The Gospel of John 8:1-30
John 8:1-30 · Vern Peterman · May 12, 2013
Gospel of John (2013), No. 18
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926351435519

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Let's take a step through the slides here. I think that will kind of give us a perspective. Jesus in this passage, which is the last half of chapter 8, is still in Jerusalem. The scene is in the temple area, which you see is the east central part of what was then Jerusalem. And so he has actually for some weeks, as we've been studying, been spending time there in the temple area. This is a model of the temple.

And so what you find is there is a courtyard here that's about the size of six football or soccer fields, if you relate more easily to that. Jesus initially had been talking in what was the courtyard. What we're going to see is the end of John chapter 8 takes place in what's called the treasury. And we'll take a look at there.

On page 5 of your handout you have a diagram of the inner part of the temple. and that'll be helpful because that'll give a detail on the treasury. One other thing to note, and that is that just this last week, archaeologists announced that they had discovered one of several areas where the quarry stones were taken from, used in the second temple. That is, the second temple and the rebuilding of the temple, just excavated freshly. And what's interesting is some of the quarry stone cuttings were partly done and left in place, so something interrupted the quarrying process here.

Here's a dramatic depiction of the Jesus in the Temple Courtyard. We've shown this in weeks before. I think it's somewhat helpful just to remember that this is a real busy place. It's not like you've got this... What we show in the model is this open, empty courtyard. That almost never happened.

Even at night time, they would light up the large menorahs and so you would have lighted things going on and even singing and harp playing going on during the night time. Yes. I always tend to think of menorahs as something they do only at, not Passover, Hanukkah. Yes, yes. But they use them just regularly?

They had very large ones, I mean very large ones. Like streetlights? They had very large ones which they used like streetlights that were in this middle open court area. And those were lit up at night time so that during the feasts that people could gather even at night time and they even had things going on through the night. So we tend to think of everything shuts down at night, not so.

The feasts and festivals with the large menorahs and those were large and they were up high so there was plenty of light broadcast. Those menorahs, when the Romans came and tore down the temple, those menorahs are shown in the Arch of Titus in Rome. So they were notable, they were gold, they were a grand prize for the Romans when they went and tore down the temple. But those menorahs, and they had more than one of them, those menorahs were lit up at night, such as to make the whole area lit up and visible and you could still talk and walk and go about in them. So anyway, Jesus is in the courtyards. These are the same courtyards where they had the animals and the money changers, and it was a busy place, not the open, empty courtyard that I show you there in the model.

Another dramatic depiction. Now, this is the passage that has the woman caught in adultery. And so there are a number of dramatic and artistic depictions of that. They show her somewhat ragged, as would have been the case as the people dragged her there in front of Jesus. Once a person was caught in such a state, they could easily be abused. So anyway, that's the way the depiction is shown. She's ragged of cloth and injured her face here and hands. So that's the dramatic depiction.

It shows Jesus writing on the ground, which as we'll see in the passage, actually happens twice. He first writes on the ground, doesn't respond to them verbally, and then he gets up and makes a brief statement, and then writes on the ground again. And we'll see there's a reason why he does that. It's not just, hey, I'm going to do this. There's a reason why he does that, and we're going to see that in a minute.

Here is, again, a dramatic depiction of Jesus riding on the ground. And by the way, let's ask a question. There is here something to ride on, as if there were sand or something of that sort. We're going to see in the passage next week that they start to pick up stones. Why, in a courtyard like this, why would there be stones and something to ride in? Yeah? Certainly the stones to throw at people, right? Is that all? You're correct, but is there another reason? Pardon? Yes, they would at times. In this case, however, there's another reason. I'll go ahead and fill you in.

The temple was being reconstructed under Herod, the second temple was reconstructed under Herod from 20 BC to 63 AD. As a matter of fact, in this inner temple area that you have in the diagram on page 5, that inner temple was only reconstructed by Levites who were trained specifically in the crafts that they were to carry out. Up to about 10,000 Levites were trained in construction. And the reason is because you couldn't just have anybody with an operating temple, you couldn't just have anybody come in and start working on the temple, right? So only the Levites were allowed to work in this inner part of the courtyard and up to about 10,000 of them were trained in one craft or another. including stone work.

