This past weekend I have been at a retreat for bishops and spouses - something we managed two years ago and then again this year. Hopefully we can do this again next year. What follows are some insights I gained, catalysed by things said during the weekend, but for these thoughts, especially if deemed heretical, I am solely responsible!
So: something said about Jesus being fascinated with us; about how we respond to the word "heart" (e.g. Jesus looking into our hearts and being fascinated by us) got me thinking ...
- When God or Jesus looks into human hearts, with the notable exception of the young David's heart, it is (interestingly enough) often less than good things that are found there.
- My thinking, for instance, was drawn to John 2:23-25 where Jesus does not trust himself to people "because he himself knew what was in their hearts."
- Yet, thinking about where in the gospels Jesus might be "fascinated" with someone, my mind went to John 1:43-51, the story of the call of Philip and Nathanael. When Nathanael and Jesus meet, Jesus says something about Nathanael - that he is an Israelite without guile - and Nathanael asks Jesus how he knows him.
"Jesus answered, 'I saw you when you were under the fig tree before Philip called you'."
Jesus "sees" Nathanael. Although there is no mention of Nathanael's heart, it is pretty clear that Nathanael's heart is looked into by Jesus, and he likes what he sees.
- But, further, that got me looking again at this chapter and the verb "see". Jesus invites two disciples to "Come and see" where he lives (39). So, "they went with him and saw where he lived" (39). Andrew introduces Simon to Jesus. Jesus "looked at him" and tells him his name will now be Cephas/Peter (42). Jesus then finds Philip and Philip finds Nathanael. When Nathanael questions whether anything good can come from Nazareth, Philip says - of course!! - "Come and see" (46). Then, per above, Jesus says he "saw" Nathanael (48).
Are we done yet on the verb "see" in John 1?
Not at all!
"Then Jesus said, 'Do you believe just because I told you I saw you when you were under the fig tree? You will see much greater things than this!' And he said to them, 'I am telling you the truth: you will see heaven open and God's angels going up and coming down on the Son of Man'." (50-51)
I realised, pondering these occurrences, that I had never really seen (!!) this verb "see" so often in this chapter.
What is going on?
With some background learning about John as a gospel of revelation, of disclosure of inner secrets of the divine life (e.g. John 3), I make the not particularly original suggestion that John is not merely reporting an interesting dialogue to us which points to his gospel being a gospel of revelation - enabling us to see things about God's purposes in Jesus Christ - but is, in fact, issuing an invitation to us as readers ... to see.
To see for ourselves what the disciples here in John 1 have been invited to see: who Jesus is, what his relationship to God the Father is, what the significance of his life, death and resurrection is, what life in the Spirit of God holds in store for those who not only "see" but also "believe."
And there is more: just as the disciples-and-also-us-who-read-the-gospel are invited to come and see for ourselves about Jesus; we are also being invited to understand that Jesus sees us: he knows who we are, he knows what we are like, nothing is hidden from his sight, and yet, wonderfully, marvellously, he loves us and he invites us to "Follow me".
A final insight - though I think this one came to me a little while ago rather than at this retreat - but I thought some more about it while on retreat: it concerns why the great theme of the Prologue (1:1-18), that Jesus is the Logos/Word is hardly touched on again in the remainder of John's Gospel.
In John 1:14, we read - the very familiar words - "the Word became flesh" - the Word took on the full form and substance of a human being, Jesus of Nazareth. Is the remainder of the Gospel concerned with the history of "the flesh" the Word has become, and that is why we see little further reference to Jesus being "the Word" (and such reference as there is, is somewhat oblique rather than explicit)? The Word becomes a human being and John is now focused on the meaning of the human being (with particular and recurring reference to this fleshly Jesus being the Son of the Father).
