CAF Bible Study - The Gospel of John

[alms]

I have a few questions:

John 1:7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.

Is this just another one of many examples of the Apostles passing on the teachings of Jesus via Sacred Tradition?

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

I don’t know the greek language, so, is “full of grace” here to describe Jesus the same as the “full of grace” in Luke that describes Mary? (if so, Wow)

John 1:42: He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Is this another reference to Peter as the “rock” and is there a significance to the fact that Peter is explicitly mentioned?

Thanks and God bless…

 

[NotWorthy]

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

I don’t know the greek language, so, is “full of grace” here to describe Jesus the same as the “full of grace” in Luke that describes Mary? (if so, Wow)

Good point, but with one big difference. Jesus is described as being “Full of Grace”, which of course is true. Mary is **named **Full of Grace. This also connotes something over and above the surface of the words.

John 1:42: He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Is this another reference to Peter as the “rock” and is there a significance to the fact that Peter is explicitly mentioned?

You mean “which means Peter”? This may simply be because “Cephas” is Aramaic and “Peter” is Greek. John may have just been linking the two names.

I think John also wanted to show that it is was Jesus’ intention all along to make Peter the head of His Church. This scene in John would have preceded the naming of Peter at Caesarea Phillipi by at least 18 months, and yet Jesus already predicted that Peter would be “The Rock”.

 

[alms]

Good point, but with one big difference. Jesus is described as being “Full of Grace”, which of course is true. Mary is **named **Full of Grace. This also connotes something over and above the surface of the words.

Ahh…I have never noticed that distinction, i.e., Mary being named full of grace, “hail, full of grace…”. I see. However, you wouldn’t happen to know the greek for “full of grace” in this passage and the greek for “full of grace” in Luke?

You mean “which means Peter”? This may simply be because “Cephas” is Aramaic and “Peter” is Greek. John may have just been linking the two names.

I think John also wanted to show that it is was Jesus’ intention all along to make Peter the head of His Church. This scene in John would have preceded the naming of Peter at Caesarea Phillipi by at least 18 months, and yet Jesus already predicted that Peter would be “The Rock”.

Cool, thanks.

 

[lak611]

Ahh…I have never noticed that distinction, i.e., Mary being named full of grace, “hail, full of grace…”. I see. However, you wouldn’t happen to know the greek for “full of grace” in this passage and the greek for “full of grace” in Luke?

Cool, thanks.

From John 1:14 the Greek word is G5485
χάρις
charis
khar’-ece
From G5463; graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): - acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace (-ious), joy liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy).

The Greek word in Luke 1:28 is G5487
χαριτόω
charitoō
khar-ee-to’-o
From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.

They are both from the same root word. The meaning is the same.

 

[alms]

From John 1:14 the Greek word is G5485
χάρις
charis
khar’-ece
From G5463; graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): - acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace (-ious), joy liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy).

The Greek word in Luke 1:28 is G5487
χαριτόω
charitoō
khar-ee-to’-o
From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.

They are both from the same root word. The meaning is the same.

Thanks. I also found this from Jimmy Akin that answers my question:

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/10/kecharitomene_q.html

 

[Pug]

This parallel certainly shows that St. John was making it plain that he believed Our Lord to be Divine

I think also this helps us see the idea of an entire new creation in Christ. Here is a CCC:

**280 **Creation is the foundation of “all God’s saving plans,” the “beginning of the history of salvation” that culminates in Christ. Conversely, the mystery of Christ casts conclusive light on the mystery of creation and reveals the end for which “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”: from the beginning, God envisaged the glory of the new creation in Christ.

The language in Paul about the New Adam also reminds me of a new creation in Christ.

 

[Pug]

Verse 33 speaks of baptizing with the Holy Spirit. What did people at that time think that the Holy Spirit was? The concept of the Trinity wasn’t already established, was it? Did they have a concept of a “duality”?

Please pardon my questions. I don’t know what kind of questions are appropriate for a Bible study. Is there a guide?

Peace.

Nobody, I don’t want you to feel ignored. Ask questions. People did on the other study. We aren’t following a set book (except John, of course).

I just can’t answer your questions well, that’s all. When you ask about “duality”, do you mean what OT Jews thought? I don’t think they really had a clear body/soul duality set up. Perhaps shortly before Jesus that starts to develop. But not during the five books of Moses really. At least as I remember from reading about the topic.

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **nobody** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2136969#post2136969) 				
  		*Verse 33 speaks of baptizing with the Holy Spirit. What did people at that time think that the Holy Spirit was? The concept of the Trinity wasn't already established, was it? Did they have a concept of a "duality"?

Please pardon my questions. I don’t know what kind of questions are appropriate for a Bible study. Is there a guide?

Peace.*
The Jews were familiar with the Shekinah Glory Cloud, which is the Holy Spirit. This resided in the Ark and hovered over the waters at Creation. They probably felt This was an angel of God doing His work.

The Jews felt that there is One God and only One God. I don’t think duality and trinity are, or ever were, even considered in their theology.

BTW, the only questions appropriate are the ones you feel like asking. If it is unclear to you, chances are it is unclear to a lot of others, even if some “expert” answers it in 3-1/2 seconds flat!

 

[Verisimilitude]

43: The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee.

Think of the relatively slow pace of life 2000 years ago. I’m sure most travel was by walking. And as they walked, they listened to Him telling them these amazing things.

A village or town could be more than a days journey from where ever they start from. Stopping in midday under a date tree to rest and likely never tire to what He spoke about.

We occasionaly run into charasmatic people today that are a joy to listen to because of their wisdom, but I can only imagine His power and attraction to those who accompanied Him to Galilee that day.

 

[maryj]

The Word.

In Greek, Logos. The word Logos, prior to the birth of our Lord, was used in Greek philosophy as the universal principle which animates and rules the world.

In Hebrew, the creative act of God is frequently is represented as the “word of God”.

This union of both the theological and philosophical, is fundamentally our faith and reason. God as creator of all that is good is ultimate Truth. And the Word walked among us.

Both the Jews and the Greeks linked the Word with creation. That is why the first words of John repeat the first words of the Bible:“In the beginning.” A second creation has begun. Genesis taught in the beginnning, God created the world by speaking."Then God said,“Let there be light” Gen 1:3 The Father created all humans, animals and the cosmos itself throught His Word. John’s Gospel repeats this truth but amplifies the Genesis message by being more explicit. The Word was more than speech. The Word was God.

 

[Pug]

4: In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

What a statement for hope! The truth is there to behold, enlightening us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of the Son of God! Immanuel!

 

[Efrain]

10: He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.

What a loving God we worship! I cannot begin to comprehend His love for us that He would reveal Himself to us in the flesh. Imagine the few of those who had the opportunity to hold and embrace Him! This is our hope that we too may be able to see Him face to face.

 

[Church_Militant]

The Jews were familiar with the Shekinah Glory Cloud, which is the Holy Spirit. This resided in the Ark and hovered over the waters at Creation. They probably felt This was an angel of God doing His work.

Yes they were familiar with that and you may well be right about the angel of the Lord…however we have little to work on to base an opinion don’t we?

The Jews felt that there is One God and only One God. I don’t think duality and trinity are, or ever were, even considered in their theology.

Indeed the Jews are about as monotheistic as one can get. Our doctrines of the Trinity and deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are essentially blasphemy to them

BTW, the only questions appropriate are the ones you feel like asking. If it is unclear to you, chances are it is unclear to a lot of others, even if some “expert” answers it in 3-1/2 seconds flat!

I don’t think I’ve ever put it quite like that…

As for the question of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I tend to shy away from that term as it has it’s roots in evangelical/pentecostal teaching that I don’t completely agree with. In the context of St. John’s Gospel I think that it’s very significant that he speaks of something that even the Jews had only a vague concept of. I’m thinking here of 1st Samuel 10 where even Saul is “among the prophets”. A very curious event…

 

[Church_Militant]

What a statement for hope! The truth is there to behold, enlightening us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of the Son of God! Immanuel!

 

[Church_Militant]

10: He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.

What a loving God we worship! I cannot begin to comprehend His love for us that He would reveal Himself to us in the flesh. Imagine the few of those who had the opportunity to hold and embrace Him! This is our hope that we too may be able to see Him face to face.

I can resonate with that Efrain!

How many times I worship the Lord in the humble realization of just how little worthy of Him I am and what a horrendous price He paid to redeem me!

 

[Church_Militant]

29: The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! There is just so much packed into this passage!

“The Lamb of God”, consider what all that means.

The sacrificial death of Christ is here prophesied from the very beginning of His ministry by John the Baptist. The fact that that same paschal lamb’s flesh is eaten will tie directly into the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 and the last supper as well as all the other Eucharistic scriptures of the New Testament (for reference).

34: And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

It’s really kinda surprising that the chief priests and pharisees didn’t seek to take John out at this point for proclaiming Jesus to be the Son of God.

35: The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples;
36: and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!”

The second testimony of Jesus as the Lamb of God. Consider these same images in the Book of Revelation. Same author too!

40: One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
41: He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ).

Verse 41 tells us that St. Andrew recognized Jesus as the Messiah even then, upon John’s testimony. At this point Our Lord has not even performed His first public miracle.

42: He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Here it is. St. John tells us about our Lord renaming Simon, and not well that he doesn’t call him “Peter”… Look what He says, “You shall be called Cephas”. Our Lord used the Aramaic, not the Greek or even the Hebrew. It’s pretty clear that even St. John is translating for his readers.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[nobody]

42: He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Here it is. St. John tells us about our Lord renaming Simon, and not well that he doesn’t call him “Peter”… Look what He says, “You shall be called Cephas”. Our Lord used the Aramaic, not the Greek or even the Hebrew. It’s pretty clear that even St. John is translating for his readers.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

Could you explain this a little more, please? What is the significance of the Aramaic name for Peter? Also, related, why/when was the “(which means Peter)” put in?

Peace.

 

[Church_Militant]

Could you explain this a little more, please? What is the significance of the Aramaic name for Peter? Also, related, why/when was the “(which means Peter)” put in?

Peace.

I’m not sure as to when the phrase was put in the verse, though I’m guessing it was in the original of St. John’s authorship.

There are a couple of articles on the importance of the Aramaic in this case in the Peter and the Papacy section of the main site library. This one is good and this one.

I hope that helps a bit.

 

[DARichards]

John, Chapter 1

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: He was in the beginning with God;
3: all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
4: In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

(Cont’d)

This is quite interesting especially when looking at the institution of the Eucharist. Notice how John says that through Him all things were made…Then notice Christ’s words at the Last Supper: “This is my body…” The same Christ through whom all things were made was the same Christ who spoke and transformed the Bread and Wine into our spiritual drink…

 

[NotWorthy]

I was listening to Fr. Andrew Apostoli who has an audio Bibly Study on the Gospel of John on EWTN. He mentioned that the Prologue may have been a poem that John used for his Gospel. The text seems to suggest Jewish poetry, where the author will recite the same thing twice - once in the positive and once in the negative.

For example:
All things came to be through him (positive), and without him nothing came to be (negative).