Resurrection Evidence; Commissioning; Enlightening, Luke 24:30-45

In John chapter 19 and we continue to look at the resurrection evidence, the evidence of Christ's physical bodily resurrection; and John especially because of what he lived through. Remember, the apostle John lived into his 90s. He lived to the end of this century, and he had the opportunity to see some of the heresies that came up—what we refer to the Christological heresies that began to be taught about Jesus during the early post-apostolic period. One of these was that Jesus really didn't die physically, or that He didn't rise from the dead physically, but He just appeared to have died on the cross.

There is a group today that still advocates and believes this, and I wonder if you can think of that group. Anybody know which group that is that believes that it wasn't Jesus who died on the cross? Actually what they teach is that that was a substitute; it was Judas that died in His place. It is Islam. That is the Islamic belief.

Now the word for this idea that that Jesus just appeared to suffer and appear to rise from the dead because He didn't really actually die, is called docetism. It is from the Greek word DOKEO, meaning to appear.

So John really does focus more than the other Gospel writers on the evidence of His physical appearance. That's why He alone records that episode with Thomas, and He makes it so clear. He saying that that Jesus says, "Here", and points to His hands, to the to the nail print, which would've been on the wrist, because the word for hand includes the forearm just as the word foot would include the ankle. "Go ahead Thomas, stick your finger in there"— unlike Caravaggio's rendering of this scene, because you can see the folds around the wound, and he has Thomas sticking his finger in it and pulling back. The text doesn't say that he did that, but I think Caravaggio is making a point that that this was real; this was physical. That's the point that John is making.

As soon as the Lord says, "Here, stick your finger here Thomas". Thomas is like, Okay I believe, I don't actually need to do that. Seeing the risen Lord was enough to convince him. But we are looking at these evidences.

We are also going to see in this section that this is the first of several times when He states the mission that the disciples are to have in the coming church age. And then there's an interesting thing about the Holy Spirit that I believe relates to the enlightenment of the Scriptures that Jesus is emphasizing here.

What we have seen so far are these five first five appearances of the Lord. We are in the middle of the fifth one, which we began last week in the Luke passage; today will spend more time in the John 20 passage. First, Jesus appeared to Mary. Then He appeared to the other women. Then He appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and then He appeared to Peter. Not much is said about that because this was a private meeting. Peter had denied his Lord three times and so this is the time when Peter realizes the Lord's forgiveness.

We began actually in Luke 24:30-45 with Jesus appearance to the ten. There are the ten, even though Mark calls them the eleven, because the twelve was a title. Whether they were all there or not was irrelevant. John later will call them the twelve even though Judas is dead by this time, it is just the name of the team, and when they are reduced by one they are called the eleven again. But in the Luke passage it's this same appearance that we have in John 20:19-23, and it's not the appearance where Thomas is; Thomas doesn't show up till later. So we know that it's only the ten at this particular appearance.

We learned some things about our Lord's resurrection body that will be true of our resurrection body. People are often curious about what we are going to be able to do, what our body is going to be like. It's going to look a lot like what we have now, but it's going to have additional abilities. It will be able to have a material physical form and function, but it can do other things.

That's the first point: it appears normal and has normal function. Second, we saw the resurrection body is able to eat but it is not going to be food dependent as our body is today. Third, the resurrection body will be able to materialize, and de-materialize at will, and probably move at the speed of thought.

So Luke 24:36 is where will begin and then we will come over to the John 19 passage. Luke 24:36, While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.”

This is the context of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They have hurried back to Jerusalem to tell all of the other disciples that they had seen the risen Lord. The other disciples say to them, "and He has appeared to Peter also". That's how we know He appeared to Peter, and then right when that is happening, which is the same context as John 20:19, Jesus stood in their midst. And, as John also records, says, "Peace to you". This is important because this is the first time He appears to this group, and the last time they were together was just before they scattered to the winds and disappeared, and only John the apostle stayed with him and was at the foot of the cross. Peter was the most unfaithful of the group because he was the one who verbally deny the Lord. But they were all in hiding; they were all hoping that they wouldn't get arrested either, and that they would not be crucified.

