast, see, the blind man had been sitting all these weary days, asking, asking, asking, give me, give me, give me. This day he asked it for the last time. He called out to the son of David who was passing by, and he was called, and said the Lord to him, what would you that I do for you? He said, Lord, that I may receive my sight, and in that moment he was given his sight. He never went back to his begging. He stopped crying, give me. He who was sitting got up and followed him in the way. I wonder what he wa- whether he was surprised at what he saw, that the son of David turned out to be the travel stained, dust laden man from Nazareth, come to give his life a ransom for many. So you have a build up of comparison between the two sons of Zebedee with their idea of service and their quest for reward and to be given reward. The gentle correction of our Lord and the example of the blind man who, when his eyes were open, ceased his begging, ceased his crying, give me, and followed our Lord on the way to give his life a ransom for many. That's Mark's story, very much about reward. Let's look very briefly at the context in which Luke will put that. The story in Luke comes in chapter, uh, uh, in a much, uh, uh, later chapter, Luke eighteen and nineteen. It starts in verse eighteen with the same ruler coming, the same con- conversation. But we notice that when it comes down towards the end, Luke has no story of the sons of Zebedee. He plunges at verse thirty five into the story of blind Bartimaeus and how he got his sight. Then Luke does us something that Mark doesn't. He follows the story of blind Bartimaeus with the story of Zacchaeus, the chief publican, and then finishes the whole thing by the parable of the pounds in verses eleven of chapter nineteen to twenty seven. And what may Luke's point be? Well, if you put the story of Bartimaeus by the story of Zacchaeus, you will now find some other and different, but still equally interesting contrasts and similarities. Now you have two salvation stories side by side. For in the story of Bartimaeus, the blind beggar, our Lord comments, verse forty two of chapter eighteen, receive thy sight, thy faith has saved thee, thy faith has made thee whole. It is a salvation story then. So now Luke has picked out and highlighted the fact that with Bartimaeus you are in the presence of salvation story, and adds another salvation story to follow it. Let's think about the two stories. Bartimaeus was very poor and made his living by begging. Zacchaeus was exceedingly rich, made a lot of his, his living by swindling. Ah. Both of them having undesirable ways of making a living. And when we think of this matter, we remember the earlier context. How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven, said our Lord. Easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom. To which the apostles replied, Lord, who then can be saved, Lord, if that is so? Well, they say that in Mark, of course, but now watch Luke at his job. Who then can be saved if it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Goodness me, who then can be saved? Well, I'll show you, says Luke, who can be saved. There's this poor beggar, Zacchaeus. He can be saved, and he was saved, thank the Lord. And then there's this filthily rich tax gatherer, Zacchaeus. Could he be saved? Well, yes, he was saved as well. Well, thank God for that. The salvation isn't just for the poor. For the rich. Our Lord was often complained at, wasn't he? For going to dinner parties with highly rich tax gatherers. Ah, yes, but see God's salvation at work, as I say. For now, putting Bartimaeus beside the, the rich tax collector, what a vivid contrast you have. The blind man making his money is living out of what he could beg from other people. What a dishonoring way. It, it, uh, reduces a man's dignity, doesn't it, to have to make his living by what he begs from others. There were this other little fellow, horribly rich, making his living by what the Jews called a despicable, uh, profession, and obviously from his later confession, partly by swindling and cheating. What did salvation do? Well, thank God it changed both men's ways of making a living. For salvation isn't much, is it, if it doesn't enter into the way we make our actual LSD. And restored both men to a dignified and God-honoring way of making a living. And Luke comes to the climax by adding the story of the parable of the pound, in which we are taught to regard all that we have as a sacred trust given us by the Savior, for which we will be accountable when the Lord comes. Two different contexts, same story, but because it's in a different context, carrying slightly different lessons and implications. Let's go now to the importance of not only immediate context, but the help it can be in historical books to watch the writer develop variations on a theme. And in your yellow sheet at number uh two, I have listed four exceedingly well-known stories from the Gospel of Luke. But I ask you now to notice two things, and it will be easy because you know the stories and often preach them. There is the story of those who, when the door is shut, stand outside knocking. They miss salvation. There is the story of the parable of the great supper, and it tells of those who were invited but missed the supper. There is the story of the prodigal son, and it tells finally