In particular, in John 1, we see "the Word" being, in the fleshly man, Jesus, addressed with all the familiar christological titles from the other gospels: Son, Son of God, Rabbi, Messiah/Christ, King of Israel, Son of Man, plus the novel-to-John title, Lamb of God. Through the remainder of the Gospel, John will stick to familiar titles, but all, it could be argued, as stretching out and focusing within the meaning of Logos/Word; and all such titles being used of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, whose history is retold because when Jesus is, according to the awesome, profound insight of John, "the Word became flesh" there is more to see than has been brought into the light by Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Celebrity culture focuses on hoi polloi being "fascinated" with certain individuals, their opulent lifestyles and opinions. I rather doubt that the omniscient Creator of all things is "fascinated" by us, although it might feed my vanity to think that I too could be a celeb. Better to think that Christ loves me despite knowing all about my sins.
ReplyDeleteOn "seeing Jesus", notice that it is the first disciples who do all the seeing, and for the very important reason that it makes them trustworthy witnesses of the message that is presented to John's readers and hearers. The final blessing of Gospel is pronounced on those who do not see, and yet still believe (20.29).
The Logos is not referred to again by that title outside the Prologue because he became flesh ('Jesus') and tabernacled among us, but it is interesting to do a concordance check on how many times John refers to the logoi of the Logos.; more than any of the Synoptics, John makes repeated explicit references to 'the words' of Christ ('the words I speak to you', 'you have the words of eternal life' etc etc) and to me at least, this sounds like an echo of the Prologue: the Word became words - and more , of course. But never downgrade the Prophetic Office of Christ. It is this which makes him the Revealer of heavenly truth, as John's Gospel declares him to be par excellence.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
But William, what if Christ is looking for what is good and worthy.. a receptive heart, humility.. and fascinated by where he finds these? If I may digress from John, I'm thinking of "the woman of Canaan" who in Matthew 15 said to Jesus, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table." And Jesus said, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt". She was a rank outsider yet Jesus credited *her*, of all people, with great faith!
DeleteA few statistics to back up the thesis that John's Gospel depicts the Word of the Father becoming flesh in order to speak the words of the Father: 1. About 75% of this gospel consists of Jesus' words, much more than the Synoptics. 2. Special attention is drawn to his 'rhemata' (12x) and 'logoi' (29x). 3. Jesus refers repeatedly to his 'entolai' but in the Syynoptics this word refers only to God's commands in the OT. The implication is clear: Jesus' commands are God's commands. Conclusion: the overwhelming interest in John's Gospel is about ""hearing", "believing" and "keeping" the words of the Word-made-flesh. This accords fully with the purpose of this gospel, " that by believing you may have life in his name.' Seeing Jesus is the desire of every believer, but the Beatific Vision is at the end of our journey. As John says elsewhere, 'when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is' (1 John 3.2).
ReplyDeletePax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
All that is so, William, but none of it deals with two things: 1. a significant title is introduced for Jesus, and it is not used again. 2. It is not even found at the closing of the Gospel, which would be a reasonable explanation (noting, for instance, that in John 21 we find a closing of the circle with John 1 in relation to the call to discipleship ("Follow me") and a closing of the circle in relation to Peter (his three denials matched by three questions to him by Jesus).
ReplyDeleteI don't know what point you are making, Peter. 1. As I said, the title 'Logos' is not used outside the Prologue - presumably (who can be certain?) because the Logos now has a human name (the Incarnation marks a big change in the history of God!) - but nonetheless there are very many verbal echoes of 'Logos' in references to 'logoi' and 'logous' of Christ, as well as 'rhemata' and 'entolai' - and I must add the great number of instances of the cognate verb 'lego' (with Jesus as subject), as well as 'laleo' - again much more than the Synoptics. If you are looking for a Johannine distinctive, it is here in the speech of Christ. 2. Where is "the closing of the Gospel"? The sonorous thematic declaration of 20.32? Or chapter 21, which reads rather as an appendix (and 'circles back' to 1.12)? - as most commentators think. Remember also that "chapter 1" is a creation of Stephen Langton, not St John. The chapter divisions are an editorial insertion. Often they make sense, sometimes they are just for convenience. John 1.1-18 is really a different unit from John 1.19-51.
ReplyDeletePax et bonum
William Greenhalgh