When I was a girl, John 1:1 was my favorite verse. An odd choice for a child, but I loved the sound of it, and the circle that it made. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Studying the Bible is always a good idea, and the first chapter of John is a great starting place. Some resources to start you on your journey, while heeding the admonition to "lean not on your own understanding." Pv. 3:5.
I thought a sample of the richness of the doctors of the Church might be in order.
St. John Chrystostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. John
St. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of St. John
St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John
Biblia Clerus' repository of commentary on the Gospel of St. John
John 1:29 says "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
Candy's note on John 1:29: Jesus takes away the sins of anyone who will let Him. There is nothing else one must do to be saved. Jesus paid it all. Jesus is our perfect sacrificial Lamb, whose sacrifice pays for ALL of our sins. In the Old Testament, lambs and other animals had to be sacrificed on a regular basis, to atone for sins. God Himself, as Jesus Christ, became the perfect sacrificial Lamb, to pay for our sins.
The note to John 1:29 in my Navarre Bible Reader's Edition:
For the first time in the Gospel Christ is called the "Lamb of God". Isaiah had compared the sufferings of the Servant of Yahweh, the Messiah, with the sacrifice of a lamb (cf. Is 53:7); and the blood of the paschal lamb smeared on the doors of houses had served to protect the first-born of the Israelites in Egypt (cf. Ex 12:6-7): all this was a promise and prefiguring of the true Lamb, Christ, the victim in the sacrifice of Calvary on behalf of all mankind. This is why St. Paul will say that "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Cor 5:7). The expression "Lamb of God" also suggests the spotless innocence of the Redeemer (cf. 1 Pet 1:18-20; 1 Jn 3:5).
The sacred text says "the sin of the world", in the singular, to make it absolutely clear that every kind of sin is taken away: Christ came to free us from original sin, which in Adam affected all men, and from all personal sins.
The book of Revelation reveals to us that Jesus is victorious and glorious in heaven as the slain lamb (cf. Rev 5:6-14), surrounded by saints, martyrs and virgins (Rev 7:9, 14; 14:1-5), who render him the praise and glory due him as God (Rev 7:10). Since Holy Communion is a sharing in the sacrifice of Christ, priests say these words of the Baptist before administering it, to encourage the faithful to be grateful to our Lord for giving himself up to death to sve us and for giving himself to us as nourishment for our souls.
14 comments:
I like the navarre notes...and it says YHWH -too cool! Also right it's we've been set free from the law of sin and death and that was set before us in Eden not at Mount Sinai....then it was given to show us not only what YHWH also considers sin but as a roadmap for how to live our lives. Yeshua did away with none of the Torah other than the need for animal sacrifice and a human high priest...Yeshua is our once for all sacrifice and high priest. Matthew 5:17-20
Hi swylv, glad to see you're still with us. :)
Yeshua is our once for all sacrifice and high priest.
A few notes from www.scripturecatholic.com:
Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.
Heb. 9:26 – Jesus’ once and for all appearance into heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself shows that Jesus’ presence in heaven and His sacrifice are inseparable. This also shows that “once for all,” which refers to Jesus’ appearance in heaven, means perpetual (it does not, and cannot mean, “over and done with” because Jesus is in heaven for eternity). “Once for all” also refers to Jesus’ suffering and death (Heb. 7:27; 9:12,26;10:10-14). But “once for all” never refers to Jesus’ sacrifice, which is eternally presented to the Father. This sacrifice is the Mal. 1:11 pure offering made present in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting in the Eucharist offered in the same manner as the Melchizedek offering.
1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.
Rev. 4:4, 5:14; 11:16, 14:3, 19:4 - there are priests ("presbyteroi") in heaven. Priests offer sacrifice. Our earthly priests participate with the heavenly priests in offering Jesus' eternal sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.
in 1 Peter 2:5-6 isn't it spiritual sacrifices?
thanks for the lesson though, keeps me on my toes and in the WORD
Kelly,
Great post.
I think where Candy messes up is that she says that there is "nothing else one must do to be saved."
It doesn't say that in the text (or in Scripture). We must participate in our salvation (through the grace of God.)
Regarding sacrifice, another place that points to it very clearly is Genesis 22:8. "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering."
He does that...1800 years later. He spares Abraham's son and sacrifices His own.