So this is an operating temple and the reason that there would be something to write in, in stones, was because the temple was still under reconstruction. Even then, all during the time of Christ, his lifetime and his ministry, the temple was still being reconstructed. So it would provide enough stones and dirt, dust, whatever, for Jesus to ride in. All those things would have been provided right there because of the temple reconstruction. So if somebody ever says, oh wait a minute, where did that come from? That's why. That's why it was reconstructed, finished about 63 AD, only to be destroyed by 70 AD. Only to be destroyed by 70 AD.

And then, so we see these dramatic depictions of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, and Jesus riding on the ground. Here is another one showing Jesus riding on the ground and the woman caught in adultery. Here's one that just shows the woman caught in adultery and the stones waiting about. The stones were actually probably more likely very rough, as they would have been leftovers from some masonry work, stone masonry work. And so here's the final one, this one.

And one more thing, the Jews would have considered bare arms as constructive adultery. That is a woman, and boy this tended to be biased against the woman, a woman with bare arms, a short sleeve of any kind would have been considered as committing constructive adultery. They defined that as adultery, for her to have bare arms. So several of the ladies sitting in this room would be in trouble, right? including my wife.

So here's Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. You notice this one shows her with a bare shoulder, but the arms are covered. This one here shows her again with a bare shoulder, the arms covered. This one, however, shows her with what would have been constructive adultery because the arms are bare. And by the way, that was a biased judgment on their part, because the Law of Moses didn't say that, and didn't particularly say the woman was guilty of it and the man not.

We'll talk about that in a minute. Okay, so let's grab the handout. Let's look at John 8, 1-30 here. Now, in John 7.53, that's the last verse that we saw last Sunday, to 8.11, many of our modern translations have some notation saying it's not part of the most reliable ancient texts and language to that effect. While we have a brief presentation on it, after page 5, of your handout, is a supplement textual and historical evidence regarding John 753 and 811. We won't take the time to go over it, but I present briefly this case, that those notations are biased and out of balance.

I believe that the two sections of the New Testament that are largest and most frequently called into question, and that's Mark chapter 16, verses 9 through 20, and this one here, John 7.53 through 8.11, that those ought to be included in the New Testament as unquestioned parts of the New Testament.

And in great part, and I'll summarize it, not giving you the detail because we don't have time for it. In great part, the problem is that they're looking at textual evidence without looking at historical evidence. That is, here's copies of the text. And some certain copies are missing this account. But two pieces of historical evidence.

One of the disciples, Papias, One of the direct disciples of the Apostle John makes mention of this passage. So here's a guy that, if this were something false, he would not include it. He was a direct disciple of the Apostle John. He makes mention of it.

That's part one. Part two is later on there is mention that this passage is often excluded from copying and from reading in public because it appears to give permission for adultery or light treatment for adultery. And so what would happen is in church readings, they would be inclined not to read it so that the copies that they would make for public reading would exclude it. So I think there's good reason to include it. The direct disciple Papias of John the Apostle makes mention of this passage.

And additionally, we have explanation for why it's sometimes excluded. And we'll go into that, assuming we have time here. Let's take a look. Here, Jesus is still and continuing to be in Jerusalem at the time of the last Mosaic feast of the year. It is about six months before Christ will be crucified, which will be the Passover time of the next year in the Mosaic calendar.

So John 8, 1-5 reads like this, But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives early in the morning, and He came again into the temple. And all the people were coming to Him, and He sat down and began to teach them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to him, Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery in the very act. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. What then do you say? Well, the scribes and Pharisees, mentioned only here in the Gospel of John, are not interested, actually, in dealing out justice. As a matter of fact, we have a later notation for that effect.

What are they interested in doing? They're interested in catching Jesus on something and think about it. What are they wanting to do? Why are they presenting this particular case to him at that time? What happens if he says, oh, of course you must stone her? Yes. Yes, the Romans get involved. And by the way, where is this taking place?

In the temple courtyard. And one of the things that we pointed out, let me back up to the model. See right, here's the temple courtyard, and here is the Roman Fortress Antonia, where they have Roman guards overlooking this whole activity, and the Romans said, only we have the right of capital punishment.

So if Jesus were the one to pronounce a capital punishment there in the courtyard, it would be evident to the Romans, and this would cause great trouble. And they could say, Jesus caused it. And that would snag Jesus in this mess. So that's what they're trying to do. Now, let's take the other situation. Catch him in trouble with the Romans. Suppose Jesus said, oh, you mustn't stone her. What would happen then? Yeah? Okay, he would be one who would be violating the Law of Moses, since the Law of Moses, as they thought, would have her be stoned to death.