Now Jesus appears to them, and their response is that they are terrified. They are frightened to death even more than they had been terrified. When we look at John 20:19 it says that is "the same day at evening", which is the evening of the day of the resurrection. That's why we know this has to be the same event. It says, "when the doors were shut". That's the new King James translation. The verb there indicates something that is shut, bolted, locked. They are in fear of the Jews, that passage says. So they are not disciples who are anticipating the resurrection. Obviously not because when Jesus was going to be crucified He said, "After I am crucified go meet me in Galilee". To go to meet Him in Galilee would be an act of faith. They would be believing that he was going to be resurrected. The boys are not in Galilee, they're still in Jerusalem because they don't believe that He is going to be resurrected.

So they are not in a position where they are believing or being obedient; they are frightened; they are hiding; they are disobedient; they are cowering away.

Now Jesus appears to them and they think it's a ghost. They are terrified; they are frightened out of their minds. They just are not understanding and applying what He has said at all. And so Jesus said, "Why are you troubled?" Meaning, why are you filled with fear? Why are you in high anxiety, why are you just about to run out the door, and why do doubts arise in your heart? They are fearful; they are doubting and not thinking in terms of the Word.

Luke 24:39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

He is again presenting that solid evidence. I have a physical resurrection body. You can feel the wounds in my hands and my feet. Jesus is pointing to them, shows in His hand, His feet, and His side where the spear pierced.

When we go over to look at John, John tells us the following: "And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord".

I want you to notice this for a reason. John is poignant that they see it, they understand it, and they are joyful. The reason for pointing that out is because of what Luke says in the next verse. In verse 41, he says, "While they still could not believe {it} because of their joy …"

What does it mean that they did not believe for joy? This is an idiom. It doesn't mean they did not believe. What this is saying is that they were joyful. That's exactly what John says. They are joyful because they see and believed the resurrected Lord. But on the other hand, they don't believe it. You are saying, that's a contradiction.

How many times has something extraordinary happened in your life and you believe it, you believe it happened, but you can't believe it? It is you pinching yourself to see if you're really awake and that this is true. So it's not stating a contradiction, it is a hyperbolic way of just stating that they are so excited and they just can't comprehend it all yet. They can't take it all in, and so it's like I just don't believe this can happen. What they are really saying is I do believe it happened but I can't believe it happened; this is beyond my ability to understand it. So it's a hyperbolic idiomatic way to really state how excited they are, but at the same time they just don't comprehend it all and they just don't believe it; which isn't a soteriological statement, it's just a statement of their state of mind at the time. John makes it very clear that they are joyful and that they do believe it.

Then Jesus went on to make sure they understood that He was in a physical body. They gave Him a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb and He took it and ate. Luke is very clear on this. He ate in their presence; He was making these things clear. He eats the food, so He is a physical manifestation; it's not, again, some spirit or ghost.

John describes some of these details. That same day at the evening, which is the evening of the crucifixion, being the first day of the week—that's clearly Sunday when the doors were shut, locked, bolted, where the disciples were assembled because they were afraid of the Jews—Jesus came and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you". So it's the same incident, but it's pointing out several things.

Let me just run through some comparison and contrast between the two accounts. Luke tells us that it was at least the ten, minus Thomas and Judas. But also in Luke 24:33 he indicated there's a broader number of disciples. There are others with them in this room now. Tradition says this is the upper room; this is the same house, the same place where they had observed the first communion with our Lord. Later tradition says that it is John Mark's mother's house. We don't know that; that's the tradition. But they are meeting there together and there are more than the twelve. There are some other disciples present; probably some of the women as well.

John emphasizes that it's the same day, which is an important chronological clue. And Jesus has been busy; He's appeared to for other groups by this time; this is the fifth appearance. John also emphasizes more than Luke that the doors are locked, and it is a verb that is in the perfect tense, indicating it's something that was already done. He's indicating the present reality of a past-completed action. So it has been shut; it has been bolted. They are in secret; they are fearful.

One archaeologist points out the locked doors had been discovered at that time that were equipped with bolts and locks which were designed to keep anyone from entering that wasn't supposed to. So it's very likely that this is the strength of this word. Both accounts emphasize that Jesus said, "Peace be with you", and He's emphasizing peace. This is because they have deserted Him and He is emphasizing that He is not coming to judge them, He is coming to welcome them and they are forgiven; there is peace. He goes beyond this to state that not only is there peace and they been forgiven, but they now have a mission. Even though they haven't been faithful to go to Galilee God is gracious enough to meet them where they are in their unbelief in Jerusalem.

