You can get St. Paul's credit, and so if you're interested in doing that, there are some purple sheets on the back table there that give you your assignments. You'll be happy to know that I'm not a cuppa and a signer as Dr. James. Basically, what I'm asking you to do is simply read from week to week portion out of John's Gospel, and the corresponding portion in this commentary. This is by RBG Tasker. It's in the Tindale New Testament commentary series, which I think overall is an excellent layperson commentary series done by very competent scholars and yet very readable. I'll be asking you to read along in this one. Of course, any further study that you can do will get you no credits, but we'll be for your advantage and if you could choose one other one, I would probably recommend Calvin's. Calvin is always a good choice to make in a commentary. If you're reading one, barely modern one, and read Calvin along with that, you're probably not going to miss too much. Well, let's open our time together in prayer. Lord, we do give honor and praise, and we do hail the power of great name of Jesus. Lord, we are so privileged to be able to come together and to examine your word and be taught by it. We counted a special privilege to come under the tutelage of the Apostle John, and we ask that through his portrait of Jesus, through the words of life that he's preserved for us, that we might be brought closer into your presence, and may sense that you have indeed loved us with an everlasting love, that we may indeed learn to know you better, and that this knowledge would change our lives. We rejoice in the great promises that are contained in this gospel, that you have gone to prepare a place for us. Lord, we ask that you be among us now by your spirit. Forgive our sins, Christ's name. Okay, well this morning I would like to make, let's say just an introduction to John's gospel. Hopefully by the end of the class we'll actually be digging into the first chapter, but we'll see how it goes. One thing I would like for this class to be is kind of a discussion forum. I could lecture, but my wife's here, and she wouldn't prove it that too much. But I think some of the best Sunday school experiences I've had are those in which there's a lot of discussion, question and answer, and give and take. I know we can learn from each other, and I can find out a little bit more about what you're thinking, what's on your mind, things that might spur me on to study some things I perhaps wouldn't otherwise. So I want to encourage you to ask questions, to make comments, and I'll assume responsibility for shutting you off and eventually steering the discussion back into the way I wanted to go. So I did want to emphasize that before we started. If anybody does care to take notes or have any kind of a notion of an outline, I'll call this first part very creatively introduction and letter A purpose and character of the fourth gospel. We are fortunate in that John has given us a statement in his gospel about why he wrote the gospel, who can refresh our memories. Anybody know where that is? There's actually a purpose statement in John's gospel, other than seminarians. Yes, chapter 20 verses 1331. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book, but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. So John tells us, okay, it's not right at the beginning of his book, but he tells us in his book why he wrote the gospel. He pulls no punches. This is what he's about, this is why he's included, the things he's included. Now you could ask in the light of what Mark presented last week, what would set John's gospel off from the other three? Let's assume for the moment that the other three gospels were in existence when John wrote, at least that he and his first readers knew at least one, two or maybe three of those gospels. Wouldn't you be able to say that those gospels were written so that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing we might have life in his name? I think so. Why then do you think there was a need for John to write? What purpose might he have? Of course he tells us his purpose. But if you're thinking that there may have been already a gospel or two or three around why this gospel, why another one? Any ideas? Think first of all, what would we be missing if we didn't have John's gospel? Try to think for a moment, no test here, but try to think for a moment, what are some of the stories or sayings out of John's gospel that are unique to John's gospel? What comes to mind? The raising of Lazarus is something that's not covered by the other gospel writers. You remember even the sayings about Jesus, by Jesus, which surrounded that great miracle that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Of course, we might have learned that another way, but without the story of Lazarus, we wouldn't have even that teaching of Jesus in that respect. Remember, he tells Martha and Mary, I am the resurrection and the life. Anything else? What else comes to mind? I know there are things your minds are brimming over. Yes? I am the way of truth and life. I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me. That's a saying that we only have in John's gospel. Right, what we call the high priestly prayer in John chapter 17, Jesus dresses the Father just before he goes to the cross and he prays for his disciples and those who would eventually believe through his disciples, namely