[source: BibleHub.com]
See the nature of true Christianity, it is following Jesus; devoting ourselves to him, and treading in his steps. Observe the objection Nathanael made. All who desire to profit by the word of God, must beware of prejudices against places, or denominations of men. They should examine for themselves, and they will sometimes find good where they looked for none. Many people are kept from the ways of religion by the unreasonable prejudices they conceive. The best way to remove false notions of religion, is to make trial of it. In Nathanael there was no guile. His profession was not hypocritical. He was not a dissembler, nor dishonest; he was a sound character, a really upright, godly man. Christ knows what men are indeed. Does He know us? Let us desire to know him. Let us seek and pray to be Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile; truly Christians, approved of Christ himself. Some things weak, imperfect, and sinful, are found in all, but hypocrisy belongs not to a believer's character. Jesus witnessed what passed when Nathanael was under the fig-tree. Probably he was then in fervent prayer, seeking direction as to the Hope and Consolation of Israel, where no human eye observed him. This showed him that our Lord knew the secrets of his heart. Through Christ we commune with, and benefit by the holy angels; and things in heaven and things on earth are reconciled and united together.
**********
[source: StudyLight.org]
Verse John 1:51. Verily, verily — Amen, amen. The doubling of this word probably came from this circumstance: that it was written both in Hebrew אמן and in Greek αμην, signifying, it is true.
Heaven open — This seems to be a figurative expression:
1. Christ may be understood by this saying to mean, that a clear and abundant revelation of God's will should be now made unto men; that heaven itself should be laid as it were open, and all the mysteries which had been shut up and hidden in it from eternity, relative to the salvation and glorification of man; should be now fully revealed.
2. That by the angels of God ascending and descending, is to be understood, that a perpetual intercourse should now be opened between heaven and earth, through the medium of Christ, who was God manifested in the flesh. Our blessed Lord is represented in his mediatorial capacity as the ambassador of God to men; and the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man, is a metaphor taken from the custom of despatching couriers or messengers from the prince to his ambassador in a foreign court, and from the ambassador back to the prince.
This metaphor will receive considerable light when compared with 2 Corinthians 5:19-20: God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself:- We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God. The whole concerns of human salvation shall be carried on, from henceforth, through the Son of man; and an incessant intercourse be established between heaven and earth. Some have illustrated this passage by the account of Jacob's vision, Genesis 28:12. But though that vision may intimate that God had established at that time a communication between heaven and earth, through the medium of angels, yet it does not appear that our Lord's saying here has any reference to it; but that it should be understood as stated above.
What a glorious view does this give us of the Gospel dispensation! It is heaven opened to earth; and heaven opened on earth. The Church militant and the Church triumphant become one, and the whole heavenly family, in both, see and adore their common Lord. Neither the world nor the Church is left to the caprices of time or chance. The Son of man governs as he upholds all. Wherever we are praying, studying, hearing, meditating, his gracious eye is upon us. He notes our wants, our weakness, and our petitions; and his eye affects his heart. Let us be without guile, deeply, habitually sincere, serious, and upright; and then we may rest assured, that not only the eye, but the hand, of our Lord shall be ever upon us for good. Happy the man whose heart can rejoice in the reflection, Thou God seest me!
**********
[source: StudyLight.org]
And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Ryle noted that the expression "Verily, verily" is unique to this Gospel, being used in it 25 times, always by Jesus, and having the equivalent meaning of "Amen, amen." It always implied a solemn and emphatic statement of some great truth. No other New Testament writer ever used this solemn double "Amen."
But what is the great truth enunciated here? The words certainly point to the vision of Jacob who saw the ladder from earth to heaven with angelic traffic in both directions; and, if a spiritual meaning is sought, which seems mandatory, Jesus here identified himself as the Ladder bridging the gulf between God and man. In Nathaniel's confession, the prominence of "King of Israel" pointed to the secular and political views usually held regarding the promised Messiah, and in this verse Jesus emphasized the great spiritual objectives of his earthly visitation. (See Genesis 28:12.)
The emphasis upon "Son of man" here, rather than upon "Son of God" was probably due to Jesus' purpose of reserving emphasis on the latter until the time of Peter's confession (Matthew 16:13f). The meaning of both titles carries the implication of Christ's deity; but "Son of God," in the popular mind, was too closely associated with "King of Israel," in the exact manner of Nathaniel's confession; and it was not time for Jesus to challenge the Pharisees by using "Son of God." A little further attention to the title Son of man is in order.
THE SON OF MAN
The title "Son of man" was used at least forty times by Jesus, twelve times in this Gospel; and, with the exception of Stephen's use of it (Acts 7:56), it is found only in our Lord's reference to himself. There are two questions of the deepest significance that arise from Jesus' use of this title: (1) did he use it in such a manner as to diminish his claim of absolute divinity? and (2) why did he favor this title as distinguished from "Son of God," which was more popularly associated generally with the coming Messiah?
The answer to the first question is an emphatic negative. Jesus meant by the title "Son of man" to affirm his deity and Godhead just as dogmatically as the title "Son of God" could have done it, but with the additional advantage of stressing his unique relationship to the human race as well. It is evident that THE Son of man cannot be any mortal being. Dummelow pointed out that the Greek words so translated cannot mean "A Son of man," but definitely and emphatically, "THE Son of man."
In this conversation with Nathaniel, it is evident that Jesus intended the title "Son of man" to be understood in exactly the same sense as "Son of God." This follows from the fact that, taking the conversation as a whole, the two titles are used synonymously and interchangeably, without any suggestion whatever that Christ rejected either "Son of God" or "King of Israel" as being properly applied to himself. It is as though our Lord had said, "Yes, Nathaniel, you are correct; but for the present, let us use the title Son of man."
Why did Jesus prefer this title? "Son of God" was a title that carried with it; in the popular mind, the meaning King of Israel, a fact proved by Nathaniel's usage of the two together just a moment before; and it would have been disastrous for the Lord to have allowed the multitudes to crown him "king," a thing many of them were eager to do. It was clearly for the purpose of preventing such a thing that Jesus so often used the other title, "Son of man," a title which was not generally known and understood by the people and which was thus free of the connotation of an earthly kingship of Israel. It was absolutely imperative for our Lord to have avoided any semblance of claiming the literal Solomonic throne of Israel; for, if he had been unsuccessful in such avoidance, the Pharisees might have been able to get him crucified for sedition. It will be remembered that that is exactly what they tried to do anyway; but so completely had Jesus thwarted them, that they finally admitted to Pilate that they desired his condemnation for claiming to be the Son of God (John 19:7). However, if Jesus had permitted the widespread use of that title earlier, some radical mob would have proclaimed him "King" and thus have provided sufficient grounds for a charge of sedition.
That Jesus did positively intend that "Son of man" should be understood in a unique and supernatural sense is proved by his own use of the title, as follows:
He used the title: (1) in connection with his power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6); (2) of his lordship over the sabbath (Matthew 12:8); (3) of his second advent in glory (Matthew 19:28); (4) of his resurrection (Matthew 17:23); (5) of his seeking and saving that which is lost (Luke 19:10); (6) and of his coming in the final judgment (Matthew 26:64).
The frustrated hatred and enmity of the Pharisees at his trial before Caiaphas reached a point of frenzy over this very title. The Pharisees knew perfectly that "Son of man" was fully as adequate a title of the Messiah as was "Son of God"; but they were trying to trick Jesus into using the latter title, because of its popular but mistaken identification with an earthly kingship of Israel. At the climax of the trial, Caiaphas placed Jesus under oath, saying, "Tell us, art thou the Christ, the Son of God?" (Matthew 26:63). In his reply, Jesus used the other terms: "Thou shalt see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64). The Sanhedrin accepted Son of man as equivalent to Son of God on that occasion and certified to Pilate that he had "made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). From these and many other considerations, therefore, it must be concluded that the answer to the second question raised at the first of this analysis is that Jesus preferred "Son of man" because of that title's being free of any possible misrepresentation. The very learned, such as the Pharisees, well knew it as a valid and proper designation of the divine Messiah; but it is clear that the multitudes did not so recognize it (John 12:34).
Emil Von Ludwig's blasphemous biography, "The Son of Man," made this title the ground of his thesis that Jesus never claimed to be anything but a man; but his thesis is contradicted and disproved by the best of all judges of such a question, the Sanhedrin itself, which accepted the title, and so certified it to the governor, as equivalent in every way to "the Son of God." Besides that, Jesus' own use of it leaves no shadow of doubt that it carried the utmost implications of deity and Godhead, as well as connotations of his perfect and unique humanity.
Before leaving this matchless first chapter of John, the observation of Aretius, as quoted by Ryle, should be noted:
This chapter is singularly rich in names (epithets) applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. He numbers up the following twenty-one: The Word, God, Life, Light, The True Light, The Only Begotten of the Father, Full of Grace and Truth, Jesus Christ, The Only Begotten Son, The Lord, The Lamb of God, Jesus, A Man, The Son of God, Rabbi Teacher, Messiah, Christ, The Son of Joseph, The King of Israel, The Son of Man.
🚨👇 BONUS 👇🚨
No comments:
Post a Comment