There is an important application there that we fail just as badly and God always meets us where we are, not where we should have been, or ought to have been. When we sin, and we are forgiven—we confess sin; we are forgiven—the Lord meets us in grace where we are, and He still has a mission for us. As long as we are still alive God's plan is still in effect and He still has a mission for us.

And so Jesus says, "As the Father has sent me, I also send you". There are several times in these post-resurrection accounts when Jesus is stated to be sending them. There is some confusion here. Towards the end of the Luke account there is a summary of what happened. Luke doesn't go into all the details, and by the time that we get down to about verses 44-46 it sounds an awful lot like what's going on in Acts chapter one. I think there is a compression there, so the come the later commissioning that Luke has recorded there is comparable to what happens in Acts one.

But here John is stating that clearly this happens on this first day. This is the first clear statement of their mission in the church age. We know that this doesn't bleed over. Some have said that that John is bleeding over, conflating accounts, bringing in Acts chapter two material into this event; and there's no reason for that whatsoever. Most of that comes in because the statement about receiving the Holy Spirit in verse 22. But here He is telling them the Father sent Him, and He is sending them, they have a mission. And this is on the same day (verse 19).

In verse 26 Jesus will appear again and when He appears to the disciples when Thomas is there it is eight days later. So if you count this inclusively where this Sunday is the first day then the next Saturday would be the seventh day, so eight days later, is the next Sunday. That tells us that this statement Jesus makes is the day of the resurrection. There are several of these statements were He is reiterating to the disciples that they have a mission and that He is sending them on the mission.

When He states this He says, "The Father sent me, now I am sending you". There's an important connection here. God has a plan and a purpose. He has a purpose in sending Jesus and part of that purpose, is that Jesus, in turn, is going to send the disciples. This is the foundation of a biblical doctrine of apostolic succession. When you've heard that term apostolic succession before it refers to the heretical doctrine that is dominant in the Roman Catholic Church, that it is a succession of people. What we learn here is that it is a succession of mission. The mission of Jesus is to come to the earth to die on the cross for our sins, and then the extension of that mission is to tell people that, and that is given and delegated to the apostles. Then they in turn are going to, as Matthew will tell us at the end of Matthew, make students who are to make disciples and teach them to observe "all that I have commanded you". That is the extension of that mission. It is an apostolic succession, not of the gift of apostle, not of the person, but of the mission, which is to make disciples. That is what the Bible teaches.

In the early church they began with that idea up through the early part of the second century, but then it gradually began to be perverted into the idea of a succession of people, and eventually that developed into the idea that the papacy is the focus of the apostolic succession.

Unfortunately, we have reversed break there, but it continues. He says, "As the father has sent me, I also send you". And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit". This act of breathing on them and giving them the Holy Spirit is connected to the mission and fulfilling the mission.

There is a lot of confusion about what is happening here when Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit". What exactly is going on, what ministry of the Holy Spirit are we talking about here? Several options are presented, probably more, but these are probably the five most prominent.

First of all, there are those who say He really doesn't give the Holy Spirit. He is going to give the Holy Spirit in about 50 days but right now He is just giving a symbol; this is symbolic of what will happen. I don't think there's good support for that. I found the arguments totally unconvincing.

There is a lot of confusion. There are many people who think that terms like filling and indwelling and baptism are just all synonymous. They are not very rigorous in their study, and their understanding of the reason that different words are used is because they are emphasizing different ministries. There are some who say this is the indwelling of the Spirit; the disciples are getting it now and others get it on the day of Pentecost. Well wait a minute, it appears to me that if you read Acts chapter two the disciples are receiving a plethora of spiritual ministries at that time. That's the beginning of the church, not here.

Others will say that this is a contradiction. John is telling us it happens on the day of the resurrection, Luke tells us it happens on the day of Pentecost; there is a contradiction here, the two accounts. Again, and they are not paying close enough attention to the details of Scripture. Another way of looking at that is, those who say John is kind of combining these accounts together. But John is very clear, this happens on the day of the resurrection. The next week there's going to be more and then after these things the disciples will eventually go up to Galilee and Jesus shows up and has breakfast with them in chapter 21. John is not confused. He's making a point here. Jesus is doing something that is preparatory for what He will teach during the next 40 days. That's what I believe is the correct answer.

The last option is that this is a distinct temporary giving of the Spirit for a specific reason.