us. We would be without that high priestly prayer. What else comes to mind? It's more doctrinal. We will say something more about that in a moment. That's a keen observation. It's a general one, but it's very profound. Yes? What's the observation of the logos? The observation of the logos. What? Where do we find that? First chapter, right at the beginning, of course. Jesus is introduced to us with this curious title, the logos or the word. That doesn't occur in the other gospels. Whatever that means, that doesn't occur in the other gospels. So, how much do you think about the study of the logos? To me, personally, I don't know if that's the definition of the god man who tries to test out what can be just in the terms of the sign or the one you want. But if you're a gospel of John, then that gets so much more so that I understand that it's one of the points that I just have in the name. Okay, that's a very good point. The divinity, and this is getting back to what was just said about being more theological. In a sense, anyway, the divinity in particular of Jesus is more prominent in the gospel of John than in the other gospels. BB Warfield made that point like this. He says in the other three gospels, the message is, this Jesus is God. In John, this God is Jesus. It's not that it's saying two different things, but the emphasis is certainly different. Yes, any other of the stories? Oh, go ahead. Okay, okay, the emotional sense, let's say, or perhaps maybe would you say the sense of intimacy, perhaps with John with the Lord, John sensing that he is for whatever reason calls himself the beloved disciple of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And that's that's worthy of a lot of thought there. Why would a person say that about oneself? What might that convey? We'll talk about that a little later. Yeah.
I wouldn't say he was more reformed than the others, but there may be more explicit reform teaching. Yes.
John was by no means a closet Calvinist. Yeah. There's the vine and the branches. Okay, that's saying with a vine, the branches. In fact, if we were to go on, I think we could go on for quite a while on this. In fact, there is, you probably would end up saying there's more that is different than is the same. There are certain events in the life of Jesus that are repeated in the book in the gospel, but really not that many apart from, let's say, the crucifixion and the resurrection. You have in chapter two, the wedding at Canaan. Chapter three, the meeting with Nicodemus. That's not in the other gospels. Chapter four, the woman at the well. Very well known story that we would have without John's gospel. The healing of the man born blind. Chapter nine. We've mentioned Lazarus. We've mentioned some of the farewell discourse. Jesus washing the disciples feet. His saying that he goes to prepare place for us. Just on and on. So many things out of John's gospel. So, at least at this level, we can say that there was ample reason for John to sit down and write put down on papyrus. What he had to say about the life of Jesus that had been omitted by the other gospel writers. We would certainly be so much deprived if we didn't have all those. There's something else too about this gospel that is different apart from, let's say, the content of the life of Jesus. And that was brought up a moment ago by this gentleman over here. I'm not sure I know your name. You are John. Okay. No wonder he knows it so well. He made the point that it is more theological. And there is a lot to that. There is one of the early church fathers named Clement of Alexandria said of this gospel that it is the spiritual gospel. This is the spiritual gospel. Do you think that's justified in what way? If so, the other gospels surely are spiritual. They're theological. That's another point. That's another point. If you count the Passover, you find that in John's gospel, we have at least a three-year ministry of Jesus, whereas in the other gospels, really all that is focused on is the last year of Jesus' ministry. Most of the first, the earlier part of ministry, Jesus' ministry, most of it is passed over. But on this aspect of being the spiritual gospel, think for a moment just about how all the gospels begin. Matthew begins with a genealogy. This is the genealogy of Jesus. Mark begins with the ministry of John the Baptist as preparing the way for Jesus so it jumps over even the birth of Jesus and all the events around here. Luke's gospel, a lot more like Matthews, he starts with the birth of Jesus, birth actually of John the Baptist, and then the birth of Jesus. John's gospel in the beginning was the word. Skip's way over even the beginning of Jesus' life to the beginning of all things takes us to eternity past and says in the beginning was the word. Now, if you're at all acquainted with biblical literature, that very way of beginning has to throw your mind back to Genesis. In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. In the beginning was the word. Those words right there, before he says anything else, are a very profound and pregnant and full set of words. Drawing the reader's mind even back to Genesis, the first book in the Bible, and making an astounding assertion already about the logos, whoever the logos is, the word. That's just to consider how the gospels start. I'm sure if you thought for a moment you might think of some other ways in which John's gospel is in a sense more theological. The theological implications are often brought out more clearly in John's gospel than they are in the other gospels. Just for instance, in the cleansing of this temple in chapter 2, your member Jesus gets in trouble with his opponents and they say, what sign do you give us that you have the authority to do these things? He says, what? Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up and I think he's crazy of course. And John then tells us in the context, but he meant he was speaking of the temple of his body. It's more theological and you might not even say more theological here, it is simply a spiritual insight into the true meaning of Jesus' words indeed that is explicitly given to us. It is one of the things that I find so fascinating and so attractive about this gospel. John takes us behind the scenes, behind the outward facts and deeds and words and gives us a glimpse of something more. You sense that there is something more going on than most people are able to see. Another example and a tasker in his commentary points this out. In his words, for example it was really night when Judas left the upper room in chapter 13. But every reader feels as he reads the narrative at this point that Judas in leaving the fellowship of Jesus was leaving the realm of light to become the tool of the prince of darkness. And John says, and it was night.
It gives you the sense, well there's more going on here than just the fact that it was dark outside. This is the realm of darkness. Or think of Caiaphas prophecy in chapter 11. You remember John relates that Caiaphas said it is necessary for one man to die so that the nation not perish. Now what do you think Caiaphas meant by that? Did he mean it's necessary that one man take the sins of God's people upon himself and go to the cross and die there as God's wrath upon the sin of his people. Therefore his people will not perish but have everlasting life. No, we can be assured that Caiaphas did not mean that. But John records this and goes on to say, and this was a true prophecy. This was a prophecy. He was high priest that year and this was a prophecy. In other words, it was true though Caiaphas didn't understand it in the sense in which it was true. He meant one thing by it but it was true in another sense. Again this is the kind of thing you get throughout John's gospel. We are treated, we're given the secret. We're given the spiritual understanding of things that the people who were even there at the time did not have. They weren't given to understand that. Remember even a couple of points John makes the point that even his disciples didn't understand it at the time. When he cast the many changes out of the temple and gave that saying about destroy this temple in three days I will raise it up, he makes a point then that later his disciples understood. They didn't even understand it at the time. So there is something unique about this gospel, something very precious in that we are given these insights into the true nature of things that the people there at the time didn't even get. Well who then was this remarkable author? We've been referring to him of course as John. Now how do we know that this was John? Or does it matter? What do you think? If it was John, which John are we talking about? There were of course a number of John's even mentioned the New Testament. There was John Mark. There was Simon Peter was the son of John, son of John, son of John. Anybody how do we know or what evidence is there for saying John have we just accepted a tradition? He was an eyewitness, okay, we can go along and say what we know about this author since we are talking about author here. Okay, that's a significant point isn't it? It's not exactly like the question of let's say the authorship of Romans. Romans says, I Paul, you know, here John's name as the author is not mentioned anywhere in the text. Okay, that's an important point. It doesn't decide everything for us but the fact that John the son of Zebede is not mentioned by name. That's an argument by silence but we have to recall that in the other three gospels there were certain apostles that were more prominent than others. You had even the circle of three Peter, James, and John. And James and John are not mentioned by name. At one point in the narrative the sons of Zebede are mentioned, just like that, the sons of Zebede without naming their names. And in that very section, that's in chapter 21, in that very section we're told that the beloved disciple is present, beloved disciples present, so it's very possible from that alone that it's John or James. Let's look for a moment a little more closely at what the text does tell us about the author. The first place we could look is in the very last chapter, chapter 21, verses 20 and 24. I remember this is after the resurrection and Jesus meets the disciples. They're out fishing and he from land tells them to cast their net out and they pull in a great draft of fish and they come to the shore they realize it's Jesus. And he has this conversation with Peter, a very memorable one about feeding Jesus sheep. The first 20 Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, Lord, who is it that's going to betray you? So here is this disciple. He's been mentioned as the one Jesus love, the beloved disciple. Verse 24. Jesus says something about this disciple, namely he says, if he's to remain until I come, what