|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean it literally meant intimacy. I meant that that's how I interpret it.
The Greek word is κολπος. It's the same word that occurs in the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke's gospel, chapter 16. quote:
22"Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
I'm thinking of the thing from John later, at the Last Supper, where the disciple that Jesus loved rested on the bosom of Christ. (I've seen it translated that way, anyway.)
So there must be a strong connotation of love and friendship here, right?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Here is John 13:25. quote:
He, leaning back thus on Jesus' bosom, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?"
The word used here is also κολπος
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I’m also intrigued by the last word in the verse (Gk form from: εξηγεομαι), from which we get the word ‘exegesis’.
It speaks of something more than merely recounting a description; it is to provide an authoritative explanation, ‘to make fully and clearly known’ as the Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (eds Louw, Nida et al) puts it. It could be that John ties Jesus in so closely to the Father in this verse for that reason: only someone so intimately involved could be so authoritative about God.
There’s a model in there somewhere – only those who are so closely bound up in studying the bible can hope to provide an authoritative exegesis. Or is the model that only those so intimate with God as Father can hope to properly exegete his word?
Or both...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
That was a very helpful post Nigel.
Are we ready to move on?
quote:
v19 And this is the witness of John when the Jews sent to him priests and levites from Jerusalem to ask him "Who are you?"
v20 And he confessed and did not deny, and he confessed, "I am not the Christ." (NASB)
Is John (the writer John) concerned to clarify any misconceptions here about just who was and who was not the Messiah? Were people confused about the role of the Baptist and how it fitted with that of Christ?
I've heard it taught that those who accepted the baptism of John responded positively to Jesus' messianic claims and those who rejected the 'herald', rejected the 'king'
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
There is a linked speculation: that the writer needed to make clear the Baptist's relative subservient role vis-a-vis Jesus, in order to convince the former's disciples to come over to the Jesus camp after the resurrection. Luke 3:15 would suggest that there was some anticipation around the Baptist being the Messiah.
His denial is pretty emphatic; in a book where the author enjoys word plays and allusion, here is a pretty strong "Read my lips: I'm NOT the Messiah - now gerroff and leave me alone!"
Sensitive, eh? Perhaps he should get off the fence with his witnessing/testimony!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Is it OK to post again? Hope so, and here are the next three verses:
21 So they asked him, "What are you then? Are you Elijah?" nd he said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."
22 So they said to him, "Who are you, so we can give an answer to those who sent us? What do you have to say for yourself?"
23 He said: "I am 'the voice of one crying out in the desert, "Make straight the way of the Lord,"' as Isaiah the prophet said."
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Is it OK to post again? Hope so, and here are the next three verses:
21 So they asked him, "What are you then? Are you Elijah?" nd he said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."
22 So they said to him, "Who are you, so we can give an answer to those who sent us? What do you have to say for yourself?"
23 He said: "I am 'the voice of one crying out in the desert, "Make straight the way of the Lord,"' as Isaiah the prophet said."
This business of John the Baptist'
s id or CV gets a fair working over doesn't it?
My understanding is that the jewish leaders had a method of investigating a new movement. They sent observers who at first did not engage but just observed. if the movement was thought to be significant they sent them back, this time to actively enquire. The response of John suggests that what is recorded here is the second stage of enquiry.
The ref to the prophet clearly links to the statement by Moses that there will be another prophet "like unto Me" and also to the understanding of the Jewish leaders that Elijah, who did not die, would appear before the Messiah came. John denies being either of these identities doesn't he? Thus, the question is raised about just what he is doing.
In quoting Is 40:3 here is he giving a 3rd option showing is is in fact 'Elijah' but not literally. heis in fact doing the Elijah job of prefiguring Jesus' ministry. Or, is he unaware of his true function as the 'Elijah' figure which Jesus later confirms that he is?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
The next few verses finish off this section (NIV translation):
24 Now some Pharisees who had been sent
25 questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
26 "I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know.
27 He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."
28 This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
The next few verses (NAB):
quote:
29
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
30
He is the one of whom I said, 'A man is coming after me who ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.'
