who Jesus is (according to John B)

John 1:29-37 ... We have seen that John  the Baptiser was very unselfish about his task.  He was clear that he was here to point to another person who would be much more important than him.  Note in this section we are talking most of the time about John as in John the one who Baptised, not John our writer.

Now for the first time in the introductory stories, Jesus appears.  In this incident, Jesus doesn't even say or do anything, it is all about John recognising Jesus for who he really is.

John tells the people around him how he knows who Jesus is.  First, he had known that he must look out for this person.  He had been given a way to recognise him: he would see a manifestation of the Holy Spirit come down on him.  He also knew that the whole point of his baptising people with water was to prepare people for this person who would invite people to be baptised with the Holy Spirit.  John clearly sees this as a big step up from what he is able to offer people.  In this passage (covering two days) John deliberately seems to invite people who are listening to him to go to Jesus instead, and even seems to hand over two of his own followers to become followers of Jesus.
Note: Baptising is a sort of ceremonial or ritual washing which is done as a symbol of something happening inside a person.

So on this day as Jesus comes towards him, John knows who he is.  He does what he has been saying he will do:  He tells everyone who is there that Jesus is the one he has been telling them to expect.  But he does more.  Before his whole explanation, he says:
"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
This is a remarkable statement.  He uses it again the next day when he encourages two of his disciples to go with Jesus.  But what does it mean?

In helping people to understand sin and holiness God had given some instructions for how people could relate to him without forgetting his perfection and purity.  This always involved sacrificing a lamb; this was a sign that sin is such a serious matter with respect to God's holiness that only death can touch it.  For sacrifice the lamb chosen had to be perfect, the best.  A lamb was sacrificed when an individual committed some obvious sin.  But once a year, everyone came together and each family sacrificed a lamb.  Then, at another time in the year, the priests sacrificed a special lamb to take away the sin of the whole nation.

So, when John said that Jesus was the 'Lamb of God', people would have known that he was talking about sacrifice and sin and holiness.  But in designating this Lamb as 'taking away the sin of the world'. a big jump is being made indicating some kind of super-sacrifice.  Obviously the full meaning is hidden.  It is like a conundrum waiting to tease our minds, a puzzle inviting us to explore.

And now we come to John the writer and why he used this story.  But that needs another post!

aside: John's (the author) use of names

Excuse the digression into counting words and silly details

I find it fascinating, but feel free to miss this if you don't

I find it fascinating that John so seldom names any of the people in his record.
Here is a list:

• John (the Baptiser)  John's name is mentioned twice in the prologue, where the reference to a named individual grounds the otherwise cosmic outpouring of mystery.  His name then comes up in the introduction, repeatedly, which forms the link to the esoteric prologue.  John is again the named protagonist in a long discussion at the start of the second group of stories.  In all these events the issue is the identity of Jesus.  John is never named in this gospel again.  This is partly of course because he died fairly early during Jesus' ministry, but it is also because from now on it is Jesus himself who carries the question of his identity.  Twice after this John is mentioned by name: in the third section Jesus speaks of John's testimony to his identity, and in the sixth section the people in the crowd remember what he had said about Jesus. P + I + 2 + (3 + 6)
• Andrew                   Andrew is not really a key player in events, and yet John (our author) chooses to call him by name three times.  In every case he is associated with Philip.  The first time we encounter Andrew is in the introduction; the second time is in the fourth grouping of events, which is the centre of the first part of John's record; the third instance is in the incident which forms the hinge between the first and second halves of the text as a whole.  SO: structurally the occurrence of Andrew's name becomes a marker of how the story is unfolding.  I + 4 + H
• Simon (Peter)       Peter is the person mentioned most often by name in John's narrative, other than Jesus.  But nearly all the stories about him happen in the second part of the record, after the "hinge" stories, where he becomes the main carrier of the story.  However, we are introduced to him in the introduction (!) and see him again in one key sentence in the fourth collection of events.  I + 4 + 7 + inc + 7 + C + E
• Philip                    Philip is linked to Andrew in John's record, and their names are used together in the three places already mentioned.  Since in two of the events these two men are clearly close friends, and interact as part of what happens, this may have influenced John to use them both in the introductory narrative, where they are each an example of a person who introduces another to Jesus.  Philip, however, is mentioned a fourth time in the flow of the story ... this time during the long record of conversation between Jesus and his closest associates which forms a strange interlude in the narrative of Jesus' death (ie the seventh, and last, group of stories).  It would almost seem expected for another Philip story to appear in the conclusion, but John never does what we expect, and Philip disappears from view at this point.   I + 4 + H + inc
• Nathaniel             Nathaniel is the most enigmatic character in John.  No one else mentions him, and John only includes him twice.  Once, in a long incident in the introduction, he is a major character; the other time, among the concluding stories, Nathaniel is a name only.  Beginning and end, introduction and conclusion:  Nathaniel is like a bracket in John'e "life of Jesus"!  I + C