So either way, they thought, we've got him. This is for us a win-win. No matter what he decides, we've got him. And as a matter of fact, we've got him either way, and if he gets in trouble with the Romans, that's even better, because then we don't have to kill him, the Romans will do it for us. So either way, this thing is going to work out well for them, they think.

Additionally, if Jesus said to execute her, he would be contradicting his own reputation for being gracious and forgiving. So that's one more. The Law of Moses actually says about the adultery, that there is a punishment that differs from what the scribes and Pharisees were doing and how they were handling this in other cases. This is what the Law of Moses, emphasis added here, actually says.

Leviticus 20.10-12 and Deuteronomy 22.22 says something similar. If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. So what does it say? Both. And that's what we see in the next verses. Verse 11.

If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness, both of them shall surely be put to death, and their blood guiltiness is upon them. Both of them. If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed incest, their blood guiltiness is upon them." Okay? Both, both, both, them, them, them. See that? Very consistent. In Deuteronomy 22, 22, same message. Okay? Same message. But by Newt, yes. What does the term Newt mean? You use constructive adultery. Yes.

With the scribes and Pharisees, what happened is rather than simply take the law of Moses at face value and for what it says, what they did is they developed an entire system. See, 613 laws wasn't enough, right? They took the entire system and made an additional system of definitions for all of those laws such that you had additions or subtractions from the Law of Moses. You could swear and say something was the truth as long as you swore by certain things you were excluded from being held responsible for whatever you swore by, if you swore by the right list. You could, in fact, go longer than a Sabbath day's journey as long as you took an allowable part of your house with you to leave along the way to extend the allowable distance of your Sabbath day's journey.

Even today, you cannot tear off a square of toilet paper from the roll. That's work. You must have had the squares torn off ahead of time before the Sabbath, before the sun went down. You cannot press the buttons on an elevator on the Sabbath. That's why in a Jewish building the elevator will stop at every floor so that you do not press the buttons. It was not allowed for a Jewish woman to look at a mirror on the Sabbath day.

She might see a gray hair and pluck it. That's work. Yes. Would you say that constructive adultery means the same as if you had? Yes, but my reason for giving those examples is what they said was, well, she didn't commit adultery, but it's the same as if you had because you have exposed your arms and that might attract a man, seeing your arms and seeing that much skin. that it is the same as if you had committed adultery because you have prefaced anything with this act of having bare arms.

Just like the woman who might pluck her gray hairs if she looks in the mirror is prohibited from looking at a mirror on the Sabbath. You see that? So the woman who looks at a mirror on the Sabbath is practicing constructive Sabbath breaking. Do you see that? So that's where this constructive adultery, you by their definition, you by having bare arms have practiced constructive adultery, in their definition. And that's what Jesus spoke against most of Matthew chapter 5, as you've heard that it was said, but I tell you. You've heard that it was said, but I tell you, what is he doing? He's correcting all of these long lists. There were almost 40 different definitions of well-discussed items that qualified or disqualified something as being work. Apparently there was not a similar kind of definition.

So that's bias, isn't it? So it's not only an invented law-breaking, but it's bias. And there were a number of ways in which they defined things biased for the man and against the woman. There was even a daily prayer for Jewish men to thank God that they were created a man because there were more laws to follow. If you were a man. At least, that's the way they defined it. Okay, so, here, by New Testament times, the Law of Moses had been interpreted in a number of ways that were male-biased, but did not reflect the original words or intent of the Law of Moses. Top of page 2 here. So this is John 8, 6-9. They were saying this, testing him so that they might have grounds for accusing him. So, anyway, this reveals their intent and purpose.

But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. And when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let Him be the first to throw a stone at her. Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground." So He wrote on the ground twice.

When they heard it, not whatever He was writing on the ground, when they heard it, they began to go out one by one beginning with the older ones and he was left alone and the woman where she was in the center and again of the court is inserted there. So the first part of verse 6 reveals the motive for bringing the woman to Jesus for a judgment.

They really didn't care one way or the other about this. As a matter of fact it is highly likely that this whole situation with the woman caught in adultery was concocted. prearranged. How convenient to have a woman at this time when Jesus is there at the last part, have a woman caught in adultery, right time, right place, or wrong time, wrong place, depending on how you view it. Right time, right place for her to be brought before them. And specifically brought before Jesus. It is quite likely concocted, possibly even one of them had played the part of the adulterer in order to bring this about. And all they needed to do, they didn't need to follow through with it, all they needed to do was have her staged for this and start taking off some clothing or something of that sort. That's it. They've got her. So that's the very act.