31
I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing with water was that he might be made known to Israel."
32
John testified further, saying, "I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him.
33
I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.'
34
Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God."
I have a question for anybody who might know: Does the "Lamb of God" usage here refer back to something in the Hebrew Bible, or is it new?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
I always assumed that the Lamb of God reference has to do with the Passover Lamb which was sacrificed - there is certainly a fair amount in the New Testament that fits with this.
The Levitical cultus also involved the sacrifice of lamb quite a bit (though IIRC most of the sin offering lambs were supposed to be female).
The other possiible allusion may be to the incident of Abraham and Isaac
quote:
Genesis 22 (ESV)
[7] And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" [8] Abraham said, "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together.
Come to think of it, being a Lamb associated with God never really seem to imply that there was much to look forward to in the future!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
But I mean, was this phrase ever used anywhere, or is this the first time it's ever seen? Were lambs meant for sacrifice called "lambs of God," for instance?
Or was there any prophetic use of this phrase? I'm thinking of all the stuff in Isaiah about the "suffering servant"; anything like that mentioning lambs? (Or did this language actually come up in that section of Isaiah itself?)
Something is nagging at my mind about this, but I can't figure out what it is.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Actually, your Isaac reference may be the very thing I'm thinking of.
But is there anything in the prophets, too, do you know?)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
Closest I could come up with is a reference from the suffering servant song in Isaiah 53 quote:
Isaiah 53:7 (ESV)
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Does the "Lamb of God" usage here refer back to something in the Hebrew Bible, or is it new?
The phrase "Lamb of God" is used outside of the NT in document known as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The phrase occurs in two places, set out below. The problem is that we don't know if this work was penned by Christians or whether it pre-dates Jesus. Some of the terminology is Daniel-like, some very close to our John passage. It does reflect a view of the Lamb in more ram-like terms; a lamb that had no intention of taking sacrifice lying down, as it were. Some information on the document can be found by linking here.
The first reference occurs as part of a vision in the Testament of Joseph, 2:77:
[72] Hear ye, therefore, me vision which I saw. [73] I saw twelve harts feeding. And nine of them were dispersed. Now the three were preserved, but on the following day they also were dispersed. And I saw that the three harts became three lambs, and they cried to the Lord, and He brought them forth into a flourishing and well watered place, yea He brought them out of darkness into light. And there they cried unto the Lord until there gathered together unto them the nine harts, and they became as twelve sheep, and after a little time they increased and became many flocks. [74] And after these things I saw and behold, twelve bulls were sucking one cow, which produced a sea of milk, and there drank thereof the twelve flocks and innumerable herds. And the horns of the fourth bull went up unto heaven and became as a wall for the flocks, and in the midst of the two horns there grew another horn. And I saw a bull calf which surrounded them twelve times, and it became a help to the bulls wholly. And I saw in the midst of the horns a virgin wearing a many-coloured garment, and from her went forth a lamb; and on his right was as it were a lion; and all the beasts and all the reptiles rushed against him, and the lamb over came them and destroyed them. [75] And the bulls rejoiced because of him, and the cow and the harts exulted together with them. [76] And these things must come to pass in their season. [77] Do ye therefore, my children, observe the commandments of the Lord, and honour Levi and Judah; for from them shall arise unto you the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world one who saveth all the Gentiles and Israel. [78] For His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, which shall not pass away; but my kingdom among you shall come to an end as a watcher's hammock, which after the summer disappeareth.
The second reference appears in the Testament of Benjamin, 3:
3. Do ye also therefore, my children, love the Lord God of heaven, and keep His commandments, and be followers of the good and holy man Joseph; and let your mind be unto good, even as ye know me. He that hath his mind good seeth all things rightly. Fear ye the Lord, and love your neighbour; and even though the spirits of Beliar allure you into all troublous wickedness, yet shall no troublous wickedness have dominion over you, even as it bad not over Joseph my brother. How many men wished to slay him, and God shielded him ! For he that feareth God and loveth his neighbour cannot be smitten by Beliar's spirit of the air, being shielded by the fear of God; nor can he be ruled over by the device of men or of beasts, for he is aided by the love of the Lord which he hath towards his neighbour. For he even besought our father Jacob that he would pray for our brethren, that the Lord would not impute to them the evil that they devised concerning Joseph. And thus Jacob cried out, My child Joseph, thou hast prevailed over the bowels of thy father Jacob. And he embraced him, and kissed him for two hours, saying, In thee shall be fulfilled the prophecy of heaven concerning the Lamb of God, even the Saviour of the world, that spotless shall He be delivered up for transgressors, and sinless shall He be put to death for ungodly men in the blood of the covenant, for the salvation of the Gentiles and of Israel, and shall destroy Beliar, and them that serve him.