There are other people mentioned by name - and we will look at how they fit into the structure in a later post, but here is a list so long:  Nicodemus, Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Thomas, Judas, (Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate), Mary (wife of Clopas), Mary (Magdalene), Joseph.
Notice how few there are, and be alert as we read through John for how many individuals are key players in the flow of the narrative while remaining anonymous; even Jesus' mother is not named!  There are at least seven main characters without names, not counting the rest of the closer band of followers.  

As one can see, a disproportionate number of the people who are mentioned by name in the text as a whole, are introduced in this relatively short section.  This shows us that the lack of names in the rest of the narrative is not an accident, and not because John was too old to remember who did what.  He chooses to use names sparingly as part of the way he tells his story.

John wants us to see Jesus and only Jesus, and so he leaves out the one thing that might tempt us to glorify other people, to use other people perhaps as intermediaries between us and Jesus: names.
But John uses names where he needs to, and the first thing he needs names to tell us is that this is a true story of events that really took place ... real people, from real places at particular times were involved in the incidents he records for us.
As we can see from the detailed analysis (see above, it might help to compare this with the "page" on structure) he also uses named characters as pointers to how he has organised the events to convey meaning, because the reappearance or introduction of a person by name can form a connection, or mark a new turn of the plot.
John also uses people, especially John at the beginning and Peter towards the end, to carry the main question (who is Jesus) when the events don't allow John to show us Jesus through his own eyes.

Who John B is

John 1:19-28 ... again
The author wants us to be clear here: John the Baptiser was important, but he was definitely not the person we were introduced to in the prologue.  
All very well, but in that case, who is he, and why is he in our story at all?

Fortunately the Jewish leaders who had been sent to ask him who he was didn't like a non-answer any more than we do.  In fact nobody is keen on uninformative replies.  So, they ask, and we get to hear John B's self-definition.

"I am the voice ..."
He uses a passage of the Bible (what we call the Old Testament, which was all there was at the time, since what we call the New Testament is all about Jesus) and continues his stand for humility.  He is just a voice; the only important thing is the message, the words that point to someone else.

Of course this does not satisfy the questioners.  John B is acting outside their paradigm; he is using a symbol (baptism) in a way that doesn't fit with their expectations.  They want to know how he dares to do this.  His answer is simple: Just wait till you see who's coming!

Right from the first of the events he records for us, our author is helping us to connect with the idea that Jesus is above and beyond what people were expecting.  They were waiting for God to send someone who would baptise.  So here comes a person doing just that ... but what they are hoping for is going to turn out to be more than they have bargained for.
"I baptise with water ..." yes, well that is what baptism is ... ceremonial washing.  Water.
'... but someone is coming after me who is much greater than I am.'  Someone is already here, but unrecognized by you.  I shouldn't even be allowed to serve him, he is so great.

This is an interesting slight on John's part.  These are important men in the social and religious life of the nation, but John refuses to give them a straight answer; more, what he does say implies that they have no understanding of what God is doing.

In telling us about this interaction, the writer does several things at once, and this is his usual style - multiple layers in every choice.  Most obviously, we are given information about Jesus and John - things we already know from the prologue, but placed here in their local context.  John is preparing the way for Jesus so that it will be easier for people to accept him.  Jesus is super-important in comparison to John.

But, we are also introduced to some important themes that will follow us as we read.  The leaders of the people are the very one who will misunderstand Jesus, who will be unable to let go of their preconceived ideas.  More than that, they are potentially hostile to God doing things outside their system; they want things nicely boxed.

It is rather intriguing to notice, before we leave off this part of the story, that John seems to purposefully refrain from telling these men anything useful.  " ... among you stands one you do not know."  It is only the next day that he identifies Jesus, and gives people any real information about him.  Any of yesterday's messengers who were genuinely interested might have stayed to hear, but the message to the leaders was enigmatic in the extreme!

It's like that for us readers too ... we have to come back for more, if we want it.

who John (the Baptiser) is not

The introduction section consists of four stories, and all of them revolve around two ideas: 

who is Jesus and how do various people respond to him.

