CAF Bible Study - The Gospel of John

[Angelos]

I wonder why they fell to the ground. They couldn’t have been surprised. Maybe they expected an armed offensive?

The soldiers most likely fell because of Jesus’ manifested glory. Their eagerness to get close to Jesus as well as the apostles was prevented by Jesus’ sudden utterance and stepping forward. It is natural for men to recoil when something unexpected and surprising occurs.If you are behind someone that recoils due to astonishment, that person walks back to cause you both to fall!

Actually, Jesus saves His apostles the second time in the garden. The first incident takes place during the last supper when Jesus sets all His apostles free of guilt by distinguishing the rest from Judas:

13:18-19 “What I am saying does not refer to all of you. I know the ones I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who eats my bread has turned against me.’ I am telling you this now, before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am he.

13:21-27 When he had said these things, Jesus was greatly distressed in spirit, and testified, “I tell you the solemn truth, one of you will betray me.” The disciples began to look at one another, worried and perplexed to know which of them he was talking about. One of his disciples, the one Jesus loved, was at the table to the right of Jesus in a place of honor. So Simon Peter gestured to this disciple to ask Jesus who it was he was referring to. Then the disciple whom Jesus loved leaned back against Jesus’ chest and asked him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus replied, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread after I have dipped it in the dish.” Then he dipped the piece of bread in the dish and gave it to Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son. And after Judas took the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”

The similarities between chapters 13 and 18 are remarkable indeed! In both instances, Jesus’ actions are meant to identify the betrayer (at the last supper) and Himself (before the guards), setting the other disciples free of the guilt of betrayal and saving them from the danger of arrest. Likewise, in both instances different promises (prophecy) about Judas and his position among the others are fullfilled.

Judas became the son of perdition because Jesus lost him over to the adversaries due to Judas’ love for money. We must keep in mind that Judas left the table as soon as Jesus gave him the morsel, ending his commitment to Jesus. When he comes back with soldiers to arrest Jesus in the garden, Jesus once more does not let Judas involve the apostles in the incident of arrest. In short, Judas’ both therological and physical separation from the other believers begins at the table and continues up to His arrest.

I hope this is helping

Peace,

Angelos N. B.

 

[Nita]

Can someone further comment on verses 8 and 9, as it is clear that Judas was now “lost”.

Thanks.

[8] Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go.”
[9] This was to fulfil the word which he had spoken, “Of those whom thou gavest me I lost not one.”

It appears the prophecy may have had a double application - loss of spiritual life and loss of physical life.

1. loss of spiritual life
   Earlier, in John 17:12, Jesus is referring to their faith (eg. “kept them in Thy name…”).
2. loss of physical life
   In Chapter 18, it seems that Jesus is referring to their physical safety - He asks the soldiers to physically let the apostles go. Thus verse 9 seems to indicate that the prophecy will be fulfilled physically also - that is, none of the apostles while Jesus is still alive.

Just my thoughts.

Nita

 

[NotWorthy]

Can someone further comment on verses 8 and 9, as it is clear that Judas was now “lost”.

Thanks.

Are you sure Judas was never “not lost”? It seems that Judas was never a full-fledged follower of Jesus. We see this in John 6, we also saw where he was “robbing the till” throughout Jesus’ ministry.

P.S. I used to think that if someone worked miracles in Jesus’ name, than that is proof that they are “in Christ”, but now I’ve come to understand that gifts like these do not necessarily impart any grace on the person, or reflect any state of grace that they may be in. They are usually signs so that others may believe. For instance, if a Priest is in mortal sin, that doesn’t negate the Sacrament of the Eucharist when the priests consecrates the bread and wine.

 

[Indyann]

Thank you. Makes it much more clear when read in conjunction with John 13.

 

[Nita]

Ever since God had revealed his name to Moses at the burning bush “I AM”, there was always an experience of awe in the listeners. Constantly, throughout Johns gospel, Jesus applied this name to himself, identifying himself with God. The traitor and the troops had come to arrest Jesus. They found themselves encountering a mysterious force- The Lord. All of them fell back in awe before the Lord. He gave them an experience of awe, not to show off his divine “muscles” but to invite them to faith in his total person.

I have thought more about your words. Can we even imagine the charisma that might have emanated from Our Lord if and when He chose not to restrain it? (Thousands followed Him out to the desert to listen to Him preach - either on the spur of the moment, since they didn’t bring food along - or else Jesus’ effect was so engrossing/captivating they forgot about leaving to be home at mealtime.)

I thought of Pope John Paul II’s charisma. When he was asked about it, he said it was not him, it was the Holy Spirit. Twice my husband and I were fortunate to be in Rome and see him. The first time he was up on the balcony - so far away he was hardly more than a speck. The other time was much closer as he passed by in the popemobile. Both times I just started crying - had no idea such a thing would happen; totally inexplicable to me and yet it happened. And I don’t think the charisma around the Pope would even compare to what may have emanated from Our Lord in the garden. Perhaps some of those soldiers later converted as they pondered the effect Our Lord had on them in the garden.

Nita

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Are you sure Judas was never “not lost”? It seems that Judas was never a full-fledged follower of Jesus. We see this in John 6, we also saw where he was “robbing the till” throughout Jesus’ ministry.

P.S. I used to think that if someone worked miracles in Jesus’ name, than that is proof that they are “in Christ”, but now I’ve come to understand that gifts like these do not necessarily impart any grace on the person, or reflect any state of grace that they may be in …

Hi NotWorthy!

I’ve been hashing some of these ideas out with JChricton on “the son of perdition / psalm 22 thread.” – and I would like to say something which may cause a bit of circular thinking, perhaps it will un-help.

Not everyone can confect the eucharist – I, without baptism AND holy orders BOTH can’t do so. Although one can commit mortal sin after the baptism and holy orders, they still can confect the Eucharist. So, even though they may be in mortal sin – they are still conformed to christ in some way. This might even apply to Judas in his betrayal.

I think, if examined carefully, one has to admit the grace was imparted at one point for the ability to be granted at all – and that a lasting mark or effect takes place because of a transformation of faith, whether baptimal sacramental or desire based.

my :twocents:

 

[maryj]

I have thought more about your words. Can we even imagine the charisma that might have emanated from Our Lord if and when He chose not to restrain it? (Thousands followed Him out to the desert to listen to Him preach - either on the spur of the moment, since they didn’t bring food along - or else Jesus’ effect was so engrossing/captivating they forgot about leaving to be home at mealtime.)

I thought of Pope John Paul II’s charisma. When he was asked about it, he said it was not him, it was the Holy Spirit. Twice my husband and I were fortunate to be in Rome and see him. The first time he was up on the balcony - so far away he was hardly more than a speck. The other time was much closer as he passed by in the popemobile. Both times I just started crying - had no idea such a thing would happen; totally inexplicable to me and yet it happened. And I don’t think the charisma around the Pope would even compare to what may have emanated from Our Lord in the garden. Perhaps some of those soldiers later converted as they pondered the effect Our Lord had on them in the garden.

Nita

As our friend notworthy pointed outin this thread a long time ago…
Isaiah 53:2
he grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy!

I’ve been hashing some of these ideas out with JChricton on “the son of perdition / psalm 22 thread.” – and I would like to say something which may cause a bit of circular thinking, perhaps it will un-help.

Not everyone can confect the eucharist – I, without baptism AND holy orders BOTH can’t do so. Although one can commit mortal sin after the baptism and holy orders, they still can confect the Eucharist. So, even though they may be in mortal sin – they are still conformed to christ in some way. This might even apply to Judas in his betrayal.

I think, if examined carefully, one has to admit the grace was imparted at one point for the ability to be granted at all – and that a lasting mark or effect takes place because of a transformation of faith, whether baptimal sacramental or desire based.

my :twocents:

So, if a deacon commits adultery the night before his ordination to the priesthood::
a) Is he in a state of grace at his ordination?
b) Does he receive an invalid ordination since he’s in mortal sin?

BTW, bless you, Huiou Theou, for your many posts on this thread (and, of course, all of you!!). Sadly, I haven’t been able to post on this thread as much as I’d like to, because a majority of my bible studies have been on Matthew (I’m teaching Matthew in our adult class) and the minor prophets of the OT (because that’s where I’m at in my personal bible studies). But I do read the thread all the time and keep up with your posts!!!

Keep up the good work, all of you!!!

 

[maryj]

So, if a deacon commits adultery the night before his ordination to the priesthood::
a) Is he in a state of grace at his ordination?
b) Does he receive an invalid ordination since he’s in mortal sin?

BTW, bless you, Huiou Theou, for your many posts on this thread (and, of course, all of you!!). Sadly, I haven’t been able to post on this thread as much as I’d like to, because a majority of my bible studies have been on Matthew (I’m teaching Matthew in our adult class) and the minor prophets of the OT (because that’s where I’m at in my personal bible studies). But I do read the thread all the time and keep up with your posts!!!

Keep up the good work, all of you!!!

Great, when we get done with John, I suggest Mathew since someone will have great insight.

 

[Nita]

As our friend notworthy pointed outin this thread a long time ago…
Isaiah 53:2
he grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him.

Yes, physical appearance and bearing do not affect spiritual charisma - as was obvious with Pope John Paul II in his final years as the Parkinson’s took its toll and the charisma was still present.

Nita

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So, if a deacon commits adultery the night before his ordination to the priesthood::
a) Is he in a state of grace at his ordination?
b) Does he receive an invalid ordination since he’s in mortal sin?
…

Well, in order to be at the ordanation at all – he must have been baptized. So, I would say that regardless of the state he is in – He was lost at some point – so at very least the sacramental grace of baptism was distorted in some way by mortal sin…

a) If he goes to confession first – he will be in a state of grace, but even then he still appears to fail the conditions originally required for deacons.
Eg: Acts 6:3 which may or not be an impediment…

b) I don’t know, but would “guess” a valid but illict ordination just happened with big caveats that I’ll PM to you since they don’t apply here in this thread too much.

 

[NotWorthy]

Great, when we get done with John, I suggest Mathew since someone will have great insight.

Actually, I’ve been playing around with the idea of doing a study of the parables of Jesus. It will be like this one, except each parable will have their own thread (If we do another Gospel, we ought to give each chapter it’s own thread, IMO). There will be a master thread that will link to each parable as I run them. I’ve bounced the idea off the moderators and they’ve given me some good ideas. Look for it over the next couple of days in Sacred Scripture.

One of the things I’d like to cover in each parable is what teachings of the Church are found in each parable and how do they bolster or refute other beliefs. For example, what does the Prodigal Son teach us about “Once Saved Always Saved”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, physical appearance and bearing do not affect spiritual charisma - as was obvious with Pope John Paul II in his final years as the Parkinson’s took its toll and the charisma was still present.

Nita

This, I agree with. Although I’d hate to see that people followed Jesus simply because “he was tall and had great hair” (the “Dilbert managerial criteria” is what I call that ), I could imagine one following Jesus because he was comfortable to be with (something charismatics are blessed with). As in Pope John Paul II, this does not equal good looks.

 

[TIMEOFMERCY]

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.
5: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7: He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.
8: He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
9: The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
10: He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.
11: He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.
12: But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
13: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
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.
15: (John bore witness to him, and cried, “This was he of whom I said, He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'") 16: And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. 17: For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18: No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. 19: And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20: He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21: And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No." 22: They said to him then, "Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23: He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”
24: Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.
25: They asked him, “Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?”
(Cont’d)

Jesus came into the world yet “the world knew him not”. I pray that when I hear His voice today I harden not my heart.

 

[Crumpy]

I have always been fascinated by St. John’s language here which parallels that of Moses in Genesis.I have no doubt that it is not accidental.

This parallel certainly shows that St. John was making it plain that he believed Our Lord to be Divine, and it would be hard to miss that, especially as John links Christ to creation in saying things like “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.” all the while knowing as he did that creation itself came into being with “3: And God said,” Just as the Church teaches, when we speak of “the Word of God”, we are speaking first of Christ, even as St. John does.

The Catechism discusses this general topic under the “unity” of scripture; see paragraphs 128-130.

In particular, this is discussed by his Holiness Benedict XVI in his book In the Beginning.

 

[Crumpy]

Actually, I’ve been playing around with the idea of doing a study of the parables of Jesus. It will be like this one, except each parable will have their own thread (If we do another Gospel, we ought to give each chapter it’s own thread, IMO). There will be a master thread that will link to each parable as I run them. I’ve bounced the idea off the moderators and they’ve given me some good ideas. Look for it over the next couple of days in Sacred Scripture.

One of the things I’d like to cover in each parable is what teachings of the Church are found in each parable and how do they bolster or refute other beliefs. For example, what does the Prodigal Son teach us about “Once Saved Always Saved”.

That’s a good idea. I don’t know of any thread that is worth more than a hundred posts. This thread has, what, 29 pages. Who is going to read all this “stream of consciousness” stuff?

additionally, each post has its own Title block, and it seems that a poster should put in a keyword up there, to make the search engine a bit more meaningful and selective.

 

[kathielee]

Can someone further comment on verses 8 and 9, as it is clear that Judas was now “lost”.

Thanks.

Noting that Jesus said “I AM” in the original translation. “I am he” is not the original translation/meaning of the true words He spoke. “I AM” as God spoke to Moses when he told Moses exactly who He was. Here, when Jesus asks who they are looking for, he says, “I Am” which is why they fell back…to the Jews, that meant one thing…Jesus was saying he was equal to God.

It also says that in fulfillment, Jesus says that He has not lost one. I think here, again, we might need to know the actual meaning according to what He meant…afterall, it is stated as a fulfillment and the Jews must have known from the OT exactly what He was referring to.

I think asking a Scripture scholar might be the only way we could know exactly what He meant and why He didn’t include Judas in that.

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s a good idea. I don’t know of any thread that is worth more than a hundred posts. This thread has, what, 29 pages. Who is going to read all this “stream of consciousness” stuff?

additionally, each post has its own Title block, and it seems that a poster should put in a keyword up there, to make the search engine a bit more meaningful and selective.

Your wish is my command!

Let’s Study the Parables - Overview and General Comments

Let’s Study the Parables - Table of Contents

Let’s Study the Parables - 1 - The Good Samaritan

I hope you enjoy!

 

[Nita]

That’s a good idea. I don’t know of any thread that is worth more than a hundred posts. This thread has, what, 29 pages. Who is going to read all this “stream of consciousness” stuff?

It isn’t necessary to read all the posts from the beginning. The present discussion is on chapter 18. The Scripture text was the last post on page 27, with the discussion beginning on page 28. So, there are really only two pages to read.

 

[Nita]

Your wish is my command!

Let’s Study the Parables - Overview and General Comments

Let’s Study the Parables - Table of Contents

Let’s Study the Parables - 1 - The Good Samaritan

I hope you enjoy!

Is there some way to get it on the “Sticky” section? That is one of the nice features of this discussion on John’s gospel - one can always find the thread, even if no one has posted on it for a week. (With a study, sometimes it takes me a week to ponder, read commentaries, etc. before I’m ready to post. )

Nita