Apart from the (almost incidental) identification of the beings/persons who are the subject of his description, John uses this paragraph to move into another arena: A comparison with other spiritual options. In the second paragraph (life and light) he has already suggested 'the light' is opposed by the darkness (though not overcome by it). Now he takes us further.
We've seen already that this paragraph is about explaining the uniqueness of Jesus; "full of grace-and-truth" is a description of what this uniqueness means, and it must be one of the most evocative phrases there is. It is not in power (whether supernatural, or the ability to draw crowds, or the winning of debate) that John places Jesus' glory, his uniqueness. It is in this combination of grace and truth.
The key phrase in this paragraph (John1:14-17) is "grace and truth". It is rather fascinating that one of these two words, truth, is used repeatedly in the main text of John's story, while the other, grace, is never used again! Just to make up for this, John uses it extra in this bit!
John talks of Jesus as full of grace and truth, and it is out of this fullness that we receive. It is a if Jesus has so much that he overflows, and what overflows to us is grace. Grace is all about someone who gives to the undeserving, who is a companion to the unworthy, who is kind no matter what. John tells us that he and Jesus' other followers had experienced something extraordinary: Jewish people had already received from God and the Bible is clear that this was undeserved, what they already had as God's people was grace. But then Jesus came, and they found themselves receiving more grace, richer grace, more gracious grace, if such a thing is possible.
He explains. The law was given through Moses. The law was very precious; through it people could discover who God is and how he means them to live. This was wonderful. However, more was needed. We needed to see the truth, we needed to touch grace. Moses was involved in the giving of the law, but in Jesus truth and grace came. This is an intensely personal happening, Jesus brought something to us in himself. Jesus is different not only like light is different from darkness, but as the real thing (Jesus=grace&truth) is different from a description (the law). He is different from Moses in the same way as meeting a person is different from hearing about them.
Showing posts with label receive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label receive. Show all posts
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
into the world
We arrive at the centre section of the prologue. John 1:10-13. In a sense this is the crux (for more about this, see the next post, another aside) of the whole piece and tells us clearly what the point is.
John (our writer, not the Baptiser) is a skilled poetic craftsman; we have just been told that the 'true light was coming into the world' with the word "world" making a connector for us into this new section, where it is the main focus. Up to now John has been giving us reason to become curious, or even excited, about this person, this being whom he is introducing. Now he tells us what happened when he came among people; how did other people react to him?
Although he doesn't state this, we can see that he is preparing his readers to respond eventually to having read about this person. In summarising the response of 'the world' he plants the seed of an idea: I too will have to make up my mind, to make some kind of choice.
So, what did happen? Well, in short, nothing.
He is the maker of the world, of people, but when he came he was not recognised. Recognised is a word with two complementary senses: people didn't even realise who he was and people didn't acknowledge who he was. Perhaps there is something of both senses in many people, a kind of interweaving: not realising because of an unwillingness to acknowledge and inability to acknowledge because of an unwillingness to see. Even though he made us.
It goes deeper. He came into the world, among people. But he came to people who belonged to him. Of course everyone belongs to him in the sense that we were all made by him. However he didn't just pitch up somewhere arbitrary and expect everyone to catch on. He came into a time and place where there were people who had been prepared over millenia to recognise him. These people were 'his own' in a special way; yet they too did not receive him.
All this prepares us for a major theme in the narrative to follow: John records for us the enormity of the conflict created by the people who were most versed in the writings which carried the story of God's actions in his world and his words to this people who were meant to recognise him when he came.
This is a point of tension. John has built up a sense of anticipation: He came ... we expect wonder and amazement, but what we get is ... nothing. It all falls flat.
But John opens up a small window for us in the blank wall of non: yet there were some ... some who received, some who believed.
If we have been reading with responsive attention this will come as a relief, but also it will raise the question for us of what happened then. If a few people did recognise him, what did he do with them? Did it make any difference, was it enough?
Something did happen. But, typical of John, his description of this is somewhat enigmatic, and can leave us wondering what on earth he means. It sounds wonderful, but ...
These people, the ones who did recognise this person, were given something: the right ...
We talk a lot about rights these days. There are human rights, things that the global community has talked about and decided everybody should be given the opportunity to have, or to which everyone should have access. The idea is that everyone should work together to make sure that everyone else is in a position to have these things. Consitutions of nations usually confer certain rights on their citizens (sometimes in addition to the basic human rights given to everyone living in the country). The Roman world was no different, and the different rights of different levels of person within the empire was stark. Belonging to organizations often confers rights on the members. The rights, of course, assume parallel privileges, power (or ability) and responsibility otherwise it all breaks down. Members pay dues and go to meetings if they want to use facilities; citizens uphold the law and pay taxes if they want to use the utilities and stay out of gaol. The word right is not merely about entitlement, but includes multiple aspects if it is to refer to fully active reality.
... the privilege, the power and the responsibility of becoming children of God.
Well, we all know quite a lot about rights, but the idea of being a child of God is a bit more tricky. John knows this and he gives us some help, in the form of negatives. This is not a birth which is determined by others - human decision or a husband choosing. I don't think, by the way, that John means these two phrases to be different, but rather to be comprehensive ... it is the actions, the choices of humans (not God) and other humans (not the individual themselves) that results in a person being born. Although one could interpret it as: the choice of a couple to love each other, engage in sexual intercourse and have a child; or even merely a husband forcing his choice on a woman. It also has nothing to with genetics, which determines so much of our lives - from hair colour to academic chances, from dominant hand to sporting ability. All the normal determiners are irrelevant here: the only prior is receiving the person John is introducing. The result is all to do with God: born of God.
