Okay, well, those of you who have read Tasker's Commentary for this week, this was the assigned text besides John's Gospel that we have for those of you who are doing this course for credit or St. Paul's credit. Those of you who did happen to read any, do I have any hands that he volunteers? I'm not going to call on you, I'm not going to embarrass you, I'll let you embarrass yourself. Just to point out, from last week, we talked about the author who wrote this Gospel and what some things we can say about him from the Gospel itself. You might be a little bit surprised to realize that Tasker takes a bit different view than mine and from what I think he ought to take. He agrees that John the Apostle, that son of Zebedee, is the source behind the Gospel. But he thinks that it's one of John's disciples who wrote the Gospel and used John as his source. I think that's an unnecessary complication, not a necessary interpretation of one of the verses in John. I just thought I would mention that to you, some of you who maybe have come across that and wondered about that. Tasker still does believe that John's son of Zebedee is for all practical purposes, the author. Chuck, do you identify Tasker for where he is? Okay, Tasker, I believe he's in heaven now, I think he's dead. You can see it was, the first edition was like in 1960 or something, but he was a fairly prolific evangelical, British evangelical author. It's kind of an interesting story. I believe he was a liberal critic at one time and converted to evangelical Christianity. He's British, quite a good read, I think. Any other preliminary questions before we get started? Yes? Wash, she doesn't miss anything, doesn't she? Okay, that verse, Catherine, is John 21, verse 24, I'm sorry, for those of you listening by tape, I'll repeat that question, it was asked, what verse is it that Tasker thinks tips us off that there might be someone else involved in the writing of John's gospel? And that's John 21, 24, where at the end we have this, at the end of the gospel. 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. You see how he gets that we know, we know that there's a change from the first person singular to the first person plural and we know that his testimony is true. And so, many people have, have a propound of the theory, either that someone else is writing down John's witness or that perhaps here is a group of elders, let's say, who is putting their stamp of approval upon John's gospel. I, as I said, I don't think that's necessary at all when you look at how many times John will say things like this. So-and-so gives his testimony and I know, or we know, or he knows that it is true. He does this in his letters as well. I think it's just a part of his style and he doesn't talk very much about himself. And he switches often from the singular to the plural. John, first John, starts out, that which we have heard, that which we have seen and handled with our own eyes and handled concerning the word of life. So he's switching, it's just part of his style. He switches from first singular to first plural quite a bit. So I think that's simply to be seen as his own testimony, he's confirming. Okay, let's, I would like to read the first 18 verses. Now I'm not going to be reading the whole gospel as we go through. We're going to have to go a little faster. But I do want to read these verses because of their importance for understanding the rest of the book. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him is not anything made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came for a testimony to bear witness to the light that all might believe through him. He was not the light but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. He was in the world and the world was made through him yet the world knew him not. He came for his own home and his own people received him not. And to all who received him who believed in his name he gave power to become children of God who were born not of blood nor of the will of a flesh nor of the will of man but of God and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Full of grace and truth we have beheld his glory glory as of the only son from the Father. John were witness to him and cried this was he of whom I said he who comes after me ranks before me for he was before me. And from his fullness we have all received grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. The only son who is in the bosom of the Father he has made him known. These first eighteen verses are sometimes called the prologue of the gospel of John. They are easily separated from the rest of the gospel which continues in as a story. This as you see is not exactly a story it's a prologue. Now there are different ways that you can go about telling a story. One way is you can lead the reader on for a long time and you can sort of keep a secret and build up to the punch line you might say. That's one way to tell a story. Another way to tell a story is in a sense to give the punch line right away, to give the main point, to let the cat out of the bag right away. And that is what John does for us in his gospel, isn't it? The very first words tell it all. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Right from the very first words and from the whole prologue, we the readers get the scoop, we get the story, we get the secret of the gospel. We are privileged to know what everybody else in the story as it takes place does not know. I think that's good to keep in mind as we lead that when these things were being lived out, the disciples didn't even know, let alone of course those who were outside the group of the disciples. The disciples didn't even understand fully very much about Jesus and who he was, where he was from and what he was doing. But John spells out for the reader right from the very beginning what's going on in the gospel? What is important? He gives us the answer to the questions that are raised in the gospel. There are two major metaphorical titles for Jesus in this prologue. Can you pick them out? That was quick. The word and the light is in there as well. The word and the light. Right. What do you think John has in mind when he calls Jesus the light? Yes, Fred. There is darkness and can you span on that Fred? What do you think he has in mind in calling Jesus the light? The contrast. There is an obvious contrast to what is darkness. We have a mention of darkness in the prologue. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. You already get a sense of a basic opposition between light and dark. And Jesus says the light and the darkness has not overcome the light. Jim, are you going to say something to? Jim says the revelatory character of Christ. Light we often think of in biblical imagery emphasizes revelation or truth. But darkness is falsehood. Light is truth. Reveals the truth. Okay, sure. Yes, but. Okay, okay. Yes. I was going to say that John starts off his gospel with the same words that that Moses starts off Genesis. And it makes you really go back to the creation story where you get a lot of talk about light and what God created for light. Very good. Very first words remind us again of Genesis 1-1. And the creation story and the advent of light. Good. Good, yes. Is there another hand back there? That was it. Okay. The emphasis upon the creation and the appearance of light. Okay, what about word? Maybe this is a sense over done, maybe, but it's worth talking about. What could John mean by word? Now, Kelly here would tell us about all the philosophical uses of the term bogus and how it's used in Plato and in Filo in particular. But somebody else, please. Yes. Okay. That's okay, Andy. Okay, very good. At the end of the prologue there is another statement that in a sense sort of parallels sort of parallels what he says in the first statement. And that is that the son in the bosom of the father has made him known. Has made him known. Has revealed or explained the father. And I think that is the key element. Yes, Mrs. West. Very good. Very good. Yes. The point was just made about the creation again. And how many times we hear about God speaking? In fact, that is how it is recorded that God created things. Right? He spoke. He said let there be life. And there was life. He said let the waters be divided and so forth. And they were. So the role of the word God's speech in creation is prominent. And it may well be John is picking up on that here as well. Someone else over here. It would be fair to assume that John was familiar with Platonic thought, wouldn't it? He knew of the way Platonic thought used the word. Could he possibly be sort of the catcher or use that phrase and then move it from the Platonic interpretation? Is something very specific and personal in Christ? John saying that possibly John the author knew about the Platonic use of the term logos and is therefore using it kind of to grab the reader's attention. But then to modify that concept and show concretely what it means in Christ, that's a possibility. I think he must have known something, some form of Platonism. Ideas like this were certainly current. One didn't have to be a philosopher to know something about Platonism and people like Philo and their philosophical writings. Okay, very good. Well, we've just commented on the fact that there is a sort of parallel in verse 18 and verse 1 about the word and the word being the one who explains or reveals the father. This is a good lead in then to what I've written up on the board. Many scholars see in the prologue a sort of pattern or arrangement, sometimes called inverted parallelism or chias and the name isn't important, but it's a different way of arranging material than we often use today. We often will start like Roman No. 1 and A then B and under that 1, 2, 3 and so forth. In the ancient world, much more commonly, material was arranged in a different way. That was often like doing a step and then repeating the steps that you just made in backwards order. As if to say, you know, I went to town to get some meat, to get some food. I took off or to town, I took off, something like that. Just reading backwards what you've just said, we can discern or observe that this was often used as an aid to memory by giving a list and then repeating in backwards order. Repeating the thing you just said and then going backwards, we know this was used as an aid to memory. Many scholars have seen this kind of arrangement in the prologue here. I'll just walk through this with you, those of you who are listening by tape. You could divide the prologue like this, verses 1 and 2 have to do with God the Word, verses 3 through 5, the Word giving light and life. Verses 6 through 8, we read about a witness to the light and that witness is a man named John. Verse 9, light entering the world, verses 10 and 11, the result of that entry of the light of the world, the first result being rejection. 