is that to you? You know, a rumor spread about this disciple that maybe he wouldn't die before Jesus came but John takes this point to make the point. That's not what Jesus said. He just said, if it's my will that he stay, what is that to you? And then verse 24, this is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things and who has written these things. And we know that his testimony is true. There is an indication of who wrote these things. That is, it's this one who's called the beloved disciple, the disciple whom Jesus loved. That's why people talk about this as being the gospel of the beloved disciple. Well, what else do we know about this beloved disciple? Right in verse 20, it was said what? He was at some other point in the narrative early on. He was at an important event. Right, he was at the last supper. And he was there who leaned on Jesus' breast and you know what that is talking about. You know what meals, at least formal meals, they would not sit down like we do. They reclined. So they would lay down like on an elbow to the table. And let's say the person to your right, if that person wanted to say something, let's say in secret to you, might very well lean back like this and whisper something to you. By doing that, he would be leaning on Jesus' breast. We're very close to Jesus that way. And that evidently is what's going on when it said that he leaned on Jesus' breast. This was something that was taken up by the early church fathers when they talked about John as some kind of mark of special intimacy that he had with Jesus for the disciple who laid on Jesus' breast. So that would tell us something again about this disciple, wasn't just any disciple. It was someone who had that kind of intimacy with Jesus that he would be that close to him and be able to share something so intimate that Jesus didn't tell anybody else who was going to betray him. Well, we could look and see from other sections something more about this disciple. If we turn back just another chapter in verse 20, excuse me, chapter 20, verse 2, this is on resurrection morning, the first day of the week, chapter 1. Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early while it was still dark and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb, so she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved and said to them, they have taken the Lord out of the tomb. So you have these two disciples, Peter and the beloved disciple, they are running to the tomb and you remember the beloved disciple gets there first but he stops Peter rushes on in and then the beloved disciple sees the grave close and it says he believed at that point he believed. So this is a disciple who was there on resurrection morning and who entered the very tomb of Jesus and believed in a resurrection when he saw the grave close, that's something else about this author. If we were to go back one more chapter, chapter 19, there's something else that we learned about it. Back to the scene of the crucifixion, verse 25, so the soldiers did this but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of clopus and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, woman, behold your son and he said to the disciple, behold your mother and from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. So something else about this author, he was so close to Jesus that Jesus would entrust the care of his own mother to this disciple and when you think of the fact that Jesus had other brothers at least. Now this is somewhat debated in church history, he's just who these people were, whether they were, let's say Joseph's sons from a former marriage, or whether they were Jesus cousins and so forth, or whether they're his real children of Joseph and Mary. In any case, it's quite a thing that he would commit the care of his mother to this disciple. In chapter 18, it is almost certainly this same disciple who in verse 15 is with Simon Peter following Jesus after the arrest. Simon Peter followed Jesus and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus and so this disciple, I'm assuming he's the same one, is able to go into the very court of the high priest for some reason. Again, it's tempting here to speculate, he's known to the high priest and he's able to get in and then he goes back and lets Peter in, I might remember. Yes. Well, there was one church father said it was because Zebedee and his sons used to come and sell fish to the high priest. Now I don't know about that, that might sound like it's reaching but there's another possibility that, well you remember, other relatives of Jesus were of the high priestly order, weren't they, from the priestly order. John the Baptist, John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth was of the descendants of Aaron. So John the Baptist's father Zacharias, remember ministered in the temple, John the Baptist therefore was of the priestly order and he was a relative of Jesus, it's possible that John was also a relative of Jesus and in any case it's possible that he was of a priestly clan. Now it would seem to be inconsistent with his fisherman status and in fact a lot of critical scholars claim that as a reason why this couldn't be John of the son of Zebedee. But actually there were a lot of priests in the first century, you can think from the time of Moses and Aaron how large the clan of Aaron must have grown by that time. And in fact there were