In my last post, I looked at the first 5 verses of John's gospel. Here I'll be briefly running through the next 7 verses (6-13). This is a whistle-stop tour, but I think even skimming the surface you stumble over gold. So here we go:
A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. But to all who have received him - those who believe in his name - he has given the right to become children of God - children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husbandʼs decision, but by God.
The beginning of this passage has shifted from speaking about God directly to one of his spokesmen. We saw in the previous passage that we receive life from the light of God, and I explained that 'light' refers to 'understanding'. When God appoints a spokesman (prophet, to use the proper term), he gives them this light to see and understand him (in part - nobody can understand God fully), and he provokes them to speak from it, and this is precisely what John does.
He testifies about the light. This is interesting. He doesn't testify the light itself, which is what you might expect if the light essentially refers to understanding. He said before the light was in the word, but now he speaks as if the light IS the word. So what's happened?
I think the understanding I've referred to comes from God. That is, it's contained in his mind, and he shares it with us. And the understanding of it is actually tied up with his sharing of it, so to receive the message is to receive the messenger. Sounds complicated, right? When you experience it, it isn't really, but I'll try to explain.
What's the best way to know mathematical information? To know maths. 2+2=4 might be true, and I can tell you that it's true, but you have to know maths for yourself before that information makes sense. Before you know maths, you might recognise 2+2=4 is symbols on a page, but after you know maths, you know how & why it's true. The message (equation) needs the messenger (maths).
In a sense, the equation is maths. It's not all of maths, in the same way as the light God gives us isn't all of God, but it's only sensible in Him.
Another example, pinched from Jonathan Edwards (one of my favourite theologians, not to be mistaken for any triple jumpers): how do you understand the message that honey is sweet? By tasting honey. The message makes no sense unless you've encountered it's messenger i.e. Honey. You can know about honey in theory without tasting it, but you can't really know about it properly without knowing it by encounter. The light cannot be experienced properly apart from the word, so the light essentially is the word. And he's coming.
Why? We all get his light, don't we? Surely we know him? You can't sever the light from the word, and the word went to everyone! You can't split the message from the messenger, and the message went to everyone!
Yes, yes. It's meant to be absurd. We've garbled and messed up the light (understanding) because we've distanced ourselves from the word (it's source). We get his light, but we don't even know what it's about because we deny it's source.
This is why people are walking contradictions. Atheists think that their arbitrary babies are beautiful. Muslims believe God's word is uncorruptable except for when it isn't. Relativists think they're right. Hedonists often despair of themselves. Nihilists frequently don't. We moan at others offences and excuse our own. The light was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him.
So what kind of hope do we have? He came, and the world didn't know him. More than that, his own people (the Jewish nation, whom he'd been speaking to for a couple of millenia beforehand) didn't receive him.
So what hope is there? How can there be anyone that believes in Him? God makes it plain. He does it, & will continue to do it. We are children of God, not because our parents are or by our own natural desires or a by our own decision, but by God. He won't give up on us. He can speak to our hearts (he does to everyone), and when we reject him, he'll overcome our resistance. It rests on him, not us. That is an enormous relief when you realise that you really are hopeless without him. You have rejected him, but he can win you back. Those who believe in him, he [already] has given the right to become children of God. How do we know if he has won us back? We believe, despite every inclination of our own, because he changes us so that we are not simply our own anymore. We believe, because he is merciful. Not only to know us. Not only to speak to us. Not only to come to us. But to change our hearts. To save us.
He is a good God.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Sunday, 18 September 2011
In the beginning was the word...
In case you hadn't noticed, the Bible is a big book. Most Christians I know haven't read it beginning to end, let alone anyone else. I'm not convinced that's particularly defensible (it's long, yes, but only as long as 3-4 novels - it's dwarfed by the Harry Potter series), but it's tough to get your head around any book written in a different era to a different culture, let alone one that makes such explosive claims as this particular book.
One part that almost every Christian has read, though, is the first chapter of the Gospel according to John and if you can really get your head round that bit, you're already well on the way to understanding what all the fuss is about.
Gospel, incidentally, means good news. That is, it's declaring something that's happened. It's not primarily 'good advice' about what you should do, it's 'good news' about what has already been done. You can receive the benefits of it or not, that's true, and whether you do so depends on what you do with that news, but we'll get to that later. It'd be good to get past the title, at least.
So, first off: Verses 1-5
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 were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not mastered it.
So there's God. That is, there's this being who's not been made (so he's eternal) and who is the maker of all things (so he's unfathomably powerful). And he's a 'Him', not an 'It'. That is to say, we're not just talking about some kind of force here - he should be understood in personal terms. But then there's this 'Word' who is with him, and is 'Him' - so we've got one being (God), but (at least) 2 persons who are him. I know it sounds weird, but stick with me.
