![[#61] The New Creation in the Gospel of John](https://redeeminggod.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gospel-of-john-podcast-150x150.jpg)
I have said numerous times before that Genesis forms the foundation for the entire Bible. Today we are going to jump forward into the New Testament and take a brief glimpse at how the Gospel of John pulls themes and ideas from Genesis 1–3, and also how the first Epistle of John pulls themes from Genesis 4.
Hopefully, what you learn today will allow you to read the Gospel of John and the Letters of John in a whole new light.
In this discussion of the Gospel of John we look at:
- How John uses Genesis as foundational themes in his Gospel account
- How various events in the Gospel point us back to events in Genesis
- How the first Epistle of John is also focused on Genesis 4
Resources:
- Become a Member of RedeemingGod.com
- The Atonement of God on Amazon
- Subscribe and Leave a Review on iTunes
Downloadable Podcast Resources
Those who are part of my online discipleship group may download the MP3 audio file for this podcast and view the podcast transcript below.
You must join a discipleship group or login to download the MP3 and view the transcript.
Thanks for visiting this page ... but this page is for Discipleship Group members.
If you are already part of a Faith, Hope, or Love Discipleship Group,
Login here.
If you are part of the free "Grace" Discipleship group, you will need to
Upgrade your Membership to one of the paid groups.
If you are not part of any group, you may learn about the various groups and their benefits here:
Join Us Today.
Do you like learning about the Bible online?
Do you like learning about Scripture and theology through my podcast? If so, then you will also love my online courses. They all have MP3 audio downloads, PDF transcripts, quizzes, and a comment section for questions and interaction with other students.
If you want to deepen your relationship with God and better understand Scripture, take one (or all) of these courses. They are great for personal study or for a small group Bible study.
You can see the list of available courses here, and if you join the Discipleship group, you can take all the courses at no additional cost. Go here to learn more and join now.
Gospels try to out do one another, to be THE Gospel. Mark is a bit skimpy, starting only with baptism of Jesus, ending with empty tomb and promise of future sightings in Galilee. Matthew and Luke add much to the untold beginning and ending of Mark, and even use genealogies like in Genesis to begin their Gospels, to appear more authoritative. But John outdoes them in trying to create the ultimate Gospel with a beginning that echoes Genesis 1. There is much more of course that can be said about Gospel trajectories. Google scrivenings Babinski trajectories
Thanks Jeremy!
I had not made the connection between Genesis and John before, even though the imagery is right there in the words.
I am excited to be seeing the simplicity of the big picture intention of God as I ponder your teaching. It makes so much sense! It is not shrouded in the ‘layman can’t understand’ mystery that seems to come with the fragmented ‘blind men describing an elephant’ teaching approach.
Jeremy, the entirety of Genesis makes no sense if you take it anywhere literally enough to have any force. And if you take it metaphorically enough not to completely undermine itself, it becomes so nebulous that the entire Christian doctrine becomes vague, hazy “metaphor.”
Face it: your religion is an incoherent, schizophrenic wreck that draws on at least three separate ideas about the divine, all of which haven’t got the morals of a kindergarten brat.
Marissa, Let me suggest something … stop thinking that all Christians believe the same thing, and then before you criticize what I believe, maybe spend some time checking to see what I believe. If you want to respond to with what I actually believe, teach, and write, we can have a discussion…
All your comments are so judgmental and negative, and all you do is lump me in with stereotypical Christianity (which doesn’t actually exist).
Okay Mr. Myers, humor me: explain the Genesis narrative in your own understanding of it (and why this is the correct interpretation).
That’s what I spent 60 Podcast episodes doing. Listen or don’t, I don’t care. But either way, don’t criticize from a position of ignorance.
You might have spent 60 podcast episodes talking about it but that doesn’t mean it’s coherent or correct.
The entire thing makes zero sense from start to finish. The only way it can even possibly hold up under its own weight is if you throw the concept of original sin out entirely, spin it as something like “this is a metaphor for humans achieving sentience,” and in the process lose the entire purpose and mission of Jesus.
Like I say, don’t criticize from a position of ignorance.
A little capsule summary couldn’t hurt, then.
Speaking of brats…
If pointing out the flaws in someone’s position makes me a brat, well, so be it.
The straw man argument is inventing flaws that do not exist and then pointing critically to the invention (which is not someone else’s position.)
It is a logical fallacy and an invalid argument.
I think it is a good thing to have a robust debate on Mr Myers position, but better to do so with reasonableness and careful attention to evidence.
There’s little like the story of Joseph anywhere! I’d keep Genesis open for that alone, not that the poetic creation story doesn’t tower over competing pre CE creation mythologies.
Marissa van Eck Please do!
Marissa van Eck You’re sure I wasn’t talking about Jeremy?
No way to know. Completely ambiguous.
