John and Beginning
και Θεὸς ην ο λογος
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
This is a comprehensive beginning. Not out of place for wisdom discourses of the time, reminiscent of gnostic and ontologic parmenidean treatises. If the last setence made no sense, fear not, it is not central to this contemplation/philological-steeping we will seek to do here with the John Book in its original Greek.
The beginning here is all about God, and relations orient around him: αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο (of him is made). The first five verses are about the beginning and the word and God being the word and God being with the word and light and the darkness and its inability to comprehend light. So, we have a wide beginning. If the New Testament books had a Genesis Book, this would be it (at least in contemplating God and beginnings (greek "arche" or start). Just as arches are foundations of buildings, so too does arche symbolize start/foundation in the wider sense.
Then comes John, in 1:6:
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."
With the declaration a few veres back "in the beginning" (Ἐν ἀρχῇ: en arche), we get a sense of the ultimate, the arche of all reality and existence being posed for us in this book. It seems not out of place for one to say: this is a truth both taken out of context in and of itself (as if one were to read John 1:1-5 alone) and within the context of this book (as if one were to read all the John Book and more). A little unpacking is warranted here.
This "in the beginning" parallels Genesis: בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (be-reshit) "in the beginning". This is comparatively our New Testament entry into the book on John the Baptist. It is the wide strething arche upon which John's story begins, after the prelude story of his mother's pregnancy in Luke, the previous book (in the now widely-accepted alignment of the New Testament texts).
Only now, instead of בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (in the beginning) בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת (created God [et]). Aside: sorry for the confusing quote of Hebrew within an english paragraph, the hebrew in the second excerpt (which reads "bara elohim et") is read right to left, as in Hebrew script. So, instead of a reading "In the beginning, created Elohim the heavens and the earth" we have the John Book's contribution: Ἐν ἀρχῇ (In the beginning) ἦν ὁ Λόγος (was the logos).
This operates in the context of the New Testament as it stands in two ways. First, this operates as a wide, vast entry into the story of God. We hear of the very beginning, the ἀρχῇ (ar-che). And we hear after only a few verses, of John's role in this: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." So again, the first in-context aspect is that John is shown to us as a part of God's plan; he is ἀπεσταλμένος, (having been sent). Second, we are given this beginning as centered around Λόγος (lo-gos). And in context, this is quite New Testament, because of the many ways we will hear Jesus referred to, there is Jesus as the Son of God incarnate, with ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (ho logos sarx egeneto: the word, flesh-became), καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (kai eskenosen en hemin: and dwelt among us). This is in John 1:14, so only a few verses after the beginning with the word and the genesis of John's life. So the second contextual aspect is this weaving into the total beginning with Λόγος and then Jesus as Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (word flesh-having-become).
So there was a man sent from God named John. Ἐγένετο (there came) is the same term used a few verses back as in "all things were made" by him and ἀπεσταλμένος (having been sent) παρὰ Θεοῦ (from God). John 1:3
.......
Hopefully this entry into mediation on John the person and in the John book has properly steeped us in the original greek words of the New Testament. We would seek to prepare the way for the words of the John Book to help us be imitators of him, even as he is of Christ.
Ideally, working with these original words, their order and their usage in the text, would help prepare the way for a change in our daily lives, to lead to more earnest disiples of God and Jesus. Our baptism as followers calls us (as a pastor friend reminded me during my second baptism) to be born again each day in Christ. Now for more steeping in the spirit:
γεννηθῇ (gennethe: be born) ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος (ex hudatos kai pneumatos: of water and of spirit). This is Jesus' direction to the famous Pharisee and Jewish leader Nicodemus and to us, as these words stand in John 3:1-21. To be born again of water and of spirit. γεννηθῇ is the "be born" aspect of the saying, and is of similar root as the Ἐγένετο (there came...) and Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (word became flesh) and αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο (having been made of Him). That is, unless you believe Greek language accidentally just happened to have ginomai (root of "come into being") and gennao (root of "be born") sound very alike. We see more the reflections of genesis in the John Book and the Book of Genesis in this way. If the New Testament were to have its own Genisis Book, perhaps it wouldn't be far off to point to the John Book as taking this on.