John 1:19-28


The first story John (the writer) tells us is about John (the Baptiser).  This is one of his writing tricks, as he carries us forward into the story by catching onto something he has already put in our minds.  Here he is picking up the thread of the two ellipses in his cosmic prologue which were more down to earth.  So, we already know that a man called John was sent from God, and he showed people which person (Jesus) was the one from God.  Now we are going to hear actual records about events, days when he did these things.

People come to John here, specifically to ask who he is.  This clears out of the way any idea that perhaps John was the important one.  He is very clear, and a list emerges of who he is NOT.

• not the Messiah//  The Messiah basically means the one chosen by God.  Although "Messiah" is actually the Hebrew for "anointed one".  This translation still doesn't mean anything to most of us, so I may as well add that it means to have something (usually a fragrant oil) poured over one.  People were anointed when they were appointed to specific roles or tasks.  This was a physical ceremony (public or private) in appointing kings and priests, where oil was poured over the person's head.  It was full of symbolic meaning, and the idea of anointing came to carry a metaphorical meaning of being appointed by God.  The background idea of God's Spirit poured over the person (symbolised by the oil) carries the connotation both of authority and ability being conferred on the one appointed.  As God revealed that the appalling state of the world could only be dealt with by someone "super-special" sent direct from him, the word "Messiah" became associated with this person who was everyone's hope and prayer.
• not Elijah//  God had promised that a time would come when he would change everything.  People were expecting that God would send "Elijah" to prepare people for this time.   The original Elijah was a prophet, in other words, a person who gave messages from God to his people, especially the leaders.  Elijah was major character in the story of God's interaction with his people, and lived at a time when the other leaders were choosing to behave contrary to God's way, and even worshiped idols.  Elijah helped people see that God was real and the idols weren't.  (See 1Kings 18.)   Much later, during a time when people who said they belonged to God were living just like everyone else, God promised that he would send "Elijah" to turn people back to properly following him before he acted in a final cataclysm.  (See the last couple of verses of the Old Testament, Malachi 4:5-6.)   
• not the Prophet//  The Prophet was title for a person God was expected to send to finally sort out the world.  The phrase comes from where Moses was explaining to God's people that they were not allowed to use "magical" or "spiritual" practices to try to find things out.  He told them that God would send them 'a prophet like me', who would tell them anything God wanted them to know.  (See Deuteronomy 18:15.)  Later, at the end of Deuteronomy after the part Moses had had written down, a writer commented that 'since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses'.  This prophet was expected to 'show the mighty power' and 'perform awesome deeds' because God knows him 'face to face'.  (See Deuteronomy 34:10-12.)  Although in Moses was talking about 'ordinary' prophets who would help people to know how to follow God properly, the person who wrote the post-script was glorifying Moses as the super-prophet.  This combination of verses got people using the title "The Prophet" to mean the "super-special" person who God would send.

 John B is amazing here.  He has a huge following of people, and is so well known, and causing such a stir that the top leaders send people to try to find out 'who' he is.  Instead of using his fame to collect one of the titles currently up for grabs, he refuses any 'glory'.  It would have enhanced his standing enormously to claim just one of these titles for himself.  He could even have argued that it would do Jesus good if he claimed to be Elijah or the Prophet so that people would listen to him more when he told them about Jesus.

But he is so not into that.  He sees Jesus as in a completely different league, so he can't see himself as 'entitled'.  The role he has is enough, because Jesus is so beyond-words great to him ...

... but more of that next post!

local introduction

If the first section of John's record could be called "cosmic prologue", this second part can be aptly titiled "local introduction".

This Introduction is John 1:19-51.

It is a contrast to the prologue in almost every way.
Here John's writing is almost entirely narrative.  He introduces us by name to almost as many individuals than in as appear in the following 24 pages.  John is not big on introducing individuals because his focus is all on Jesus, and when he does, he seldom uses names.   It is a collection of vignettes, little stories which each encapsulate something which is important to John.  Everything is not only earth-bound (as opposed to the cosmic and esoteric feel of the prologue) but intensely geographically parochial.  It all happens in the same tiny area, much more confined than the narrative to follow.  In fact, the next time we will see this many names in so few verses will be at the very end of John's record.

Yet it is still definitely introductory, not yet part of the main text, but leading into it and preparing us for what follows.
We start with John the Baptiser, whom we have already met (see previous posts), and though we don't know this, we will not encounter him again in John our Writer's story.  Through him we are introduced to two people who will be important in the stories to come, and through them to yet others who will be encountered later.  These people each give us some metaphor as a way of seeing who Jesus is.   Each of these pictures is revisited more or less explicitly in the last of John's main narrative sections (the seventh) as he tells the story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion.

Next up, a look at each of the events which John uses to introduce us to the story to follow: