John 1:35–51

Zuraban, Agnus Dei

First, make sure to set this excerpt from John in its literary context. Here is my usual scheme for the Fourth Gospel:

Prologue (the Logos Hymn; 1:1–18)

The Book of Signs (1:19–12:50)
•    Initial Days of the Divine Revelation (1:19–51[2:11])
•    First to Second Cana Miracle (2:1–4:54, Overlaps with Initial Days)
•    Jewish Feasts and Their Replacements by Christ (5:1–10:42)
•    Raising of Lazarus and its Aftermath (11:1–54)
•    Conclusion to the Book of Signs: Jesus Prepared for Passover (11:55–12:50)

The Book of Glory (Passion and Resurrection Narratives; 13:1–20:31)
•    the Last Supper (13:1–17:26)
•    The Passion (18:1–19:42)
•    The Resurrection (20:1–29)
•    Conclusion to the Book of Glory: Statement of the Author’s Purpose (20:30–31)

Epilogue (21:1–25)

John 1:35–51 falls into what I call, the Initial Days of the Divine Revelation (1:19–51).

•     John as a Witness (1:19–34)
    ◦     Concerning His Own Mission (1:19–28)
    ◦     Concerning Jesus (1:29–34)
•     The Baptist’s Disciples Come to Jesus (1:35–51)
    ◦     Andrew and “another” (1:35–40)
    ◦     Simon Peter (1:41–42)
    ◦     Philip and Nathanael (1:43–51)

That whole section really should be read together, because just starting with v. 35 might lead a reader into missing the fundamental difference between the Johannine depiction of JBap and the Synoptic. John the Baptist in John never actually baptizes Jesus! It is implied, to be sure, but JBap's role in the Fourth Gospel is primarily as a witness, and what we see in vv. 35–51 is simply the disciples' handing off that initial witness.

Concerning JBap's witness of Jesus, note that twice he calls him "The Lamb of God" (1:29, 36). The first time he proclaims, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." To understand Johannine soteriology, make sure to read that as sin singular. I cannot tell you how many times in performing Handel's Messiah I need to correct my fellow singers, who sing "sins of the world" out of habit or lack of understanding.

Regarding the "chain reaction" of witnesses . . . note that JBap bears witness to Andrew and "another" (usually assumed to be John). Andrew finds Peter. Peter finds similarly Greek-named Philip. Finally Philip finds Nathanael. Also note that there is no Marcan "messianic secret" here. Andrew tells Peter in 1:41 that they have found the Messiah, or Christ, a title that does not appear in Mark until 8:29. Philip tells Nathanael that they have found the one foretold by Moses. And when Jesus tells Nathanael that he had "foreknown him," Nathanael calls him the Son of God in 1:49.

Matthew 3–4

Today's post(s) really will be just "New Testament thoughts," because I do not have much time and do not have any pre-written material that I can draw from.  But here are a few things for the first half of lesson 4.

Dore, Jesus Preaching on the Mount

I accept the basic observation that the body of the Gospel of Matthew is divided into five parts by analogy to the five books traditionally attributed to Moses. Hence 5 books of the Law of Moses and now 5 "books" of the words, and to a lesser extent the deeds, of the New Moses, Jesus.  Each part consists of blocks of mostly narrative followed by an extended sermon or block of discourse.  The fivefold body of the gospel is framed by the Infancy Narrative at the beginning, telling who Jesus is, and the Passion and Resurrection Narratives at the end, telling what he came to do.

Genealogy and Infancy Narrative (1:1–2:23)

Part 1: Proclamation of the Kingdom (3:1–7:29)
•    Discourse: Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)
Part 2: Galilean Ministry (8:1–10:42)
•    Discourse: Mission Sermon (10:1–42)
Part 3: Opposition to Jesus (11:1–13:52)
•    Discourse: Sermon in Parables (13:1–52)
Part 4: Rejection by Israel (13:54–18:25)
•    Discourse: Sermon on the Church (18:1–35)
Part 5: Journey to and Ministry in Jerusalem (19:1–25:46)
•    Discourse: Eschatological Sermon (24:1–25:46)

Climax: Passion, Death, and Resurrection (26:1–28:20)

Matthew 3–4, the first half of this week's reading (lesson 4), constitutes the narrative section of Part 1: Proclamation of the Kingdom (3:1–7:29). It would be natural to follow it next week with a study of the associated discourse block, The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29), but, alas, that is not scheduled until lesson 8.

Here is my working outline for Matthew 3–4:

•    Proclamation of John the Baptist (3:1–12)
    ◦     sixth formula quotation, 3:3 = Isaiah 40:3
•     Baptism of Jesus (3:13–17)
•     Temptations of Jesus (4:1–11)
•     Jesus Begins His Galilean Ministry (4:12–17)
    ◦     seventh formula quotation, 4:15–16 = Isaiah 9:1–2
•    Jesus Calls His First Disciples (4:18–22)
•    Jesus Ministers to Crowds (4:23–25)

Although I am adamantly against harmonizing in most instances, it *can* be a useful exercise in source and redaction criticism to compare how one gospel account handles and adapts an episode or some material from another.  Accepting Marcan priority, which is the general consensus in biblical scholarship, seeing what Matthew adds or changes to the basic material he has taken from Mark is revealing.

Proclamation of John the Baptist (Matt 3:1–12; cf. Mark 1:2–8)

Note the addition of a considerable interchange between JBap and the Pharisees and Sadducees, which is in harmony with Matt's generally more strident anti-Jewish leadership tone.


Baptism of Jesus (3:13–17; cf. Mark 1:9–11)

With my family at the Jordan River

Mark's account is much more eschatological in feel, with the heavens literally being "torn open" (Greek, schizomenous; the KJV "heavens opened" does not convey this adequately. "The heavens were opened unto him" of Matthew 3:16 KJV is a good translation, since in the Greek the word is the more neutral ēneō_ichthēsan.

Of course the striking difference is that the voice of God in Matthew 3:17 says the familiar "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." In fact, this is so familiar (because of the Transfiguration experience and perhaps because of the canonical First Vision account?) that many readers do not realize that Mark 1:11 reads "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," which is also the reading of Luke 3:22.  In short, in Mark and Luke, God proclaims to Jesus that he is the Son of God, and only in Matthew does the voice witness this to JBap or perhaps to others standing by.

Temptations of Jesus (4:1–11; cf. Mark 1:12–13)

At Wadi Qelt in the Judean Wilderness

Note the brevity of the Marcan account, which does not relate the three specific tests. Also, always remember that the KJV's "temptation" and "tempt" and renderings of the Greek peirasmos and peirazō, which mean tests/trials or test/try as much as they do temptation/tempt.

The tests deal with physical needs, Jesus' identity as the Son of God, and Jesus' status as the true king (which makes Satan's attempt to "give" him the kingdoms of the earth rather ironic). Although I have not really focused on Lucan redaction here, the Third Gospel interestingly inverts the last two tests (Luke 4:1–13).  As a result, in Matthew the reader is left thinking of Jesus as the True King, while in Luke she or he thinks of Jesus as the Son of God.

Jesus Begins His Galilean Ministry (4:12–17; cf. Mark 1:14–15)

Matthew significantly expands Mark's simply summary of Jesus' coming to Galilee to preach the gospel by introducing a formula quotation, here Isaiah 9:1–2.  Notice that in both Mark and Matthew, the pre-Easter "good news" is the coming of the Kingdom. It is not until Easter that the definition of "gospel" becomes the good news that Jesus has made salvation possible.

Jesus Calls His First Disciples (4:18–22)

We'll delay a discussion of this until lesson 6 and Luke 5.

Jesus Ministers to Crowds (4:23–25)

This is the first example of a Matthean summary, a form that appears often at the transition between narrative and discourse blocks or between sections. And here it is significant that the first references to miracles in Matthew are not to a discrete miracle story (like casting out a devil in Mark 1:23-27 or water to wine in John 2:1-11) but is simply a summary statement of the kind of miracles Jesus performed. For reasons we will see, Matthew delays a description of the first miracle story until after the Sermon on the Mount.  

Here I do have pre-written stuff to bother you with:

 From The Miracles of Jesus, 131.

Another way that the evangelists describe the miracles of Jesus can be found in another distinct literary form, the summary.  The first example of this in the Synoptics occurs at the end of a busy day of preaching and healing in Capernaum that was perhaps intended as a paradigm of the work of Jesus: “And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.  And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him” (Mark 1:32–34).  Such summaries tend to describe groups, not individuals, and types of miracles performed, not particular cases. 

