3rd Sunday of Advent
Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11
John 1:6-8, 19-28
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
A sign that draws attention to itself has failed as a sign.
3 Advent B
John 1:6-9, 19-28
3 Advent B: John 1:6-8, 19-28 -- Exegetical Notes
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN—A “SIGN”
The Gospel of John is a book of “signs”—namely things and people who
point to something or someone else. A sign comes between the looker and
what s/he should be seeing. It is an intermediary, in that it comes
between two things or people. Generally in John, intermediaries are
necessary to come to the proper faith about Jesus. John the Baptist
points two of his disciples to the Lamb of God (1:35-39). They wouldn’t
have known this, nor followed Jesus without John’s “pointing”. Andrew
brings Simon to Jesus (1:40-42). Philip tells Nathanael about the
promised one from Nazareth (1:45-50). (Jesus finding Philip in 1:43
seems to be an exception to the “rule”. It may be that since we are
told that he is from the same town as Andrew and Simon, they may have
told him about Jesus.)
Even Jesus is an intermediary as the λόγος (logos)—the “Word” or
“Revealer” of God. I think that “John” intends his writing to be an
“intermediary”—a sign pointing to something else. “These are written so
that you may come to believe [or continue to believe] that Jesus is the
Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life
in his name” (20:31). The purpose of this writing is to direct our
attention off itself and to Jesus. Is it going too far to state that if
the Bible isn’t being used to bring people to faith or to strengthen
their faith in God the Father through Jesus the Son, it is being
misused?
THE PROLOGUE
The Prologue of John (1:1-18) can be divided into three sections.
a. The Word’s relationship to the Creator and Creation (1:1-5)
b. The Word’s relationship to John the Baptist (1:6-9)
c. The Word’s relationship to the world (1:10-18)
The concern for this Third Sunday in Advent is the relationship between
Jesus and John; and between John and the Jews.
SENT AS A WITNESS
John is sent to be a witness (μαρτυρία/μαρτυρέω - martyria/martyreō),
which is an emphasis of this gospel. The verb occurs once in Matthew,
once in Luke, none in Mark, and 31 times in John (five times in chapter
1: vv. 7, 8, 15, 32, 34). Similar statistics exist for the noun, which
occurs three times in Mark, once in Luke, none in Matthew, and 14 times
in John (twice in chapter 1: vv. 7, 19). A literal reading of v. 7:
“That one came as a witness so that he might witness concerning the
light, so that all might believe through him.” The purpose of his
coming and his witnessing is to point to the light so that others might
believe. He is a “sign,” an intermediary, a pointer.
If a sign, or an advertisement is so clever that people talk about what
a great commercial it was and do not buy the product being advertised,
the ad has failed in its purpose. Preachers or musicians who draw
attention to themselves rather than pointing others to Jesus, have
failed in their calling. (Although such a distinction is easier said
than done.)
The Jewish leaders are sent to question John about his activities. In
essence, they put John on trial where he has to be a witness about the
coming one.
I think that these two roles present an important contrast: being an
interrogator or being a witness. I’m not sure about the effectiveness
of our “witness” (or even if it is “witness”) when we ask
questions such as: “Are you saved?” “Have you been born again?” “Do you
love the Lord?”
Witnesses make statements about what they have seen, heard, and
experienced. People on the witness stand answer questions others ask
them. What did you see? What did you know? What’s your relationship to
the defendant? As Christian witnesses, we should be ready to answer
questions about our lives of faith; if no one asks, then we might
question why they aren’t asking. As Christian witnesses we proclaim:
“Jesus has saved me.” “Jesus died to save you.” “I have been born
again.” “I love the Lord,” or better, “The Lord loves me—and you—and
the entire world.” Witnesses make statements. They answer questions.
They don’t ask them.
While I believe that the gospel is always a proclamation about God’s
actions for us and others, effective witnessing involves a lot of
listening. For a proclamation to be “good news” for someone, it has to
address their needs, their questions, their concerns. I’ve often quoted
this statement from a course on witnessing: “You don’t throw a drowning
person a sandwich, no matter how good the sandwich might be.”
More about John as a witness will come later.
John was “sent” (ἀποστέλλω – apostellō) from God (1:6, see also 3:28).
Maloney (John) writes about this:
The hints of the Word’s involvement in the events of history found in
vv. 3c-5 continue as a historical figure with the proper name “John”
enters the story. John was not just any man, for he had been sent by
God (v. 6). This is an important claim, as no one else in the Johannine
story apart from Jesus is described as having been sent by God. John
was part of a divine plan: he came to give witness to the light, so
that others might come to believe by means of the life-giving presence
of the light. [p. 37]
If the “God-sent-ness” of John makes him part of God’s divine plan;
then does Jesus make us part of that same plan when he says: “Peace be
with you. As the Father has sent (ἀποστέλλω – apostellō) me, so I send
(πέμπω – pempō) you.” (ἀποστέλλω – apostellō and πέμπω – pempō are used
interchangeably throughout John.) This suggests that we are not just
ordinary people any longer, but part of God’s continuing plan of
salvation for the world. We are intermediaries or signs or witnesses
that are to point the world to Jesus, and through Jesus to the Father.
The introduction of John into the prologue brings the cosmic-ness of
vv. 1-5 down to earth at a particular place and time. It is one thing
to talk about Jesus dying to forgive all of the sins of all people. It
is another thing to bring that “cosmic” forgiveness into the lives of
people at a particular time and for particular sins. Perhaps that is
part of our “job”—to bring the eternal plan of salvation to particular
people today. That is also our, that is, Lutheran, understanding of the
sacraments. They bring the cosmic, transcendent, ubiquitous God, to a
particular time and place and individual. (By stating this as a
“Lutheran” understanding of the sacraments, I don’t mean to imply that
other Christians have a different understanding. I have met many
non-Lutheran colleagues who have this “Lutheran” understanding of the
sacraments.)
The priests and Levites are also “sent” (ἀποστέλλω – apostellō, 1:19,
24; πέμπω – pempō, v. 22), but not by God, but by the Jews/Pharisees
(1:19, 24).
How do I answer the question: “Who has sent me to the congregation I
serve?” God? my bishop? the call committee? my self? my spouse?
circumstances? Assuming that we believe that God has sent us to our
congregations, how do we claim that authority and not become arrogant?
Should we continually remind ourselves that we are ambassadors for
another? What we say and do reflect not just about who we are, but also
about the One whom we represent—the One who sent us?
Isn’t that also a question that every lay member can ask of him- or
herself? Is their presence in the congregation just a coincidence or
part of God’s divine plan in some way?
When the Jews sent priests and Levites to question John, he does not
witness to Jesus at first, but he talks about himself (v. 19). First of
all, he talks about who he is not: He is not the Christ; he is not
Elijah; he is not one of the prophets (vv. 20-21). Secondly, he talks
about who he is and what he is to do: “The voice crying in the
wilderness. . . .” (v. 23). Sometimes we need to be reminded that we
can’t just be against something (e.g., “Just say ‘No’”), but we also
need to be for something (e.g., “What are we saying ‘yes’ to?”)
I raised this argument with a group at a junior high school who were
developing a sex-education plan. They had stated that their goal was to
decrease pregnancies among those young teens. I suggested that their
goals could be easily accomplished by sterilizing all of the teens.
None would get pregnant. They didn’t want to do that. I suggested that
changing, or at least adding a positive goal – what we are for, rather
than just what we are against. For instance: “We want to increase the
teens chances for a life-long, happy marriage.” Statistics indicate
that abstaining from pre-marital sexual behaviors increases the odds
for a life-long, happy marriage.
When we tell people not to do something, can we also come up with what
they are to do, e.g., don’t smoke so that they might live longer and a
more healthy life.
In Martin Luther’s explanations to the Ten Commandments, he lists
things he believes the commandment tells us not to do; but also things
he believes the commandments tell us to do. It is true that we should
fear and love God so that we do not murder, commit adultery, steal, or
bear false witness; but our fear and love of God should also motivate
us to “help and support [our neighbors] in all of life’s needs;” “to
lead pure and decent lives in word and deed, and each of us loves and
honors his or her spouse;” “to help [our neighbors] to improve and
protect their property and income;” “to come to [our neighbors’]
defense, speak well of them, and interpret everything they do in the
best possible light” (quotes from The Book of Concord, “The Small
Catechism,” Kolb & Wengert).
BEING CLEAR ABOUT ONE’S PROPER ROLE
Peter Steinke in Healthy Congregations: A Systems Approach, has a
chapter called “The Immune Congregation.” In this chapter he states:
“The immune system is a network of cells that recognize and attack
foreign invaders. The system asks one profound question: What is self,
and what is not self?” [p. 91]
A little later he applies this insight:
The community needs an immune response, to determine what is self and
not self. The community needs to ask, for instance, if a certain action
continues, whether it will enhance the mission of the congregation or
detract from it. Does an individual’s or a group’s behavior contradict
or serve the congregation’s purpose? Is there clarity about who is
responsible for what and accountable to whom. [p. 91]
In a sense, that is what John does in vv. 19-28. He is both defining
who he is and who he is not. He is clear about who he is and his
mission. When he states that he is not the Christ and he is not Elijah
and he is not one of the prophets, he is not saying that the Christ or
Elijah or the prophets are bad; but simply that he is not them. Being
clear about who he is and his mission, also means that he is clear
about who he is not and what things will not contribute to his mission.
While such an understanding of self (and non-self) is important for
individuals, Steinke goes a step further and says that it is an
essential part of being a healthy congregation.
Speaking as a Lutheran pastor, I think that we have to state, “We are
not Baptists. We are not Methodists. We are not Roman Catholics, etc.
We are Lutherans. This is not to imply that those other Churches are
bad, but to be clear about our selves. We aren’t them. I also think
that every congregation should be clear about who they are that goes
beyond a denominational label. How do we answer the questions: “Who are
we?” Why are we doing what we are doing? Who’s our target? What are our
strategies for witnessing to our target?” [Hmm, I’ve become an
interrogator again.]
THE SUBSERVIENT JOHN
Concerning John and Jesus: as in the synoptics, John is subservient
Jesus. He is “not worthy to untie the thong of his sandal” (Jo 1:27; Mk
1:7; Lk 3:16; cf. Mt 3:11). John is the Isaian voice crying in the
wilderness to make straight the way of the Lord (John 1:23; Mt 3:3; Lk
3:4; Mk 1:3, but, as I noted in last week’s notes, Mark is likely
quoting Isaiah in reference to Jesus, not John).
John downplays the role of the Baptist even more than the synoptics.
Whereas the synoptics consider John to be Elijah (Mk 9:13; Mt 11:14;
17:10-13; Lk 1:17), in the fourth gospel, he clearly states that he is
not Elijah.
I think that the gospel writer wants to make it clear that John is not
any type of messianic figure. John’s whole purpose is to be a “sign” /
“witness” who points to someone else. He is almost a nobody—just a
voice who witnesses to the greater one. There is no account of the
Baptist baptizing Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. John only relates the
“sign”—the descent of the Holy Spirit—that indicated to him that Jesus
is the Son of God who will baptize with the Holy Spirit (1:33-34).
John’s mission in the gospel is always to witness to Jesus—to point to
him as the greater one. He even steers his own followers away from
following him so that they can follow Jesus. (One of the themes in John
is turning away from false religions towards the true one – turning
from following John to following Jesus. In the synoptics, the first
followers turn away from their work so that they might follow and work
for Jesus – no longer fishing for fish but for people.)
The ἐγώ είμι (ego eimi = “I am”) sayings of Jesus are well noted in
this Gospel (26 occurrences). In contrast, John says in 1:20, ἐγὼ ούκ
είμί (ego ouk eimi = “I am not” & οὐκ είμὶ [έγώ] - ouk eimi [ego]
in 1:27 & 3:28). Perhaps the gospel writer uses this contrast to
further the distinction between John and Jesus.
What does it mean for us to declare, “We are not the Christ”? One
implication is that we as individuals and as congregations cannot save
people. If we are to fulfill our proper role of “not being the Christ,”
we need to be voices (and ears and arms and legs) that point others to
Christ. Without such signs, the people will not know Jesus even if he
is standing in their midst (1:26).
What does it mean for congregations to declare, “We are not the Christ”
(or “We are not the kingdom of God”)? One implication is that we
shouldn’t be as concerned about membership as we are about creating
people who believe in and follow Christ.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Avenue, Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com
Copyright © 2011 Brian Stoffregen, All rights reserved.