I gather that J.C. O'Neill argues for a pre-Christian date for the documents. I don't have his work to hand, but the reference is: J. C. O'Neill, "The Lamb of God in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979): 2–30. Reprinted in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds., New Testament Backgrounds (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Thank you, Anselm and Nigel. Very interesting.
I'm trying to understand exactly what references John is making here; the Isaac story is definitely a resonance here, I think. The Twelve Patriarchs thing is fascinating, too. Where was this document found, Nigel?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
TubaMirum,
It has had a bit of a fragmentary history, this document. There are twelve segments to it (corresponding to the 12 Patriarchs) and I know that parts of that larger document (Levi and Naphtali) were found to have been in the Cairo Geniza during the 1890s and also among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These parts were written in Hebrew and Aramaic, but the rest have been found – to the best of my knowledge – only in Greek. Origen makes reference to it, so a version must have been around in some form by his time (early to mid-third century AD). There are a number of Greek manuscripts floating around from medieval times and translations were made into, e.g., Armenian.
There are some articles on the document that Answers.com threw up, but these carry the usual health warning on accuracy.
As always with these writings, it would be nice to have a complete version that could be dated with some accuracy, especially given the tantalising links with the John passage. Until we do, there will always be the suspicion that the ‘Lamb of God’ references came from a Christian who sneaked them in to what was otherwise a Jewish text when no one was looking!
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Thanks again, Nigel. I wonder if there will be more archeological finds in the future, comparable to the Dead Sea Scrolls?
I would think so. If some things have been preserved, it would stand to reason that others might have been too. It would be very interesting, I agree, to see from what period this document dates!
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
In general, the imagery of sheep as representing the children of Israel is widespread. But so far as the Lamb of God imagery is concerned, there is also the imagery in 1 Enoch, right at the end of the Apocalypse of the Animals (90, v38).
This is a fascinating read and well worth it for other reasons (the A of the A that is) - especially if you want to see how apocalyptic language works. Israel is portrayed as sheep, but at the end:-
quote:
And I saw that a white bull was born, with large horns and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him and made petition to him all the time. And I saw till all their generations were transformed, and they all became white bulls; and the first among them became a lamb, and that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns on its head; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen. And I slept in their midst: and I awoke and saw everything. This is the vision which I saw while I slept, and I awoke and blessed the Lord of righteousness and gave Him glory.
Enochian fragments are known from Qumran. Whilst I appreciate that this narrative may have more in common with the language of the book of Revelation, nevertheless it does also help to provide evidence of similar pre-existing use of the same (or very similar) imagery.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Very interesting, once again.
I'll continue:
quote:
35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples,
36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God."
37 The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
38 Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which translated means Teacher), "where are you staying?"
39 He said to them,"Come, and you will see." So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759
|
Posted
I would just like to say a few things about this verse:
--------------------------------------------------
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
--------------------------------------------------
The WORD which we have previosly said Uncreated eternally existing and emanating from GOD as the living Word/Logos formed all that is seen or unseen, that is not just all that is now, but all that has been, that will ever be, Life, material, immaterial (Spiritual Beings) Invisible forces, Visible beings, trees, planets, new suns that will come into existence or even new universes or new earths, this universe and this earth
Anything that will ever be seen or unseen was created by The Word. The WORD, himself pre-existing without beginning and without end eternally existing with the Father and the Holy Spirit the Pre-incarnation of Jesus Christ, GOD THE SON, the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
Thanks
Centurion
Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
Why is the call of the disciples so different in John than in the synoptics? As was said earlier up the thread, the first 34 verses have really hammered home the position of John the Baptist as 'not the messiah' (though admittedly a lot more than a 'very naughty boy'...).