John's person is interesting, because there is little doubt the Lordship Jesus Christ claims over man. He purchased us at great cost, and is Κυριος ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (kuyrias Jesus: Lord Jesus). John's position is not so clear as is Jesus, the word made flesh, and the son in the trinity of father, son, holy ghost. Some hints as to John's role are when he is asked if he is the messiah, or Isaiah and he says Ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ( I-am a voice crying in the wilderness) Εὐθύνατε (uthynate: make straight) τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου (the way of the Lord).
He is thus an advocate for way-straightening. He also has a response during his baptizing that sets a stage for who Jesus is and will be. He tells us he is not fit to carry Jesus' sandals. He says one is coming mightier than himself. He later clarifies, Jesus is this one of whom he spake. Jesus then has John baptize him, and John is a bit taken aback, as shouldn't it be Jesus baptizing? But Jesus has him go on with it. Then baptizes John. Matthew 3:13-
Luke
As quickly as it feels we are introduced to the character of John in verse 6 after the introduction of the Λόγος, it is not all out of place within the alignment of the New Testament, considering we have been introduced to John in the gospels, and get a glimpse into his genesis via Elizabeth's pregnancy in Luke.
In the Luke Book, "in the time of Herod ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας (a certain priest named Zacharias). John's father is a priest. Zacharias's wife is Elisabeth, who is ἦν ἡ στεῖρα (barren).
Zacharias and Elisabeth ἀμφότεροι (both) προβεβηκότες (advanced) in years, they were. This feels like a reflection of the state that Abraham and Sarah found themselves in late in their lives, before Iaasic was given as a gift Θεοῦ (of God).
Then Zachariah is visited by an angel. Let us contemplate on this encounter. Zachariah was troubled at the angel: ἄγγελος Κυρίου (angel of the Lord) ἐταράχθη (was troubled) Ζαχαρίας (Zacharias). Μὴ φοβοῦ Ζαχαρία ... (Don't be-of-fear, Zachariah) the angellos says to him. "Don't be of fear, for thy prayer is heard" the angellos assures him.
"Thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John". Zachariah is told of John's name-to-be by the angel. This is prophesy told to Zachariah by a messenger Θεοῦ (of Theos). This is, if we read the New Testament in the order of its sequence starting with Matthew and ending with Revelation, the precursor to hearing later on in John 1:6 that "there was a man sent by God named John". Before his appearence in the flesh, the angellos tells John's elderly father-to-be that John's elderly mother-to-be that she will be pregnant with a son who is to be named John.
John is sent from God, so he comes with a name. His name was always going to be John. And as readers we may place ourselves in the seat of Zachariah to understand he experiences fear at the angellos' appearence. It may well be that humans often do not feel properly prepared to encounter a prophesying messenger of the almighty, of Παντοκράτωρ (pantokrator) as the four creatures in Revelation will later say in their praisings. One way to view this time with empathy for Zachariah in the seat of his situation is to see that it is here in this encounter with the ἄγγελος Κυρίου (anggelos kuyriou) that it is first revealed to him that he will become the father of John, how he will be known and immortalized in scripture. How his wife will undergo an unexpected pregnancy like Sarah in the Old Scriptures and forever be the mother of one sent by God, who shall be named John. We might imagine before this Zachariah feels as a priest (ὀνόματι: honomati) his life is dedicated to serving God, but now in this moment, Luke 1:13, he finds out a major epiphane about the personal role his life will have. Father of one sent from God.
We might imagine his racing mind, imaging what such a son will be like? Will he enact miracles? Will he be sinless? Will he be like other children? It is possible that Zachariah being a blameless man of faith may not indulge curiosity as other people might, or that we may not know what it was like to be seated in the mind of Zachariah, other than that it was frightenening to encounter an angel and that he was told the message from the Παντοκράτωρ (pantokrator: almighty).
Is it not for us to try to bring into our lives and experience, our relentlessly day-in, day-out reality where angels aren't typically within our periphery? It is fair to say that if this revelation begotten unto Zachariah was not surprising and mystifying, that he would have had to be in a peculiar state to take this message in stride.
Another example of humans being human beings in the bible comes in the Matthew Book, 4:18. Simon and his brother Andrew are fishing. For they are fishers. Just as I am a Writer, or was a web designer. Just as my sister is a communications department employee for a large company, and a childhood friend is a medical supply salesmen. When gathered in the village by the Sea of Gallilee, if Andrew and Peter had uncles from out of town ask them what they have been up to, possibly the answer would have been related to their fishing business, which they presumably do daily and spend much of their time at. They are fishing, living life, as we do when we grab coffee and commute to work. Just what we do as a part of our routine lives. And then, the ultimate encounter is upon them. Jesus enters their lives. And because it is Jesus, when he tells these two to drop everything, in a simple way "come with me and I will make you fishers of men", they "straightaway" drop their nets and follow.
Jesus comes to us while we are sitting in the break room having lunch. Can we imagine the ultimateness of the encocunter which would have us get up and follow straightaway, walk out of work, not telling anyone, not our boss or coworkers or the rest of our family? Can we get anywhere near putting ourselves in the seat of Andrew and Peter and the absolute obedience which with this encounter unfolds?
They imaginably had no idea what Jesus was talking about when he said he'd turn them into fishers of men. Presumably, though he may have had an inkling of the ultimateness of this encounter, Simon Peter would have not the slightest idea of the significance of this moment as he dropped his nets. A whirlwind trip culminating in his faith and his later proclamation that he wouldn't give up Christ to his enemies even if death was threatened upon him and then his master prophesying and telling him cryptically that before the cock crows twice he shall deny Jesus thrice (John 18:13-27). Oh, what may Simon Peter have gone back to tell his past self if he could. After Christ's death and resurrection if only he could go back, what would he let this naive and not-yet-knowing version of himself know? Certainly he would have had some urge to speak if he had been watching his first ultimate encounter from the third person, as we do when we read in the Matthew Book about how his life's events unfolded. Simon Peter would certainly read the Matthew Book differently than we would, can we imagine what it would be like to read about the events of our everyday life in scripture?
But then, we don't get a full biography of Andrew and Simon Peter, all we know (and can then presume we need to know) is that before this encounter these men thought themselves fishermen and after this encounter, they were disciples. They were as disciples τό ἅλας τῆς γῆς (to halas tes ges: the salt of earth).
We know that the Lord calls humans from their seats in life over to their seats in his kingdom. He does this through the discipleship call that says: follow my son.
What are our future selves saying as they look on our life in what to us seems to be the present? Are we in for an ultimate encounter where our future disciple selves will look back and upon contemplating the routine lives we had say "when before I was [this] and now I am [this]"?
Zacharias was a blameless priest; little did he know he was to be the father of John. Andrew was a fisherman at Galilee, little did he know he and his brother were to become servants of the word made flesh.
Followers of ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (ho logos sarx egeneto: the word, flesh-became). And it is this example, the examples of the salts of the earth, of followers of Christ, that Paul will in a few books ahead tell us to become imitators of:
ἐπλήσθη Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς (I exhort therefore you) μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε (imitators of me become) - 1 Corinthians 4:16. We are to be followers of Paul the disciple, because he is a follower of Christ, as he says "even as I am of Christ" - 1 Corinthians 11:1.
If we find ourselves during this contemplation of the books, and the sayings of the disciples and our Lord, we must Μὴ φοβοῦ, be not of fear (me phobou). This contemplation, at its highest operation, would tune our ears to hear our Lord's commands. This might or might not be through easy grasping of the bible verses, or its (presumably) foreign original greek words. If we could imagine Paul smiling from the third person on our participating in this contemplation, however we are doing it, then we are participtaing properly.
