|
John 1
Mar 19, 2007 20:11:31 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Mar 19, 2007 20:11:31 GMT -8
Please post any comments, questions, and personal reflections on anything in John chapter 1 as replies to this post.
Man, I love John 1:1-18. I love the poetic intro to this gospel (I mean, I like the 'apologetics' type intro to Luke, too, but one of them needed the more artsy type of intro).
Also, this is definitely one of the most powerful passages about the deity of Christ. Coupled with Paul, we have two strong, independent streams of early Christian thought testifying clearly to the early Christian belief in (what would later be called) the doctrine of the Trinity.
Also, this intro offers the student of the Old Testament a sampling of what John is going to do throughout this entire book: allude to the Old Testament.
Here's one great example in this passage:
"the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (verse 14).
This "dwelling" echoes the Tabernacle of Exodus, and seeing God's glory in Jesus echoes Moses' desire to see the glory of God. Moses only got to see God's backside (Exodus 33), but in Christ, we see God's face. Wow.
|
|
|
John 1
Mar 19, 2007 20:21:32 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Mar 19, 2007 20:21:32 GMT -8
" 'Listen to me', cried Syme with extraordinary emphasis. 'Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world. We see everything from behind, and it looks brutal. That is not a tree, but the back of a tree. That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Cannot you see that everything is stooping and hiding a face? If we could only get round in front--' "
GK Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday
Jesus, as John so eloquently puts it here, is our opportunity to 'get round in front'- the very thing that Moses longed for.
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 7, 2007 22:02:11 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Aug 7, 2007 22:02:11 GMT -8
Ok, here's to starting the John study! Fire away.
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 9, 2007 18:46:33 GMT -8
Post by michelle on Aug 9, 2007 18:46:33 GMT -8
We're starting a John study? Is that our next homework?
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 9, 2007 20:08:57 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Aug 9, 2007 20:08:57 GMT -8
Some of the guys at men's group the other night were talking about feeling the need to study a book of the Bible with others, so we decided to do John. You're welcome to join along.... or, actually, you've already done some paving of the way.
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 10, 2007 20:40:04 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2007 20:40:04 GMT -8
Do you notice how the introduction to the disciples in this chapter differs from that in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)? In those books, Jesus seems to just stroll up to the disciples and tell them, "Come, follow me" and they are said to do it immediately.
John gives us more information about Jesus' dealings with the disciples before he challenged them finally and decisively to "come, follow me". I guess you could say Jesus is doing some "pre-evangelism" here- basically piquing their curiousity enough so that when he did accost them on the shore, they were ripe and ready to leave their old lives behind.
This is instructive for us in our efforts to spread the Word about Christ. Sometimes Christians have thought it best to push complete strangers to the point of a decision for Christ immediately, but passages like this bear out that more often that not, the deepest committments come out of a period of time characterized by "considering the cost".
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 11, 2007 8:06:20 GMT -8
Post by nathaniel on Aug 11, 2007 8:06:20 GMT -8
wow. i can't believe it. my first assignment, already late. Does it count as posting Friday if I post on Saturday before anyone gets up to check. I'm having flashback. It's like being in school, and sneaking my homework assignment in the teachers box after class, but before they left for the day. Or turning in that paper a few days after the quarter was over, but before the teach' started grading them. anyways, better late than never right.
A few of my initial thoughts on john 1:
John really seems to hammer home the deity of Christ. And that intro, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." has to be, in my opinion, one of the best in the Bible.
John the baptists life intrigued me a bit too. He seems like such a unique character. His life really exemplifies the tension between free choice and predestination. I just went back to Luke and it even says, "he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth." Are there many other people who are prophesied about like that?
And lastly, how 'bout the Nathanael fellow. I mean, what a guy, and not just because he's my namesake. The first thing Jesus says when he sees him is, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false." That's some seriously high praise. Hopefully he'll say that about me one day.
I remember a couple questions popping up, so I may be back with those a bit later.
chapter 1: check. on to chapter 2.
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 12, 2007 14:47:21 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Aug 12, 2007 14:47:21 GMT -8
Craig Blomberg (author of one of my favorite books on John, The Historical Reliability of the Gospel of John) says that Jesus may be using a play on words with his "A true Israelite in whom there is nothing false" because Israel's original name was Jacob, which meant "deceiver". So, Blomberg paraphrases Jesus' description of Nate, ur. Nathanael with this:
"A true Israelite in whom there is no Jacob"
And, by the way, I think I've said this before Nate, but I have often thought that phrase when you've walked into a room.
Also, Blomberg says that it's quite possible that the disciple Nathanael, who is not mentioned in the Synoptics, is identical to the Bartholomew that is listed as one of the twelve in the Synoptics. Bartholomew is not a proper name-- bar, of course, means son of in Hebrew (Aramaic too?) so Bartholomew just means "son of Talmai". It's like some of your friends calling you Crissmanson and others Nate.
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 14, 2007 9:20:45 GMT -8
Post by sarah on Aug 14, 2007 9:20:45 GMT -8
Hey Josh, Was John the beloved the second disciple of John the baptist who turned with Andrew to follow Jesus?
Also talking about Nathanael, I was surprised to discover that he actually makes the first declaration of Jesus being the Son of God. I always thought that was Peter.... learning something new all the time!