Here we have two of John's disciples leaving and following Jesus instead. Later, Jesus is told off for eating and drinking when John's disciples fasted, which suggests that the relationship might not have been as friendly as the earlier verses suggest. Is this really a split in the John the Baptist faction - with Jesus being the one who rejects the ascetic and separatist approach and argues (and acts) for one that eats with sinners?
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
Why is the call of the disciples so different in John than in the synoptics?
Have you noticed that it is the same group of Galilean disciples who end up back at the lake with Jesus in the last chapter of the book?
Assuming that is we read the two "other" disciples of 21.2 as being Andrew and Philip from chapter 2, as I suspect we are meant to.
I also suspect that we are meant to read that at least some of these people already knew Jesus from home when John the Baptist introduced them to him. John (the Evangelist) is writing to an audience assumed to be familiar with at least some of the stories we know from the Synoptics. And we are meant to know that Jesus is known to Peter and Andrew's family in Galilee. Or that's my pet theory anyway...
[fixed typo]
[ 09. September 2006, 22:42: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Time to move on a bit:
John 1:40-42 (NIV) -
40 Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
John 1:43-44 [NIV] -
43 The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me."
44 Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
John 1:43-44 [NIV] -
43 The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me."
44 Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida.
Interesting that the ones who respond to Christ are John's disciples. This confirms Johns ministry as a sort of gatekeeper I think. I've heard it said that the folk who embraced the Baptist's ministry also embraced that of the Lord.
Interesting too that There is a kind of 'codespeak' here; the disciples seek to follow the master with a question "Where are you staying?" This signals their intention.
Interesting too that the apostolic band contains sets of brothers. Surely not coincedental
Interesting too that it is the disciples who seek the discipler and not the other way round. This isn't a model of discipleship on often currently sees.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Interesting too that the apostolic band contains sets of brothers. Surely not coincedental
What would you say is the significance of this? Is it just that news spreads faster in a family and if one brother 'signed-up' it was more likely that others in the family would too? Or is there something more to it than that?
Some churches grow biologically (younger couples growing their children in the church); is there a model, do you think, for spreading the gospel via family groups first?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Interesting too that it is the disciples who seek the discipler and not the other way round. This isn't a model of discipleship on often currently sees.
Quite true. Though a fair number of church evangelists seem to persist in the idea that the 'mission week' should take place in a church building, presumably believing either that the church members are more in need of the gospel than anyone else (which could be true!), or that unbelievers will somehow wander in off the street and be saved. Perhaps they need a John the Baptist type figure out front of the church extolling the sandal laces of the preacher inside!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Interesting too that the apostolic band contains sets of brothers. Surely not coincedental
What would you say is the significance of this?
The apostolic band contains family, sure but it also contained a tax collector and a zealot. Zealots had a tendency to assassinate zealots.
On reflection I think Jesus choice is a microcosm of the huge range of potential adherents he would attract. Family members to sworn political adversaries.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Interesting too that it is the disciples who seek the discipler and not the other way round. This isn't a model of discipleship on often currently sees.
Quite true. Though a fair number of church evangelists seem to persist in the idea that the 'mission week' should take place in a church building, presumably believing either that the church members are more in need of the gospel than anyone else (which could be true!), or that unbelievers will somehow wander in off the street and be saved. Perhaps they need a John the Baptist type figure out front of the church extolling the sandal laces of the preacher inside!
You know I never had a mentor in the faith a guru to follow. And I notice the lack of fathers. Even now If I saw a tremendous example of a father in the faith I'd want to sit at his feet like Mary did to Jesus. A pity that such people are so rare. Most of our leaders have their head but not the heart experience . It's one of the reasons I don't like church. I'm an internal leaver as they say.
{fixed code}
[ 27. September 2006, 11:57: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Sorry, stuffed up code above
The apostolic band contains family, sure but it also contained a tax collector and a zealot. Zealots had a tendency to assassinate tax collectors.