Let's look at the options. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is something that is true for every church age believer. Two key passages for this are Romans 8:9, and 1 Corinthians 3:16. In Romans 8:9 Paul has been contrasting walking according to the Spirit and walking according to the flesh, and that is talking about a different ministry of the Holy Spirit. But down in verse nine he says, "But you are not in the flesh [still carnal and spiritually dead] but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God dwells in you". That is a very clear statement that the Spirit of God dwells in every believer if they are regenerate. That was not true in at any time prior to the day of Pentecost.

In 1 Corinthians 3:16 Paul reminds the Corinthian believers, "Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" Every believer is permanently indwelt by God the Holy Spirit from the moment they are saved until they go to be with the Lord. That is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not the same as the baptism by the Holy Spirit, although for the disciples they happened at the same time, as it does with us in the church age, but for them it happened not when they were saved, but it happened on the day of Pentecost, marking the beginning of this new dispensation. This new age the church age.

Paul reminds the Roman believers of this in Romans 6:3, 4 six, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" Baptism is a word that has a literal meaning of immersion usually in water, sometimes in a dye or something else, but it had a figurative significance. It meant identification with something, so that baptism into Christ Jesus means that we are immersed in Christ. There's an identification that takes place with His death, burial and resurrection with the result that we are freed from the power, not the presence, of the sin nature.

Paul goes on in Romans 6:4, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life". The significance of baptism is by being identified with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection we are able to live this new life that is to characterize the church age believer. That's the baptism of the Holy Spirit; that's not the indwelling. It doesn't say anything in Romans 6:3 about the Holy Spirit being in you. Those are distinct. But you'll find some writers and some preachers who confuse the two. Neither of these are what is happening with Jesus and the disciples in John 19.

Another reason is that in John seven Jesus said, "But this He spoke concerning the Spirit …" He had previously talked about the coming of the Spirit and he says, "… whom those believing in him would receive, for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified". That tells us that the giving of the Spirit which occurred on the day of Pentecost should not be confused with what happens in John 19, because Jesus can't be giving the Holy Spirit as indwelling or baptizing or something like that because He hasn't yet been glorified. That is why the ministries of the Holy Spirit to the disciples and all believers began at Pentecost. It had to wait for the ascension and the glorification of Christ ten days before Pentecost.

I believe what is going on here is a temporary infusion of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of illumination to what Jesus is going to teach during the coming 40 days. That doesn't mean it's making them understand it, because clearly they don't understand everything. But they really haven't understood a lot that He has taught so far, and they need the spiritual illumination to begin to grasp what He is teaching them. What we see here is nobody seems to grasp, even with the ministry of the Holy Spirit, what the Scripture teaches—just like that; that's mysticism. These guys have to think about it. Paul with his knowledge of Scripture, his rabbinical understanding, had to go off into the wilderness for a couple years to rethink everything.

See, knowledge of Scripture, understanding, it doesn't come apart from a study of the word. You don't just pick it up reading up and go, "I know what that means". God the Holy Spirit's illumination works with our mental sweat. It doesn't replace our concentration and our meditation, but it works in and through that.

Why do I say this is illumination? Because when you compare what happens in John 20 with what happened at the same time in that room with the disciples in Luke 24, it involves illumination. Jesus says to them in Luke 24:44, “… that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Does that sound familiar? What has just happened contextually in Luke? He is on the road with the two disciples to Emmaus and He opens up Moses and the prophets and tells them all the things in the Scriptures that related to Him, to Jesus. That is only for those two guys. Now He has the ten disciples and He is going to do it again. Repetition is important. The other two, Cleaophas and his buddy were probably still here, and He is going to take them through this lesson again, but now He is primarily focused on the ten.

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you …" but you didn't get it. You're still not expecting the resurrection, all is beginning to dawn on you that it's actually happened. And so He said, "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, the prophets, in the Psalms".

The Jews divided the Old Testament into three sections. They had books. They didn't have chapters and verses at that point but they had the books. They grouped them into the Torah, which is the books of Moses, written by Moses, the Pentateuch, the first five books; the second division was the books of the prophets—the former prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and you had the latter prophets which were Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12; Daniel was part of the writings. The first book in the writings was called the Psalms and so just as they would title books with the first words or first phrase in the book, so they would title the section called the writings by the first book that was in the writings, and that was the Psalms. So Daniel, the wisdom literature Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, those were the writings. Now, Jesus takes them all the way through the Old Testament.

