Didn't you already have your questions answered here? https://christisking.cc/threads/problems-coming-to-terms-with-early-christianity.1083/#post-70968
2025 Bible Study Group
- Thread starter Bizet
- Start date
Didn't you already have your questions answered here? https://christisking.cc/threads/problems-coming-to-terms-with-early-christianity.1083/#post-70968
John 1
The Pharisees ask John the Baptist about his ministry. They ask him if he is one of the three eschatological figures named in the Old Testament. Christ would come to usher in the Messianic Age. Elijah would come before the day of the Lord. The Prophet is whom Moses prophesied about before he died in Deuteronomy. Though John denies that he is Elijah, Jesus later confirms to the Apostles that John the Baptist fulfills the office of Elijah. Christ and the Prophet are both the same figure, namely Jesus.
John the Baptist recognizes Jesus as the Son of God. Later in the chapter, one of the disciples Nathaniel also identifies Jesus as the Son of God. Liberal scholarship has a certain disdain for John's Gospel because of it's high Christology. They think they are on to something when they say that John is not unbiased about who he believes Jesus is. This is no great discovery, for even towards the end of this Gospel, John makes his authorial intent known: these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Last edited:
Iakobos
Orthodox
Both of the labels "Judaism" and "Christianity" are anachronistic, because the Jews of the time are totally different from the modern notion of Judaism, and the earliest followers of Christ also were little akin to huge swaths of modern Christianity.
Second temple-era Jews viewed themselves as worshippers of the one true God, the Creator, the God of Isaac, Abraham and Jacob, followers of the Law, awaiting the promised messiah. The split occurred at Christ's arrival, with Jews (& Gentiles) who accepted Christ as the messiah becoming followers of Him and Christians. Those who rejected Christ are the forefathers of what became modern Judaism.
So it doesn't make sense to state it as "the earliest version of Christianity is Judaism," this is semantically incoherent to the reality of the times. What one could say is that the earliest Christians, were the righteous Jews who knew God (and therefore recognized Christ), and they worshipped in the same way that they had traditionally worshipped with the addition of celebrating the Eucharist. I'm not sure how this would be problematic for Orthodox or Roman Catholics? I'm trying to see your logic, are you trying to say that associating with the earliest church is bad because earliest church = Judaism = Jews = bad? If so I hope the above clarifies.
While I'm sure there's a fair extent of mystery to why certain were chosen, 12 is a significant Biblical number as seen in the sons of Jacob. But Christ did have many more followers than 12, they were the closest to Him however.
One aspect that Fr. Stephen de Young points out in his Gospel study series is that it seem the more pious and Godfearing a person is, the quicker they are to recognize Christ. Whereas those with hardened hearts doubt, demand miracles and scoff.
---
John 1 is one of my favorite chapters in the Bible. I particularly like Nathanael asking "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?", to me it plays like a sarcastic joke, as if someone told you the Messiah came from Detroit. And of course the beginning is just incredible.
John 2
The chapter has two episodes: Jesus' first miracle at the wedding in Cana and Jesus driving the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem. The first an act of Grace, the second an act of Wrath.
The Resurrection is the proof of Jesus's authority over all things.
The chapter has two episodes: Jesus' first miracle at the wedding in Cana and Jesus driving the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem. The first an act of Grace, the second an act of Wrath.
Jesus routinely says "My hour is not yet come" throughout this Gospel. Jesus was always looking forward to His hour of death. All of His ministry would be fulfilled in the Crucifixion. I believe that John also wants to portray Jesus as the true Bridegroom. Wedding celebrations were held in high regard, and it was the bridegroom's responsibility to prove that he was capable of taking care of his wife and family. In this scenario, the wine running out speaks to the bridegrooms lack of capability, but Jesus is able to account for that deficiency, in this case by turning the water into wine.
After Jesus drove the merchants out of the Temple, the Jews challenged His authority. I particularly love verses 21 and 22 because they show John's own commentary of the events, He interprets the events for us. This is why I can believe that Scripture interprets Scripture. Jesus's answer is that His resurrection will be the proof that vindicates His authority, which we saw Paul elucidate on back in Romans, and in Paul's public preaching in Acts 17: God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.
The Resurrection is the proof of Jesus's authority over all things.
John 2
Jesus turns the water into wine and then turns the tables at the jewish temple and gets mad that they are using it to make money.
Analysis:
2 of the most talked about sections of the New Testament. The wine part, often joked about. Wouldn't you want water to be turned into wine? And then the temples part was alawys discussed going back to my highschool days as an example of Jesus losing his temper and to show he wasn't always calm. He wasn't perfect (that's how they taught us in school anyway but I understand from a theological perspective we should think otherwise). He had anger in this moment. It raises the question is it ok to retaliate or have an outburst if the situation warrants it?
We get to see different sides of Jesus here - one that he can perform miracles and the other is that he puts moral purity at the center and reacts accordingly if he does not see this. Jesus, always seen to be showing forgiveness and reminding us not to judge others unless we are perfect, has no time for these dealers in the temple.
Considering this is the only time Jesus acts this way or with this type of emotion that seems to us human anger (which I always find tricky to undestand as losing temper might be seen as a negative)...is righteous losing of temper OK?...anyway considering that I wonder does it mean the temple selling of goods is the worst of all sins? Since Jesus does not react like this even when being betrayed to his death later which is in a sense even worse.
Jesus turns the water into wine and then turns the tables at the jewish temple and gets mad that they are using it to make money.
Analysis:
2 of the most talked about sections of the New Testament. The wine part, often joked about. Wouldn't you want water to be turned into wine? And then the temples part was alawys discussed going back to my highschool days as an example of Jesus losing his temper and to show he wasn't always calm. He wasn't perfect (that's how they taught us in school anyway but I understand from a theological perspective we should think otherwise). He had anger in this moment. It raises the question is it ok to retaliate or have an outburst if the situation warrants it?
We get to see different sides of Jesus here - one that he can perform miracles and the other is that he puts moral purity at the center and reacts accordingly if he does not see this. Jesus, always seen to be showing forgiveness and reminding us not to judge others unless we are perfect, has no time for these dealers in the temple.
Considering this is the only time Jesus acts this way or with this type of emotion that seems to us human anger (which I always find tricky to undestand as losing temper might be seen as a negative)...is righteous losing of temper OK?...anyway considering that I wonder does it mean the temple selling of goods is the worst of all sins? Since Jesus does not react like this even when being betrayed to his death later which is in a sense even worse.
He threw out the merchants and the money lenders from his temple, because he did not want his temple to be a den of thieves.
Is this a parable, perhaps?
Iakobos
Orthodox
The interpretation of Christ "losing his temper" isn't borne out by the text. One who loses their temper, loses control over their emotions and is driven by base passions. In fact, Christ's emotions are not described at all in this text. What Christ is doing is _rebuking_ the moneychangers and shutting down their operations. And deservedly so. Far be it from us to describe this as being "imperfect." Thinking so reflects the heresy of "nice guy hippie Jesus," which has never been the way He is understood by Christians nor is it an accurate characterization of God.
Rebuking is warranted and righteous in the correct circumstances. Losing one's temper is more akin to being a child and having a tantrum.
The moneychangers are extorting and profiteering off those who desire to worship God, in what is intended to be the most holy place on earth in those times. In other words, they are worshipping mammon in what is meant to be the house of God's worship. This is breaking the greatest commandment: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
Yes, twice. Reading John 2 and Matthew 21 side by side will show that they are separate accounts:
https://www.gotquestions.org/temple-cleanse.html
I never knew Jesus cleared out the money changers from the temple twice! I'm more familiar with the other records, and I had always understood this was one of the events near the end of his earthly ministry before the crucifixion. I agree a number of the details are different, both time and circumstances.
I'm surprised there wasn't some serious blowback for this earlier incident.
In John's Gospel especially, Jesus has something like "plot armor." In reality, it's Divine Providence and His miraculous power preserving His life until the Crucifixion. The cleansing of the Temple can be understood as miraculous. If you went into a church and tried to drive everyone out with a belt, it would not go well for you. Yet Christ was able to do it at the Temple, which had military-like levels of force, and a Roman garrison stationed not far away if things got too rowdy. You see something similar towards the end of the Gospel when Jesus says "I Am" and the soldiers sent to arrest Him were pushed down.
Then there are the times where Jesus eludes the grasp of the Jews, which could also be seen as miraculous. Some Muslims understand that as Jesus crawling on all fours through the crowd of the Jews to get away from them, but that's not what John is saying at all.
Keeping the Law, Christ would have been at Jerusalem every year of His life to sacrifice at the Temple.
I also find it fascinating that the vessels used to hold the water that He turned into wine were used for the ritual purification of the Jews. Jesus turns the water into wine...at the Last Supper, wine symbolises His blood. Also, the master of the banquet declares that He has saved the best for last, which Jesus was Himself.
