In this fourth chapter we have two stories with a different view as to what it took to believe in Jesus. In the case of the Samaritan woman, it took Jesus telling her the abbreviated version of her life story. In the case of the ruler, it took Jesus telling him that his son would live.
In the first case, Jesus, culturally, should not have been spending time with her. She was a woman and a Samaritan (whom the Jewish people of the day despised) and was living with a man who wasn't her husband. Yet Jesus went out of his way to have a conversation with her and to meet her where she was.
In the second case, the Jewish leader sought out Jesus. He asked for help healing his son. Jesus helped, but he did not go anywhere to do it. He simply sent the father back home and the father learned on the way that his son had recovered. In this case, culturally, Jesus should have gone out of his way to help--but he didn't. That honor was reserved for a despised woman who didn't seek him out.
I think this is valuable to think about as we think about how God interacts with people. There isn't a single model of interaction. There isn't a pattern based on cultural norms. God chooses the rules, and sometimes the results are quite unexpected.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Friday, January 3, 2014
Thoughts on John 3: The Son brings darkness into light
One of the themes of John's writings (not just the gospel) is the contrast of darkness and light. John brings out this theme in chapter 3 after Jesus's discussion with the Pharisee Nicodemus. (As a note, I agree with the majority of scholars who think Jesus's words end in verse 15. Greek didn't have quotation marks, so we aren't positive.)
God sent his Son into the world to save it out of darkness. Most people, however, loved the darkness and rejected the light that the Son provided. They preferred their wicked deeds over the obedience and pure heart that would please God. This is a theme one finds in John's writings. I think it is also worth pondering.
God sent his Son into the world to save it out of darkness. Most people, however, loved the darkness and rejected the light that the Son provided. They preferred their wicked deeds over the obedience and pure heart that would please God. This is a theme one finds in John's writings. I think it is also worth pondering.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Thoughts on John 2: Righteous Anger
It sometimes astounds me how well-intentioned Christians describe Jesus. He is almost this timid thing that wouldn't hurt a fly. More like Francis of Assisi than the Jesus described in the gospels.
Early in the book, John describes a scene that should put to rest that Jesus was mild-mannered. He goes into the temple and destroys the money-making schemes and afterwards publicly challenges the religious leaders.
What is also interesting here is what triggers this behavior. Jesus does sometimes behave in a very mild-mannered way. What brings out the anger in him?
I see the common thread in chapter 2 being righteous anger. First he was upset that the wealthy were profiting over the worship of God. Those who came in to offer a sacrifice were essentially told that they had to buy a sacrifice from the temple. Wanting to remain pious, many did it, enriching those who ran the scheme. This exploitation stained the worship of God, so Jesus violently drove them out.
When the religious leaders challenged him on the authority by which he did these things, he declared that he would rebuild "this temple" and raise it up again in three days. Since it took decades to build the temple in the first place, this was quite the claim. Although Jesus meant something different by "this temple", in the minds of the listeners, Jesus was claiming he had authority that the religious leaders did not. (And it's safe to assume Jesus knew this when he said it.)
Early in the book, John describes a scene that should put to rest that Jesus was mild-mannered. He goes into the temple and destroys the money-making schemes and afterwards publicly challenges the religious leaders.
What is also interesting here is what triggers this behavior. Jesus does sometimes behave in a very mild-mannered way. What brings out the anger in him?
I see the common thread in chapter 2 being righteous anger. First he was upset that the wealthy were profiting over the worship of God. Those who came in to offer a sacrifice were essentially told that they had to buy a sacrifice from the temple. Wanting to remain pious, many did it, enriching those who ran the scheme. This exploitation stained the worship of God, so Jesus violently drove them out.
When the religious leaders challenged him on the authority by which he did these things, he declared that he would rebuild "this temple" and raise it up again in three days. Since it took decades to build the temple in the first place, this was quite the claim. Although Jesus meant something different by "this temple", in the minds of the listeners, Jesus was claiming he had authority that the religious leaders did not. (And it's safe to assume Jesus knew this when he said it.)
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Thoughts on John 1: Logos
Sometimes learning a little Greek and understanding cultural context can be helpful in interpreting Scripture. This is particularly true with the first chapter of John. I cannot count the number of times I have heard well-intentioned ministers massacre the meaning of the first verse.
For example, I witnessed the following statement from a sermon:
And this is where John 1:1 comes in. "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God." While translating logos as "word" is acceptable, it is hardly the best translation. Unfortunately, English-speaking Christians would probably have a hissy fit if the verse was translated otherwise.
Why am I making such a big deal of this? Because English speaking Christians are missing an important part of the meaning of this verse. John is telling his readers, essentially, "You know all the things that make humans different from other animals? Well Jesus has all those things in the relationship to humans. He has rationality, language, and soul to the ultimate extent. And he is God."
Now to address those who try to say John 1:1 should be interpreted as not being a claim to Jesus deity. They argue that the verse is more appropriately translated, "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was a god." First, let me note that this is a grammatically correct translation. But it ignores the historical context. Early in Christian history, there was a school of thought called gnosticism. These groups claimed special knowledge about God and Christ. They taught secret messages were found in the Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus. One of the main teachings was derived from neo-Platonist philosophy was about the Logos. The Logos was occasionally referred to as the real or higher God and that Yahweh was subservient to it.
In this context, John is trying to explain that the Gnostics have it all wrong. There is no higher god than Yahweh. But there is something that was hidden from traditional Judaism. God's plan was to come to earth and take the form of man. This is the Logos.
When you understand the meaning of Logos and the context of the first century Near East, you could not underestimate the gravity of John's profound words.
For example, I witnessed the following statement from a sermon:
John 1:1 says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. If you keep reading, you see that this is talking about Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God. Do you know what else is the word of God? [Picks up his Bible...] This is also God's word. So, in a very real way, the Bible and Jesus are the same.Nooooooooo!!!!!! First of all, let me say that I have a Master's degree in historical philosophy. When you study ancient Greek philosophy, you frequently come across the word logos. There isn't a good English translation for logos, but it can be thought of "that which separates humans from animals". The word occasionally implies rationality, language, or the soul. When philosophers use the term, they frequently use it as a term for a mysterious deity.
And this is where John 1:1 comes in. "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God." While translating logos as "word" is acceptable, it is hardly the best translation. Unfortunately, English-speaking Christians would probably have a hissy fit if the verse was translated otherwise.
Why am I making such a big deal of this? Because English speaking Christians are missing an important part of the meaning of this verse. John is telling his readers, essentially, "You know all the things that make humans different from other animals? Well Jesus has all those things in the relationship to humans. He has rationality, language, and soul to the ultimate extent. And he is God."
Now to address those who try to say John 1:1 should be interpreted as not being a claim to Jesus deity. They argue that the verse is more appropriately translated, "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was a god." First, let me note that this is a grammatically correct translation. But it ignores the historical context. Early in Christian history, there was a school of thought called gnosticism. These groups claimed special knowledge about God and Christ. They taught secret messages were found in the Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus. One of the main teachings was derived from neo-Platonist philosophy was about the Logos. The Logos was occasionally referred to as the real or higher God and that Yahweh was subservient to it.
In this context, John is trying to explain that the Gnostics have it all wrong. There is no higher god than Yahweh. But there is something that was hidden from traditional Judaism. God's plan was to come to earth and take the form of man. This is the Logos.
When you understand the meaning of Logos and the context of the first century Near East, you could not underestimate the gravity of John's profound words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)