There is no further explanation here. But the image can take root in our consciousness; a picture of belonging, of family. We can carry this with us as a question, or maybe simply a quest.
John (our writer, not the Baptiser) is a skilled poetic craftsman; we have just been told that the 'true light was coming into the world' with the word "world" making a connector for us into this new section, where it is the main focus. Up to now John has been giving us reason to become curious, or even excited, about this person, this being whom he is introducing. Now he tells us what happened when he came among people; how did other people react to him?
Although he doesn't state this, we can see that he is preparing his readers to respond eventually to having read about this person. In summarising the response of 'the world' he plants the seed of an idea: I too will have to make up my mind, to make some kind of choice.
So, what did happen? Well, in short, nothing.
He is the maker of the world, of people, but when he came he was not recognised. Recognised is a word with two complementary senses: people didn't even realise who he was and people didn't acknowledge who he was. Perhaps there is something of both senses in many people, a kind of interweaving: not realising because of an unwillingness to acknowledge and inability to acknowledge because of an unwillingness to see. Even though he made us.
It goes deeper. He came into the world, among people. But he came to people who belonged to him. Of course everyone belongs to him in the sense that we were all made by him. However he didn't just pitch up somewhere arbitrary and expect everyone to catch on. He came into a time and place where there were people who had been prepared over millenia to recognise him. These people were 'his own' in a special way; yet they too did not receive him.
All this prepares us for a major theme in the narrative to follow: John records for us the enormity of the conflict created by the people who were most versed in the writings which carried the story of God's actions in his world and his words to this people who were meant to recognise him when he came.
This is a point of tension. John has built up a sense of anticipation: He came ... we expect wonder and amazement, but what we get is ... nothing. It all falls flat.
But John opens up a small window for us in the blank wall of non: yet there were some ... some who received, some who believed.
If we have been reading with responsive attention this will come as a relief, but also it will raise the question for us of what happened then. If a few people did recognise him, what did he do with them? Did it make any difference, was it enough?
Something did happen. But, typical of John, his description of this is somewhat enigmatic, and can leave us wondering what on earth he means. It sounds wonderful, but ...
These people, the ones who did recognise this person, were given something: the right ...
We talk a lot about rights these days. There are human rights, things that the global community has talked about and decided everybody should be given the opportunity to have, or to which everyone should have access. The idea is that everyone should work together to make sure that everyone else is in a position to have these things. Consitutions of nations usually confer certain rights on their citizens (sometimes in addition to the basic human rights given to everyone living in the country). The Roman world was no different, and the different rights of different levels of person within the empire was stark. Belonging to organizations often confers rights on the members. The rights, of course, assume parallel privileges, power (or ability) and responsibility otherwise it all breaks down. Members pay dues and go to meetings if they want to use facilities; citizens uphold the law and pay taxes if they want to use the utilities and stay out of gaol. The word right is not merely about entitlement, but includes multiple aspects if it is to refer to fully active reality.
... the privilege, the power and the responsibility of becoming children of God.
Well, we all know quite a lot about rights, but the idea of being a child of God is a bit more tricky. John knows this and he gives us some help, in the form of negatives. This is not a birth which is determined by others - human decision or a husband choosing. I don't think, by the way, that John means these two phrases to be different, but rather to be comprehensive ... it is the actions, the choices of humans (not God) and other humans (not the individual themselves) that results in a person being born. Although one could interpret it as: the choice of a couple to love each other, engage in sexual intercourse and have a child; or even merely a husband forcing his choice on a woman. It also has nothing to with genetics, which determines so much of our lives - from hair colour to academic chances, from dominant hand to sporting ability. All the normal determiners are irrelevant here: the only prior is receiving the person John is introducing. The result is all to do with God: born of God.
There is no further explanation here. But the image can take root in our consciousness; a picture of belonging, of family. We can carry this with us as a question, or maybe simply a quest.
Sunday, 29 May 2011
cosmic prologue
Before he even gets to the introduction, John gives us a startling glance at the cosmic origins and implications of the narrative which we are about to read.
John 1:1-18
He starts with pre-space and non-time; he uses multidimensional images; he moves through the enitire world of being human; and he imagines seeing God. But in this telescopic whirlwind of transcendence, John places two small ellipses (like this, in brackets, only Greek doesn't have brackets) which prepare us as readers for the sudden entry into tangible history which will happen in the next sentence.
It really is a glance - less than half a page when the rest of his account is 25 pages. At the end of his account, there is a corresponding epilogue after the conclusion. It is even more brief, at only one sentence!
It is almost as if John wants us to be ready to assess his narrative in the cosmic context, but he wants Jesus' life to speak for him. So he primes us, but then never comes back to force the issue.
1:1-3 The Word
1:4-9 The Light (ellipsis 1:6-8 John the Witness)
1:10-13 Receiving
1:14-17 Grace and Truth (ellipsis 1:15 The Witness of John)
1:18 Revealing God
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)