John 3
There is a running theme in John's Gospel where people misunderstand Jesus to be speaking literally when He is speaking in a higher, spiritual sense. It happened in John 2 when He said to tear down this temple, they understood Him to be speaking about the building. It happens here when Jesus says that men must be born again. It will happen again in John 4 when Jesus speaks about the water from the well. It will happen again in John 6 when the false disciples think He is talking about literal bread.
When some see the word 'water', their mind immediately jumps to baptism. I am not convinced that is the referent. Nor am I convinced that it refers to physical birth since that would threaten verse 6. Rather, when considering John's usage of it, it seems to be a spiritual cleansing. In the very next chapter, Jesus uses 'water' to reflect an inward spiritual reality. Also in that chapter, John uses the word 'baptize' when speaking about the ordinance, but that is not the word used here in John 3.
In Hebrew, the same word is used for spirit, wind, and breath. The Holy Spirit may rightly be called the Breath of God. Just as wind is beyond any man's control, so is the Holy Spirit in His work of Regeneration, making men born again. There is a hymn I love that says: I know not how the Spirit moves, convincing men of sin, revealing Jesus through the Word, creating faith in Him. Nicodemus asked: how can a man be born again? Jesus answered: the Spirit blows where He wishes. He is beyond men's control.
We should not ask who will ascend or descend as the Hebrews did. That is to say, we should not ask what must we do to be saved. Not when Christ has come to do all that is necessary for us to be saved. Put your faith in Him instead. The Son of Man being lifted up is salvific language. Just as Nehushtan being lifted up was able to save the Hebrews who looked on it. Back in Genesis 7, Noah's Ark being lifted up speaks to it's salvific efficacy. Christ was lifted up to be the salvation of all the believing ones.
The "water into wine" has far more to it than meets the eye. The water was essentially dishwater. Jews would keep jars of water to clean off their cookware and dishes, and they would recycle this water over and over again until it was completely filled with refuse. This was to save time on having to fetch water constantly.
Christ turned this disgusting water used to clean objects into wine, which is the symbol of life.
Wine in ancient times was the only way to drink clean water outside of a moving water source (such as a river). Storing water in place would result in bacterial growth, and anyone who drank such water would become very ill. Jews didn't know what bacteria was, but they knew unless stored water had wine in it, it was not clean and it was not safe to drink. Wine is a form of alcohol, which would purify water.
Wine in ancient times was not as alcohol heavy as it is today. So, everyone drank wine in those times, including children and pregnant women, at most meals, unless they fetched water from a moving water source (maybe there were aqueducts in ancient Jerusalem?). Wine was essentially just purified water.
So for wine to run out at a wedding would mean the guests would have nothing to drink, not merely not have enough to party. Christ was fulfilling a basic need, "You were thirsty, and gave me drink."
Christ is also fulfilling his own prophecy, "I am the living water. Drink from me and you will never thirst." Which we will read in John 4:
And finally, that Christ gave out the life giving wine at the wedding, which is a time of celebrating the creation of a new family and new life, is foreshadowing of his own Eucharist, the wine (which was mostly water in those times) of which we drink so that we may never thirst again, for we will inherit eternal life.
He's definitely talking about baptism, but also Eucharist, since clean water was wine in those times.
John 3
When people read this, they generally read it like "God loved the world so much..." It would be more faithful to read it like "God loved the world, like so..." or "God loved the world in this way..." The term 'only begotten' refers to Jesus being unique, one of a kind. It should not be understood as Jesus being created. 'Whoever believes' has more indefinite connotations than the underlying Greek, which literally says "the believing ones in Him shall not perish." My Bible translation, the LSB, still renders the passage this way, mostly following the KJV due to it's popularity, though there are better and more literal ways to render it.
16 gets misused because it so often is quoted out of context, which leads to it being used in a universalist-like way. That's why I don't like to quote it without these following verses. Those who do not believe are already under condemnation, already guilty. As John says at the end of the chapter, the Wrath of God abides on them still. It is only once they believe in Jesus that they cross over from condemnation to justification.
Men love the lie of Satan over the truth of God. The truth of God reveals that their works are evil. That is why they hate Him. They want to continue to do evil works, call them good, and not have anyone tell them otherwise.
The evil works of those lovers of darkness belong to them. But the good works of these lovers of Light belong to God. God is the one who does them, not us. Like Paul says: "I worked harder than all of them, yet not I, but God's Grace with me." This is the difference between those in darkness and those in Light, there is an asymmetry between them.
Some have pointed out to John the Baptist that Jesus's ministry is outgrowing his own. This is John's reply. It is meant to be so, for no man has anything other than what God has decreed. John's ministry must decrease and Christ's ministry must increase. The same goes for us. We must decrease and Jesus must increase. Let it be so.
Last edited: