of chapter 2 of John's Gospel. Now let's see. I was told there was going to be some of the commentaries here this morning, but I didn't see them. Does anybody, does anyone know anything about that? Dr. James has one. Looks like a different edition. Well anyway, we are using RVG Taskers commentary on John as a help as we read through the Gospel of John. So those of you who do wish to take the course for St. Paul's credit. Let's look then at the text. John chapter 2, I believe we made it really just about down to verse 13, and this is the episode of the cleansing of the temple. You might recall that in the other Gospels it's just a similar incident recorded, but it takes place at a different point in Jesus' ministry. Remember that? When is the temple cleansing put in the other Gospels? Last week? Last week, right? After the triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Paul's Sunday, it's during that last week. Some then have wondered if this is the same event, just put it a different place by John. I think it's not. I think it's a separate event. I think that there were two temple cleansings. This one coming at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. And verse 13, we read that the Passover of the Jews was a hand and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple, of course, he found the money changers. The story is probably familiar to you. What does Jesus proceed to do? Okay, it turns over to the tables and says that you will not make my father's house. What? A house of merchandise. Okay. And his disciples remember that it's written to zeal for thy house. We'll consume me. Verse 18, the Jews ask of him, what sign do you show us for doing this? Give us a sign. Evidently, they want him to show his authority. What sign do you show? You might say this is a sign itself, but what sign do you show us? And what are Jesus' words? What's his response? Destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it up again. Here is perhaps the first instance of what some people would call a double meaning in John's gospel, double meaning. We've noticed when we introduced the book how different this gospel is in some ways and how we often get the paradoxical, we get the misunderstanding that took place between Jesus and his hearers. If you had been there that day, I wonder what you, I wonder what I would have thought if we had heard Jesus say that. We know what his hearers thought. Even his disciples evidently didn't get his true meaning. He was talking about the temple of his body. If you had been there and had been one of the Jews and heard him say that, you would have probably thought as they did if he was talking about the temple right there, stone and mortar temple, and you might have reacted somewhat like they did, incredulously. It's taken us 46 years to build this one and you would build it again in three days. In other words, put yourself in that situation, there's no chance little is there. What's that? Yeah, just to see if he could raise it up. Exactly. So, they're asking for a sign. Jesus in effect says, okay, I'll give you a sign. All you have to do is tear down this temple. I'll raise it up. Of course, we know there's a double entendre there, the dual meanings. But thinking the way they must have thought, right, we're going to tear down this temple. You can build it up again. In other words, it was almost to them, it was almost like saying, I'm not going to give you a sign. That is, no sign will be given to this wicked and perverse generation, the sign of complete from another gospel. The sign of Jonah. What was the sign of Jonah? Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the earth or belly of the whale, so will the son of man be three days, three days to the earth. And you see the parallel with what he's saying in three days, I will raise it up. It's almost a parallel to what he says in Matthew's gospel, no sign. It's almost like saying no sign is going to be given to you. An evil and perverse generation seeks for a sign. No sign will be given to you except the sign of Jonah. In three days, the son of man will be raised up. It's a difference saying, I don't think it's the same occasion, but it's a similar sort of rebuke to those opponents who would have accosted Jesus. And, of course, we know now that there was a double entendre, that there was another meaning that, as John tells us, to verse 21, he spoke of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken. Tasker makes the point in his commentary that this cleansing of the temple had to do with more than a mere, let's say, reform movement, you might think of his point was clean it up, get rid of these abuses, and let's get back to a more spiritual temple worship. And, Tasker makes the point that it seems to go beyond that sort of point, right? Did anybody happen to read that? Know what he's talking about? He makes the point that it goes beyond that, Jim, you're going to say, Katie, right, right, the import again is more than just reform some abuses, but it's a replacement theme, tear down this temple, and I will build a new one. What sort of reformer would say something like that? This goes beyond the category of reform to replacement, and given that, it perhaps reminds us of something that took place, or something that we've read about from the prologue, to tripping any thoughts in your minds. When John in about verse 14 says that the word became flesh, dwelt among us, right? Tabernacle. Okay, that's the, anybody have the old King James? I believe it says, tabernacled among us. And that's a legitimate translation of the word, tabernacled among us. So the point made already in the prologue was that Jesus' presence with us on earth is like the tabernacle, or the temple. Of course, what was the significance of the tabernacle on the temple? God's presence. That's where God dwelt with His people, of course. And the significance of the logost, the word coming, and the made flesh is that He tabernacled among us. John says, we saw, we be held. We be held His glory. Remember in the temple there was the glory, the chicana glory, the presence of God that was so awesome that the priests could not minister in there. We be held His glory. John says, and now here in the actual narrative of Jesus' life, actual events that took place in His life, we see how John may first have gotten an idea of this, an inkling of this, that Jesus is effecting in this act of cleansing the temple, making the claim that He is the real temple of God. Chair down this temple, and I will replace it. I will build it up in three days. He's talking about the temple of His body. So you could certainly say that the temple is where Jesus is. Jesus is God dwelling with His people. Jesus is the glory that the chicana of God dwelling amid His people. From here, of course, we have the development of something we probably take for granted as a new testament metaphor, but that is that the church is the temple of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit, because Jesus has come to be among us and has left for us, has poured out on us His spirit to dwell in our hearts, so then we become individually temples and collectively as a body to temple of God, temple of the Spirit of God. Well, then there's certainly more going on in these stories than would have met the eye if you had even been there at the time. We often long, and I think rightly so, to have been with Jesus and to have been there, to have heard His words and seen Him, and yet there is a peculiar privilege that we enjoy living after the fact, isn't it? We've got the explanation. We've got the explanation, like we said, at the beginning with John in the prologue, giving us the key. He furnishes us with the secret of to unlock the gospel, and we're the beneficiaries of all this great truth about Christ. Well, at a very early point then in His ministry, we have as well a prediction that Jesus will rise from the dead. Any comments or questions on that portion in the end of chapter two? Before we go on to chapter three, if you're trying to keep an outline, running outline of what we're doing, probably a few of you are, but this within our outline would have been the new temple, and the next section will be the new birth. This will be a test. Has anybody actually been keeping track of our numbers because I'm lost to myself? Is it five or six? It's five, okay.
You can't fool me. Not while Catherine's here. Sure. Yeah. There was a judgment. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. That's a good point. There was judgment. There was reform. There was the indictment. Of those who were running the temple service, the temple show there with the abuses and the trafficking in the temple. There certainly was. He criticized them for making Spathers' House of merchandise, another place, a den of thieves, so certainly. Just that it seems to go beyond that to another theme as well, yes. Don't you love these seminary professors? Yes, now and later. Anytime.
Yes, very, very appropriate comment. Well, again, I mean, we have this, I think not only in John's gospel, we have it in the others as well, but particularly in John's gospel. You have an underlying theme of his speaking, well, in the section in the synoptic gospels on the parables. Remember what Jesus says to his disciples after he tells the parable of the sower? He says, they ask him why he speaks in parables and he says to you has been granted the secret of the kingdom, but of those who are outside everything is in parables so that they will see but not understand here and not perceive. That, of course, was a quotation of Isaiah. I think there are probably a lot of things going on here, Frank, but one thing is certainly that he is a judgment. It's a judgment on God's people. Certainly that was the case with Isaiah when God sent Isaiah to his people and said they will hear, but not understand. Go and preach. He told Isaiah and Isaiah 6 when he was called. Go and preach to this people, but I'm going to make their hearts hard and they're not going to listen. So in a sense it's God's word given to them and yet in a sense it's not given to them. It's given, but it's not given. It's given, but those who will have eyes to see will understand. Those who will experience the new birth will understand, but others won't. So at least it's that thing. I think it's part of God's judgment. The Messiah came to judge. That is to the light coming into the world, exposes the darkness.
That's right. Exactly. You have a Bob point out in verse 23, you have some who are coming to these who did believe when they saw the signs. So you have always a distinction to be made, always a discrimination working itself out. How do the elect come to faith? How do people come to put their trust in Christ? And we see it in our lives, don't we? People can have the same upbringing, be from the same family. People can hear the same message being preached. One person believes one doesn't. How do you explain it? You can't explain it in terms of intelligence. You can't explain it in terms of spirituality inherent in a person. You can't explain it in terms of upbringing. So we see that and we see it in the life of Jesus. It's very profound. Yes, sir. You can always tell these seminary students, can't you? That's right, though. Jim says an intrusion of the eschaton. It's the spirit world. It's the other world, the world to come, brought into our world. How else can you explain why any of us can believe? Who can believe these things? We're going to see the next portion. That's a good lead-in. Jim, too, with the next section on the new birth. Who can explain? How could you expect Nicodemus in chapter 3? Chapter 3, 1 through 21. How could you expect Nicodemus to understand this? He comes to Jesus by night, says. Maybe there's significance to that. They came by night, but and then by the way, Nicodemus, what do we know about Nicodemus from this passage?