so many priests they had clans and they would take turns like each every week, every couple weeks, take turns each clan would come in and minister in the temple. And that's the case with John the Baptist's father, it says when it was his turn to do it he came. Well it could be that Zebedee was part of one of the priestly clan, even though he lived in Galilee and even though he had another profession. That's only a possibility you know we don't know that for sure. Well that again then is something we know about the disciple, the author of the gospel. And going back to chapter 13 of course which is the Lord's Supper where it's related that he leaned upon the Lord's breast and had that close conversation. Well we can see at any rate how intimate this disciple was with Jesus and how qualified therefore he was to say in chapter 1 at the very beginning of the gospel and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Full of grace and truth and we have beheld, we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only son of the father. And we can see how qualified he was, humanly speaking, to say in his first epistle that which was from the beginning which we have heard, which we have beheld, which our hands have touched, concerning the word of life. This is a man who is eminently qualified as being very intimate disciple of Jesus. Now in one sense at one level you might be tempted to say well it doesn't really matter who wrote it, it's scripture, it's inspired therefore it doesn't really matter. But that's only true of course to on one level, you know what if somebody could prove that this was written by somebody in the second century who never knew Jesus. Would that affect how you read the gospel? I think for most of us it would and it should. But from the text itself we can say a lot of things about this author and we can see just how close he was to Jesus. Now it's already mentioned that the sons of Zebedee are not mentioned by name, there is a presumption that it was one of these sons therefore unlikely that it was James because remember that rumor that spread about this beloved disciple that he would not die until Jesus came. I'm likely that rumor would have gone very far because James was killed early and he was the first of the twelve to be martyred. Therefore it leaves us with a strong presumption, not an open and shut case but a strong presumption that it was John the son of Zebedee. And in fact that this is the all but universal testimony of the early church. Here it's not a matter of simply relying upon tradition but it's a matter of tradition supporting what we would otherwise probably reach on our own if we looked at the text.
Now if this is the case it's significant then that John writes this gospel, John one of the closest of the disciples of Jesus, the one whom Jesus loved. I think when the other gospels had already been written that he towards the end of his life this is at least the testimony of the church fathers. Put pen to paper and wrote this so-called spiritual gospel. In John the son of Zebedee who leaned upon Jesus breast the flame of divine inspiration lingers on. So the last of the apostles living delivers one great one last great apostolic witness to the word of life, the one who long ago had given him a sacred commission to take his name to the end of the earth. John tells us then why he wrote his gospel we've learned a little bit about the character of that gospel as being let's just use clements term the spiritual gospel. And we've learned a little bit about the author himself what humanly speaking qualified him to write this gospel. Of course we know that divinely speaking he was also given remembrance by the Holy Spirit and he was under the spirit's inspiration. Another one of the yes. Revelation, the author identifies himself by name the very first person with different style. That is John and that's another reason why people say this couldn't have been written by the same author as Israel. Of all these higher critics in this class it's going to make it kind of challenging but yes that's right there is a difference. Revelation the author announces his name neither in the gospel nor in the epistles does John say his name. And you want an explanation for that. There is the fact that let's assume again that John is writing his gospel and the other gospels have already been written. It's in keeping with the terms of the other other gospels that the author not mentioned his name. We can at least say that much that perhaps this was this was in John's mind that look when I'm writing the gospel I don't need to put my name forward when I'm doing that. And there's really good evidence that looking at this at this gospel and at early church history that the identity of the author is only a mystery to us. It was not a mystery to the early readers of the gospel. So we have to keep that in mind they knew who it was. It was not as though he was trying to hide his name. I think more that he was not trying to put forth his name to advertise his name. And I think with regard to the epistles as well we have to keep in mind that these were intimate letters. The recipients obviously knew who it was who was writing to them and he didn't have to stress his name. That's the way I'd approach that. And perhaps with revelation he felt a little bit different about that because after all this was a unique sort of literature in the New Testament. Literary