And oh, does the Bible get more exciting when one begins, continues and sticks with engaging with it devtionally. A remark from a 20th Century German Scholar:
Transcript
{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this
I'd like to say something on these -- about these papers that has also some importance for you, because we will go on from this term paper to the finals. I shall demand from every one of you the acquaintance with one other school of thought different from the one you have treated. I mean, here -- someone said to me that he had dealt with Aristotle because he was interested in Thomas Aquinas. Of course, that is not a good learning of Greek philosophy if you just stay -- and cook further in your own stew of scholasticism. The whole problem of the history of Greek philosophy of course is that he should then deal with an opposite man. Who is the man who told me this? Pleading a very poor choice. You learn too much Thom- -- Aristotle already in your Thomism. So -- why don't you check on this? To understand what philosophy really is, you have to know about two different schools of thought.
I shall then require, gentlemen, from every one of you, and the whole examination will be based on this, that you now, for the last month, when I hope you have learned what to look for in these various systems, that you deal with one other system sufficiently so that you can write in the exam about it. Of course the exam's question will be specific. But I -- there will be one condition attached. You will not be allowed to draw on the term paper in the sense that you just deal with -- you deal -- have dealt with the Stoa -- the Stoics in this paper -- term paper, you cannot repeat the performance. It will have to be somebody else. And that's valid for Plato. It's valid for Aristotle. It's valid for all these gentlemen, that there will be some other knowledge necessary. Also, you will bring to your class Mrs. {Freeman's} book. And again, of course, the question will not be about a system of philosophy dealt with in this book. So you must take one of the later schools of thought, later philosophers, as the term paper is also aware -- and however, we'll -- will make use of this book in a -- in the examination question. I will only give one examination question, nothing to choose from. And you will bring this text to the exam, please, to the finals. You can also take your notes, but that's dangerous, because most of them are wrong.
So please be it understood: somebody who has worked on Plato now better look up either Pythagoras, or Democritus, or Epicurus, or the Stoa, or Aristotle, and vice versa. I don't demand a full knowledge of all the philosophers of Greece for the exam, because I hope it's more solid if you understand two. But one is not enough.
May I then say something about the way you have handled this paper? I think one-fifth has done well. And then -- really well -- very well. The other four-fifths I think are partly scandalous. Some of you think that for a student at
Dartmouth College, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a source of information. Gentlemen, the -- the encyclopedias are written so that on topics where we have no special information, we can get the sum. But it is never the source of information for a topic in which you are expected to do some work yourself. Never. It's all nonsense. It has reached this stage -- and why do you go to college? Buy the encyclopedia. There must be a difference between an educated man and a man who owns an Encyclopaedia Britannica. You aren't educated because you own the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The -- the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica may then be educated, but you are not. You're just plagiarizing. I mean, there have been -- are papers have -- handed in to me, just copying the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Never -- I mean, you -- this is too stupid for words. You can learn from any encyclopedia where to begin with your work. That's why I -- if you know nothing of -- about some topic, have never heard of it, you go { } Encyclopaedia Britannica, they give you the first idea, you see, but not the second, and not the third.
So I mean, it just shows the -- the -- the degradation into which all college education has fallen in this country, that you do this. This -- this idea of condensation -- condensations, and -- and finally one sentence is -- is left. That's not an edu- -- education. When on -- to -- to -- to look up the Encyclopaedia Britannica on Plato or Aristotle is really the end of the world. The whole library is stacked full with books on them, from which the encyclopedia after all has just copied. Well, is there any doubt in any one's mind? I'm very glad to enlighten him about the place of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in educated man's mind. But -- or education. But is there any doubt? Do you think I have treated you unjustly? Then I will -- very glad to argue the point.