12 and 13 record another result of the light coming to the world and that is acceptance. Verse 14, the word enters the world. In verse 9 you have the light entering the world. One name for Jesus, in verse 14 the word enters the world, another name for Jesus. Verse 15, we have another witness to the world. Remember that almost parenthetical comment that John bore witness to him and cried out. Okay, it gives the witness of John once again, in verse 15, verses 16 and 17, the word gives grace and truth, paralleling the word giving light and life. And then in verse 18 the Son explaining the Father, forming a kind of parallel to God the Word, in verse 1, verses 1 and 2. The reason I point that out is that I think it shows us a number of things. First of all it shows us that this is a very carefully constructed piece of writing. The prologue was written with a lot of care and forethought and planning. Also scholars say that this kind of arrangement helps an author to emphasize certain things. Usually the emphasis they say is placed upon the first elements and the first and the last that is and the middle elements. If that's the case you can easily see the wordiness of these things. God the Word would be one of John's main emphasis. That's what he begins with, that's what he ends with in this prologue. No one has ever seen God at any time, but God the Son has revealed him, has explained God. That's quite a profound statement to make about the Son, particularly to those who would have been Jews among them. Are you saying then John that all Old Testament Revelation somehow comes through this one you're calling the Logos? That it is the role and function of the Logos to reveal and explain God the Father. Very profound, along with the fact that the Logos is revealed as God himself in chapter 1 verses 1 and 2. So we can see the profundity and the overarching importance of that revelation and why John would put that at this point in the prologue. Yet we can also, in another sense, we ask what is the gospel about and John already tells us in chapter 20 verse 31 so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ of the Son of God and that believing you might have life in his name. And so it's very appropriate that the middle section receive emphasis. That is what happened as a result of the Logos coming into the world. Verses 10 and 11 state that in terms of its negative reaction. He came to his own home and his own people received him not. He who made the world, the world did not know him. And that part gets us to the basic paradox of John's gospel. There are a lot of little paradoxes in John's gospel. But this is the biggie. This is the big one. And I think that we're meant to stop and wonder about this, to reflect upon this. If here is the Logos, through whom the world was made, yet when he came into the world, the world knew him not. His own people received him not. And in the narrative, the story, of course, this is going to come to a climax at the time of the trial and the crucifixion of Jesus. There we're going to witness in the story, the depth of the paradox, the world's king being mocked and given a crown of thorns. And in the depth of the paradox will really strike us then. But here it's there for us in the prologue to introduce us to what's happened. Verses 12 and 13, however, bring us the good news because not everybody in the world rejected him. To those who received him and believed in his name, he gave authority to become children of God, born not of any natural means, but born of God. Okay, well those two aspects, if we can say, are the great emphases of the prologue. There are certainly more there in the prologue that we could talk about. We could talk about the witness of John, the Baptist, but we're going to go on and read about that witness as John begins the story, the narrative. So let's do that. Let's go on to, I'll just put this down as Roman Emerald 2, John's witness, chapter 1, verses 19 through 36. In the prologue we've already been introduced to this very important figure of John the Baptist. And it is his witness that is singled out in the prologue when no other human person's witness except the gospel writers is focused upon. Throughout the gospel of John, one of the key themes is that of witness or giving testimony. We've already seen this of course with respect to John, the Baptist and the prologue, but whenever we see that somebody or something or some event is giving a witness to Jesus, I think we're to pay attention to that witness and take note of it. The story begins then with John the Baptist being met by a delegation from who? Okay, from the Pharisees, we find out ultimately they're from the Pharisees, verse 24, verse 19, this is the testimony of John. Now he's going to elaborate on the testimony of John. When the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem and what did they want to know from John? Who are you, right? And what were some of the suggestions made? Elijah, the prophet and the Christ, okay. Three figures that have an Old Testament background. The Messiah of course, we know about the prophet. What's the background for that verse 21? Are you the prophet? Are there lots of prophets? Are you the prophet? Anybody have the prophet? Right, right. Roy says the prophet likened to Moses from Deuteronomy 18, 15 through 18, there was a promise made that God raised up like Moses, a prophet, and the people must obey him. Okay, so there was an expectation of some character known as the prophet, we know, of course, that that prophet was also Jesus. How about Elijah? In the spirit and power of Elijah, right, right. That is Malachi 4, I think, verse 5 