We don't know what Jesus wrote, do we? It doesn't say what Jesus wrote. People have guessed. I won't, because it just doesn't say. And he wrote twice. It may be that what he wrote was particularly relevant, but whatever it is, it's not recorded. And one more thing, this is the only instance we have recorded of Jesus writing anything.

Very interesting. Yes. Yeah, Stan? Whatever he wrote must have been short. Yes. Because if you're writing in the dust, I would imagine it's very difficult to read. Yeah. It could have only been a couple of letters. Yeah. It might have been very brief. And notice what they responded to, according to the account, is mostly what they heard. So what he wrote may have been very brief, but there's a reason for it. Let's take a look here. We've got some bullets at the bottom half of page two.

The leaders, apparently responding to what Jesus said more than what he wrote on the ground, left the woman and Jesus one at a time from the oldest to the youngest, such that ultimately Jesus and the woman were left alone. Several areas where the scribes and Pharisees could have been judged could have judged themselves as being guilty. Let's look through them. First one, these men did not bring both the man and the woman to Jesus for judgment, and in that they had violated the law of Moses in accusing and bringing only her. The law of Moses clearly says both. Possible, a speculation, that Jesus wrote down both. The man and the woman would have been all it would have taken to underscore the point. Where's the guy? As a matter of fact, the guy may have been one of them right there. May have been one of them right there.

Any judgment would be carried out in violation of the explicit terms of the Law of Moses that both the man and the woman were to be punished. That's enough right there to snag them. It is possible that Jesus wrote something from Leviticus and Deuteronomy enough to get the idea across. We don't know for certain, but that certainly would have been enough.

Next, they may at least have had thoughts of adultery. Jesus addressed this in Matthew chapter 5, including they may have arranged for this adultery to take place, we don't know, but it seems probable at least, in order to catch her in the act at this specific place and at this specific time. This would mean that these men had been involved in pondering, strategizing, and arranging for an adultery to take place and to be present at least in the initial stages of the act.

Let's get a woman that we know is a prostitute. By the way, how do you know she is? Let's get a woman that we know is a prostitute to cooperate with this thing because this is our last shot. The feast is soon going to be over and we've got to get this arranged and it's got to be, you know, for sure we can't be wasting our time.

So, this would contaminate their testimony, leading to they may not have had two or more qualified witnesses who had not been involved in some way. contaminating their testimony. In fact, they may not have had two actual qualified witnesses at all, even if the woman was guilty.

And lastly, Jesus did not say the word sin with a definite article equivalent to the sin, but without the definite article, so being guilty of sin in general was conveyed. He didn't say He was not guilty of THE sin, cast the first stone, but rather he who was not guilty of sin in general. These men would be hard pressed to say that each of them was totally guiltless and the older the man, the more difficult his words would be. A longer list of sins. But the one who is guiltless In this and everything else, let the one who's guiltless pick up the rocks. They're right here, guys. You can cast the first stone. You who can claim to be guiltless.

Top of page three. By stooping to ride on the ground again, Jesus did not make this a matter of losing in the confrontation with him, but of considering the matter in their own hearts, in their own minds, in memories, whether recent or long-term memories. You see, it wasn't a matter of, OK, here we've got a stare down, OK, and are you going to, you know, lose this stare down with me? No, he's instead going to write on the ground.

And then you guys judge yourselves. You see that? By writing on the ground, after having presented this, he says, you guys make your own judgment and decide for yourselves, it won't be mine. You guys decide for yourselves and as you're deciding, let the one of you that is without sin be the first one to cast the stone. And instead of having this a stare down and having it me versus you, he writes on the ground and lets them decide for themselves. Am I without sin?

Uh-oh. And so what do they do? One at a time, oldest to the youngest, they walk away. No stare down, no big confrontation. This whole confrontation that was strategized and schemed peters out. It dwindles away. Yes, it's very interesting the way Jesus, I mean here are these people that are fundamentally dishonest. What they just carried out was very likely dishonest.

But the way he carried it out, instead of having a confrontation between himself and them, instead of him making the judgment, he takes it to them to make a judgment. During the week before his crucifixion, he gets presented, do we pay taxes to Caesar or not? So what does he do? He makes them make the judgment. Same thing here. Same thing here.