The -- in Plato's -- case of Plato, who has been treated most frequently, there is one interesting thing I think to remark. And it applies of course, to others -- philosophers as -- as well. But it didn't -- become so practical, because you just didn't the others in their original context. You just wrote -- read books about them. In the case of Plato, one of you has written a very long paper on Plato's Republic, going just from book to book. This is an anti-philosophical treatment, gentlemen, of any book. You cannot render a thought of -- the thought of a man, like Plato in his Republic by simply narrating, like an epical storyteller, the sequence of this boo- -- The Republic, which for artistic reasons and reasons of Greece -- the Greek environment, of course, had to meet a certain pattern of order, of dialogue, of dramatization, and of personification.
The first thing a man who reads a book must do, is that he begins with the last word of the book. Make this a rule, gentlemen. Each time a thing is intellectually treated, the order of things is reversed. If you make a book review -- write a book review, the first thing is -- you must have in mind is the end of the
book. Otherwise you haven't read it. Now to plunge your reader, me, in the position that I have to wallow, like you yourself, once more through the sequence of these books of The Republic, is -- is the most unphilosophical thing you can do. It shows that you don't know what philosophy is. Philosophy is an attempt to see wholes, to see totalities. And you break it -- you destroy this power, this possibility. Is an absolutely worthless paper, and I'm sorry to say this, because the man was quite industrious who wrote this report. But it never dawned on him that he was showing that he had mistaken a movie and philosophy. In a movie, the things follow, and they end then with a surprise at the moment when you see the final kiss.
But gentlemen, any thought has to be conceived, comprehended. All these words mean that you have to take them together in your hand, and hold them up before you and go around them, and see them from many angles and from many sides. And with a book you can only do this if you look at it from the end and from the beginning. And even from the middle. And that's your digestion. And so this minimum wasn't done in this case, I'm sorry to say. And it is therefore -- he -- the man certainly didn't fulfill the requirement at all. If I ask in a course on philosophy the -- the statement of a philosophy, I must ask that much philosophical acumen on your part that you know what it means to think at all.
But this leads to a very central point. I -- I have just published this in a -- my Sociology: the place of philosophy in life, the seat in life, in Greek tradition. One of you has quoted Charmides -- who has Charmides? I had suspected him that he hadn't read it. But he quoted it. Come on. Who -- who quoted Charmides? Who quoted Charmides? C-h-a-r-m-i-d-e-s? Oh, don't -- don't -- I'll find you.
Now this is a very exciting dialogue, gentlemen, because it is the seat of -- in life, which philosophy there is given, the reason why there are philosophers in Greece. And I'm going now to speak a little more about this, after I have dealt with the papers. The seat of life of philosophy forces you to deal -- with any philosophical topic -- or with any philosopher in such a way that you do not simply follow the external line of his argument. But that you master the subject by looking around it, by seeing it from all sides, so to speak, stereometrically, you see, so that you can begin at the end as much as the beginning.
In modern times, gentlemen, the one man who may claim that he comes nearest to a Greek philosopher has been Schopenhauer, because he is the one and only philosopher in the 19th century who wrote decent -- a decent style, a very beautiful style, as good as Plato. And Schopenhauer said to his readers in the preface of his philosophy, that he had to ask them to read the book once,
and then to read it again, after they had reached the -- the end, because otherwise he couldn't convey his thought. They first had to know the whole story, what he was driving at. And then they had, so to speak, critically read it again.
And he said, "I was -- I am very sorry, I'm quite sure I cannot keep up with the -- with the cheap Will -- Will Durants, et cetera, and therefore -- of my" -- his time, "and therefore, nobody is going to read my book. But I must say that the simple condition of reading this book is to read it twice. Because you must have reached the end before you can understand the beginning." And if this sounds paradox, you -- then you -- just -- means that you don't know what to think means. And you don't know what to think me- -- what to think means, of course. And you -- they tempt you to buy a book, because they promise you, you can read it in nine minutes and 10 seconds.