or 6, that God promised us to send Elijah again, someone in the spirit and power of Elijah. Okay, a little bit of a possible problem here. John says he is not Elijah, but in another gospel, Jesus says John is Elijah. How much do you view these two facts? Yes. Okay, okay. It could be that John simply does not, is not aware of the fact Jesus is calling him Elijah or it could be as well that John is simply responding to their claim, which would have been that somebody's going to Elijah is going to be reincarnated or better yet, not reincarnated, but he's going to return. Because remember what happened to Elijah? He went up in a cherry to fire in a whirlwind and he didn't, at least the idea was he didn't experience death. So there was an expectation in Judaism that Elijah was going to come back literally, literally Elijah from, return from Paradise. And John is very truthfully saying, no, I am not Elijah in that sense. Okay, why then is John baptizing? If he is neither the prophet, nor Elijah, nor the Messiah, what is the answer to the Pharisees question? He says he is preparing the way. There is another Old Testament figure, right? There's this one that Isaiah speaks about a voice crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord. And John claims that for his Old Testament justification, I am a voice crying to prepare the way of the Lord. And there is one in your midst, you do not know. And then beginning with verse 29, we have the climax then of John's witness. Up until now he's more or less denying, he's denying that he is the Christ. He's confessing the truth, but he's denying that he's the Christ. Here we have his positive witness. The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, behold of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said after me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me. I myself did not know him, but for this I came baptizing with water that he might be revealed to Israel. And John bore witness. There's that word witness again. I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, he on whom you see the Spirit descendant remain. This is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have born a witness that this is the Son of God. How then would you summarize John's witness? He tells us two things about who Jesus is and two things about what Jesus does. Jesus is what or who? I heard two answers, but they're the two right answers. Jesus is the Lamb of God. Who does what? Takes away the sin of the world. And Jesus is the later part of his testimony. Jesus is the Son of God. The Son of God and he does what? Baptizes with the Holy Spirit. We've already heard about Jesus as the Word, the Light, the Son of God, already from the Prologue. Now we have the Son of God again and the Lamb of God, the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. All of this before the first chapter is over. We're learning about Jesus.
From a new world three, then the witness of the first disciples, chapter 137 through 51. And again, we can't cover absolutely everything here, but one thing I do think we should focus on is the witness of these first disciples. We've had the witness of John and now the witness of Jesus' first disciples. Two of John's disciples certainly believed him because they left him. They left him to follow the one that John pointed to as greater than he. One of these two is named Andrew. We're not told the identity of the second one. I think a lot of people think this is John who was the other unnamed disciple of John the Baptist who then went to follow Jesus. Andrew then finds his brother, Simon Peter, who at this point is still named Simon, and tells him we have found the Messiah, which means Christ, John, their translating. The Aramaic Messiah to the Greek Christ, which means Christ. Already now we've had another witness to Jesus, right? Jesus is now the Messiah explicitly, the Messiah. Jesus meets Simon and gives him a new name, Cephas, or Peter, meaning Rocky, right? Thanks Mark. The Rock, or Rocky in the colloquial. The next day, Jesus departs for Galilee, and on the way he finds a man named Philip. We're not told anything about where he found him, or if he knew him before this, just that he finds Philip, and invites Philip to be one of his followers. Philip from the same town as Peter and Andrew finds Nathaniel, and says to him, what? One more testimony about Jesus. We have found him of whom Moses and the prophets wrote. Jesus and Nazareth, the son of Joseph, another testimony. He is the Messiah, and he is the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote. This is the fulfillment of the prophets and Moses. Again, amazing that the disciples already at this point are picking this up, perhaps this has come from the testimony of John the Baptist already, but they're claiming Jesus as the fulfiller of the prophetic hope. Nathaniel, at first, has his doubts, can anything good come of Nazareth? Maybe some people have said that about you. Can anything good come from Nebraska? Well, of course, nobody will ask that, but can anything good come of Nazareth? He is doubtful, but then when Jesus meets him, it's amazing to see this transformation. He moves from the doubter to the one who gives a climatic, confessional statement. Jesus says, behold, an Israelite, indeed, in whom is no guile. Nathaniel said to him, how do you know me? Jesus answered him before Philip called you. When you were under the fig tree, I saw you. Nathaniel answered him, Rabbi, you are the son of God. You are the