John 2...Carl's Blogged Bible Study, Credibility, Inclusivity

Like I said in my last post, any chapter in John really takes time and space to digest, which I don't have time for this week, but hopefully will in the days to come. It's kind of like attempting to play a full game of Risk in 20 minutes....doable (maybe) but sloppy.

The first recorded miracle, while occurring in isolation (of the synoptic gospels it is only mentioned in John), cannot be interpreted in isolation. Backtrack to the John 1 for a second...Jesus had just called his disciples. Only Jesus knew the crazy ride they were in for, yet they hardly knew him (in fact in 1:48 Nathaniel, after being called, asked Jesus how he knew him).

As I mentioned last time, John is all about verifying that Jesus is truly the Messiah; John's concern is Jesus' credibility (cf. Jn 20:31). While eventually Jesus would perform signs and wonders for men, women, Jews, Gentiles, Roman soldiers, etc. it was necessary to start with his core group; his disciples; his best friends; the guys who would die in his name (except John, the author of this gospel...ironic, huh). So before Jesus demonstrated his power to anyone else (except his mother...she obviously knew what Jesus was capable of--legends exist in which Jesus performs miracles as a child) Jesus performs a miracle for his disciples only. Coincidence or strategic? I'd say strategic. Gaining trust and loyalty of his inner (fickle) circle was part of the plan.

Jesus' "cleansing of the temple" is radical in John. Unlike Mark (who places the event closer to Jesus' death) John places it as the launch of Jesus public ministry. This freaks out a lot of believers as they perceive it as an error, but keep in mind that Jews of the first century did not think with a linear western mindset. Theirs was a topical mindset--importance trumps chronology.

Anyway, most folks perceive this story as a stern warning for misusing the temple; that is, Jesus was really ticked off at the money changing going on (Roman currency wasn't allowed...it had to be exchanged at a high rate for temple currency in order to pay the temple tax or buy sacrificial animals). I am sure Jesus was angered by this, after all he quotes Jer. 7:11 in referring to the temple as a den of Lions.

But while Jesus loved his Father's house, he loved people more. In this passage Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer for ALL nations." These thiefs, under priestly permission, had set up shop in one area of the temple..The COURT OF THE GENTILES. In doing so they left little to no room for worship of those not under the Abrahamic covenant. This house Jesus had walked in on wasn't a house of prayer for ALL nations, just for the Jews. I think this ticked Jesus off more than the bake sale in the atrium. We know from all the synoptics, especially Luke, that Jesus went out of his way for the marginalized, the Samaritans, the Gentiles.

So sure, according the prophecy in Ps. 69:9, zeal for this all inclusive house consumed him. Then as Jesus fulfills the prophets, he himself prophesies his own death, which will be remembered as a sign by his disciples at the right time.

***I hate proofreading...but I hate errors too...if you see any, let me know.

John 1:1...Carl's Blogged Bible Study, Baptism

Carl put together this Blogged Bible study on the book of John.

John has always been my favorite gospel--in fact my Thesis paper for my MA focused on an obscure word found only in this gospel. John is so strange, yet so familiar to the Chrisitian. If Paul is the theologian of the New Testament, then John is the philosopher (Irenaeus and church tradition attribute authorship to John, the beloved disciple...he is often confused with the baptizer or John of Patmos). John's gospel, ever popular with the gnostics, is so different from the other synoptics, but so compatible...in fact, it may be considered the key for interpreting the rest.

So far Carl, Joe, Darla, Michelle, and Deborah all have posted on the first chapter of this metaphysical look at Christianity with different styles and perspectives. I enjoyed them all...I'd say Joe thinks much the way I do.

Usually I love to tear apart a text and try to get into the mind of the author. The problem I face is trying to do this with a chapter that is 51 verses long. I could and should write a 50 pg. paper on this! So instead, I'll just focus on a tiny portion.

The first chapter can be broken down as follows:
I. Prologue (1:1-18)
II. Beginning of Jesus' ministry (1;19-51)
A. Testimony of John the Baptist (1:19-34)
B. Call of the first disciples (1:35-51)

The prologue, should be thought of as the thesis statement for the gospel, and all interpretation of such should revolve around it: The eternal Godhead of the Word who was involved in the creative process was made flesh to give life and light to those who are born of His Spirit; contrast with his adversary, Belial, Satan, made manifest as the counter work of His fellow Jews who reject his teachings and Messiahship. John logically attributes credibility to "Jesus."

And after the prologue, how does he do this? How does John first physically introduce the Son of God to his readers? He does so through the rite of Baptism!

I doubt I have to expound to anyone reading this post that John, while writing in Greek, was a Jew and wrote with typical Hebraic style. He was well versed in the law. He drew upon this knowledge to legitimize Jesus as being the spoken of by the prophets, and John the Baptist was crucial in fulfilling this prophecy (i.e. 1:23).

You know all this. But what hit me, is that the act of Baptism was so necessary! According to John, Jesus did not begin his ministry (which was to take away the sins of the world--1:29, and to baptize WITH the Holy Spirit--1:34). John the Baptist testified to the author that at the baptism of Jesus the Holy Spirit descended and stayed with Jesus, unlike all the prophets before him who only experienced momentary rendezvous (1:32).

I say all this as I rethink baptism. It seems to me we trivialize this rite, dare I say, sacrament, in the church today. We think of it as cliche public statement of our belief to those in our congregations. I have heard pastor after pastor tell his congregation that baptism ceremonies will be taking place at some set aside date in the future and any congregant who feels led to participate may. How contrary to John's portrayal of the event!

Leave John with me for a moment and go to:
Mark 16:16:- "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved." (hardly sounds optional)
Acts 8:34-39- The Eunuch was immediately baptized.
Acts 9:18- Immediately after the scales fell off Paul's eyes, as he saw Jesus for who he was, he was baptized.

Every example of salvation in the early church was immediately accompanied by baptism as per Jesus' example here in the first chapter of John.

I don't know exactly where to go with this except to say I hope we all take this story far more serious than we currently do!