of the elder brother who refused to go into the banquet. And there is the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man dining in this life luxuriously, but in the life to come denied so much as a drop of water to satisfy him. And we ask ourselves, what have all the four stories in common? And then, how do they differ? Well, they are all stories of banquets, one way and another, aren't they? In the first story, those that are shut out are, uh, imagined as standing somewhere by the door and somehow able to see into the great banqueting hall of eternity. And once the guests arrive, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and from north and south, they come and they sit down, the word is the word you'll use for reclining at a banquet, and take a part of the heavenly banquet, the messianic banquet. The second story is about a banquet, the Great Supper. The third story is about the welcome home banquet to the porigul, and the fourth story is about the rich man who dined luxuriously every day of the week. All stories about banquets, all stories about those that missed salvation. But with that, of course, there are differences, aren't there? In other words, the four stories are not just simply repeating the same theme. If we will take the trouble to compare and contrast them, we shall now see that our Lord is analyzing the reasons why people miss salvation, and not everybody misses it for the same reason. Let us notice the first story and the last. In the first story, the people concerned miss it unintentionally. And when at last the door is shut and they stand outside, they are horribly dismayed and surprised. Lord, they say, there's been some mistake open to us. They never intended to be on the outside. They miss it unintentionally. Now the door is shut, and there's no opening it. The last story is similar. The gulf is fixed. And the rich man, likewise, finding himself in hell, is horribly surprised, isn't he? Like those who stand outside the door and plead, he pleads. But in both cases, the pleas are refused. The great gulf is fixed, and the man is on the wrong side. It is evident he missed salvation unintentionally. What are the middle two? They missed salvation. They missed it on purpose, didn't they? Those that were avai- uh, uh, uh, those that were invited to the great banquet, when the time came to be summoned to dinner, they all with one excuse began, with one accord began to make excuse. They missed it intentionally. The same is true of the elder brother, hearing the sound of music and rejoicing and finding out that it was because the prodigal had come home, he was angry and would not go in and missed the joy of the banqueting hall on purpose. Here is our Lord analyzing that solemn topic, reasons why people miss and will miss salvation. So you might go on. Take the first and the last again, they miss it unintentionally, but for the opposite reasons. When those that stand outside the shut door begin to argue with the master of the house, they reveal the reason why they had missed it. Their faith was in the wrong things. Listen to them. We ate and drank in thy presence, thou taughtest in our streets, but how long has that been? The way into the heavenly banquet. I never knew you, said Christ. The rich man had failed to put his faith in the right thing, of course. And when he argues with Abram, the secret comes out. Abram says, I don't need to send you anybody back from the dead to talk to your brothers. They've got the Old Testament. Ah, I know, Campbell feet Abram, said the rich man. Of course I've got the Old Testament. Do you suppose that's going to be enough for people to have the Old Testament? The rich man had had the Old Testament, hadn't he? And said, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. He'd never lifted a finger to help the beggar outside his door. He didn't think it mattered whether you really believed Old Testament or not. He perished. So the two stories, the beginning story and the end story. Yes, people that miss salvation unintentionally, the door shut and the Gulf fixed, but for different reasons. The first lot failing to put, uh, putting their trust in the wrong things, and the last one failing to put his trust in the right thing. Similarly with the middle two. They of the banquet, the great banquet, who made excuses, show why they missed it. They missed it on purpose. They missed it, didn't they, because they didn't think it was good enough. They preferred, so they said, their business or whatever to the banquet put on. The elder brother in the parable missed it, not because he thought the feast wouldn't be good enough, but for the very opposite reason. He thought it was too good. Yes? Too good a banquet to be put on for a scoundrel, like his prodigal brother. Well, you have known the stories long since. All I am arguing is that the gospel writers commonly will so select our, the material of our Lord's teachings and acting that they might illustrate a theme from different points of view, and so help us to analyze what lies at the heart of it. I turn in per- section three to the question of what I call patterns and structures, that again may help us to see context and point to what is recorded. I mention here again the overall structure into which God John the Evangelist puts his material. You will find, if you look at it