He's called a caffercy and a ruler since a ruler of the Jews. Almost certainly he was one of the members of the Sanhedrin. Remember what the Sanhedrin was? It was that ruling council of elders in Jerusalem. Of course, the Jews were under Roman rule, but there was still a ruling council among the Jews that had oversight over religious and civil matters. Remember how many were in that elite group? Anybody? 70. He's with 69 other men who are the leaders, the rulers of Israel, comes to Jesus by night, and barely finishes his introduction. We know that you are a teacher sent from God, for no one does the signs you do, except you sent from God. Jesus hits him with this bombshell. Truly, I say to you, unless one is born a new or born from above, he could kingdom of God, say born from above. The word could be translated either a new or from above. Many commentators think that in fact both might have been meant by Jesus. Both are certainly true. Both are certainly fitting. Who could have expected Nicodemus to know what Jesus is talking about?
In a way, Jesus upgrades him for not knowing what he's talking about, as if he should have known better.
How does Nicodemus understand Jesus again? Okay, Katie. Exactly. He takes them at face value of Jesus words, at face value. How can one enter into his mother's womb and be born another time?
And Jesus' response, unless one is born of water in the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh. That which is born of spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, you must be born a new. The wind blows where it will and so forth on that analogy. Now, we could pause here. The word water seems to be a bit of a stumbling block. What does it mean to be born of water and the spirit? Some have likened this to the natural birth, first birth, birth in water. Sure that that is very clear from the text, but others then point to baptism. Born through water and the spirit. Others object mainly because we don't believe in baptismal regeneration. We don't believe that through baptism itself, the very act of being baptized with water, that a person went again. But there may be some connection with baptism after all. When we saw John, the Baptist, remember one of the things he said about Jesus said that I'm among you as one who baptizes with water, but the one who sent me to baptize that, the one on whom you see the spirit remaining is he who baptizes with the spirit. Right, baptizes with the spirit. So there already we have a sort of correlation in baptism in water and baptism with the spirit. Jesus is the only one who can accomplish the latter. He's the only one who can baptize us with the spirit. Yet, you get a sort of indication that maybe baptism with water is some kind of sign, some kind of preliminary or some kind of outward sign of what happens when the spirit baptize. So perhaps it might, Jesus saying here, might be something like you must be born not only through baptism. That is baptism is not enough, but baptism in the spirit or spirit because the emphasis certainly in this passage is on spirit being born of spirit. Verse 6 and verse 8 call for process being born of spirit, being born of the spirit. And the analogy that Jesus uses with the wind also works in that direction, being born of the spirit. Birth by the spirit is then likened to the wind blowing blows. You don't know where it comes from. You don't know where it's going. So it is with everyone who is born by the spirit. What do you think Jesus is getting at there?
Yes. Not something you see happen. Right. Have you ever seen to be born again?
Not in a Presbyterian church, surely. Of course. Maybe some other church. Well, the answer is no. In other words, you don't see the birth. You see the effects of it. Right. You see the wind blowing. You see the effects of the wind all the time, but you can't tell where it's coming from, where it's going. So it is with the one born of the spirit. You think you see Nicodemus get it out of your head. I'm not talking about earthly things. If you don't understand, you know, when I talk about earthly things, how you understand when I talk about heavenly things, you don't understand. I'm not really talking about an earthly kind of birth. It's not something you can't see. The wind blows where it wills. This gets us to another point. It's a bit sticky among believers. The question of the new birth. Is it something that we do or is it something that God does? Yes.
Something that you call it. I would say that that's pretty plain from this text, especially from that analogy, isn't it? Part of that analogy, it seems to me, is to emphasize that neither do you control it. Neither do you control it. It's not something, you know, Nicodemus says, how can a man be, you know, enter back into his mother's womb? Well, Jesus says the wind blows where it will, where it wills. The sovereignty of the spirit in this matter seems to be emphasized. So the birth from God, from above, the birth is from God. Now, this is important, I think. A very famous evangelist has written a book called How to Be Born Again, which by itself implies that there's something we do or can do to effect the new birth. And that's a very popular notion. Later in the text, of course, it's going to be said that we must believe and we do exercise our faith. But it doesn't answer the question who will believe. The spirit blows where he wills. And you see the effects of it, but you don't know where it comes from or where it's going. Bob, you had a comment back then.