On reflection I think Jesus choice is a microcosm of the huge range of potential adherents he would attract. Family members to sworn political adversaries.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Even now If I saw a tremendous example of a father in the faith I'd want to sit at his feet like Mary did to Jesus. A pity that such people are so rare. Most of our leaders have their head but not the heart experience . It's one of the reasons I don't like church. I'm an internal leaver as they say.
Always going, but never leaving, is it, Jamac?!
I suppose the danger of putting faith in another human is that they might - being human - fail you. In addition, some people seem to put their faith in church structures and when those fail, their faith is also damaged. Perhaps the aim is to go straight to God, via Jesus, to avoid these dangers; by all means engage in church, listen to leaders, read the bible, but never just stop at those points; always revert to the Father.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Even now If I saw a tremendous example of a father in the faith I'd want to sit at his feet like Mary did to Jesus. A pity that such people are so rare. Most of our leaders have their head but not the heart experience . It's one of the reasons I don't like church. I'm an internal leaver as they say.
Always going, but never leaving, is it, Jamac?!
I suppose the danger of putting faith in another human is that they might - being human - fail you. In addition, some people seem to put their faith in church structures and when those fail, their faith is also damaged. Perhaps the aim is to go straight to God, via Jesus, to avoid these dangers; by all means engage in church, listen to leaders, read the bible, but never just stop at those points; always revert to the Father.
Yes..Boo Hoo. Not about me though..apologies. Jesus I'm sure was never boring; but the church can be tedious...can't we?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Here's a thought: Philip, Andrew and Peter were all so fed up with the local synagogue that they jumped at the chance to found a new movement.
Reading into texts can be so much fun.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Here's a thought: Philip, Andrew and Peter were all so fed up with the local synagogue that they jumped at the chance to found a new movement.
Reading into texts can be so much fun.
Someone should write a Christmas play about that.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
John 1:45-51 NASB
45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law and also the prophets wrote,Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
46 And Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite in whom is no guile!"
48 Nathanael said to him,"How do you know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
49 Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the son of God: you are the king of Israel."
50 Jesus answered and said to him, "Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these."
51 And he said to him, Truly, truly I say to you, you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of god ascending and descending on the son of man."
Hope it is all right to put forward this next passage for discussion.
The interesing idea in it is that Nathanael recognised Jesus very suddenly and on very little apparent evidence.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ed Form
Apprentice
# 11859
|
Posted
quote:
John 1:45-51...
The interesing idea in it is that Nathanael recognised Jesus very suddenly and on very little apparent evidence.
The passage has a number of allusions to Scripture which indicate that Nathanael had solid grounds for his exclamation. The first is the greeting Jesus used to him...
Verse 47.
Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"
This is a reference to Jacob whose name means 'one who supplants by guile' and whose name was changed to Israel which means 'God prevails'. The name-changing occurred after Jacob wrestled with the angel and prevailed and was declared to be a powerful prince with God [Genesis 32:28]. Nathanael was somewhat disturbed by this greeting because he asked...
Verse 48
...Whence knowest thou me?
The way this was said strongly suggests that Jesus had read Nathanael's mind accurately, not only had he discerned that Nathanael was a simple, guiless man, but also that he had been ruminating on the development of the character of Israel/Jacob immediately before his brother came to fetch him and Jesus' very obvious reference to the Peniel events really shocked him.
Jacob was actually on his way to find a wife from among his mother's kin when he met the angel, and the very next incident in John is the wedding at Cana, so it seems possible that this was Nathanael's marriage and that Nathanael had sat under the fig tree to contemplate his future, and that his thoughts had dwelt upon the example of Jacob who had his natural guile drummed out of him by hard experience so that he was molded into a godly prince - a fitting father for the chosen people.
Jesus next words contain another strong scriptural reference...
Verse 48
...Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
The idea of calling someone under a fig tree lead us into Zechariah 3:10...
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.
The name of the town Cana means Vineyard, and they were in that neighbourhood so both plants were in evidence and Nathanael had initially doubted that any thing could come out of Nazareth [verse 46] - it means branch-town. So, when Jesus lead him to the great prophecy of Joshua the high priest, and the verse that says...
Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. [Zechariah 3:8]
...Nathanel recognised that he was in the presence of a man who could read minds and who had already been recognised as Messiah by his brother. His conclusion - that the elevation of Joshua to high honour as God's true priest was a symbol of this very man - resulted in his declaration...
Verse 49
...Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."
Jesus then expressed pleasure that Nathanael was convinced by so small a demonstration of his powers and continued...
Verse 50-51
...You shall see greater things than these." And He *said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
This was another reference back to the inital Jacob/Israel ideas and contains a lovely prophecy of Jesus as the altar stone that Jacob set up and upon which the angels ascended and descended.
Ed Form
Posts: 37 | From: East Anglia, UK | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ed Form:
quote:
John 1:45-51...
The interesing idea in it is that Nathanael recognised Jesus very suddenly and on very little apparent evidence.
The passage has a number of allusions to Scripture which indicate that Nathanael had solid grounds for his exclamation. The first is the greeting Jesus used to him...
Verse 47.
Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"
This is a reference to Jacob whose name means 'one who supplants by guile' and whose name was changed to Israel which means 'God prevails'. The name-changing occurred after Jacob wrestled with the angel and prevailed and was declared to be a powerful prince with God [Genesis 32:28]. Nathanael was somewhat disturbed by this greeting because he asked...
Verse 48
...Whence knowest thou me?
The way this was said strongly suggests that Jesus had read Nathanael's mind accurately, not only had he discerned that Nathanael was a simple, guiless man, but also that he had been ruminating on the development of the character of Israel/Jacob immediately before his brother came to fetch him and Jesus' very obvious reference to the Peniel events really shocked him.
Jacob was actually on his way to find a wife from among his mother's kin when he met the angel, and the very next incident in John is the wedding at Cana, so it seems possible that this was Nathanael's marriage and that Nathanael had sat under the fig tree to contemplate his future, and that his thoughts had dwelt upon the example of Jacob who had his natural guile drummed out of him by hard experience so that he was molded into a godly prince - a fitting father for the chosen people.
Jesus next words contain another strong scriptural reference...
Verse 48
...Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
The idea of calling someone under a fig tree lead us into Zechariah 3:10...
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.
The name of the town Cana means Vineyard, and they were in that neighbourhood so both plants were in evidence and Nathanael had initially doubted that any thing could come out of Nazareth [verse 46] - it means branch-town. So, when Jesus lead him to the great prophecy of Joshua the high priest, and the verse that says...
Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. [Zechariah 3:8]
...Nathanel recognised that he was in the presence of a man who could read minds and who had already been recognised as Messiah by his brother. His conclusion - that the elevation of Joshua to high honour as God's true priest was a symbol of this very man - resulted in his declaration...
Verse 49
...Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."
Jesus then expressed pleasure that Nathanael was convinced by so small a demonstration of his powers and continued...
Verse 50-51
...You shall see greater things than these." And He *said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
This was another reference back to the inital Jacob/Israel ideas and contains a lovely prophecy of Jesus as the altar stone that Jacob set up and upon which the angels ascended and descended.
Ed Form
Awesome.
So nathanael was meditating on the Jacob story under a fig tree.
The ladder from earth to heaven in his dream is obviously used by Jesus as a metaphor for his function as link between God and Man. In what sense do we see, and did Nathanael see, angels sacending and descending on the son of man?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Apologise for crappy spelling . Missed edit window
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ed Form
Apprentice
# 11859
|
Posted
quote:
In what sense do we see, and did Nathanael see, angels sacending and descending on the son of man?
We must be very careful when pondering sayings like this; its too easy to always look for an event of transcending majesty, of the type we find in the transfiguration. In that case Jesus' promise that some of the disciples would see him coming in his kingdom was immediately fulfilled by a kingdom vision on the mountain top, but in this case the explanation is less dramatic, although this was, in fact an altogether more mighty and astonishing claim.
We need to look first at the way Jesus used the idea of heaven being opened and communicating with the Earth: these two verses from John 6 will give us a big clue...
Verse 33
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Verse 38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
In both cases the verbs are present tense active; in other words the verses ought to be translated...
Verse 33
For the bread of God is he who IS COMING down from heaven, and IS GIVING life unto the world.
Verse 38
For I AM COMING down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
The action of coming down from heaven was the things that Jesus was doing, on Earth, at that very moment - God, by him, was giving gifts to mankind - and this is the sense in which Nathanael and his fellow disciples would see angels ascending and descending on the son of man. Jesus had been placed in charge of the angels and their work of mediating between God and man would now be depenent upon the wishes of Jesus. His qualification for obtaining this rank and privilege was that he was to be the very altar upon which God's mercy could be dispensed.
Ed Form
Posts: 37 | From: East Anglia, UK | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In what sense do we see, and did Nathanael see, angels ascending and descending on the son of man?
Given the background in the OT (and elsewhere) of locating God’s residence ‘on high’ – a theme consistent with the beliefs of other semitic religions in the region where high mountains were seen as the place for God’s residence – the imagery of God’s messengers ascending and descending would fit with the idea of God making his decrees in his court and the messengers then setting out to deliver them on earth. The particular image of the ziggurat fits here: steps to ‘heaven’ – the top, where God’s council sits and where God has his dwelling. Jacob’s designation of the site where he had his vision in Gen. 27 as “House of God” reflects this as well.
The resonance in John would then include the aspect of Jesus being appointed to carry out God’s judgement – given in heaven (on high) and now to be enforced on earth – and those decrees being delivered to Jesus to enforce. The translation of the preposition ‘epi’ in verse 51 in some English versions as ‘on’ can be misleading; here it takes the accusative and should more naturally be understood in the sense as motion towards the point where the object rests – i.e. to where Jesus is, not literally walking up and down ‘on’ him.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Can a lurker pick it up here? No posts for over a month - have you agreed to take a break? If not:
Ch2 Verse 1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
Verse 2. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. (NRSV)
Does anyone else find it odd that Jesus' mother is mentioned first? After the miracle I don't think we see her in this gospel again until the crucifixion. It's the third day of John's drama of the Passion, and that phrase "on the third day" must have resonated for his first readers as
they do with modern ones. It's a phrase full of hope - anticipating the triumph of the resurrection before Jesus is even arrested -but also full of tension....
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Hi pimple – thanks for picking this up again; I’m sure anyone is allowed to leap out of dark alleys to mug a thread if they want to. According to the original guidelines (in the OP) the person who opened the comment on a section should decide when it is time to move on and then post the next bit. However, things have lain a bit dormant for a while, possibly because everyone has been distracted somewhat by other discussions that arose at the time. At least one of the guidelines is that there is no rush!
The mention of Jesus’ mum in verse one may be a linguistic device John used to parade the key characters of his next episode up front before he gets going with the narrative itself. However, it may also be that the mother was actually involved in the wedding (its organisation perhaps?), whereas Jesus and his disciples were invitees; so mother rushes around ensuring everything is goes as smoothly as possible, whereas Jesus and Co. were out front with the other guests.
I’ve wondered about that “third day” phrase. Potential confusion arises when we try to count the days thus far: 1:19-28 could be day one; 1:29 starts the next day; 1:35 is day three; and 1:43 day four. So is 2:1 three days after that (7 days in all – a week)? If we push back a bit further to the beginning of John gospel and the comparison with Genesis 1, then is day one the start of the week? If that is John’s intention, then the wedding is on the Sabbath – the day of rest. Significances abound.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In what sense do we see, and did Nathanael see, angels ascending and descending on the son of man?
According to NT Wright, the so-called Messianic Secret in Mark has three levels:
1) The prophet is also the King (messiah)
2) The kingdom will come through the suffering and death of the King (suffering servant/son of man)
3) The dying King is Israel's god in person (Temple presence in the flesh)
Since Nathaniel already recognizes the first level of secret (Jesus = King of Israel), it seems to me that ths final statement is a cryptic revelation of the other two secrets, since "son of man" is code for the suffering/vindication aspect of Jesus' vocation, and the "stairway to heaven" is code for "Bethel", which is "House of God", i.e. the Temple.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
With regard to the Cana Wedding incident, I've had a theory for some time that the authors of John's gospel had Mark's gospel in front of them as they arranged their material.