criticism in general is certainly biblical criticism. It seems to me sometimes to strain to the end to agree this whole matter of stylistic interpretation and sort of assuming that the man is always going to write in the same style and using the same words in the same way. And you can find it fast somewhere where he doesn't quite do it that way. Maybe you begin to say maybe that wasn't it always seem to me literary criticism in general be Shakespeare or whatever were scholars come at this thing. They sometimes really strained to try to make a point that way. There's no reason why a man quiped and wasn't supposed to say, I John know that it's a dumb incident. Absolutely. It's a little bit curious but it's by no means a stumbling block. It doesn't disprove his authorship at all. That's an excellent point. And it's sometimes amusing to think of how critics can be so dogmatic on these things. If you just imagine how you might write to a close friend, how you might write in an official capacity. Or say at your job or something and how you might write a story. Each vehicle calls for its own style. So that's a good point. It shouldn't be a stumbling block to accepting John's authorship. I think CS Lewis even did some work on this. I remember reading somewhere where he had in all cases when scholars had guessed about the authorship of some unknown writing and then it became known who it was they were always wrong. I think I saw a hand over here. Yes. I was just curious to talk about the authorship but not having the nerve of learning that we have some sort of folds back around. I suspect that as you turn it, you get a push and then change it. Is there anything around true that has been writing for CS Lewis? How well is writing for them? Oh sure, yeah. People talk about that all the time. There are some stories and studies. One plate in Romans that remember Tertius gives a greeting, either writer of this letter Tertius, greet you. And it may well be that John had the aid of a secretary in one or more of his writings and let's just say as a hypothesis. For Revelation he didn't. He's there on the island of Patmos. He doesn't have all his luxuries of a scriptorium and his disposal. So there are differences in that way but in general John's style and vocabulary is characterized as simple. That is he does not use a huge vocabulary. Sometimes you hear the word hebraic. He uses lots of hebraisms which you might expect from a Hebrew. But often people will say very profound because of his use of symbolism and his use of nuances using the same terminology and infusing it with symbolic meaning. So simple does not necessarily mean bad or non-intelligent. In fact I think he is just a wonder to see how he uses simple categories like light and darkness above and below uses them in a profound way. But his Greek wouldn't be considered on the par with, let's say, Luke's in terms of polished style. Yeah and they didn't pay him anything either. Any other questions about that so far? I don't think one thing is true. Sometimes it's like a broken word to say that it looks like I don't really miss the brainstorming of Jesus but more than anybody else. It could look like that. Can you think of any other sense in which it might be taken? If you've ever lived and you know there are lots of you don't want, if you're riding in a humble way, you don't want to bring it in to yourself. If you're shy, it strikes me in those passages of being shy. Okay. Do you want to express how much you love Jesus? Remember what he says in his first epistle? Not that we loved but that he loved us. Maybe a way of showing his own love. I'm the one who was loved. No, I'm not the one who has the greatest love for him. I'm the one who has been loved. Yeah, different style. And there again, you know we have to figure that the people who originally read this knew a lot more than we know. That must have meant something to them for a disciple to see. Think of love in that sense almost as mercy. The one who's been shown mercy. The one who's been loved. I think hope back here. He loved even me. Yeah. The one he loved. Let's see what Scott said. Yeah, the thought I think often had that his fellows were fishermen there somehow just a bunch of things. Yeah, we weren't on top of anything at all. Any fisherman here by the way? We sold it today. And coming from a lawyer, am I goodness? Go ahead. I'm going to compliment him. Anyway, in March, chapter one, it mentions that this was called the fisherman's disciples. And after Jesus called it an electric father's epidemiological with the higher servants suggesting that maybe this was a bigger fishing operation than wasn't just a father. It could have been a more successful and commercial love. That's right. That's right. Because a child, John, may have had the benefit of education. That's right. I'd hire him, wouldn't you? Yeah, right. Exactly. They had servants. There have been a fairly large operation. And in that case, it would have behooved any business person then to know some Greek. So it's very likely that John grew up knowing some Greek. Maybe it's not a literature writing level, but he grew up knowing Greek. So it's not that great a stretch. You still read commentators, critics saying that this couldn't have been written by a fisherman. And I think again, if this is, if John is like 80, let's say. I mean, he's had a long life in which to learn Greek better. And he