It's just very confusing. There's something happening here that they're very well expressed not the same way. That's an interesting question. Bob is asking for those of you listening by tape whether something really new is happening here because Bob's observing that usually before this exhortation is given in terms of obedience, obey, something that is already revealed. And here, emphasis seems to be a shift. It's not on what Nicodemus might be able to do himself, but on the emphasis of on divine intervention, divine grace. I think Bob, you're probably right on that. Not that there never was an indication like this before, but that what Jesus is bringing is that long awaited refreshing of his people by God. And you have certain indications and the old covenant profits like Ezekiel 35. I didn't put him up to this. I had this written down before. Ezekiel 35, 25 and 26, which says, God is speaking and he says, I will sprinkle. I will sprinkle clean water upon you. And you shall be clean from all your uncleanesses. And from all your idols, I will cleanse you. A new heart, I will give you and a new spirit. I will put within you. A new spirit. I will put within you. And I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. You have the new covenant passage in Jeremiah 31 and 31. You know, I will make a new covenant. The time is coming when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not like the old covenant written on stone, but I will put my law within their hearts. You have, in other words, quite a number of old Testament promises of this coming time. And here, what's new, Bob, I think, is Jesus is here saying, this is it. You know, this is the time. The new birth has come. The new opportunity. The spirit is moving in ways you won't understand it. So I think it's not that it's unanticipated, but it was, it's a new work of God, obviously, in a sense that's never been known before. Does that help or you still, I can see those wheels still turning.
In charge here for a new birth for Christ. And, well, you know, there is a part of your church you must relate. Starting to interact with a lot of different than just obedience in the view of the Nicodemus. Otherwise, it's going to be part of something. Yes, I think he, Bob is elaborating on the point, seems to be a requirement here given in some sense that goes beyond mere obedience to something deeper, something spiritual, something in sense prior. I don't think you use that word a bit, but yes, Jesus is, I think giving the, you might say, the groundwork, the precondition for obedience in this sense. Then, in other words, Nicodemus needed more than obedience. Now, in a sense, those things are intertwined, aren't they? Because you can say it's God's, it's obeying God to love God, let's say, commandment to love, but which might be a parallel. But there's something deeper here, certainly. And by saying you must be born again, I'm not sure that that's in the same category as saying something like you must believe. Given the nature of what being born again is, and I think that's simply the key, it's a different thing. Yeah, it's something in which we're passive. It's true, it's true, we must be born again. There's no question about it, we must be born again. But to say it that way is a bit different, I think, still been saying you must believe it's the precondition for belief. Hands are starting to come up now. These eco passage was chapter 36, excuse me, 35, 25 and 26, 36, I'm sorry, I was right, 36, sorry about that, 25 and 26. Yes, Fred.
That certainly has been an objection that's been lodged down through the ages against Christianity, particularly the forms of Christianity that emphasize God's sovereign work of grace. That certainly has been the criticism that, well, if that's the case while we just have to wait or let round, and there's nothing we can do. But you do have, even in this passage, again, you have a call to faith. You have the exhortation to believe. And it might be, in a sense, fitting for somebody like Nicodemus to be the recipient of this, Nicodemus who was a Pharisee who was known among the council of the Sanhedrin who certainly would have known all the commandments and may have been someone like the rich young ruler who has kept the commandments from his youth and so forth. And what Jesus says to him then is you need to undergo a transformation. What is needed is more than just another commandment you need to keep or correction in your theological understanding or something, but it is something more radical, it's something the spirit affects. And again, in scripture, the command is always to exercise faith and to obey, to exercise faith and to obey. It's like the fact that we are not told to be elect. We're taught that only the elect are saved, only the elect will believe. We're not told to go and be elect. So it is that paradox if you want to look at it that way, that belief comes only from those who have a prior work of grace. We know that to be true so that we know that our faith even is not of our own doing. But that's right to keep the emphasis on both. There is the result of the work of faith in us, the work of grace, that we exercise faith and obedience. Yeah, I think maybe Andy. You know, these things already, if I'm writing them because what he's thinking of has, unless he