Is there an obvious structural connection between the placement of this account and Jesus' statement about bridegrooms and wineskins in Mark 2, just after the calling of Levi?
quote:
John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?"
And Jesus said to them, "While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
"But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.
"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results.
"No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins." Mark 2:18-22
(This kind of saying-narrative parallelism between gospels might be similar to what we see in Luke where Mark's action against the fig tree becomes a parable about a fig tree?)
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
As far as the exact chronology is concerned, I'm confused too - but it seems to sort itself out later. There's the added complication that the days began in the evening ("And the evening andthe morning wre the first day...")
I don't know about the Johanine author having any one synoptic gospel with him at the time of writing. Maybe all of them (Maybe even all of them in his head!)
As well as the Marcan reference to the bridegroom which you quoted (have I got that right? I should have printed off your post before starting this), we have Luke's account of the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth:
When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue ON THE SABBATH DAY, as was his custom. He stood up to read...the scrollof the prophet Isaiah....
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,/because he has anointed me/to bring good news to the poor... (Luke 4:16-18a)
Luke himself doesn't refer to the bridegroom here, but the Isaiah passage continues:
"....I will greatly rejoice in the Lord,/my whole being shal exult in my God;/for he has clothe me with the garments of salvation,/he has covered me with the robe of righteousness,/AS A BRIDEGROOM DECKS HIMSELF WITH A GARLAND/ AND AS A BRIDE ADORNS HERSELF WITH HERJEWELS
(Isaiah 61:1...10) All refs NRSV.
So the fact that Jesus' ministry effectively starts at a wedding is absolutely crammed with significance. No wonder he has to do something when the wine runs out! There is in the bridegroom reference also an allusion to the beginning of things. Thus the great Creation Psalm 19:
"The heavens are telling the glory of God....In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun,/WHICH COMES OUT LIKE A BRIDEGROOM/FROM HIS WEDDING CANOPY..."
I hope you'll excuse one or two typos. Is it possible to edit in the preview window? No(Otherwise I'm sure I'd run out of time.)
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Just a quick note of apology. I just looked at the "rules" to refresh my memory and saw the ref. to the Bible Gateway (NIV). I'll use this in any future posts.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
On a bit?
2:3 When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I tied to comment on this yesterday, but the edit clock defeated me; so I'll be brief! The wine runs out. Jesus has a considerable dilemma. What sort of omen will the bride and groom - and everyone else, for that matter - for the success of the marriage, read into this disaster?
But it's not his responsibility, is it? The Steward is in charge. He needs to know what the situation is - before word gets around - and certainly before the bride and groom get wind of it. So what is Jesus to do? Take over? Wouldn't that blow it? He has to think - and act - fast.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
2:4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
That last phrase would have been full of meaning for John's first readers. But what could it possibly have meant to Mary when he said it?
[ 07. December 2006, 21:41: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
This particular verse ISTM tells us as much about the translator as it does about Jesus. The more usual "What's that to do with me, woman?" would I think have been perfectly acceptable in biblical times, and not taken as an infringement of the commandment to honour one's father and mother. It's quite likely that Joseph was dead by this time and Jesus would be the head of the family. But I love the way Mary deals with his objection. She just ignores it!
2:5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
So there!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
2:4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
That last phrase would have been full of meaning for John's first readers. But what could it possibly have meant to Mary when he said it?
John uses the 'hour' word a few times in his gospel. On Jesus' lips it seems to refer to his death and resurrection - c.f. 7:30; 8:20; 13:1 and 17:1. Jesus escapes death in his ministry because his time had not yet come. It's pushing things a bit, though, to assume that Jesus was avoiding a miracle with wine at Cana in case he was killed and the time wasn't right! Stoned, perhaps, in more ways than one...
I'm sure BWSmith and Freddy, to name but two, can offer ideas on deeper meanings here.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
