The Gospel of John

We did a study of John 6:1-15 today on the Feeding of the 5,000. It is indeed an account we would most probably have heard or read 5,000 times but we did have some new insights on it this evening.

We had our bible study as usual this evening on the book of John and we studied John 5:31-47. I initially found the verses quite straightforward but when we looked into them, I learnt quite a lesson.

John 5:39-40
39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
There are those in our midst who are illiterate and yet believe with their whole heart in the Lord Jesus Christ, and there are those who are not only literate but who are so brilliant and yet are blinded by their will of disbelief.

John 5:41-42
41 "I do not accept praise from men, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.
Just imagine God saying these words to us when we sing him praises every Sunday morning not realising or even aware of what we are singing. "I know you and I know you do not have the love of God in your hearts." Know the songs that we sing and have the fruits to show the love of God in our hearts.

pearlie

We finished John 2 today for bible study: the passage on Jesus' cleansing of the temple. What we learnt from this lesson is to always ask the condition of our "courtyards". Is it crowded with albeit necessary things but in the wrong places? It is so full of things that they have crowded out God? Have we made excuses to allow things in the "grey area" into our lives?

Another lesson someone highlighted - are we bold enough to do the right thing when it is called for? Do we rebuke when we should? Do we stand up for the right when we should? This is very delicate - we think about the feelings of others, about being "tolerant" (whatever that means nowadays). Someone said we should not be too rigid. But someone else gave an example that some churches purposefully set their air-conditioner at full blast during service so that women who come dressed in spaghetti straps will either cover themselves with shawls or don a sweater or jacket. So where do we draw the line?

pearlie

We discussed John 2:1-11 today. The flow of conversation between Jesus and his mother ensuing the running out of wine at the wedding banquet we had found rather puzzling.

Mary: They have no more wine.

Jesus: Woman, what to me and to you? My time has not yet come.

Mary (to the servants): Whatever He says to you, do it.

What do you make out of it?

I suggest this:
Having no wine during a wedding banquet in the ancient Jewish world was a serious offence, culpable to legal proceedings. Mary was worried and came to seek Jesus' help. She kind of knew that he is special and will be able to do something spectacular to save the day.

But Jesus asked her what would it mean to her and what would it mean to him if he were do to something.

Mary's focus is on the immediate, Jesus focus is on the eternal and his time has not yet come for his glorification on the cross and his resurrection.

But since his mother had asked him and the matter at hand is a serious one, he chose to perform the miracle. He even set it to be the first of all his miracles, the one that inaugurates his kingdom.

Any objections?

pearlie

We studied John 1:19-28 today. A passage we all acknowledge we had not paid much attention to. On the outset, it appears very straightforward but on closer look, there are important lessons to be learnt.

It was never about John
Right from the start, when John the Baptist was questioned by the Jews representatives who he was up to the end when the Pharisees asked about the authority by whom he were baptising.

Take note of John's answers:

Who are you?
I am not the Christ.

Then who are you? Are you Elijah?
I am not.

Are you the Prophet?
No.

Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'

Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?
I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.

Every question was directed to John, but each of his answer was directed to Christ. He never talked about himself, not even in the slightest bit. He is not the Christ, not Elijah, not the Prophet. He is only the voice and he is one who is not even worthy to do the most demeaning job of that time, that is to untie the thongs of Christ's sandals.

Was is ever about us?
In application, what does it tell us about ourselves? What do we say when we testify for Christ? Who is the main character? Is it not often that we usually draw attention to what God has done for me? How much he loves me? Where is our focus?

We need to look to John the Baptist as the model of evangelism - it is not about our experience, it is not about how touched we were, it is not about what we feel, it is simply not about us.

It is all about God
Yes, God do love us. But we are not worthy of his love, and so we are in no position to elevate ourselves to a platform to show off ourselves as evidences of God's love. His evidence of love is Christ himself. I am still perplexed by this, how are we not evidences of God's love?

But we cannot deny that we are mere channels, not the star.

pearlie

We did the remaining of John’s Prologue in bible study. And truth be told, I was not as prepared as I wish I was for this lesson. I had my plate so full for the week that by the time I sent out the last of the reports, it was already 8.00pm. Calvin and I went for a quick dinner and made it just in time for bible study at 8.30pm. I had to depend on the morsel of readings I had here and there over the week.

Therefore, my strategy was to discuss more on the theological themes of the passage, and discuss them we did. It was a profitable discussion.

After giving a sum-up of our last lesson, we went through the verses generally. Soon the focus was on v.10-14, with questions in the line of: what does “Word became flesh” mean? Why did God has to become flesh?

One of us was in the impression that even though Jesus was man, he still had the full essence and attributes of God: omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. When Jesus took on the body of a man, shouldn’t he still have those powers because he is still God, and his “quality” of being God should not be diminished. We discussed this quite at length. Philippians 2:5-8 was brought up.

Philippians 2:5-8 (NASB)
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

We concluded that Jesus in his obedience to the Father gave up what he had, emptied himself and became in the likeness of man. We began to wonder at our Lord Jesus who was so willing to give up his Godly attributes to become man. He had to do that in order for his ultimate act of love on the cross. But after resurrection, though he remained in bodily form, some of the Gospels indicate that he regained his Godly attributes.

Pastor brought up the fact that we need not worry about the "reduction" of Jesus' being when he became man. He was in the very essence still fully God, though now fully Man. He was still within the Trinitarian unity of one God.