is. Andy's question has, he says the age-old question, what difference might there be? Is there a difference in in salvation between the old testament believers and the new testament believers? If I can give kind of a brief answer and then try to run away, I would say that salvation itself, there is no difference in the quality of salvation. Each believer is qualitatively saved in the same sense and Old Testament believers certainly enjoyed the fullness of salvation and will enjoy that with us. But there is a greater fullness in revelation in the new testament of course because Jesus is revealed and we know more about our Savior, we know who he is, we know we know in a more intimate way than ever was possible before. Who the Messiah is and what he's like, what he's done for us. There are many aspects to the question. The other main one I think is the work of the Spirit, that people often talk about the difference in the work of the Spirit and the old covenant and in the new covenant. And briefly again I would say in the old covenant the Spirit definitely worked in the lives of believers. We see that in David's life, David and the Psalms speaking about God working in him, take not thy Holy Spirit from me, Psalm 51 and many other passages, but that there is a both a fullness and a permanency in the new covenant gift of the Spirit that was never known before. A fullness and a permanency, we find that the Spirit at working believers, but not the same promise that he will abide in us, that we find in the new testament. Jesus said to his disciples before he left them, the Holy Spirit is the world cannot receive the Spirit, but you knowing for he is with you and he will be in you. And maybe by that small shift in pronouns, there's something quite profound with you, but he will be in you as an abiding possession, working our lives. I'm going to run now at that point and Zato, is that getting at what you were asking? Yes, I think they must have. Yes, I think they did.
God gave them faith and it requires a change of heart, a change of heart for them, but the Spirit is given in a new way, in the new testament, because Christ has won through his obedience, that permanent possession of the Spirit in both a more full and a more permanent way. Well, that's good food for thought. We may have time, you know, opportunity to come back to something like this as we go as well. Jesus points here in verses 14 and 15 to another old testament passage that should inform us about him. What is that episode? Remember, he says, just as Moses
raised the servant, lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up. You're called that episode the way the Israelites, after disobedience, God sent serpents that bit them, and the only way they could be healed from that was to look up, to gaze upon this brazen serpent that Moses had fashioned and put upon a rod of stick and it held up. Okay, and Jesus then is comparing himself and saying that he is like that brazen serpent held up in the wilderness. We see this same terminology about Jesus being lifted up later on in the gospel. Of course, you can probably, you know, you can guess what he means by that. What do you think he means by being lifted up? On the cross, of course, he's there to be on the cross, lifted up for us to gaze at, lifted up on the cross. That's mentioned a couple of times. John 8, 28, and John 12, 33, 34,
John 8, 21, 28. Jesus said, when you have lifted up the son of man, then you will know that I am he, when you have lifted up the son of man. And in chapter 12, really well-known, one, he said, this, oh, he says, verse 32, and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. He said this to show by what death he was to die. So it has to do with his crucifixion. Many commentators say it also is a sort of enigmatic way of referring to his resurrection as well. That he's lifting up, you think of lifting up as a positive thing. And it is going to be his positive lifting up. It's almost as if the cross, with all its cruelty and all its shame, is the first step in that exaltation of Jesus, that he will complete when he rises to the father's right hand, when I am lifted up. Another interesting thing that shows us is that he's talking about a spiritual seeing here, isn't he? Just as those who looked at Moses' serpent were healed, and that was actual physical sight. Those who look upon the son of man lifted up will be saved, but you and I don't have that opportunity to see him physically on the cross, do we? But there is a spiritual seeing in John, in John's gospel, in Jesus' words, that is just as real. And so we need to see him, we need to gaze upon him on the cross, high and lift it up. We come then to what is certainly, I would have to say, the best known Bible verse in the world right now. If you didn't know the Bible, but you watched NFL football on Sunday, you could be well aware of this verse. John 316, there is a little bit of a question as to who is speaking at this point. If you have the New King James and a red letter edition, it's still in red. Other translations cut off the quotation marks before this. And so these would be the words of John, for God so loved the world that he gave his only son. I don't think it's a great controversy, it doesn't matter that much, but I'm accepting it as John's editorial comment on what, on the significance of Jesus' appearance. Somebody wants to make a case for the other view. I'm happy to listen. But I think this is John's reflection on the purpose. Well, you tell me, what is the motivation and what is the purpose of God sending himself to things? What is the motivation and what's the purpose?