Thirteen such summations appear in the four gospels, but the greatest number in a single gospel, 10, occurs in the gospel of Matthew, which regularly uses summaries at the beginning or end of sections of his text or at pivotal transition points.  Matthean summaries direct the focus of attention on Jesus, not the sick persons or crowds, and often pair Jesus’ miracle-working with his preaching and teaching ministry, though for Matthew miraculous deeds take less priority than the power of the word (e.g., Matthew 4:23–25; 9:35–38).[1]  Perhaps the most powerful Matthean summary is that gospel’s restatement of the Marcan summary of the paradigmatic day at Capernaum, which is made theologically more meaningful by Matthew’s linking it with a formula quotation from Isaiah 53:4, “When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” (Matthew 8:16–17, emphasis added).

---

[1]Gerhardsson, Mighty Acts of Jesus, 20–24.

How Christmas Came to Be on December 25

Excerpted from Good Tidings of Great Joy, 6.

A modern revelation has often been taken to suggest that Jesus was born on April 6 (see D&C 20:1), a proposition that has been widely supported and explained in LDS teaching since.[1] A spring date certainly accords better with the Lucan image of shepherds abiding in the fields, but it also prompts Latter-day Saints to wonder how the current date of December 25 became standard.

Because the Gospels do not give an exact date for Jesus’ birth, together with the fact that early Christians do not seem to have celebrated Christmas, later believers were left to guess at what seemed like a probable date. Perhaps the earliest suggestion was January 6, a date associated with both the visit of the Wise Men and Jesus’ later baptism. The idea that Jesus’ “new birth” at the beginning of his ministry (Mark 1:11, when God proclaimed Jesus to be his Son after he was baptized) replaced his birth as Mary’s baby (Luke 2:7) gave some credence to this date.  January 6 was also initially popular with some Christians in Egypt, where the god Osiris, who was somewhat of a Christ-type in that he died and rose again, was also January 6.

However, March 25 soon became a more popular date for Jesus’ birth because it was the spring equinox in the Roman calendar. Some early Christian writers connected the beginning of spring with the creation of light and of the world, suggesting that it was a fitting day for Jesus, the True Light, to come into the world.  Later, some also suggested that March 25 would be the day of his saving death at the end of his life, thus linking his coming into the world with the day when the world was redeemed. One writer, Sextus Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 160–240), connected the Roman spring equinox not with the day of Jesus’ birth but rather with the day of his conception. Significantly, placing Jesus’ conception on March 25 put Jesus’ birth nine months later on December 25, a day that was already significant because it was the winter solstice according to the original Roman calendar.

December 25 became particularly important in the third and early fourth centuries A.D., when a series of emperors—including Elagabalus, Aurelian, and eventually Constantine—made the worship of the sun a central part of Roman worship. This was because birthdays of Sol Invictus, or “the Unconquered Sun,” and another god, Mithras, both fell on the winter solstice. Later, as Christians argued that Jesus was the true source of Light and the actual “Sun of Righteousness” (see Malachi 4:2), they may have tried to displace such Roman solar deities by making it Jesus’ birthday instead. This date did not become official, however, until the Chronograph of 354, in which the church at Rome established December 25 as the date of Jesus’ birth. By the end of the century most other major churches elsewhere accepted this date as well.  However, because some of the Eastern Orthodox churches continue to use the older Julian calendar, they often celebrate this date on what the more common Gregorian calendar calls January 7. 

Because December 25 date fell near other Roman festivals, such as the gift-giving holiday known as Saturnalia, observing Christmas on this date allowed Christians to celebrate much like their neighbors. As Christianity spread into northern Europe, the winter date of Christmas also allowed it to gradually displace other midwinter festivals.[2] Because of this history, commemorating the birth of Jesus on December 25 allows us to celebrate with much of the rest of the Christian world as well as enjoy a number of seasonal traditions that have accrued through the centuries.

---

[1] John Hall, “April 6,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:61–62).  Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ,” BYU Studies 49.4 (December 2010), 6–11, lays out the considerable variety there actually has been over the years among LDS authorities and writers in treating the dating of Christ’s birth.  Though somewhat revisionist, Chadwick’s subsequent reevaluation of the issue brings much important evidence to the discussion.

[2] Bowler, “Dating Christmas,” Encyclopedia of Christmas, 56–57; Kelly, Origins of Christmas, 57–71; Bruce David Forbes, Christmas: A Candid History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 17–41.