-John, 1:46 (NRSV)
In the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, the Gospel reading for Christmas morning is John 1-14. For me, who had a secular upbringing, the reading initially seemed out of place. Why do we read the Prologue to John's Gospel on Christmas? There was no mention of Bethlehem, or Jesus' earthly birth. And later in the same chapter, we have Nathaniel make the quip about Nazareth, a remote town in Galilee. Philip doesn't say, "The man was born in Bethlehem--he's a proper Messiah," but "Come and see."
We celebrate the author of the Gospel According to John on December 27, the Third Day of Christmas. Like the other three canonical gospels, the earliest manuscripts of John are anonymous. Ancient tradition has attributed it to John, one of the Twelve Disciples, identified with the anonymous "disciple whom Jesus loved" in the gospel. Artists usually portray him as a beardless young man. In "The Da Vinci Code," by Dan Brown the author argues that the beardless figure on Leonardo's "The Last Supper" is actually a woman, whom the book identifies as Mary Magdalene. But it's clearly the figure of John, as any historian of Renaissance art can explain.
But back to my initial question: Why do we read the Prologue to John on Christmas. It's a reminder that Christ was, as we say in the Nicene Creed, "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God." If Matthew and Luke write of Jesus' birth on earth, John tells us the eternal Christmas story:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist]. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John 1-14 (NRSV)
The late theologian Marcus Borg made a distinction between the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Jesus. The three synoptic Gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke--focus on the pre-Easter Jesus--his earthly life, mission, death, and the reports of his resurrection. And while John gives us stories from Jesus' earthly life, they don't follow the pattern of the first three. Without the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah who expands his ministry to Gentiles. With John, Jesus is "the way, the truth , and the life"(John 14:6).
2 comments:
Your commentary on Philip's encounter with Nathanael got me back into that text. How interesting that, as you point out, Philip doesn't make out a case for Bethlehem. It's interesting, too, that the interaction is recorded at all since John's gospel never mentions Bethlehem. The question -- the purely intellectual and doctrinal (I guess) question of Jesus' fulfillment of prophecy -- is never answered. Philip's "Can anything good come out of Bethlehem?" is as unanswered as Pilate's "What is truth?" later in John.
The "Come and see" seems, then, a deliberate choice of the personal over the doctrinal. And Nathaniel's initial interaction of Jesus is so personal that, to this day, no one but Jesus and Nathaniel, I think, understands the significance of Jesus' seeing Nathaniel under the fig tree. It's like a black hole that impliedly extends the invitation to "come and see" to the reader.
Thank you for this keen devotional reading.
Peter,thank you for your thoughtful comments. While a canine emergency interrupted my series. I've temporarily taken over the "Adult Formation" (adult Sunday School) at St. John's Episcopal here in Elkhart, and will be leading the session on 20th, using the lectionary:
Old Testament: Isaiah 62:1-5; Psalm 36:5–10; Epistle: 1 Corinthians 12:1–11; Gospel:
John 2:1–11.
One question I'm mulling over is why John placed Jesus' changing water to wine at the wedding at Cana as the first of Christ's signs. The first sign doesn't heal the sick, feed 5000, or raise Lazarus from the dead. He saves a wedding party from embarrassment. I'm wondering whether John placed this sign first as a response to the strong anti-marriage sentiment in first-century Christianity, voiced by the Apostle Paul and later magnified by such non-canonical works as The Acts of Thomas.
Post a Comment