 |
|
     |
|
|
|
Writer of Fancy: The Playful Piety of Jane Austen
1 & 2 Kings
Brazos Theological Commentary
The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter
A Great Mystery: Fourteen Wedding Sermons
Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, And Hope In Western Literature
Miniatures & Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen
The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism
A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel
From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution
Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante's Divine Comedy
Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper
A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament
Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature
Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide To Six Shakespeare Plays
Wise Words: Family Stories That Bring the Proverbs to Life
The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church
The inventive Calum Carmichael (The Story of Creation) argues that “John, in an imaginative, allusive approach to the text of Genesis that is akin to Philo’s approach before him does indeed lay out the equivalent of the seven days of creation. The elements of each day in Genesis have their historical counterparts in John such that these echo in allegorical fashion the details of the creation story. In the first five chapters of his Gospel Johannine historical reporting is an allegorization of the creation story, just as Philo’s interpretations of Genesis 1 are primarily allegorical.”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 3:47 pm
The first 12 chapters of John are commonly seen as John’s “book of signs.” There are seven signs, which may suggest a connection with the creation week. Some starting thoughts:
1. Water to wine, ch 2: Jesus’ manifests His glory, His light in the darkness of Israel.
2. Child raised from deathbed, ch 4: second sign (4:54; again in Cana)
3. Paralytic in Jerusalem, ch 5: Water plays a prominent role in the story.
4. Feeding of 5000, ch 6: They want to make Jesus king (6:15), like the luminaries.
5. Crossing the sea, ch 6: Water again prominent, and the fifth day is the day for sea creature.
6. Blind man receives sight, ch 9: Jesus makes a man new with clay, as in Genesis 2:7.
7. Lazarus raised from the dead, ch 11: Resurrection, new life, Sabbath.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Wayne Brouwer offers this chiastic analysis of John 13-17:
A. Gathering, 13:1-35: unity with Jesus in mutual love
B. Disciples’ denial, 13:36-38
C. Jesus departure and Father’s power, 14:1-14
D. Promise of Paraklete, 14:15-26
E. Troubling encounter with the world, 14:27-31
F. Vine and Branches, 15:1-17
E’. Troubling encounter with world, 15:18-16:4a
D’. Promise of Paraklete, 164b-15
C’. Jesus’ departure and father’s power, 16:16-28
B’. Prediction of disciples’ denial, 16:29-33
A’. Departing prayer, 17:1-26
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I like J. Louis Martyn. His commentary on Galatians is a masterpiece, and the other essays I’ve read are all very stimulating. I begin with a disclaimer because what has been called Martyn’s “seminal proposal” concerning the gospel of John is remarkable mainly for the absence of evidence and argument.
Martyn begins with the common critical assumption that the gospels tell us as much or more about the communities that produced them than about Jesus. On this assumption, he finds evidence that John is written in response to the introduction of the Twelfth Benediction against heretics into the Eighteen Benedictions that are part of Jewish worship.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 3:59 am
Jesus spits on the ground, makes clay of the spittle, and “applies” the clay to the eyes of a blind man (John 9; NASB). The verb behind “apply” is epichrio. Its only other usage in the NT is five verses later, where the NASB translates the very same form of the very same verb as “anoint” (much better than “apply”). At least the NIV is consistently bad, rendering both uses as “put on.” The less patient will be tempted to say “ARGHH!”
Kudos to the ESV and the NKJV, which have the rather jolting “anoint” in both verses.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 9:55 am
John is aware of linguistic diversity, translating unusual Hebrew terms into Greek (e.g., “Messiah” into “Christ,” 1:42). This is perhaps for the convenience of Greek readers, but there is likely also a theological reason: John proclaims the incarnate Word, and describes the work and words of that Word with words drawn from a variety of languages.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 8:36 am
John tells us that the inscription “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews” was placed above his head on the cross in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek (19:19-20). But this is just the culmination of a text that, though written in Greek, contains a number of cross-linguistic terms. Twice in chapter 19 John translates a Greek term into Hebrew/Aramic (vv. 13, 17), something he does only two other times in the gospel (5:2; 20:16).
Pilate, meanwhile, goes in and out of the Praetorium (18:28, 33), a Greek word borrowed from Latin, and a central point in debate is whether Caesar is going to be happy with Pilate (19:12).
That Jesus is the King of the Jews is proclaimed in all the relevant languages; that Jesus is crucified by a united humanity is evident in the trial scene as a whole - Pilate in his Praetorium, the Jews concerned for ritual impurity, both are described in John’s Greek.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 8:33 am
John 20:3-8: Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed.
Graveyards are spooky places, sites for countless horror films and Steven King novels. Death is unnerving, and we keep our distance from the dead. We put them off in a sequestered, fenced area on the outskirts of town, where they – and we – can rest in peace.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, March 23, 2008 at 4:51 am
In medieval iconography, John the Evangelist is depicted as an eagle, and this portrait expresses the opinion of the early church fathers, that John wrote a “spiritual” gospel which has a “loftier spiritual purpose” than the other gospels. John is the eagle because he soars “aloft to contemplate and proclaim sublime truths,” while the other gospel writers are land animals, preoccupied with the “more mundane aspects of Jesus’ ministry and person” (quotations from article by Barbara Pitkin on Calvin’s commentary on John, found in Janse and Pitkin, The Formation of Clerical and Confessional Identities in Early Modern Europe).