king of Israel. It seems pretty abrupt, doesn't it? What a transformation. I don't know what all went on there, whether there is more to it. There must be more to it than we read about here. People have speculated then, was Nathaniel under the fig tree contemplating something that Jesus then zeroes in on and tells him about. We don't know exactly, but we know that Nathaniel is so impressed with what Jesus says to him, and that Jesus knows him and Israelite, in whom there is no guile, that this provokes the response, you are the son of God, you are the king of Israel. And then a very, very interesting response on the part of Jesus to that confession. Have you thought about that response? He said to him, truly, because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these. And he said to him, truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, somewhat cryptic perhaps. What is he getting at? There is an old testament background for this. The latter, the latter. So when you all sing, we are climbing Jacob's ladder, you realize what you are really saying. You are making a statement about Jesus, because Jesus says, in effect, I am Jacob's ladder. You remember that it is the Genesis story of Jacob at Bethel, and he uses a stone for his pillow, and he dreams that night, has a dream of a great ladder or ziggurat. People tell us nowadays it was probably like a ziggurat. Ascending up to heaven, and angels ascending and descending upon that ladder. And here Jesus saying, you will see heaven opened, and angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Now, is there a theme that we have already come across that this would tie into? Where did that come from? I heard it towards the back there. Mr. Sealy. God descending the ladder in the form of Christ. God descending the ladder in the form of Christ. God, the word. The word was with God, and the word was God. And the word, then, in verse 18, revealing or explaining the Father. Isn't this like what is happening with Jacob, with angels ascending and descending? There is a communication. There is a line of access between man and God, between God's people and God. There is a line of access. There is a way of communication. And Jesus is that way of communication. He is that access. He is that bridge, that link between God and us.
Absolutely. The point was just made, wouldn't this be even more profound because for 400 years prior, there had been no link. There had been no profit in Israel until John the Baptist who was the forerunner of Jesus. That's right. That's right. So a very interesting, fascinating and profound and instructive word from Jesus here very early on about who he is and what his disciples are about to see as they follow him. Maybe you will have noticed other allusions to the Jacob story already here, almost leading up to this great revelation on the part of Jesus. First, an Israelite in whom is no guile in Israelite. Of course, we know the first one who was named Israel was Jacob in whom there is no guile. Well, Jacob was the guileful one. He came with guile, the Bible says, and of course he underwent a transformation experience. But all of this building into the Jacob story and the old testament background for what Jesus is about to reveal about himself as Jacob's ladder. The communication, the link between God and his people. Comments, other comments or questions? Yes. John the Baptist is having a comment that was made. John is having no small influence on the nation of Israel. Yes. One place in the gospel that says that the whole nation was going out to see him. That's right. John played an important role of Josephus, the Jewish historian, mentions John the Baptist. So a non-biblical source contemporary with this time mentions him. Keep in mind, too, that we think that John's gospel is written in or around Ephesus in Asia Minor, later in the century. In the book of Acts tells us that at Ephesus there was a group of disciples, remember, who had received John's baptism but had not heard about the coming Messiah. They were just taught to believe in the one who was to come. So it could well be that even around the environs where John is writing here, there is an ongoing tradition that emphasizes the importance of John the Baptist. He may have had followers even later on in the century. Yes. When Nathaniel makes it, what seems to be a sort of a quick turnaround and an acknowledgment of Christ as Son of God in the King of Israel, is Jesus' answer to him sort of a sort of a mild review for being so credulous or is it like when he says just because I said I saw you in the big tree, do you believe? Like a review, and then leading on, or what is meant by that? Yeah. The question is raised when Nathaniel makes this great confession and Jesus then says, because I said to you I saw you in the big tree, do you believe? I believe is that almost a mild review for him being so credulous. Ready? If you had read the commentary, you would have known that Tasker then comes back by saying, read his quote here, this misses the whole point, none of the miracles of Jesus. There were kind actions to alleviate human distress and nothing more. They were, as this gospel invariably calls them, signs displaying the glory of Jesus and the wonder of His redeeming love. In the very context here, this is said to be the first of Jesus signs, if you did, first of the signs, of signs do what? They signify, they point beyond themselves, whatever else they are, they point beyond themselves. To call Jesus miracles signs says something about them. Again, as Tasker says, the main point of none of Jesus miracles is simply to alleviate human suffering, but to teach something about Him. Only think there were all kinds of people he could have healed and one of the gospels makes that point. Jesus says that there were a number of widows in Elisha's day that he could have gone to in Israel, but he went to one outside of Israel. In other words, there are lots of people that could have been healed, but what does this teach us about Jesus? I think that's the question we always have to ask when we come across one of Jesus miracles. What do you think then this first miracle teaches us about Jesus? Some note of celebration, even though he's also the Lamb of God and there's the suffering that has come. Yes, I think so. I think that is part. Look at what the vehicle is for this miracle. Water, but water is contained in what? Six pots that John emphasizes what he states are there for what? Rights of ritual cleansing or Jewish rights of purification. Think of the elaborate structure in Judaism at the time both from the law commanded and that had been laid over at the top of the law by Jewish tradition. Rights of purification, they hardly did anything without washing their hands in a ceremonial kind of way. There are these Jewish pots for a Jewish purification rights and you almost get the sense that Judaism at this time needs to be a system that needs to be replaced. The Jewish rights of purification then become the vehicle for Jesus to give this celebration type of miracle. This sim-office, lack of wine, lack of fruit on the vine is often one of the signs of God's judgment upon a nation. You can read it time and time again. Among the lists of evils that strike a nation, there is no fruit on the vine, no wine, no song of those trampling the vineyards. No celebration song. A sign of God's blessing is that the fruit is back on the vine and there is an abundance of wine. Amos 9 for instance has that really beautiful picture of the harvesters catching up with the planters. They are meeting each other because there is so much to harvest, it is planting time again by the time they are done harvesting. There is so much wine, so much grapes. This fits in with that picture of God's blessing and abundance upon His people that is going to come through Jesus. Any final comments? We have got to close here. I see a couple here. Did you make much about the fact that the Jews used water to cleanse themselves and Jesus turns the water into wine and then later the significance of wine as it is blood and kind of showing that it is blood that cleanses us now. Is that too much treated or treated? The question is whether the wine here might have significant significance with respect to the blood of Christ and the communion and so forth. I would say yes, that is possible. You also have the question of the hour. He says my hour is not yet come to his mother. We know that becomes a central idea in John's gospel and that hour becomes the hour of his suffering and glory. So yes, the thing with this miracle is so many of the other ones are pretty easy to see their symbolism. This one, there is so much symbolism. It is hard to say it is this and only this. It is celebration but it also points to his suffering which is the ground of the celebration that comes. Yes, one more. There are a lot of questions there. A question about Mary and her role in Roman Catholicism and being claimed here by them and yet there is, as you pointed out, perhaps a mild rebuke and yet Jesus goes ahead and answers to her request. Well, it seems to me that many times in the gospel, Jesus, Jesus, good works and miracles are responses to situations that are brought up to him. Someone comes to him, blind Bartimaeus, son of David, people come to him with their problems. So it is not an unusual thing. You do have to keep in mind, of course, that there is that. Shall we say mild rebuke? I don't think it's hardly a rebuke except in the sense that the way I read that is that Mary is probably wanting a splashy show of his Messianic power. Okay. We find that his disciples or his brothers, I'm sorry, if you need to go, go, please, please leave. His disciples, excuse me, his brothers in chapter 7, want him to go up to Jerusalem and show himself. They want a splashy display of who he is, his Messianic power. And Jesus in effect is saying, no, my hour has not yet come. He does then go ahead and perform the miracle but notice. Who knows about this miracle? Only the servants who drew the water and then Jesus, the disciples obviously found out. In other words, even at the wedding feast, it's not even necessarily made known how this wine got there. The Lord of the wedding feast is in amazement. You know, you saved the best for last. He gives the credit to the bridegroom or whoever is getting the credit. It's not Jesus who is getting the credit. So again, it is not the splashy display of power that Mary seems to be wanting. Jesus is saying, no, my hour has not yet come. But she also says to the servants whatever he says to you, do she have the awareness of what his capability is? Yes. I think she does. I think absolutely she has the awareness of who he is, maybe what his capabilities might be. But I think if there's a review here, it's that what he says to his brothers later on, my hour has not yet come. She may be expecting and wanting a certain thing and what he is going to give is something a little different. Okay, thank you for coming and we'll see you next time.