Notice the Apocrypha was never accepted by the Jews as part of those three divisions. So by Jesus, saying that everything that was written in the law of Moses, the Torah, the prophets in the and the writings, He excludes the Apocrypha as being part of the Old Testament canon. In the Roman Catholic Bible the Apocrypha will be included in the canon. You have Susanna, Bell and the Dragon, Maccabees, Tobit, Judith. Those books are listed in the in the Roman Catholic Bible as part of the Old Testament, but they were never part of these three divisions that the Jews had. So Jesus is clearly excluding the Apocrypha from being a part of the canon of the Old Testament. It's good history; it's not good for studying theology.

Then look at what verse 45 says. "Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures". How did He open their understanding? Luke doesn't tell us. John tells us: He breathed on them the Holy Spirit. The Greek word that he uses for breathing is the same Greek word used in the Septuagint in Genesis 2 when God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. Jesus uses that word, and John uses that word, so that we make a connection between this breath of the Spirit given in John 20 and the breath of life in Genesis chapter 2. So Jesus opens their understanding. This is an intellectual thing and involves the intellect, not the emotion, not the will. The role of the Spirit is to help us understand what the Scripture says. The word here for understanding is the Greek word NOUS, which means mind. He opened their intellect. He opened the thinking part of their brain so that they could comprehend.

That's the word SUNEIMI, which means to think correctly about something. The object of the verb is the Scripture, so Jesus is giving them a temporary gift of the Holy Spirit to enable them to start comprehending and thinking correctly about what the Scripture says. That must have been incredible. This isn't an emotional experience. They might have felt some emotion afterwards. They might have built a little regret about how stupid they were. They might had some elation about how wonderful it was to truly understand the Word of God and what great insight it was. Jesus is illuminating them.

He goes on to say, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day". If you are using a New American Standard, ESV, RSV, NIV, a number of other translations that are based on the critical text and not the majority text then you don't have this phrase, "it was necessary". But the majority of manuscripts [called the majority text] along with one of the Egyptian Codex's uncials Alexandrinus, all have this phrase in it. The three big old ones don't, and so the basically the philosophy of the Critical Text was if these three agree that it doesn't matter how many other ancient manuscripts have something we always go with the big three. I don't buy that at all. So this is part of the original text.

It is written, and it's necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead, because it was written. It was prophesied, it was necessary for Jesus to fulfill the prophecy or He wouldn't be the Messiah. The prophecy in the Old Testament is that He is to suffer (Isaiah 53), He is to rise from the dead the third day, and now we get to Luke 24:47. "and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

He is teaching that Jesus had to suffer, He had to rise from the dead, and that as a result, repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. That's another interesting thing because what this tells us is that his use of repentance and his instruction to the disciples, and his use of the term root remission, which is means forgiveness, is the same word usually translated forgiveness [APHIEMI]—that repentance and remission derive their meaning from the Old Testament. That is particularly significant because what the Old Testament prophets taught was that in future days Israel would be apostate and reject the truth, and before the kingdom could come they would have to turn back to God. That's repentance. They would have to turn back to God.

Remember the theme of Matthew: presentation of the King, the offer of the kingdom. John the Baptist said, "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." That is that term repent, turn to God away from the lies, away from idolatry, away from whatever secularism is controlling your assimilation to Hellenism. Turn to God; repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Jesus at the beginning of his ministry said the same words: "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". Then when He sent out His disciples in Matthew 10 to the tribes of Judah and the tribes of Israel and prohibited them from going to the Gentiles He said, "This is a message, Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand".

And then what happens? In Matthew 12 the Pharisee say you are not the Messiah, you are doing all these miracles in the power of Satan. Jesus said that was the unforgivable sin. They rejected Him as the Messiah and that generation would suffer the consequences. It would be irreversible and unforgivable. Basically He has announcing that the judgment of 70 AD was now an irreversible fact, because they rejected the Messiah. Then there's a shift starting in Matthew chapter 13 and they are beginning to be taught in parables in order to cloak the truth from those who weren't positive and provide truth for those who are really interested in learning.

The message is Jewish: Repent for the forgiveness of sin and that this should be preached to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. These are the two words METANOIA, meaning to change your mind, APHESIS from APHIEMI, meaning to forgive.

Luke 24:48 “You are witnesses of these things".

