2025 Bible Study Group

[Gazza]

Chapter 20 verse 16. Can you possibly imagine how Mary felt when Jesus said to her…… Mary. Every time I read this verse I get goosebumps and a twinkle in my eye.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

John 19

26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his home.

Jesus entrusted the care of Mary to John. I see no warrant to over-mystify this text to make Mary out to be a mother figure for all the Church when John doesn't argue this way nor is that kind of sentiment to be found anywhere else in the New Testament.

30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

It is finished. It is accomplished. What was accomplished? Your salvation if you are one believing in Jesus Christ. Some people would have Jesus say "It has begun." How do you have assurance of your salvation? When you look at the finished work of Christ on the cross, knowing that He died for you, how can you not have assurance that God, who did not even spare His own Son, will not also freely give to you all things?

34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

John will use this again in 1 John 5:

6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that bear witness: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

John is always implicitly arguing against the Docetic view that Jesus was not truly human, but only seemed to be so. What would've been bewildering in John's day is not the water coming out, but the blood coming out. This is all to emphasize Jesus's human nature.

 

[Wutang]

I read something regarding the water pouring out of Jesus's side is supposed to be symbolic of the pouring of the water around the Tabernacle during the times of the wandering Israelites.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

John 20

11 But Mary was standing outside the tomb crying; and so, as she was crying, she stooped to look into the tomb; 12and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying.

The way the angels are positioned is deliberate, one at the head and one at the feet. John portrays Jesus as the True Ark of the Covenant.

15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you crying? Whom are you seeking?” Thinking Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.”

John also deliberately invokes garden imagery towards the end of the Gospel. Once in the Garden of Gethsemane and here again at the Resurrection. Jesus is in fact the Gardener, even as God is the Gardener who planted the Garden of Eden. The paradise that was lost is restored in the resurrection.

21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Jesus, having been sent, is the True Apostle. Sending His disciples out to preach the Gospel, He made them Apostles. The term God-breathed is only used once to describe the Scriptures. The Scriptures are that which is breathed out by God. The Apostles are that which is breathed on by God. The Holy Spirit makes the Word come alive to us. There are two different ways to understand verse 23: a magisterial interpretation or a ministerial interpretation. The magisterial interpretation is what you would get in a Sacerdotal branch of Christianity, the idea is that the Apostles, and now the priests, have the authority to forgive sins which God will then ratify in heaven. The ministerial interpretation, which is what I would hold to, is that the Apostles were ordained to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, and that their office forever stands and operates in the Scriptures.

28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are those who did not see, and yet believed.”

Jesus does not object to Thomas calling Him Lord or God because He is indeed both Lord and God.

30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also did in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

The Scriptures are not exhaustive, but that does not mean they are insufficient. They are sufficient for this purpose: that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that by believing in Him you may have eternal life in His Name.

 

[Samseau]

The magisterial interpretation is what you would get in a Sacerdotal branch of Christianity, the idea is that the Apostles, and now the priests, have the authority to forgive sins which God will then ratify in heaven.

Just so you understand that's not an interpretation. It's the actual doctrine given by the Apostles, which was written down by their immediate students, namely Ignatius of Antioch (only his works have survived from that time).

The ministerial interpretation, which is what I would hold to, is that the Apostles were ordained to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, and that their office forever stands and operates in the Scriptures.

This, on the other hand, is a complete lie and therefore heresy, since it contradicts what the Apostles taught. The only way this could be true is if St. Ignatius, the Bishop appointed by Peter, was a liar.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Just so you understand that's not an interpretation.

It is an interpretation. Which is why you don't see priests in the Church until after the Apostles.

It's the actual doctrine given by the Apostles, which was written down by their immediate students, namely Ignatius of Antioch (only his works have survived from that time).

This isn't true either. There are other works than Ignatius' letters that are just as old and even older. The Didache is older than the works of Ignatius and only mentions two offices in the Church, Bishops and Deacons, no priests. Same goes for Clement of Rome who also predates Ignatius.

The only way this could be true is if St. Ignatius, the Bishop appointed by Peter, was a liar.

There are other possibilities than saying Ignatius is a liar.

 

[Samseau]

It is an interpretation. Which is why you don't see priests in the Church until after the Apostles.

We do, they are called "elders" and are mentioned through Paul's letters. He appoints, or has appointed, Elders throughout the places he preaches in. The word "priest" is a misnomer, the actual technical order name is "presbyter," which is Greek for "elder."