carefully, that after his long introduction, the rest of John's gospel is the story of certain visits that our Lord Jesus made to Jerusalem on the occasion of the Jewish festivals. Let's look at, uh, chapter two, verse thirteen, and notice how this works. And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. It was a national festival. Now, verse twenty three. now when he was in Jerusalem, many of the Jews believed on him, and there came naturally a ruler of the Jews. At chapter three verse 22, John tells us that Jesus and his disciples came now into the land of Judea. Then he tells us in chapter four verse three, he left Judea and departed again into Galilee, and that he must needs go through Samaria. And at the end of chapter four, he constantly reminds us that our Lord had been on a journey to Jerusalem at the feast and now was coming back. So in verse forty three, he went forth into Galilee, and the Galilees received him. And as if that wasn't enough, at verse fifty four, John tells us this is again the second sign that Jesus did, having come out of Judea into Galilee. You get the point, don't you? Our Lord, please, has been down to Jerusalem on the occasion of a festival, and he's come back to Galilee. Get hold of the point. Now he's returned. What will happen next? Well, chapter five says there was a feast of the Jews. He went back to Jerusalem. He was down there some time. Chapter six says he came back to Tiberias. It tells what happened then, and chapter seven begins the third, uh, division with the words that there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went once more up to Jerusalem. What is the point of observing the structure of a book like John? Because it can take for you the words and works of the Lord Jesus, and putting them against a certain background, help you to see the point of it. These great national festivals of Judaism that we learn from the Old Testament were the time when the nation dropped its work and went up to Jerusalem to engage in the worship and service of God. Festivals designed to remind them of the great acts of redemption performed by God in past ages for their people, celebrated every year to keep the memory of salvation and the great acts of God fresh in the minds of the people, and to point them on to the great reality. So see, says John, here go the pilgrims up to Jerusalem. Now watch another thing, says John, here is God incarnate. And he's going up with them, only they don't know who he is. Ha. Now they've arrived at the temple, and they're shouting their hallelujahs and singing their psalms and engaging in the worship of God in that temple, and that very God is standing incarnate by their side. You say, what on earth is he doing? Well, watching the way they worship, listening to the way they sing the sa- the hymns and psalms, and reading their hearts. That's what he's doing. And presently he begins to speak, and he says, you know, these things are lovely, all these lovely ceremonies, but I could give you the living reality of which all these symbols speak. So when, for instance, at the Feast of Tabernacles, they took the water on the last day and poured it at the base of the altar, and they had finished their great festival celebrations. Then our Lord lifted up his voice and said, if any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink, I could give you the reality of which these things were but the symbol. They said, who do you think you are? Coming, spoiling our lovely services with your impertinent remarks about our being thirsty and sinners and all that kind of thing. You keep quiet and go away. And when he wouldn't do that, they took God incarnate out of the city and nailed him to a tree, and then came back to the temple and got on with their worship. That was a funny state of affairs, wasn't it? And when we see the background and the structure of the thing, we begin to say to ourselves, wow, wow, wow, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Has it got any modern application? Oh, what, what a message, sometimes very necessary to formal members of Christendom. Who will happily keep the formal festivals of Christmas and Easter and Whitsun and goodness knows what, and engage in all the symbolism, but haven't got the reality. Ah, you begin to see the point of our Lord's miracles teaching against the background of his visits of inspection to the nation's worship and service. Let me finally, and it will have to be finally because of the time, call your attention now to a slightly different thing, what I would call patterning in the records. Last year, on the blue paper, I listed for you one series of stories that form a kind of pattern. The occasions in the fourth gospel where women are mentioned very prominently. Stories which no other evangelist has, or if he has them, he hasn't them in anywhere near the same detail. And as I remember, I left it to you last year to decide what the common theme was, and you came up, I'm sure, with the answer that all these stories where women are prominent in the Gospel of John are stories dealing with one or another aspect of relationship. Let me tonight, therefore, point out the other series much noticed by the commentators. To see how observing the series will help us to see more significant in the detail, significance in the detail that otherwise we might see. I have listed