probably grew up knowing some Greek. Well, John says, I mean, there's only a gospel writer who makes a point of this. That Jesus promised them the presence of the Holy Spirit. And specifically, excuse me, that he would bring to mind the things that Jesus had told them. So in the very gospel itself, John makes this claim. It's not explicit. It's very strong because he says, you know, the Holy Spirit will bring to your remembrance. And he is writing these things that the Holy Spirit gave him remembrance of. So there's a strong claim in the gospel itself. We don't even have to go and have a doctrine of inspiration that we apply from outside to the gospel. It's there in the gospel. So yes, there is the Spirit's inspiration that guarantees truthfulness, faithfulness to what actually happened. And spiritual relevance to God's people. That, of course, doesn't mean that it's going to be all of one style. And of course, the style of Paul is different from the style of John, which is different from the style of Peter. And reform thinkers at least have always emphasized that God didn't just do away with the author's own personalities or gifts. Or experiences when he inspired them, but used those, brought all those things into service. Paul was specially equipped as a rabbi in training, as one who was trained in the theology and the word of the scriptures, with that logical and decisive mind. And God used that. But John is not like that. But John has gifted another way. So the Spirit uses each one. It's still pertinent, I think, to talk about their human characteristics, human qualifications. But that's a good note. We have to stress the inspiration of the authors. Fred. I don't know that stuff. I would say, most people agree that it was the last gospel written. Not everybody. There are some scholars who put it very early, let's say, before 80-70. The majority, and I agree with, it's late, perhaps around 90, perhaps later. And whether it's before or after the book of Revelation, I've changed my own view on that several times. So I really don't know. There are a couple of early church fathers who assume that Revelation was written first and the gospel was written after John returned to Ephesus after he wrote Revelation. I can't say that that's proved. But there are a couple that I know of who did believe that. I think it's an interesting question, Fred. If you have some insight, I'd be happy to hear it because what I tend to think happened with the gospel is that this is something, of course, that John may have been working on for years and years. He may have been, he preached these stories, he told these stories, he gave the spiritual insights, and he may have actually been writing it for some time. But I imagine that it didn't, it wasn't actually published until just before or just after his death. And part of the reason for that is that the earliest non-canonical writings we have, church fathers, come in a little bit later in their quotations and their use of it. The earliest ones we'll find using material that looks like Matthew, maybe Mark, and John comes in a little bit later. So it seems like it was not even published until late. That's my own view, but that's, that could be proved wrong. Don't raise your hand, Frank. Yes, Bob. We just have a room full of higher critics. But some people have said, yes, this is a significant, Bob, it's Bob, right? Is that this author is putting himself in front of Peter. He's claiming to be a more trustworthy apostle than Peter. But no, I don't see any, any, six up in their window. Younger, faster, sleeker. It could mean that he was younger, and therefore it's no, it's no big deal that he lived to say 90 or, you know, to a great old age. That's another objection brought against John's authorship. How can anybody live that long, you know? But I don't, I don't see anything there. Other than he was just with Peter, maybe he would, he got there first to the tomb. But then he stopped. Something held him from going into that tomb. But Peter, impetuous fellow that we know he is, rushes on in when we're angels through the tread. I don't know, I just see it as more, it's the, it's a description of an authentic description of what really happened. It's a sort of detail that only the person who was there would remember and put in his, it like saying that, you know, there were 153 fish that they caught that day. You know, it's that sort of detail thrown in that I think just adds authenticity to the story. But if you come up with something else, let me know. Conflict, right. Usually you read that in terms of Paul in Peter, but John and Peter, I don't know, it just shows me again that they were very close disciples. These two disciples were very close and we find our time has run out. That's that's the sort of thing that I see it emphasizing how close he was with Peter. I just want to end with one final word here. Another church father, origin, said the gospels are the first fruits of all the scriptures. I don't know what you think about that, but it says, and the gospel of John is the first fruits of the gospels. And no one can receive its meaning who has knocked himself laying back on Jesus' breast. And I would, it would be my prayer for us in the Sunday school that we would sense through examining this gospel, a little bit more what it would be like to lean upon Jesus' breast and have that close communion with him. Okay, see you next week.