We also discussed a bit about the ultimate sin of mankind – it is not only disobedience or even the collective of bad things we have done – at its very core, it is idolatry. This word, idolatry needs some explanation here in this part of the world, where idol worshipping is practiced at large by Taoists and Hindus. One of us asked if idolatry mean plainly that. But it is more than that, it is not merely choosing the God that we want to worship, it is the choosing of God that fits our bill, it is as what Carson has termed it to be: the de-godding of God, the thingemefying of God. Or as C.S. Lewis has termed it: “putting God in the dock”.

We must never take God for granted. As such, we must also not put too much emphasis on God’s love for us that we become the more important one. As much as God loved us so much that he gave us his son, it was for the glory of God, according to His purpose and will.

pearlie

We did our study on John 1:1-2 today and in quoting Leon Morris in his Commentary on the Gospel of John (NICNT, 1995, p.3), "I like the comparison of John's Gospel to a pool in which a child may wade and an elephant can swim," I may have just put some into the deeper end!

Take a look and see how I might have drowned them.

John's Prologue (1:1-18)
I began the bible study with 3 discussion questions:

1. What is a Prologue, and its function?
· προ-λογος, pro-logos: for-word
· An introduction to a piece of writing or work of art
· It sets the stage and prepares the audience
· It gives a preview to what's ahead

2. What did John’s Prologue achieve for John?
· It introduces his audience to the entire Gospel of John

3. Study the Prologue and highlight:
· Key words/phrases
· Repeated words/phrases
· Unique construction and usage of words/phrases
· Allusions to any other parts of Scriptures

The third discussion question was useful because it helped draw out a lot of key themes in the Prologue that served as a preview for John's message in the Gospel. It also helped instil a good habit in studying the bible.

We then plunged into the verses. For good or bad, I actually began with a warning, and a promise: I warned them that tackling the first two verses in John will take some doing, but promised them that I will only do such detailed for these two verses. I also vowed that I will only do these very two verses in Greek, and none other. I explained why I am doing it and with that I moved on.

John 1:1
εν αρχη ην ο λογος,
en arche en ho logos,
In the beginning was the Word,

και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον,
kai ho logos en pros ton theon,
and the Word was with God,

και θεος ην ο λογος.
kai theos en ho logos.
and the Word was God.

εν αρχη ...
- Alludes to the OT: αρχη denotes “the beginning”, an absolute one; the opening verse of Genesis; therefore the expression would be a well-known one
- Might allude to Mark, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mk 1:1): while Mark introduces the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, John begins with Jesus before time began

... ην ο λογος ...
- In the beginning, the Word was already in existence - the verb “was” is most naturally understood of the eternal existence of the Word; the Word continually was
- There never was a time when the Word was not
- It makes very clear that the Word was not created - it is of utmost importance
- The Word may have its background in the Greeks and Jews

... και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον ...
- The preposition προς denotes a relationship between two different parties, as such “the Word” is a person, distinguished from the Father
- “The Word was with God” is probably as good a translation as we can manage for a difficult Greek expression
- Not only did he exist in the beginning but he existed in the closest possible connection with the Father

... και θεος ην ο λογος ...
- A careful translation is demanded by the Greek structure
- Word order in Greek is employed especially for the sake of emphasis
- ο λογος : has an article, the Word is the subject
- Two key questions:
(1) why is θεος in the front: Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes the Father has
(2) why there is no article to θεος: Jesus Christ is not the Father
- This phrase alone is compact and beautiful – one of the most elegant tense theological statements one could ever find.
- Martin Luther: the lack of article is against Sabellianism (και ο λογος ην ο θεος, and the Word was the Father) and the word order is against Arianism (και ο λογος ην θεος, and the Word was a god)
- All that can be said about God may fitly be said about the Word
- This statement should not be watered down – “the Logos was divine”
- John is affirming that he is God
- c.f. 1:18, 20:28

The movement in the declaration:

The Word has his own personal existence --> his own personal character in relation with the Father
--> but they are one

The group recognised that this one simple verse of 17 words (both in the general English translation and Greek) is so packed with theological truth: that Jesus is eternal, he is personal and he is God. I acknowledged that I have brought them through quite a lot, but when I asked them if they found that they have at least learnt one wee bit as compared to before, when they merely read it as a verse in the bible, there were some nodding heads. I was glad - I then reiterated I will not make them suffer so much from then on.

John 1:2
He was in the beginning with God.

I highlighted that verse 2 is a repetition of the first two portions of the first verse, and then told them that even as I was preparing for the lesson, I had a question. Taking into consideration that John repeats himself for the sake of emphasis, why did he only repeat the first two phrases, when the last phrase of the first verse is just as important?

I wondered if it was to reinforce the first verse or as a reason for the third phrase of verse 1. But Ann gave a very convincing possibility. John repeats only the first two phrases of verse 1 and then takes the remaining of the Prologue to expound the third phrase - which concludes with v.18: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

And now that I look at it, v.18 is quite a reminiscent of verse 1.

*In the beginning was the Word
*No on has seen God at any time

*and the Word was with God
*the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father

*and the Word was God
*He has explained Him

I concluded the bible study with an application question:

How does understanding John 1:1-2 make a difference in your walk with God?

Again, I will quote Morris:
"It is both simple and profound. It is for the veriest beginner in the faith and for the mature Christian. Its appeal is immediate and never failing ... years of close study of this Gospel do not leave one with a feeling of having mastered it, but rather with the conviction that it is still "strange, restless, and unfamiliar."

How utterly true.

But my last words for the group before they dispersed were, "Please come back next week!"

pearlie
Photo © 2008 Joseph Hoban

Bibliography:
Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Leicester: Apollos, 2006.
Mounce, William D. Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.