Gentlemen, you are illiterates. You have unlearned to read a real book of any difficulty. And you even disclaim your duty to write -- read a book that is difficult. You say, "I don't write -- read books that are difficult." It's just a denunciation of your own stupidity, gentlemen. Only books that are difficult are worth reading, obviously. Why should you read a book that is light? I mean, then you can go to a burlesque show right away.
But you -- all your values in reading books are distorted. The whole problem of Heraclitus or of the gre- -- greatest minds of -- of Greece is that you have to think about one of these sentences 20 times before the -- understand how deep they are, and how -- how appl- -- wide their application is. And so I must say, I resent this -- this -- these Platos -- papers on Plato. They all show very clearly that not one of the -- you has taken the trouble of reading a dialogue of Plato twice. Perfectly meaningless. No book, gentlemen, of any value is a book that deserves to be read once. If you don't read Hamlet twice, or thrice -- 10 times in your life, you are unable to understand Shakespeare. Hamlet cannot be read once. It cannot. That's the first beginning, to get over the difficulties of who's the play -- what the action is, and who the players are. After you have gotten by this, then you begin to begin just to -- to understand what Plato -- what Hamlet is all about. I have read my -- the -- Homer's Iliad perhaps by now 25 times, and The Odyssey 26 or 27 times. And so on with everything. And I very often do not understand -- even then. But you have no education, gentlemen, because you have not learned anything the second time.
There are three kinds of books, gentlemen. And this is important for Greek -- for philosophy in any case. There are the books that deserve to be read once, and never again; that are the books to be eliminated. A book that only deserves to be read once could just as well have not been read. It's not important. You can read it for a pastime, or you cannot read it. Then there are books
that must be read -- read several times. These are the so-called classics, the good books. Dickens, or Macaulay, or Carlyle, or -- or Robert Frost. And then there are books -- very few -- that can -- must be read always. Like the Bible. And that's the difference of the Bible and the other books. Not that it is a sacred book. There is nothing sacred. That's an -- just an empty word, gentlemen. But it has to be read always, because most of the time, we aren't up to the occasion. Most of the time, we do not understand the Bible, because we have -- we live in such sloth, and sinfulness, and stupidity that we don't understand it. You have to have a pure heart and a clear mind in order to understand the Bible
-Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Greek History 1956, Lecture 21, Dartmouth College
So if we are not feeling we are making progress with the bible, we must remember that we are not to make progress reading the bible. We should never be finished! That is our aim. To read the Bible always. Amen, Amen Amen, to our Lord.
ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλισάβετ, (filled, Spirit-of-Holiness-with, was Elizabeth). And what of the seat of John's blameless mother Elizabeth?
We may start here: καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱόν, and she bore a son (kai e-gennehsen ui-on). Her community rejoices with her. And she takes her son to get circumsized and the people are all calling him Zacharias, presumptively after his father. And Elizabeth, remarks, no, he will actually be called John.
The community is taken aback in what may imaginably be an awkward series of moments. But... "there is no one of [your family] called by this name". They are troubled so much as to go over to Zachariah and ask him about it. Zachariah, currently undergoing temporary muteness writes in response "his name is John".
In the seat of Elizabeth, I undergo a pregnancy after a long life barren, my husband is a priest who encounters an angel, I remarkably end up pregnant some time after my husband very publically loses his speech after an angelic encounter. This is known amongst the community and many speculate about what has happened to my husband. I hide my pregnancy for five months. In the sixth month my cousin is shocked by an angelic encounter and is told about my pregnancy just as my husband was. Two angelic visits about what is happening in my womb.
My baby leaps internally when Mary comes to my house, as a response to her soon coming birth of the actual son of God.
Finally I deliver the child and the community is treating this as things as they are usually. They presumptively go along and circumsize the child and call him Zacharias. And they are taken aback entirely when I stand up in faith and go against their expectations and call my son by John, the name God wills him to have. But I am an oddball in this community. They may even think I'm crazy. But... no one in your family is named John. They go to my husband to get a sensible statement on the matter. Clearly he will deem the child Zacharias, of his own namesake. But no, they marvel, for he supports this will of God acting over and agains the will of our community. His name is John. So my husband writes.
