Add new comment

1. Leon Morris lends some support to rendering the Word section impersonally:

It is probably impossible for us to read the Prologue without thoughts of Jesus of Nazareth, but it is worth bearing in mind that there is nothing to link the two until we come to verse 14. Until that point the first readers of this Gospel would have thought of the Word in terms of a supremely great Being or Principle. If we are to evaluate the intended impact of these words we must bear this in mind. (Leon Morris, John, 67)

The passage can certainly be read this way. The Word/Light which was with God and was God entered the world, was rejected by the Jews but was received by others. Then John tells us that this Word/Light became flesh, at the baptism of Jesus, as the only Son. That’s when the story gets personal.

2. You’re muddling the Synoptics and John. They are not so easily mutually interpretive. The Synoptics repeatedly give the same answer to the question about who this person is, and it is not “He is the Word become flesh”; it is that he is the Son of Man who will be seated at the right hand of God as Israel’s judge and king.

3. Isaiah 42:1 is so obviously relevant that I think we have to regard Jesus as the Son who is sent to do the work of a servant, which is exactly what happens in the parable of the vineyard. Otherwise, you’ve simply ignored the main point, which is that a person who has received the Spirit of God has the power to heal the sick and cast out demons. You don’t have to be God to do it. Jesus makes this entirely clear in a statement that directly compares him to Moses: “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Lk. 11:20; cf. Ex. 8:19). Matthew and Mark have “by the Spirit of God”.

4. You’re reading John back into the Synoptics again. I think that’s illegitimate. And in any case, in neither the Synoptics nor John is Jesus identified with the God who provides the bread. We can only read what’s there. Jesus certainly does not attribute the miracle to himself: he looks to heaven, he says a blessing, he gives thanks (Mk. 5:41; 8:6). He does what any pious Jew would do. He acknowledges God as the giver of the bread.

5. It seems reasonable to think that as Moses received the Law from God so Jesus received this new interpretation or application of the Law from his Father in heaven. The crowds recognise that he teaches with an authority that differentiates him from the scribes (Matt. 7:28-29), but their response would have been very different if they had thought that he was making himself God and on that basis giving a new Law through himself as a new Moses.

6. You said that only God can raise the dead, and I pointed out that the raising of the widow of Nain’s son is a clear reworking of the Elisha story. The story of Lazarus is no different: the anointed Son of God, Israel’s human Messiah, raises the dead Lazarus and is glorified by God on account of it (Jn. 11:4, 27). Jesus does not claim to be the God who raised Lazarus. However, he does claim to be the eschatological agent who will raise up those who believe in him on the last day (Jn. 6:40, 44, 54).

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.