So John 8, 10-11, straightening up, standing up, Jesus said to her, Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you? After the confrontation, but he was without sin, cast the first stone. Did that automatically guarantee that no one would cast the stone? No, it didn't guarantee anything, but it ended up effectively doing the same thing. Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you? She said, no one, Lord. Now, let's ask this question. Was the woman in some way guilty?

Very likely so, but the way in which these men conducted themselves brought them in some degree of guilt as well. What, you didn't bring the man who was involved? As a matter of fact, the man may have been one of them. You didn't bring the man that was involved? What's the matter with you? What, you don't have testimony here? Two or three uninvolved witnesses? People who had no prior knowledge that this was going to take place, able to testify. And by the way, the woman couldn't testify for herself, because they had already judged that a woman's word was not reliable.

Which is also added on in bogus. And Jesus said, I do not condemn you either. Does that mean that he said, go ahead and commit adultery? No. His response, from now on sin no more. He didn't say that she had not sinned. In fact, he didn't say that the men had not sinned either, right? In fact, it was their guilt that made them leave one at a time, oldest to the youngest. The reality is everyone gathered there was guilty of sin. But they didn't have a circumstance that would hold up to scrutiny about accusing her.

On multiple counts, as we saw in the bullets in the prior page. Yes? So isn't this an illustration of grace and not law? Yes, exactly. And Jesus had a reputation of being gracious. And one of the things that Jesus did, starting with the Sermon on the Mount, is to bring people back to, look, all these bogus additions and subtractions from the law, those are nonsense. Those amount to nothing. Stick to what was written. Stick to what was written. It's not your job to go add on to the Law of Moses, and it's not your job to make some special exceptions that are completely concocted, just like this adultery charge. Yes?

But, it's so ridiculous to add on to it, because the Law is supposed to be a picture of God's righteousness, right? That's right. So when you add on to the Law, in essence, you're adding on to God's righteousness. Yeah, you are judging God Imagine a circumstance where you could actually make a statement and swear by several different things, all of which are on some list that made your ability to lie completely without consequence.

I mean, that's crazy. Here is a lie being a capital punishment offense according to the Law of Moses, and I just invented several different ways to get around it so I can lie, bold-faced, lying through my teeth, and that's okay. Sort of. This is rubbish. This is nonsense.

These words here, where Jesus did not condemn her, are what, according to one ancient author, Augustine or Augustine, depending on how you wish to pronounce it, actually was the one that wrote, that it's because of those words that appear to allow adultery that a number of people pulled this passage out of the copies that they have.

It does not excuse or allow adultery. He said, go and sin no more. In fact, the woman and all the men that brought her were all sinning. All of them sinned, and he didn't excuse that. But that's one of the reasons, written by one of the ancient authors, why this passage was stricken from certain copies. So, even if she had been set up and not charged according to the laws of Moses, she still cooperated with the adultery set up at some point, and Christ told her not to continue in that or other sins. Notice, He didn't say, don't do this sin anymore, don't do this and all the others, right? Now, John 8, 12-13, and Jesus spoke to them, again spoke to them, I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. So the Pharisees said to him, you are testifying about yourself, your testimony is not true. We have here again the insert where we list the seven things in which Jesus said, I am, And we use capital letters there because it's actually, in the Greek, I-I-am. It's a redundancy. I-I-am. Along with a metaphor. This is the second of those. I am the light of the world. By the way, a little bit of cultural background.

The Jews use this term, light of the world, regularly. There were at least a couple of things that they regularly said were the light of the world. And one was the Torah. The first five books of the Bible, the books of Moses, sometimes called the Pentateuch, they said that was the light of the world. They said that the temple that they were in was also the light of the world. So when Jesus said, I am, and he said it in such a way, I, being in fact God, am the light of the world, then that was, oh, well that's different. So here Jesus claimed the term light of the world, a term that had been used, you know, commonly for the first five books of Moses, the temple itself. Now he uses it for himself. I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Is this the first time that Jesus has brought up light and darkness? Is it the first time we've seen this in the Gospel of John? Any recollections on that?

How about John chapter 1? John chapter 1. The first 18 verses we looked at, remember there was sort of a hand-off from one term to another. You know, in the beginning was the Word and it got passed off to different ones in life and different terminology. One of those was the light and darkness theme that we see here. So one of the things that we can say is that that introductory set of verses, John 1, 1-18, introduces themes that are carried on throughout the rest of the Gospel of John, this being case in point.