Anyway, while we're talking about persons, you need to know that doesn't mean human, or even anything much like a human. It says that he has in himself life which is the light of men - my life is most certainly not the light of men & I should also point out that I didn't make everything ever made. We're different in that way. By calling Him a person (persons) in this sense, I just mean that he is a being that thinks, acts, feels, relates, etc.
So whatever light we get (and I think light means understanding - you need to read a bit more to see that clearly), it comes from his life which he has in him. So if John's right (and I understand him correctly), not only were we made by God but (at least some of) our knowledge comes from Him too. That light (understanding) has to do with life in God as well. We'll look at what that life is later.
The idea that God can share light (understanding) weith us, incidentally, solves a horrible nightmare for philosophy students who can't work out if it's possible to know anything outside of their own existance (yes, it's a silly problem, but it's silly in a terribly sophisticated way).
Now this light (understanding) is surrounded by darkness (confusion or rejection of understanding), but the darkness hasn't mastered it.
This bit's tricky, because when this letter was written it was in Greek, and the word I've put down as 'mastered' can mean 'understood' (the darkness hasn't mastered the subject 'light') or it could mean 'defeated' (the darkness hasn't mastered it's opponent, light). But if the word 'light' represents understanding, it means basically the same thing anyway. Confusion was confused or beaten by understanding.
I should point out, after all this 'understanding' talk, the gospel has nothing to do with hidden mysteries that nobody could work out except for some elite group. You need to know the gospel isn't just for smart people. It really isn't.
Some people (called Gnostics) have made out it's about these hidden mysteries that nobody can understand. They're mostly hippyish folk who like reading star-signs, listening to whale music & thinking they're deep & spiritual while frankly, they're just ridiculous.
No, this is about people who see the light which gives life but prefer darkness, because it doesn't challenge them. I'm skipping ahead though.
I'll tackle some more verses in a future post.
One part that almost every Christian has read, though, is the first chapter of the Gospel according to John and if you can really get your head round that bit, you're already well on the way to understanding what all the fuss is about.
Gospel, incidentally, means good news. That is, it's declaring something that's happened. It's not primarily 'good advice' about what you should do, it's 'good news' about what has already been done. You can receive the benefits of it or not, that's true, and whether you do so depends on what you do with that news, but we'll get to that later. It'd be good to get past the title, at least.
So, first off: Verses 1-5
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 were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not mastered it.
So there's God. That is, there's this being who's not been made (so he's eternal) and who is the maker of all things (so he's unfathomably powerful). And he's a 'Him', not an 'It'. That is to say, we're not just talking about some kind of force here - he should be understood in personal terms. But then there's this 'Word' who is with him, and is 'Him' - so we've got one being (God), but (at least) 2 persons who are him. I know it sounds weird, but stick with me.
Anyway, while we're talking about persons, you need to know that doesn't mean human, or even anything much like a human. It says that he has in himself life which is the light of men - my life is most certainly not the light of men & I should also point out that I didn't make everything ever made. We're different in that way. By calling Him a person (persons) in this sense, I just mean that he is a being that thinks, acts, feels, relates, etc.
So whatever light we get (and I think light means understanding - you need to read a bit more to see that clearly), it comes from his life which he has in him. So if John's right (and I understand him correctly), not only were we made by God but (at least some of) our knowledge comes from Him too. That light (understanding) has to do with life in God as well. We'll look at what that life is later.
The idea that God can share light (understanding) weith us, incidentally, solves a horrible nightmare for philosophy students who can't work out if it's possible to know anything outside of their own existance (yes, it's a silly problem, but it's silly in a terribly sophisticated way).
Now this light (understanding) is surrounded by darkness (confusion or rejection of understanding), but the darkness hasn't mastered it.
This bit's tricky, because when this letter was written it was in Greek, and the word I've put down as 'mastered' can mean 'understood' (the darkness hasn't mastered the subject 'light') or it could mean 'defeated' (the darkness hasn't mastered it's opponent, light). But if the word 'light' represents understanding, it means basically the same thing anyway. Confusion was confused or beaten by understanding.
I should point out, after all this 'understanding' talk, the gospel has nothing to do with hidden mysteries that nobody could work out except for some elite group. You need to know the gospel isn't just for smart people. It really isn't.
Some people (called Gnostics) have made out it's about these hidden mysteries that nobody can understand. They're mostly hippyish folk who like reading star-signs, listening to whale music & thinking they're deep & spiritual while frankly, they're just ridiculous.
No, this is about people who see the light which gives life but prefer darkness, because it doesn't challenge them. I'm skipping ahead though.
I'll tackle some more verses in a future post.
Clutching infinity & tearing hard
"There is water in the world that once flew out of the mouths of guards and flecked the face of the Word Himself. There is iron that once tore at His back and iron that once coursed in His blood before it fell to the stones, left for the small animals to feed on in the night. Animals were born and spent a lifetime before being slaughtered, having their hides tanned and cut into strips, interwoven with stone and glass and lashing the skin off the One Poet's back, baring ribs full of calcium. There are proteins still, somewhere in this world, that were used in His beard before soldiers clutched, not knowing how close their fingers came to the Infinite, and tore hard.
"But there is nothing now made from His flesh decomposed. That seed sprouted long ago, the firstborn, sprung from the womb of death on the first real day of Spring.
"We could say He cares nothing for our pain. We could say He is not good. We could say we don't understand why the sky isn't all rainbows and why the common cold exists. But we would be fools. And somehow, He would still like us."
Notes From The Tilt-A-Whirl, N. D. Wilson, p. 111
"But there is nothing now made from His flesh decomposed. That seed sprouted long ago, the firstborn, sprung from the womb of death on the first real day of Spring.
"We could say He cares nothing for our pain. We could say He is not good. We could say we don't understand why the sky isn't all rainbows and why the common cold exists. But we would be fools. And somehow, He would still like us."
Notes From The Tilt-A-Whirl, N. D. Wilson, p. 111
Enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise
"But the most obvious fact about praise - whether of God or anything - strangely escaped me. I thought of it in terms of compliment, approval, or the giving of honor.
"I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise .... The world rings with praise - lovers praising their mistresses, readers their favorite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their game .... I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is appointed consummation."
C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1958), 94-95.
"I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise .... The world rings with praise - lovers praising their mistresses, readers their favorite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their game .... I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is appointed consummation."
C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1958), 94-95.
Repentance is a sweet sorrow
Though [repentance] be a deep sorrow for sin that God requires as necessary to salvation, yet the very nature of it necessarily implies delight. Repentance of sin is a sorrow arising from the sight of God's excellency and mercy, but the apprehension of excellency or mercy must necessarily and unavoidably beget pleasure in the mind of the beholder. 'Tis impossible that anyone should see anything that appears to him excellent and not behold it with pleasure, and it's impossible to be affected with the mercy and love of God, and his willingness to be merciful to us and love us, and not be affected with pleasure at the thoughts of [it]; but this is the very affection that begets true repentance. How much soever of a paradox it may seem, it is true that repentance is a sweet sorrow, so that the more of this sorrow, the more pleasure.
Jonathan Edwards, "The Pleasantness of Religion"
Jonathan Edwards, "The Pleasantness of Religion"
No such virtue as temperance
Persons need not and ought not to set any bounds to their spiritual and gracious appetites. They ought to be endeavoring by all possible ways to inflame their desires and to obtain more spiritual pleasures. ... Our hungerings and thirstings after God and Jesus Christ and after holiness can't be too great for the value of these things, for they are things of infinite value. ... [Therefore] endeavor to promote spiritual appetites by laying yourself in the way of allurement. ... There is no such thing as excess in our taking of this spiritual food. There is no such virtue as temperance in spiritual feasting.
Jonathan Edwards, "The Spiritual Blessings of the Gospel Represented by a Feast"
Jonathan Edwards, "The Spiritual Blessings of the Gospel Represented by a Feast"
The End for Which God Created the World
All that is ever spoken of in the Scripture as an ultimate end of God's works is included in that one phrase, the glory of God. [...] The refulgence shines upon and into the creature, and is reflected back to the luminary. The beams of glory come from God, and are something of God and are refunded back again to their original. So that the whole is of God, and in God, and to God, and God is the beginning, middle and end in this affair.
Jonathan Edwards, "The Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards
Jonathan Edwards, "The Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards
This not this
What's with the title, you say? A fine question. It's the literal rendering of a Hebrew phrase from Ezekiel 21:26 that the ESV translates into 'Things shall not remain as they are.'
The passage is one of judgement aimed at a society that ignored God. This blog isn't about that - at least, I don't think it is - but it should be about the difference it makes to know (and to be known by) God. If it's not, I'm wasting my time. I'm concerned about this not this.
A quick note: I detest writing. I'm not good at it, and it can bring out the worst in me. If this remains (i.e. 'this is this') then I'll be deleting this blog as soon as I realise.
The passage is one of judgement aimed at a society that ignored God. This blog isn't about that - at least, I don't think it is - but it should be about the difference it makes to know (and to be known by) God. If it's not, I'm wasting my time. I'm concerned about this not this.
A quick note: I detest writing. I'm not good at it, and it can bring out the worst in me. If this remains (i.e. 'this is this') then I'll be deleting this blog as soon as I realise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)