I can see I am going to struggle to know which aspect of each chapter to speak about.... the wedding at Cana where Jesus turned the water into wine and revealed his glory...or the time when Jesus was no longer "gentle Jesus meek and mild" but was consumed with Passion for God's house... or the last 3 profound verses of this chapter where many people began to trust in Jesus because of the miracle but Jesus didn't trust them!!
Alright...I'm going to throw out a comment about miraculous signs. At the end of chapter one Nathanael had a revelation of who Jesus was because of a miraculous sign. In verse 11 it links the miraculous sign of turning water into wine with the disciples believing in him. Then in verse 23 it says that many began to trust in Jesus "because of the miraculous signs" Jesus did in Jerusalem. But it seems whenever people demanded a miraculous sign from Jesus he never gave them what they were looking for. In verse 18 the Jewish leaders demanded a sign from Jesus to prove his authority. I love Jesus' response!!! I also love the statement in verse 22.
In an article I read recently about the phenomenal growth of the house churches in China, the author makes this comment: "I am convinced that the fundamental reason for the growth of the house church movement in China is that Chinese Christians expect the Holy Spirit to declare the Lordship of Jesus Christ through supernatural acts as a normal occurrence. Christ, the power of God, acknowledged in the preaching of the Word with accompanying signs and wonders is the way God demonstrates his supremacy over other false gods. Within the house church movement itself, most Christians still recognise signs, wonders and miracles as the number one factor resulting in church expansion."
What do you think???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I am the same Andrew. I didn't know which part to focus on.
The Chapter starts with him letting his mother know she wouldn't control His agenda. It finishes with a general comment about not trusting the nature of man generally.
The middle is this strange balancing act between the wine creator and temple cleanser. I don't usually associate the sort of person who I would expect to get upset over the mis-use of the house of God with the sort of person who creates more wine for a party.
I am thinking of Narnia...
He is not a tame lion!
I have been ruminating (being a ruminant is a cow of a thing) on what Ricardo said the other day, about John opening like a play. That was pretty insightful I thought; I’d always compared Jn 1 with Job 1 & 2.
In both books we start by getting to see what is REALLY going on by beginning in the Heavenly realm. This The Story behind the story, like getting know “who dun’ it” at the start of a murder mystery; and with this frame of reference, we watch what everybody does in the earthly realm. (I’m thinking this should be my normal frame of reference).
Hah! So now if I put myself in the position of one of these earthly ‘actors’ (and I’d probably get a guernsey as a Pharisee rather than a Disciple), I wonder if I’d do any better than the crowds that mill about looking for a sign?
Speaking of which Andrew, ‘signs and wonders’ can be tricky things; I mean the miracles do reveal His Glory (Jn.1:4 ) and gave the disciple a stronger faith (they had to start with something, right?). But it is interesting that there is a combination here of the proclamation of the Word of God (from John the Baptist), and Jesus’ miracles.
Is it enough (or possible) to have one without the other? John had disciples, but they seemed to migrate (not all of course) pretty quickly to where the odd things were happening; is proclamation of God’s Word enough? Where John (the non-Baptist) and Andrew just after the next best (sensational) thing?
My Reformed friends seem to think that the Word is enough, and 'signs' are dangerous things. They often quote (I have to say lovingly) 2 Thes.2 9-10 to me and point-out Jesus was a bit leery of the miracles’ “oohh-aahh” factor from time to time (e.g. Jn. 442; Mt. 721-23).
Maybe the answer is that we always have to see the sign’s of Jesus as a “sermon in action”; the miracle itself isn’t important (though getting your sight back has got to be up there I suppose), but who it points to. I’d be interested in what do others think.
I'm with you JB. Miracles grab my attention. They don't hold my heart.
Most of the people I know here in Perth have their attention fixed firmly on the things of this world. If a miracle was to capture their attention and turn their eyes towards Jesus (who could then capture their heart) I think this could only be a good thing.
As I continue to seek first the kingdom I pray that I would look more and more like Jesus: greater love and compassion, more humility, greater power AND more supernatural signs which point to and bring glory to my Master. I want many people to put their faith in Jesus and learn to trust him.
I think, that populations of people in third-world, poverty stricken communities have NOT had their spiritual minds killed by capitalist values! In other words .... love The Lord like the little children He speaks of, they expect no less... they BELIEVE!
Hmmmm - I did think it was strange that he replenished the wine. Water, Dessert, cheese platter perhaps?
But wine to risk them stepping into 'debauchery' and open to temptations?
and I find it interesting that he chose this as his FIRST miracle ....
I agree Gemma... interesting that he chose the creation of copious amounts of alcoholic beverage as his first miracle... or was it alcoholic wine? Apparently unfermented wine was just as common as fermented wine in these times. I have heard well researched and balanced arguments on both sides. Just thought I would throw that in :)
Post a Comment