Jesus made one of his I Am statements there, connected with the metaphor, I Am, I, I Am, would be a literal translation, but it's the same I Am, that double I Am, that is used in the Greek Old Testament where Moses is speaking to God out of the burning bush and Moses says, who should I say has sent me? And God responds with these same words, I am. I am.

So, what do you think of, you are testifying about yourself, your testimony is not true. What does that mean? Does that mean they're just outright calling him a liar, or what is that talking about? Testifying about yourself. What would you think about somebody who testified about themselves? Pardon? Boaster and Braggart. Boaster and Braggart, somebody who might be biased in their testimony? You of all people would be most inclined, you might think.

Why would that claim, why would that claim not be valid about Jesus? Why would that be an invalid claim with regards to Jesus? Yeah? Well he's saying that God is his witness. God is his witness, okay. And God does not lie. Right. So he doesn't mean anything more than that. Okay, alright. So God's his witness. You're right. Is there another reason? Is there another reason why the pointing to Jesus' testimony about himself would not be a valid reason for discounting what he says? Where is he from? Where did he come from in order to be here as a man? He came from the Father, right? Is that a place where you can get away with lying?

Not so much. But they didn't recognize it. And so then all this back and forth that we're going to see from here on out is tainted by their lack of recognition. This is the Son of God. He came from the Father. Here's the Son of God, fully God and fully man standing in front of us right now. And whatever he says is absolutely true. They don't get it. They don't believe that. They don't understand it. They don't get it. So they challenge him as if he were any other man. They don't understand. Let's take a look at the top of page 4.

So John 8, 14-20, Jesus answered and said to them, even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I come from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. Where is He coming from? He is coming from the Father in Heaven. Where is He going? Back to the Father in Heaven.

Six months later. Yes. I think that word, no, right there is loita, isn't it? So in other words, it's not something that they would have seen or actually perceived. That's right. But it would have been revealed to them if they were of the Father. Yep. If they were of the Father, they would have known it, but they don't.

One more thing. You notice that there is a number there for a footnote on that item. So, we'll take a look at that. There's a supplement here, what it means to die in your sins, and also about if, and we're going to talk about that in a bit here. The if, even if I testify, is of four different kinds of if in the Greek. The even if I testify is a possibility, not a certainty. Possibility. So even if I possibly testify about myself, my testimony is true.

Verse 15, you judge according to the flesh, I am not judging anyone. How can Jesus say I'm not judging anyone? Is that always true? On his first coming, he wasn't there to judge. He was in fact born to be judged. Born to be judged and not to judge. On his second coming, he will most certainly judge. So, as he is here in his first coming, he's not judging. When he comes again, he most certainly will judge.

But if I do judge, my judgment is true, for I am not alone in it, but I am the Father who sent me. If and when I do judge, I don't judge independently. The Father and I will judge the same. The Father and I will judge the same. Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I am, here's the same I am as before, I being in fact God. He who testifies about myself and the Father who sent me testifies about me.

Why would he say I being in fact God here? Is the Father God? Is he making a claim here to be God? Yep. He's making a claim to deity. The Father is certainly deity. They would have recognized it. He's claiming a relationship with the Father. Right here.

So they were saying to him, verse 19, where is your father? And Jesus answered, you know neither me nor my father. If you knew me, you would know my father also. How can you make a statement like that? Is it possible somebody knows Christ and doesn't know the Father? No. What Jesus is saying here is, you know Christ, then you know the Father too. You either know both or neither one. Both or neither one. So they were saying to him, Where is your father? Jesus answered, You know neither me nor my father. If you knew me, you would know my father also. Verse 20, These words he spoke in the treasuries he taught in the temple, and no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come. Turn to page 5 and you'll see kind of a map there, the inner temple area. And there's the taller building, the Holy of Holies, the veil on the holy place. That's the taller building that you see.

The Court of Women, that is the court in which all Jews who are qualified were allowed and the Jewish women were allowed, that is the area where they had the treasury. We could give more detail to it. They had different containers for different things. Some of them were required things that you had to pay in for, and some of them were voluntary. This is the same treasury where, remember, the woman who goes in and gives the widow's mite, that account, that's where she gives it, here in this treasury. So, that part's revealed here. All right. Back on to page four. And I'm going to move on here to 821-27.

Then he said again to them, I go away and you will seek me and you will die in your sin, where I am going you cannot come. Has he told them this before, where I am going you cannot come? He said this before, right? But the die in your sin part is new. So the Jews were saying, surely he will not kill himself, will he, since he says, where I am going, you cannot come? Previously, he said that, where I'm going, you cannot come.

And the Jews were saying, well, I must be going to the Jews outside of Israel, the Jews in the dispersion. This time, possibly a different group of Jews, and likely, they're saying, well, is he going to kill himself? So they're just not sure what this means. They can't quite figure it out.

He was saying to them, you are from below, I am from above, you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. And by the way, unless you believe that I, believe that I being in fact God, am He, you will die in your sins. What is he saying here when he says you die in your sins? What does that mean? You can have your sins or you can have me. Yeah, you can have your sins or have me, unless you believe. So believing is the only way out of dying in your sins. People will think, well I got away with this or that, because they didn't see the earthly consequences. For those who don't believe, how many things will they get away with in eternity? Zip. Nothing. None.

Nancy and I will counsel with people and sometimes the stories they have to tell are pretty heart-wrenching. People have been through some horrific things. But one of the things that we're able to tell people is between Christ on the cross and sometimes, matter of fact it's fairly rare, sometimes justice here on this planet but always in eternity. Christ on the cross, in this life possibly, or always in eternity, every single thing will be dealt with justly, no exceptions. The four things that people get wrapped around the axle about are things I did, things I didn't do, things that were done to me, things that weren't done to me. Are any of those going to be somehow falling through the cracks, lost in the woodwork, when it comes to dealing with things either on the cross, justice in this life, or in eternity? The answer is none.

We have in this world anger management. Ever hear of it? I know of some people who have had to go through classes in anger management. Guess what? A good deal of the anger is some sense of injustice, and it's up to me to fix it. The reality is, no injustice will be left untouched in eternity. Every single sin was paid for on the cross. Once in a great while, justice will happen here on the planet. And usually when it happens, somebody's cheering, right? But in eternity, everything will have been dealt with. God's not overlooking anything. God's not counting anything more or less than what it actually is. There is always justice.

Those who don't believe will die in their sins, and that's not good for them. Reason? They're positionally in those sins. And they will pay for those for eternity because they didn't take advantage of Christ's payment. Which is entirely free and entirely by grace. Entirely free and entirely by grace. So, I'm sure this isn't a misprint, but the first sin is singular and the other two are plural. Yes.

So I presume the first one is a principle of sin? Yeah, in other words, this is the general principle that you're going to die in sin. In other words, that's going to be your state. You're going to die in sin as a state of being. All of us are either going to die in sin or die in grace. Which one do you pick? Yeah, you pick grace because you're in Christ. That's gracious. If you say, nah, I don't need that, then you're going to die in sin. It's just that simple.

And for all the evils that happen in this world, and there are many, God is aware of every single one, keeps track of every single one, and is far better able than any of us to count what's just and unjust. And He will deal with every single one. every single one. Let's take a look at your last page, page 5. John 8, 28-30.

So Jesus said, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that, and once more, I am He. I, being in fact God, am He. And I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me. And He who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him. As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.

Let's ask this. Has God left you alone here? Has He delegated an assignment to you and said, I'll check with you when you get back? Is that the way it works? No. God has not left us alone here. Certainly we focus on and teach at Holly Hills that you are, as a believer, in Christ. But one of the things, we could easily make a biblical case for you're in the Father, you are in the Son, and you are in the Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are in you.

Are you left here alone? No. No, not at all. You are not here alone. God has not delegated anything to you. And Jesus makes the claim, the Father didn't just delegate something to them and say, good luck with that. And we're not in that position either.

We're in the Father, in the Son, in the Holy Spirit. We have within us, we are indwelt by the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. We are by no means alone, and we will have that inness with the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the indwelling of the Father, and Son, and the Holy Spirit until the day we go home. We are never alone. Never. And by the way, you're sitting around in this room with people who have that same position that I just described. So you're never alone, most certainly. You're never alone by God's doing. Never again. Never. Ever.

Let's pray, we're running out of time. Lord, we do give you thanks for what you've revealed here. We thank you for the comfort and assurance we have of your continuing promised presence with us. And we thank you that we do not have to worry about dying in our sins or in the general principle of sin, but in fact we are in Christ We're in the Spirit, we're in the Father, and we are entirely within grace. Thank you for that graciousness at Christ's expense. We thank you in Jesus' name. Amen.