His sacrifice was so perfect, there's no need for any other sacrifice. All other sacrifices pale in comparison.
The Eucharist brings us back to the One sacrifice which is where Protestants get confused. We don't resacrifice Jesus. That would be sinful. We transcend time and go back to the one sacrifice.
Anyhow, I've been too cheap to go and get the Navarre study Bible. I wish they had a good commentary on line.
swylv said:
in 1 Peter 2:5-6 isn't it spiritual sacrifices?
Yes, I think that John Salza (the Scripture Catholic guy) could be a little more detailed. Let me elaborate.
1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests [as in, the priesthood of all believers, not the ordained priesthood] offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus. [This is what we would say as "offering it up" or making a spiritual sacrifice through self-denial, or offering our suffering, cross-reference to Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh and I complete what is lacking in Christ's affliction for the sake of his body, that is, the church."
Jesus connects these [spiritual] sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world. [So our spiritual sacrifices are joined in union with Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, which is a perpetual sacrifice, offered during the Mass.]
This verse connects our (non-ordained priesthood) sacrifices to that of Jesus, which connects to the sacramental sacrifice referenced in the other verses that I listed. This is a complex concept though, so don't worry if you don't quite get the Catholic point of view yet. But when it all falls together, and you see how Jesus' sacrifice and the Eucharist are joined and written from Genesis to Revelation, it's awesome!
theden wrote:
I think where Candy messes up is that she says that there is "nothing else one must do to be saved."
I wasn't necessarily trying to say that Candy's view was wrong. I just wanted to give some of the Catholic notes that one might find on that text. Frankly, I picked that verse because it had the shortest note in the Navarre for me to hand type. ;)
I think it is easy to appreciate the richness of the theological exegesis of our Church Fathers. I find their reflections much more profound than my own. :)
Anyhow, I've been too cheap to go and get the Navarre study Bible. I wish they had a good commentary on line.
I don't own the really huge one that is 12 volumes for the New Testament. The Reader's Edition has a three volume New Testament, and I own two of the three volumes. They are about $40 a piece, and I received these two for Christmas. I'm saving up for the third, because I really want to read the commentary on Hebrews and Revelation!
There is also a one volume Navarre New Testament(Compact Edition), but I figured you'd miss so much of the commentary that it wasn't worth it.
Excellent post Kelly!
Wonderful post, Kelly!! I have been saving for the Navarre Bible and am now convinced more than ever that I really need to invest in it. Thanks for helping me in my conversion journey!! Your posts are always so informative. Peace and Blessings.
This is off of the subject, but on my personal blog, "Musings of a Humble Being" there is a link to a news story that I think you all will enjoy.
Off subject, but it seems like Candy will use the authority of the Catholic Church when it suits her while spouting against the Church other times. For instance:
"Proof that 1 John 5:7 does indeed belong in the Bible
1. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 200-258 A.D. quotes this passage as being written by John.
2. It was quoted by Vigilus of Thapsus in the 5th century.
3. It's in the Codex Montfortii.
4. It's in the Latin Vulgate."
taken from: http://myblessedhome.blogspot.com/2006/06/trinity.html
Is this what you have found?
Off subject, but it seems like Candy will use the authority of the Catholic Church when it suits her while spouting against the Church other times.
I'm not sure that Candy understands what she is saying there. Usually, when she writes an article such as this, I can find an article on Jesus Is Lord which she either cut-and-pasted directly to her blog, or which she leans on heavily as her source material.
On Jesus Is Lord, under the heading "Why 1 John 5:7 should be in your Bible!" you can find this article:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/
1john57.htm
I don't think Candy really knows who Cyprian of Carthage, or any of those other people are, but picked them from the list of sources in the article.
Of course, she included the Latin Vulgate in the list, and she's told us before that it is a corrupt translation. Still, it looks authoritative in a list, so she included it to make her point.
I've been thinking about this some more, and I think tonight I'll put together a blog post with Candy's various articles and the sources I've found for some of them. It might be handy to have them all together.
PS-- We still haven't sold our house, and someone is possibly putting an offer on it later today. Could you please pray that the house sells?
Kelly,
Prayers going up for your house to be sold quickly.
Is anyone waiting with anticipation her take on John 6, since it seems that she is taking on the entire book of John? (Her latest post is her study of John 2).
Prayers for the sale of your house Kelly!!!
Post a Comment