I, Elizabeth, stand as a precursor to what my son will be in this world. My community with their ears closed, has bent epectations. I make them straight. His name is John.
And soon John will declare in response to questions about his identity, in reponse of the confusion of the community:
"I am a voice crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of-the-Lord."
Ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (eg-o phon-eh bo-untos en te e-remu) Εὐθύνατε (eu-thunate) τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου (ten hodon kuriou) - John 1:23
I Elizabeth make straight the way of things, his name will be John, my husband affirms this making straight, remembering undoubtedly the angel prophesying to him, his name will be John, and against the expecations of the people, he was John the way-straightener.
And John would come to spend time in the wilderness. On a solely locust/honey diet.
To be born anew each day, Lord, please allow me to be yours in my fullest expression. Please speak thyself in me, breathe thyself in me and have a radiance of your people. We hunger for you lord. May my subject expression be a subject of your kingdom. For and through the power of you son Jesus and his mind. Thank you for hearing my repentence before its true expression enters my lips. I love you, and I know that is a tiny wisp of the love you have sheparded me with, that Jesus stands as a promise for. You spoke through your son.
John was the voice and Jesus was the word. You sent a man to us to stand amidst wildnerness and be the voice from you: make straight the way of the Lord. To unpack this, Lord your straightening is steadfast and it the root for my fruiting alacrity.
If I were to exercise devotionals each day there could be no improvement. Any improvement is an abstract. May these devotionals serve to lead me back to childhood and suitedness for your kingdom. If I were to preach and philologically wax poetic on these words you've laid down through the gospels about your son, what then. Or who then? May I not progress as if up a ladder if that ladder stands to be anything that postures itself outside of you. Such a "subtteranean" path is not for me.
What of the seat of John's daily life? There must have (I contemplate) been movements he was doing, molding. Each day could not uniformly be radically different than the last. So he must have had some John way about his being. And his John way about his being before, during and kairotically beyond his revelation are all parts of John, the man sent to the world you so loved that you gave your only begotten son that whomever may believe in him may have life everlasting.
You give me memory Lord, and the only memory is to serve you. Servitude, obedience in this modern age. We live in a unique modern circumstance: there has been no other time similar for us to have an opportunity to attempt seeing what a way straightening would be in a body of people. Obedience to you, not to Ceaser. Your kingdom is of our souls.
John says of his prelude into the revelation that immediately he was in spirit. God in Revelation 3 says that if any man hears the knocking and opens the door God will come in. Having the ears to hear, and John as an example of making straight. Making straight our ears. John was the way-straightener, and he was ready for the spirit when it knocked, he was immediately taken in spirit.
Let us, as body of your son have ears attuned to not making images. No images of John, but John himself. No intellect. Even as I hate my family and friends, there is nothing without Christ as mediator.
Lord please accept my devotion. The time I spend with you are symbols, with voice which I wish to become word-like. The voice, John, comes chronologically before the word, but the word directs. Was John particpating in the body of christ in his preparation? We are called to partake in the body of christ, so John helped set the table. My God, your words assure us that we are not alone and that you speak to us.
I heard you in the breeze. In pneumati, in the wind in the spirit. We can understand at first like you like undertones and inflections within a language we don't feel conversant in. But you speak our language. You are our language. And amen, yours is our kingdom. Let me imitate the four: amen, amen, amen, is the Lord God almighty which was and is and is to come.
Comprehending be not without you my God. Apprehension like an outfielder in baseball closing in on a high fly ball that is on its trajectory down. We are dizzy, but that would hold more weight if it was our own two feet that were our foundation, our house on a rock which to stand.
In Matthew the wise man builds his house on a rock. The house on a rock is not grounded, earthliness. Mathematical seeking of undeniability, what of it in lieu of the truth of your word.
What you say to us through your Bible has the nature of the rock. Please, let me become steeped in devotion and partake in this foundation, in Christ's kingdom. In Revelation, the vision through John reflects in the praises of the four, the aspects of God to receive praise. "The Lord God almight which was and is and is to come." This chronological envelopment in the name that stands as symbol for him who is to be praised acquaints us with stretching chronological experience. Does this mean this message is tailored to those of us outside of the time of Kairos? That this is a symbol of representation of an anspect of God.An side, to attempt to consider the the seat of a disagreer of your scripture:
In opposition, if one opposes, the opposer would stand as pharises so often did, as hole-pokers within the parables. They're trying to catcch Jesus in error. Which, to follow up on the statement in the original post, is presupposing there is a hole in the scriptures' legitimacy, or that the books of the bible may be read as one of many books and thus judged in the same way. One in this seat would think they have a follower of Jesus trapped by exposing the fact that that follow believes the Bible is special and above other books (a better house, upon a rock).
The Bible tells us to become imitaors of Christ and that he is our salvation and nothing stands beyond the Spirit working within us. "Mere philosophy" has then a glaring pitfall from the get-go. I like Kierkegaard's style in focusing on the movements of faith and that being of a "knight of faith" to move in that way, so I suppose that is what we are called to do if in some objection circumstance.
The time to repent is always in the now. Here we find our good brother again, alive and well in the Matthew book "saying repent" λέγων Μετανοεῖτε (legon metanoeite). In the wilderness being his way-straightening self, being his sent-from-God self. And he is our brother in Christ.
Meta - noeite, from a literal translation new-minded. Become new minded. The nou root of noeiete is used in Homer where Zeus has a hero in mind, in his nous. So mind comes from a root of some space-like beingness. And we are to have new mind in Christ, nay, even νοῦν Χριστοῦ, the mind of Christ and we have it.
In 1 Corinthians: first... who hath known νοῦν Κυρίου, the Lord's mind? But... νοῦν Χριστοῦ we have. Our consellation is no mere consolation. The beginning of this verse is expressive and stands as a futility. This is a question that has for thousands of years rang out: who knows the mind of God? What can we know to the mind of God. This verse surprises us with the revelation that in the face of this futile beingness νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν, the mind of-Christ we have. (noun Christou echomen) Oh what a declaration.
Who knows? But we have.
Now, a seat-of exercise that comes to mind is if we were to know we were going to be told something about us having the mind of Christ, what would we expect to be told? If I were to anticipate, what I would expect would be maybe some time ahead or off in some future would I have the mind of Christ. Certainly not now, sinner as I am. But no, there we find out we have (in the present) the mind of Christ. This is a relief to a side of me as well that feels I should feel guilty and lowly because of how Christ is. But we are called to be humble and meek. To assume that we by ourselves have some orientation of standards for goodness is to forget who stood and stands as right action: Jesus. Any ethics is absurd to suppose without our Lord.
Lord God, you are my rock. In the beginning was the word. And then you sent John. This making straight makes me straight and gives me striving movements. Moving the waters, only with you and only for you. In the past, our church was in the womb in the time of John. We could probably feel our Lord was coming. Just as then we may look back on those before Jesus' birth and say, oh how excited you should be for what is to come! So too, should we now feel the ever-coming presence of our Lord Jesus as king.
Lord in the Revelation 19:10 we are called, shortly before verse proclaiming Jesus as king, we are called in our having of the testimony of Jesus Christ. σύνδουλός σού εἰμι, a fellow servant, with you I am... τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ, holding the testimony of-Jesus. And we remember νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν, the mind of-Christ we-have. So for the testimony, echonton, holding and for the mind, echomen, we have. In similar fashions we have testimony and mind of Christ. And martyrian (testimony) we have.
Those who suffer persecution have testimony, and as our language has evolved are made living testsimony by the evil impulses of mobs in history. The deaths of the anabaptists. The stoning of PAul.
Comments
Post a Comment