Continue reading…
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Jesus’ “I am” sayings are usually linked with the revelation of the name of Yahweh on Sinai But Marianne Meye Thompson notes that there is also a large concentration of “I am” sayings in Isaiah 40-66, which are linked to the new exodus of Israel out of Babylonian exile. This illumines a number of Johannine passages. In John 8, for instance, Jesus charges that the Jews who oppose Him are children of the devil and slaves, and in this context utters the famous “Before Abraham was, I am.” He is not simply declaring that He is Yahweh - though He is doing that - but also saying that He is the One who will bring the slaves out of slavery.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 11:48 am
At the chiastic center of John 9, the Jews interrogate the blind man’s parents, threatening them with expulsion from the synagogue if they confess Jesus. Why do the parents appear? The answer goes back to the disciples’ question at the beginning of the chapter: Jesus says the parents have not sinned to cause blindness. At the center, though, the parents hesitate when confronted by the Jews, in order to stay in the good graces of the leaders. As Jesus says at the end of the passage, the Jewish leaders are blinded, and blind because of their sin. The parents were not responsible for the man’s blindness, but by the end of the chapter through fear they are standing with the ones who are blinded.
There also seems to be a generational issue here. The older generation fears expulsion, and only the younger man receives light from the Light and sees the Lord.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 6:01 am
Several of my students have pointed to the link between John 8 and 9. Jesus declares that He is the light of the world in 8:12, but because of the opposition of the Jews and their intent to kill Him, He withdraws and hides Himself - He hides the light from the self-darkened. But at the beginning of chapter 9 He is healing a blind man, giving light to those who will receive it.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, March 3, 2008 at 6:39 am
Several students have observed the parallels between Peter’s denial in John 18 and the denial of Jesus by the Jews in chapter 19. Peter denies three times, in a pattern of 1 + 2; so do the Jews. Between then, contrasting to these denials, is Pilate’s threefold confession of Jesus’ entire innocence.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Of John 8, Northrup Frye commented, “There is also the woman taken in adultery who has firmly established squatter’s rights on the beginning of John 8, despite the efforts of nervous editors, ancient and modern, to get her out of there.”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 11:30 am
It’s significant that Jesus is said to “anoint” the blind man’s eyes with the clay-and-spittle (John 9:11). We wouldn’t normally think of clay as a promising material to “anoint” someone with, but this is the way that the man describes Jesus’ action.
The word is often associated with the work of the Spirit, and so this strengthens the connection with John 3. The man receives water, and is anointed not with the Spirit but with clay.
Elsewhere in John, however, anointing makes reference specifically to anointing for burial. Lazarus is anointed at his death (11:2), and when the woman “anoints” the feet of Jesus, He says that it is “for the day of My burial,” and goes on to say that He is not going to be with the disciples forever (12:1-8).
The blind man too is anointed for death; he is reborn and anointed so that he can have a share in the death of Jesus, so that He can experience the death of Jesus in his own life.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 9:03 am
In John 9, Jesus makes an allusion to the creation story when He explains to His disciples the reasons for the blind man’s blindness. The man is not blind because of his own sin, or his parents’ sins, but instead so that the work of God might be displayed in Him.
Jesus describes this work in terms of light and darkness, and tells the disciples that He is the “light of the world” as long as He is in the world. This light/dark contrast alludes back to the beginning of the gospel, where Jesus is said to be the light that shines in the darkness, and the light that lightens every man (1:4-5, 9).
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 8:52 am
Much of this comes from a lecture by Jeff Meyers at a Biblical Horizons conference several summers ago.
INTRODUCTION
Forty days after Jesus rose from the dead, He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:3). As He had warned His disciples, He went away from them (John 14:28; 16:7). He promised that His disciples would not be orphans (John 14:18), and that He would come again for them (John 14:28). In the meantime, though, the disciples were to follow an absent Master. We do the same. What does this mean?
THE TEXT
“As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. . . .’” (John 9:1-41).
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:22 am
John does not record the tearing of the veil of the temple. Alone among the gospel writers, though, he records the piercing of Jesus’ side. The two facts are related: Jesus is the temple (as He says in John 2), and in the tearing of His flesh there is a tearing of the temple veil. Just like Ezekiel’s temple, when the veil of flesh is torn, living water flows out.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 5:00 pm
A student suggests a creation image in John 9 - the clay and spittle on the blind man’s eyes recall the dust-and-breath of Genesis 2. Further, she suggests a connection with the land-sea imagery of the OT: Spittle and clay join Jew and Gentile in one new man, a man reborn by Jesus, a man who can now see.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 4:21 pm
During his trial, Jesus is frequently, remarkably silent. This is particularly striking in John, where Jesus has been identified as the eternal Word of the Father. But when Jew and Gentile combine to put the Word of the Father in the dock, the Word says nothing. Is there here perhaps an anticipation of modern atheism, which puts God on trial and finds Him guilty?
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.