His motivation is love, right? For God so loved the world that he did such and such. The motivation is his love and what's the purpose? A rescue, right? That who so ever believe it on him might not perish but have everlasting life. It's an amazing thing. It's an amazing thing to say that God loved the world. Period. The God still loved the world. But it's an even more amazing thing. This little word thus or so. It's amazing God loved the world but it's unbelievable that he so loved the world. He so, he this much loved the world. He loved the world this much that he gave his only son. So it really is a profound verse and rightly, it has been broadcast throughout the world. Yes. I think that's what makes it, excuse me, and then he comes talk about the, he didn't send his son to condemn the whole world and he's been saying the same thing.
That's right. That's right. The point is being made that this verse sounds very much the note of an expectance of an response on our part. Who so ever believes? And there are many scriptures that echo that same sound. And yet the point is made that there is as we've just been talking about the spirit's work which is to say discriminatory. So that's not everyone actually does and will believe. And that's right. That is, I don't believe it is something that we can fully comprehend. And so theologians talk about as a paradox. In terms of this verse itself and I would say with with most every other call to faith we have in scripture it's like this as well. The call is simply made. It's simply presented. And it's not said who, excuse me, who will or how they might be able to exercise belief. It's just as as many as believe, whoever, whoever will, whoever will. But it doesn't say who will. Now there was it doesn't answer that question. It's it's not getting at that question. It's the sort of, it's the call to faith. It's the exhortations, the voice of God that meets us and that incites in us the ability to respond given that the spirit is at work in us. All right. So that I think that's the significance of it as a call to faith. As we know there may be many people sitting in the same room who sit who hear the same call and only some will respond. So that in that sense the call is open but it will only be effective in those that the spirit is at work in. Yes. God loved the world and saved. Well I think there is, you can speak of a universal call and I think you can even speak of a, in a sense a universal love of God for the world, for the world his creation. Keep in mind that if this, when just in terms of this verse saying God so loved the world that does not discriminate in itself among the elect and the non-elect. So the elect and the non-elect are both wicked and perverse. Right. So it is the elect, let's say in their unsaved condition you might say that's contemplated that is God loved the world, even the sinful world that had rebelled against him, that he sent his son so that whoever might believe, and there is the sort of selectivity starting to come out, whoever might believe will be saved. So that's right. You get a sense of a universal concern of God for his creation and even his people are perceived at that point you might say as among the corrupt of humanity but this is the primary process of the weeding out, of the selecting out. I think that's going on here. But you're right. Curtis. It seems like it's needed because of God's desire to scatter seed all through affirmation and then have his word of God for the nation. That's sort of the language of the necessary, whoever believes in the world as opposed to us who are saved going out in evangelism and saying okay all those who are elect please raise your hand or those predestined come to the front and give you know that sort of thing. I think you've tried that. It sounds like it doesn't it doesn't work too much. What they know to speak in language of the terms of the person's response all they know is that yeah I think you know. Exactly. That's right and that's the way scripture generally does it of course. It's not to say only those who are elect now believe but but that's something we're not privileged to know beforehand right. The call is simply given to us in our state of worldliness. Take one more question and we better we better quit. Yes.
How one is born. It's a passive thing. It's not a matter of their will. That's what Jesus is telling the Redeem that there's no things in the law and an act of the will in terms of how one finds things. And Jesus is talking about in terms of birth. You know somewhere the spirit is coming from which way. So you only see the result and that's when the accountability comes into place. After the birth takes place but in terms of the birth. You don't know. That's God's act. Right. Yes. What's the clarification you're wanting? Well, clarification is for instance the idea of the world in that birth. Yeah. Does it happen to be that Jesus is talking about the whole world? I'm just thinking about it. The question has to do with the and if anybody anyone who needs to go please do so.
The question is about the word world and in other places of scripture it does not mean absolutely every person and that's that's absolutely valid. Yes. The whole world will be destroyed in the flood. There are many other such statements. So it doesn't necessarily mean distributively every every person. So that could be going on here. I simply think that because if you look at how John uses the word world it's almost always the world as a disobedient world. So I don't think it specifies for us how many people in the world he even had in mind but I think another thing to keep in mind is how many people does God have to save the world? If God saves one person out of humanity has God saved the world? I think he has. Yes. He saved the world. The world did not perish then did it. He saved the world. So the world does not necessarily have to mean ever every person absolutely every person. So okay for that's all we have time for. Thanks for your attention. See you next week. But it would imply that you're saying he loved the whole world which I have trouble with.