Where do you see similar language? Acts chapter 1 and Acts chapter 2. In Acts1:2-5 we read, "until the day when He was taken up {to heaven,} after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over {a period of} forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” {He said,} “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

"Many infallible proofs": Put your fingers into the nail prints, look at the wounds in my feet, look at the where the spear penetrated my side. These are the infallible proofs that Luke is talking about.

Ten days before Pentecost they still had not been baptized by the Holy Spirit. Then He says, Acts 1:8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” This is the same thing that he is saying in Luke, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

See, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the uttermost part of the uttermost parts of the earth, and you are witnesses of these things. Same language here. "Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you", which is the Holy Spirit, "but tarry or stay in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high". That's the parallel, the Acts 1:8.

Then the last four verses have Jesus taking them to the Mount of Olives and then He ascended.

John has Him saying something that He doesn't say to them in Luke 24. John 20:23. He makes this statement: “If you forgive the sins of any, {their sins} have been forgiven them; if you retain the {sins} of any, they have been retained.” That makes a lot of sense to you, right? If you're not Jewish, for the second temple period and you don't understand Pharisaism and rabbinism then you have a clue what's going on here. This is a formula statement very similar to a lot of things that are said in the Mishnah and the Talmud that the Pharisees made. This was what they would say about their authority.

Jesus is saying almost the same thing to the disciples. He saying the spiritual leaders of Israel no longer have this authority, but you have this authority. That is the big idea of what this statement is. It is a conveyance of authority to the apostles as the leaders in the new church. But it is saying more than that. What is this about forgiveness and the retaining of sins?

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them. Now that statement, "they are forgiven them" really doesn't make sense in English the way it does in Greek. It's a perfect tense. If you forgive is an aorist active subjunctive but it's predicated on this statement, "they are forgiven them". It's a perfect passive indicative. The perfect tense means it's something that has already been done; it's completed in the past. That's what that grammar mean. So what He is saying is, if you forgive the sins of any, that forgiveness has already been accomplished beforehand. When did that happen? That happened at the cross legally for everyone, but experientially it happens when you believe. So when a person believes, the apostles are saying that's the basis for your personal forgiveness, and it's based on the fact that it was already accomplished at the cross. And so the next statement: "If you retain the sins of any, they are also retained". It is the second verb. It's the same format that they have already—and here, actually, the idea is that they're still spiritually dead, and the basis for this goes back to the realization of the cross.

Actually the language here is very similar to the language when Jesus is talking to Peter in acts 16:19. "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven". Now that's not apostolic succession. The key to heaven is faith in Christ. "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven". In other words, He is giving the apostles authority. They are approving and disapproving of that which is already been established to be right or wrong in the heavenly councils. And what they are being given is the authority to implement that which God has already determined as the leaders of the church. That's what that language reflects. This kind of language is used in rabbinical tax over and over again to say they have the power to determine and apply Scripture. Jesus is saying they don't have that authority; you have that authority, and the decisions you make are reflecting decisions that have already been made in heaven, and if and you have the revelation from God about what the absolute truth is. So when you say somebody is saved it's not you personally who is determining their salvation, but because God has already provided the payment for their sin and they have believed in Christ, you can say your sins are forgiven because they have already been paid for on the cross, and you've accepted that payment. You have to understand that rabbinical Jewish idiom in order to understand what is going on here.

What are these two things that Jesus says in Luke? Repentance and remission of sins. They show up when Peter is talking to a Jewish audience in Acts 2:38. "Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". We have seen that this is not talking about baptismal regeneration; it is talking to the Jewish crowd on the day of Pentecost, some of whom were responsible for crucifying Jesus. They rejected Jesus as the Messiah and Peter saying you need to turn away from that, and for those who do turn away from your rejection of Jesus, then you need to be baptized now in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins have been remitted; your sins have been forgiven and as a result you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is, as a result of believing in Jesus, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 10 Peter is talking to the Gentiles, and he says, "to Him, that is Jesus, all the prophets witnessed", and that's what Jesus did and in Luke 24. He showed how Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms all testified to Him, so Peter says, "to Him all the prophets witness, that through His name whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins".

There is not a contradiction in the Bible. There are certain key phrases and statements that when the dots are connected it all makes sense because they reinforce one another. And all of this reinforces the grace gospel, that we don't do anything to be saved or to be savable. Jesus did it all at the cross. He paid the penalty for sin, He canceled the debt which is forgiveness so that all that is left for us is to trust in him. As Paul said to the Philippian jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved".

Slides