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 14, 2007 12:27:45 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Aug 14, 2007 12:27:45 GMT -8
It's quite possible that in typical book of John fashion, the identified "other disciple" with Nathanael was the "disciple whom Jesus loved". Most Christian commentators, as you're aware, take this "disciple whom Jesus loved" to be John, son of Zebedee, the disciple of Jesus, and the author of the book of John and probably 1-3 John and Revelation. The author of the book of John seems reluctant to name himself throughout the book.
This is the position of Craig Blomberg, who wrote one of my favorite books on the Gospel of John.
However, another author/ Jesus historian/ apologist I respect thinks that the "disciple Jesus loved" might actually have been Lazarus. I posted a bit about this on another thread on this sub-forum. He makes some interesting arguments in favor of his perspective. Still, my biggest objection to his argument is that if Lazarus was the author, why did he never once refer to John son of Zebedee in his gospel?
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 14, 2007 12:56:58 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Aug 14, 2007 12:56:58 GMT -8
Wow, so this is a huge conversation among Jesus scholars- namely, why it seems in the gospel of John that right off the bat Jesus and others around him seem to use all sorts of highly Christological statements about Him- Son of God, Messiah, King of Israel, etc.. whereas in the Synoptics such focus is placed late in the game on Peter seemingly being the first to realize that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 16:13-20, also Luke 9:18-20, Mark 8:27-29) and with Jesus hushing them up about his identity constantly.
But there are some satisfying answers to the dilemma.
The answer, I believe, is this in a nutshell: the disciples were already looking (as was much of Israel) for a Messiah figure before they met Jesus. Naturally, part of the reason they chose to follow Him in the first place was curiousity about whether or not he was the Messiah.
Some of them seem to have been pretty impressionable- like Nathanael here in this passage. He witnesses one minor miracle (Christ's clairvoyence, so to speak) and he excitedly exclaims that Jesus must be the Son of God and the King of Israel. But this is the kind of thing said in the excitement of the moment, prone to doubt later on. We find that each time the disciples (in all four Gospel accounts) experience some powerful miracle, they make such comments, but then at other times are confused or in doubt once again about the nature of Jesus' identity and mission.
Matthew 14:33 is a great example of this. After Jesus walks on the water and calms a storm, it says that the disciples "worshiped him, saying, 'Truly, you are the Son of God'.
I think the inclusion of 'truly' there is telling. It's like although they have already used the phrase Son of God for him, they had said it somewhat flippantly, or somewhat hopefully, or perhaps they had poured into it a slightly different meaning than they would later (like hopes for a political savior being replaced by a deeper understanding, though still incomplete, about who Jesus really was). So, I see a passage like this one as them saying, "Wow, he really is the Son of God. No joking!"
But apparently they still had some reservations, because 2 chapters later in Matthew is where Jesus asked them who they really believe He is. Even though they've already heard Him say things about who He is (son of Man*, son of God, etc..) and even though they have said things about who they hope He is or are coming to believe He is, it is this moment in Matthew 16 where Peter declares most emphatically that indeed, he is convinced that Jesus is the "Christ, the Son of the Living God".
Interestingly, though, even after this, Peter and the disciples still had many misunderstandings about who Jesus was and what he was sent to do (Matthew 16:21-23).
I think it all comes together to show that from the get-go Jesus at times spoke quite clearly about Himself (to certain audiences) and the disciples spoke hopefully about who they thought he might be-- with increasing confidence until the pivotal confession of Peter just before Christ's transfiguration (Matthew 17) not long before his death.
Lastly, from a historical point of view, it's important to unpack some of the terms used of Jesus and make a few remarks about them:
Son of God: this term, contrary to popular modern belief, would not have automatically been seen by Jews of Jesus day as a claim to divinity. Son of God was a term that had already been used in Jewish literature and vernacular to simply apply to a specially anointed servant of God. So, for the disciples to call Jesus this doesn't necessarily mean much more than that they thought he was specially anointed. Of course, ultimately, Jesus did reveal that there was much more to the phrase "son of God" that would become clear the more they got to know Him. Several times Jesus uses the phrase in such as way as to make it clear that He is taking about much more than just a special dude.
*Son of Man: Again, many think this phrase emphasizes Jesus' humanity. And, in many ways, that is probably true. However, the phrase "son of man" actually would have been a more provocative title for Jesus to use than "son of God" because by the time of Christ the phrase was heavily associated with the coming Messiah due to this powerful verse from Daniel:
Daniel 7:13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
"Son of Man" therefore was shorthand for saying- "the one who would be given all authority, glory, and power to be be worshiped and preside as judge over mankind" Much more provocative than "son of God"
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 15, 2007 8:17:55 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Aug 15, 2007 8:17:55 GMT -8
From the NIB commentary:
"Jesus may praise Nathanael because he accepted Philip's invitation even though he had questions"
I like that idea.
Here's another snippet:
"Why are there so many names for Jesus [in these opening chapters]? Each disciple sees something different in Jesus and bears witness in his own way. Each disciple came to Jesus with differing expectations and needs- one needed a teacher, another the Messiah, another the fulfillment of Scripture-- and each of these needs were met. Yet... [this is] only th ebeginning; they will see "greater things".... The reality of God in Jesus outruns traditional categories and titles"
|
|
|
John 1
Aug 21, 2007 14:52:56 GMT -8
Post by b on Aug 21, 2007 14:52:56 GMT -8
From "The Message" Bible verse 14
The word became flesh and blood, and moved right into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes
Beautiful in any translation
|
|