The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When
he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!"
When the two
disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning
around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”
They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?” “Come,” he replied, “and you will see.”
So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon. Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter.) (John 1:35-42)
Wait a minute! Where’s the sea shore? Where are the fishing nets? Where is Jesus saying, “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”? Where is the out of the blue calling of disciples Jesus had never met? “Excuse me, folks, we have a contradiction!”
Well, no, it’s just an apparent contradiction. This is one of those passages that shows how important it is to study the whole of Scripture, and not just parts. The synoptic gospels leave this part out. Why? Matthew wasn’t there. Neither was Peter (who purportedly provided the material for Mark.) While Luke says that he did exhaustive research (and it’s apparent in his account), this scene doesn’t hold the same historical gravitas as the scene in which Jesus calls them to be disciples. It would be important to John if John were one who had been with Andrew.
The fact that the writer doesn’t name him as John has two possible explanations. The first is that it was considered rude to name oneself in such a way. The second is that the person described was still alive at the time of the writing, and therefore might be placed in danger if he were named. John fits both those descriptions.
At the end of the book of John, the author notes that no account of Jesus’ life includes all that happened. The writers had to pick, and while some events are obvious, others would depend on the reason the author was writing it and the audience for whom it was written. The book of John was written for a Jewish audience. For them, this scene would have been important because it would establish that the author, as a witness, was there from the start and it would show continuity from the Old Testament, through John, the last prophet, to Jesus.
They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?” “Come,” he replied, “and you will see.”
So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon. Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter.) (John 1:35-42)
Wait a minute! Where’s the sea shore? Where are the fishing nets? Where is Jesus saying, “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”? Where is the out of the blue calling of disciples Jesus had never met? “Excuse me, folks, we have a contradiction!”
Well, no, it’s just an apparent contradiction. This is one of those passages that shows how important it is to study the whole of Scripture, and not just parts. The synoptic gospels leave this part out. Why? Matthew wasn’t there. Neither was Peter (who purportedly provided the material for Mark.) While Luke says that he did exhaustive research (and it’s apparent in his account), this scene doesn’t hold the same historical gravitas as the scene in which Jesus calls them to be disciples. It would be important to John if John were one who had been with Andrew.
The fact that the writer doesn’t name him as John has two possible explanations. The first is that it was considered rude to name oneself in such a way. The second is that the person described was still alive at the time of the writing, and therefore might be placed in danger if he were named. John fits both those descriptions.
At the end of the book of John, the author notes that no account of Jesus’ life includes all that happened. The writers had to pick, and while some events are obvious, others would depend on the reason the author was writing it and the audience for whom it was written. The book of John was written for a Jewish audience. For them, this scene would have been important because it would establish that the author, as a witness, was there from the start and it would show continuity from the Old Testament, through John, the last prophet, to Jesus.
As for the apparent contradiction, the author
doesn’t say that the scene on the beach didn’t take place. As we read his
account, we’ll get there. It just wasn’t as out of the blue as some people like
to teach.
Comments
Post a Comment