Skip to main content

Turning the World Upside Down (John 1:43-51)

St John's Gospel begins with an account of three special days – the day on which Jesus was baptised, the day on which he first met Andrew and his brother Peter, and the day he decided to go to Galilee to begin his mission. These days come one after the other, without a break, and each new day is introduced with the formula 'The next day this happened.'
There is no period of doubt and temptation in St John's Gospel, no suggestion that Jesus wrestled with what he was called to do or tried to figure out what it all meant. He gets straight down to the business of making disciples. Maybe that's the kind of resolution which St John was looking for in the members of his church – muscular action rather than endless contemplation, certainty rather than doubt. Or maybe he just wants to make clear that Jesus always knew where he had come from and where he was going, even if we don't.
What kind of Christian do we think it's better to be – someone who's sure of what they believe, who acts quickly, resolutely and decisively, like the soldiers in the Desert Storm campaign who were told to go and kick ass? Or do we prefer to reflect, to chew things over, to consider other points of view, before we decide what's best? Is there a right and a wrong way to be a follower of Jesus, or does the difference between resolute action and careful consideration come down to a question of personality types? Some Christians will be Stormin' Normans like the Jesus of St John chapter 1. Others will want to think things through, like the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke. But, of course, Jesus' forty days of reflection in the desert was not an excuse for doing nothing. It was only a pause, a chance to take stock. Christians who never do anything, even after reflection, cannot be on the right track.
Jesus is given a number of titles in this passage. He is called 'Rabbi' or 'Teacher', 'Son of God' and 'King of Israel' – big claims for someone who has barely got started on his mission. Again, right from the beginning, St John wants to emphasise that Jesus had got it altogether. He's a charismatic figure whose appeal is immediate and self-evident, even to strangers like Philip and Nathaniel. He's the kind of person who makes people change their plans and follow him. Just as, in the Synoptic Gospels, the fishermen – Andrew. Peter, James and John – laid aside their nets to becomes fishers of people, and the tax collector – Levi – left his collecting booth to become one of Jesus' followers, so Philip and Nathanael respond to his call. What about us? Do we expect Jesus to fit in with our plans and ambitions, or do we expect to be changed by Jesus – to fit our plans and ambitions into his plan, his mission?
Yet, although St John clearly defines Jesus here as someone very special, someone in day-to-day contact with God, whose wisdom and discernment mark him out as a true teacher, whose intimacy with God and deep spirituality identify him as God's Son, who is clearly the prophet and leader whose coming is predicted by Moses and the prophets, and the Son of Man whose coming is predicted in the Book of Daniel, at the same time he is also 'Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth'.
Nowhere else is Jesus ever called 'The son of Joseph'. St Luke says, 'He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph', and later on in St John's Gospel people ask the question, 'Is not this Jesus, the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?' But St John chapter 1 is the only place in the Bible where Jesus is clearly and unambiguously described as Joseph's son.
What are we to make of this? Is it a denial of the story of the Virgin Birth? Is St John saying, as St Paul says in his letter to the Romans, that Jesus 'was descended from David according to the flesh'? Or is that phrase that we find in St Luke's account – 'as was thought' - implied even though it is omitted? The question, asked later about Jesus, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?' is not answered directly, but Jesus goes on to speak about 'the Father who sent me' and he clearly doesn't mean Joseph of Nazareth!
Maybe St John is saying that Jesus can be the Son of God, the Messiah, the King of the Universe, without having to be born of a Virgin. Maybe he's not. He is certainly saying, however, that the extraordinary can come from the ordinary – that a person from a humble place like Nazareth can turn the world upside down.
Are we ready to play our part in this extraordinary story – to go out and make disciples, to change the way people think about themselves and their lives by introducing them to Jesus? Are we ready to turn the world upside down?


Popular posts from this blog

I don't believe in an interventionist God

Matthew 28.1-10, 1 Corinthians 15.1-11 I like Nick Cave’s song because of its audacious first line: ‘I don’t believe in an interventionist God’. What an unlikely way to begin a love song! He once explained that he wrote the song while sitting at the back of an Anglican church where he had gone with his wife Susie, who presumably does believe in an interventionist God - at least that’s what the song says. Actually Cave has always been very interested in religion. Sometimes he calls himself a Christian, sometimes he doesn’t, depending on how the mood takes him. He once said, ‘I believe in God in spite of religion, not because of it.’ But his lyrics often include religious themes and he has also said that any true love song is a song for God. So maybe it’s no coincidence that he began this song in such an unlikely way, although he says the inspiration came to him during the sermon. The vicar was droning on about something when the first line of the song just popped into his head. I suspect …

True Love

Mark 12:28-34 In 1981 Prince Charles was put on the spot during a television interview with Lady Diana Spencer, his new fiancee. The interviewer asked them if they were in love. Lady Diana’s instant response was , ‘Of course!,’ but Prince Charles replied, ‘Whatever “in love” means.’ Now in case you think Prince Charles is just a bit of a cold fish, on National Poetry Day 2015 he read a poem on Radio 4, ‘My love is like a red, red rose’ by Robbie Burns. I thought, ‘This is going to be a bit wooden,’ but I was wrong. He read the poem so movingly that Clarence House has made it available on YouTube and Twitter. Listening to him it was impossible to escape the conclusion that he now knows what being “in love” means. O my Love is like a red, red rose, That's newly sprung in June: O my Love is like the melody, That's sweetly played in tune. As fair art thou, my bonnie lass, So deep in love am I; And I will love thee still, my dear, Till a' the seas gang dry. But what does being “in …

Why are good people tempted to do wrong?

Deuteronomy 30.15-20, Psalm 119.1-8, 1 Corinthians 3.1-4, Matthew 5.21-37 Why are good people tempted to do wrong? Sometimes we just fall from the straight and narrow and do mean, selfish or spiteful things. But sometimes we convince ourselves that we’re still good people even though we’re doing something wrong. We tell ourselves that there are some people whose motives are totally wicked or self-regarding: criminals, liars, cheats, two-timers, fraudsters, and so on, but we are not that kind of person. We’re basically good people who just indulge in an occasional misdemeanour. So, for example, there’s Noble Cause Corruption, a phrase first coined apparently in 1992 to explain why police officers, judges, politicians, managers, teachers, social workers and so on sometimes get sucked into justifying actions which are really totally wrong, but on the grounds that they are doing them for a very good reason. A famous instance of noble cause corruption is the statement, by the late Lord Denni…