So Elders have always been part of Church tradition, and started under Paul, and Elders were always under the Bishops who were originally the Apostles. Thus the tradition of Bishops appointing Priests started under Paul and Peter.

The title of Priest is honorific, just as the title of Father. The priest isn't the actual Priest, who is Jesus Christ, and the spiritual father isn't the actual Father. The Priest of a local parish is just a symbolic stand-in, who was ordained by God in the things of men (Hebrews 5:1).

This isn't true either. There are other works than Ignatius' letters that are just as old and even older. The Didache is older than the works of Ignatius and only mentions two offices in the Church, Bishops and Deacons, no priests. Same goes for Clement of Rome who also predates Ignatius.

I mean it's the oldest surviving work which clearly spells out Church organization. You can figure out Church structure from other sources, but it's not quite as explicit as it is with St. Ignatius.

There are other possibilities than saying Ignatius is a liar.

Such as....? Was Paul the liar then?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

We do, they are called "elders" and are mentioned through Paul's letters.

Presybteros literally means Elder, I agree, it's interchangeable with Overseer, Bishop. Them referring to the same office is seen in the New Testament, especially Acts and Titus. Presbyter wouldn't come to mean priest until after the threefold office is established.

So Elders have always been part of Church tradition, and started under Paul, and Elders were always under the Bishops who were originally the Apostles.

This is the development of the priesthood. Originally, Elders and Bishops were the same office, there was no single Bishop over a plurality of priests. The government of the original church was a plurality of Elders or Bishops and Deacons.

I mean it's the oldest surviving work which clearly spells out Church organization. You can figure out Church structure from other sources, but it's not quite as explicit as it is with St. Ignatius.

Why is Ignatius clearer than the Didache or Clement? I submit to you that you favor Ignatius because the first time you see a three fold church government is in his letters.

Such as....? Was Paul the liar then?

I wouldn't say Paul is a liar since he makes no distinction between Elders and Bishops. As for Ignatius, his letters are dated a century after the other sources we've mentioned. This is good evidence for doctrinal development. Things become more developed over time, church polity is no exception.

Because of this, the priesthood cannot be anything other than anachronistic. Not only anachronistic, but the priesthood balloons to such a place of centrality that all other aspects of the Christian faith become warped around it. It is not dissimilar to how you never hear Dispensationalists talk about anything else other than the end times.

 

[Samseau]

Presybteros literally means Elder, I agree, it's interchangeable with Overseer, Bishop. Them referring to the same office is seen in the New Testament, especially Acts and Titus. Presbyter wouldn't come to mean priest until after the threefold office is established.

In both Timothy and Titus, the hierarchy is in clear view with the Bishop figure appointing Elders.

This is the development of the priesthood. Originally, Elders and Bishops were the same office, there was no single Bishop over a plurality of priests. The government of the original church was a plurality of Elders or Bishops and Deacons.

There was no need for Bishops since the Apostles were still alive. As they aged they realized they needed successors and created the office of Bishop.

Why is Ignatius clearer than the Didache or Clement? I submit to you that you favor Ignatius because the first time you see a three fold church government is in his letters.

Because Ignatius is the earliest survivor works that discuss Church hierarchy after the Apostles had fallen asleep.

I wouldn't say Paul is a liar since he makes no distinction between Elders and Bishops. As for Ignatius, his letters are dated a century after the other sources we've mentioned. This is good evidence for doctrinal development. Things become more developed over time, church polity is no exception.

Ignatius manuscripts might be dated that way, but they were all written in the final years before is death, making them only 50-60 years old past Pauline letters. The date of the manuscripts is irrelevant since it was based on the originals, unless you want to assert they are forgery.

Because of this, the priesthood cannot be anything other than anachronistic. Not only anachronistic, but the priesthood balloons to such a place of centrality that all other aspects of the Christian faith become warped around it. It is not dissimilar to how you never hear Dispensationalists talk about anything else other than the end times.

Whereas in fact, all Churches that have abandoned the Apostolic practices have withered, decayed, or been absorbed into the ones who haven't.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits." If it was anachronistic it wouldn't survive, and yet it thrives.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

In both Timothy and Titus, the hierarchy is in clear view with the Bishop figure appointing Elders.

Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6namely, if any man is beyond reproach, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, who are not accused of dissipation, or rebellious. 7For the overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of dishonest gain,

Again, in Apostolic practice these are interchangeable titles for the same office.

There was no need for Bishops since the Apostles were still alive. As they aged they realized they needed successors and created the office of Bishop.

They created the office of Bishop when they created the office of the Elder. Then subjected the office to the Word of God:

Acts 20:16For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost. 17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. 18And when they had come to him, he said to them...

Acts 20:28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31Therefore be watchful, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. 32And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who have been sanctified.

Because Ignatius is the earliest survivor works that discuss Church hierarchy after the Apostles had fallen asleep.

This is still factually false. Clement predates Ignatius and wrote his letter after Peter and Paul had fallen asleep. This is what his letter says that's relevant:

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church. The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

Here is what the Didache, which also predates Ignatius says:

15 Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Elect therefore for yourselves Bishops and Deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful, and approved; for they too minister to you the ministry of the Prophets and Teachers.

Even if you want to ignore these and cling to Ignatius, his letters also recognize churches that held the Apostolic twofold office of Bishops and Deacons.

The date of the manuscripts is irrelevant since it was based on the originals, unless you want to assert they are forgery.

There is debate over which of Ignatius' letters are authentic and to what extent. Generally, the shorter versions of his letters are considered to be more authentic than the longer versions, but I don't think that's neither here nor there concerning our topic.

Whereas in fact, all Churches that have abandoned the Apostolic practices have withered, decayed, or been absorbed into the ones who haven't.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits." If it was anachronistic it wouldn't survive, and yet it thrives.

This is all word salad. The Papacy is anachronistic, and yet it "thrives." The fact that the Protestant branch will soon be the biggest branch of Christianity is proof that it hasn't "withered, decayed, etc," as you suggest.

 

[Samseau]

Clement predates Ignatius and wrote his letter after Peter and Paul had fallen asleep.

His works may be dated earlier, but that does not mean they were in fact earlier. Clement was appointed after Ignatius in Rome; Ignatius served under Peter in Antioch and was among the most learned of Peter's disciples.

That Ignatius is the first to specify how Bishop/Elder/Deacon worked was because it was at a point where it became necessary to do so. Ignatius was obviously taught by Peter.

Thus Ignatius' teachings predate Clement, regardless of whatever manuscripts survived the longest.

This is all word salad. The Papacy is anachronistic, and yet it "thrives." The fact that the Protestant branch will soon be the biggest branch of Christianity is proof that it hasn't "withered, decayed, etc," as you suggest.

The Roman Church had a thousand years of inertia; moreover it has suffered tremendously in recent decades due to it's own sins. As for Protestantism, many of them are not Christian, such as the Mormons, yet claim that they are, which artificially inflates the numbers of their churches.

Regardless these questions will not be fully resolved in our lifetimes, but over dozens of generations, for that is the scale God works at.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

John 21

15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep. 18Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” 19Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”

As Peter had denied Christ three times, he is given a threefold restoration. Peter's destiny never changed, he was always meant to die with Christ. He couldn't do it the first time but he would be prepared to do it the second time. Christ calls us to pick up our cross and follow Him, that is a call to die. We must die to the world and be crucified with Christ in order to live to God.

20 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23Therefore this saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.

As for John, he would be the Apostle that would die last. I would take the coming of Jesus here to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and John in all likelihood being the only Apostle who lived long enough to see it, and was given prophecy regarding it when he wrote Revelation.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one after the other, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

This isn't meant to be a knock on Scriptural sufficiency as some present it. John already said that the Scriptures are sufficient to give you a saving faith. But this conclusion is meant to magnify the Lord Jesus. May Christ be glorified in us and we in Him. Amen.

 

[Gazza]

Where are we at guys? I’m about halfway through the book of acts.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Where are we at guys? I’m about halfway through the book of acts.

We had only scheduled up to the Gospel of John. Nothing after that. Bizet was taking point on that but he's gone dark on us. If we want to continue this study then we'll need to hash out a book and a schedule.

 

[Thomas More]

We had only scheduled up to the Gospel of John. Nothing after that. Bizet was taking point on that but he's gone dark on us. If we want to continue this study then we'll need to hash out a book and a schedule.

How about an Old Testament book next? I'd suggest Job, Ecclesiastes, or Exodus, depending on which other people are interested in.

 

[Gazza]

I’d love to do a study on the book of Job.