for you the signs in John's gospel, and I am of those commentators who would say that the signs are eight and not just seven. Have mercy upon me. If you list them, you will find some interesting things. Take, for instance, the sign I have listed at number three, Christ at Bethesda. And at Bethesda there was a pool and a multitude of, uh, weak people by the pool, and one poor man in particular who had done his best for thirty eight years to get into the pool and be healed. And when our Lord came along and said, wilt thou be made whole? He was so obsessed with this pool that he said, Lord, but I'm sorry, but I've no man to put me into the pool. Pool, said Christ, I don't need any pool. Get up, man. I don't need to use the means and angels troubling the water. Goodness me not. For this was the Son of God, to whom the Father had given life in himself. He was the very source of life. He didn't use to need, he didn't need to use means like a troubled pool to cure the good man. When you've learned that lesson, later on in life, John will tell you another story, how that our Lord came across a blind man who had been blind from birth. And he made clay of the, of the dust with spittle, put it on the man's eyes and said, go wash in a pool? Well, surely not. I mean... Oh, how funny. Well, what's this all about pools? Why pool yes in one place and pool no in the next place? Huh? I'm going to tell you the answer, of course, you probably know it anyway, and if you don't, just putting the two stories together will oblige you to say, well, ha, wait a minute, but there must be some significance in this. Why will our Lord not use the pool here and insist on using the pool there? Take one other pair out of them. The nobleman's son. He came to Christ asking the Lord to come and lay hands on his boy and heal him. He found out that our Lord could heal at a distance. He didn't have to come all the way from Cana to Capernaum and lay hands on the child. He could just speak the word, and the boy was healed at a distance. That created a certain temporary difficulty for the nobleman, because as he stood in the street of Cana and our Lord said, your son lives, it was a bit of a difficulty. He couldn't see he lived. No, said our Lord, and that's the trouble with you folks. Unless you see signs and wonders, you're not liable to believe, are you? And that means you're going to have a rough time this next twenty four hours, old chap. Because if you can't just believe because I say so, well, you can't see the evidence, can you? And in the nature of it, you won't get the evidence until you get home tomorrow. The man had to to under- come to see what are the implications of this business, that our Lord could heal at a distance, and that there are times, therefore, when we must take Christ at his word without further evidence, and be prepared to walk by faith, until as we walk later through life, we come across the evidence that shows and demonstrates that his word was true. He is Lord of space and time, do you see? He can heal at a distance. And we've read the story, and we've learned it in chapter four. and with all the wisdom we've gained, we come to chapter eleven. Haha, uh Watch us at our study. There was a certain man in Bethany, and he was sick, and, uh, the sisters sent to our Lord, who was at some distance, and they said, here him who loveth is sick. And when our Lord heard that, he abode in the same place where he was. And we say, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, of course he did. I mean, he can heal at a distance. We learned that in chapter four." And then some days later, the Lord says, uh, Lazarus is dead, and I was glad for your sakes that I wasn't there. We say, come, come, come a minute, Lord. What did you have to be there for anyway? Thought you could heal at a distance. Made any difference whether you were there or not. Oh, how was you put that together? Well, you know the answer, of course. While I w- our Lord was illustrating his power to heal a man at a distance in chapter four, in chapter eleven he was demonstrating something completely different. He was going to demonstrate the great resurrection. He won't do that at a distance, my brother. If we grow sick and die while he's not here, well, if he doesn't come, we shall die, of course. We shall not be raised. By his remaining at a distance and speaking the word, he will have to come. And all I'm doing is pointing out how John has arranged the series of material. By his deliberate description, put them in pairs that you might consider two sides of the story and learn to see significance in details that otherwise might have passed you by. And I was going to talk about, uh, how we determine a writer's intention, but the time is far gone, and you have been patient, and I've already chesped. I ask our dear brother Bill's forgiveness for having, uh, worked you so hard. Pray don't go to sleep in the second meeting, else Bill might blame me for it. Just let us bow in prayer before we depart. Lord, use now these hasty studies, we do beseech thee, to open windows for us all upon these well-loved and well-known scriptures, that we might see increasingly more significance in them, be able to enjoy them the more, and the more fully expand them to our good and to the salvation of others, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.