Louis Burkhardt: I find the Sumerian one much more exciting. Not to mention probably the base for the Abrahamic story, given where ol’ Abe came from 🙂 And how many OTHER Judaic myths are direct ripoffs of Sumerian and Babylonian stories…
Completely ambiguous is right! A little college is a dangerous thing. I’d like to shoot the bull with you, but really, what would the point be? More, what is the point of heckling Jeremy, brat that he is, on his religious views? Is it some kind of retaliation for being hurt by Christians or the Bible itself? And if so, I am sorry that happened to you. It happens to all of us unfortunately. Not everyone has the compassionate heart you do.
Marissa, I take Genesis 1 as a political/religious polemic against some of the common beliefs of that day. it would be like a retelling of Cinderella to make a political/religious point, except that Cinderella isn’t a religious story, so the parallel is not a good one.
It might be a better parallel if I retold a story from the Gospels and changed some names or details to make a point about something going on in today’s world.
Wow, so your interpretation of Genesis is even less relevant to the central message of Christianity than I thought?
Ha!
Jeremy Myers, try to understand. You are wrong. You are deranged. You will have nothing of merit to contribute, as long as you keep on with your totally ambiguous religion. Face it, you have been outwitted again, this time, by a sophomore! I still think you all are talented and interesting people though. Moving on now.
True. Cancelling my FB account now…
Or you could, you know, do the little capsule summary thing. Sorry I don’t have time or patience for listening to 5 freaking dozen podcasts on the subject. Especially if, as I suspect, they’re going to be mostly based on false premises.
As to you, Jason, you can go shove it
Marissa van Eck, I’m no expert on creation stories, but the salient differentiator for me between Genesis and the Sumerian (and others) is the air time given to polytheism. If one runs with your opening statement, “entirety of Genesis makes no sense if you take it anywhere literally enough to have any force,” it applies even more so to these highly anthropopathic deities. However, I mainly wanted to draw attention to the story of Joseph–which requires only a little literalism to traverse a great distance. Not trying to convince you or anyone of anything, but am only pointing to one of the finest passages in the Bible, that’s all.
Air time given to polytheism huh? Like the “Let US make mankind in OUR image” and “Now he is become as one of US, knowing good from evil?”
Abraham was a Babylonian, remember? A migrant out of “Ur of the Chaldees?”
So deep.
Light was introduced into the world, thus reviving by giving life to a dead environment – in Genesis it was physical, in John it was spiritual. Both applications of light were good (perfect) in achieving life.
Except for the 5 billion or so humans your genocidal maniac of a God is going to throw into his eternal concentration camp for not kissing his ass, riiiiiight?
Marissa i get the sense that you are angry at God maybe you feel you have good reason i certainly dont follow him because i am scared of him or because i have to appease him.Its about what he has done for me personally.He died so that we might have life in its fullness.
Not only did he cleanse my sins but he gave me a reason to live and a purpose for living.Take that away and life sucks i have been there. brentnz
Jesus came to show us what God is like. He said, ‘If you see me you see the Father.’ So any behaviour and nature that is previously attributed to God that doesn’t match the express behaviour and nature of Christ is a wrong depiction of God.
The Jews held the view of a dualistic God who controlled both good and evil, where God and Satan worked side by side, and they reflected that opinion in their writings. Jesus came to correct that mindset and its effect on the Law. He said He came to destroy the devil’s works, identifying Satan acts as separate from God’s.
Oh, and God is not throwing anyone anywhere. The fire is to purify: it burns the works and saves the man (1 Cor 3:10-15). No soul will be lost. He created all things and His omnipotence will restore all things.
I think that Mr Myers view of John’s gospel echoing the creation is a valid interpretation.
The writer of John’s gospel sets out to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity,( the Word was God he says ) so that it is perfectly logical to find reference to the creation in the gospel account.
I used to puzzle over the meaning of the story which appears in the early part of John’s gospel about Jesus changing water into wine.
It seemed to make no sense compared with other accounts of miracle works. Turning water into wine at a party almost seemed a frivolous action until I realized that here is Jesus ” acting out ” if you like, His identity as the Lord of Creation.
Jesus takes an inorganic material, water ( hydrogen dioxide) and transforms it into an organic thing, fruit juice and fermentation.
Isn’t this an echo of the Genesis creation where the Creator calls on the water/mineral earth to bring forth organisms ( Genesis 1: 11,12)
Neville I take it the miracle of turning water to wine as a picture of being born again.You cannot hold new wine in old wine skins.To be born again we must be born of water natural birth and born of the spirit.The fact that its a wedding again speaks of the bride of Christ the reason he came was to redeem us as his bride to make us holy and perfect so it does seem appropriate to me nothing he did was frivolous though it may appear to be.brentnz
Indeed Brent, Jesus certainly insisted that spiritual birth was essential to enter the Kingdom of God.
The narrative of the water to wine goes on to say that after Jesus had done this miracle that His disciples believed on Him. That seems to be the point of it. It was His first miracle, perhaps lesson number one for the three year discipleship course, for them to learn that the King of the Kingdom of God was among them.
Neville excellent point thank brent
A friend of mine has done a bit of work on a detailed Hebrew study on Genesis 1:1…so much so, he is drafting a book and has taught on a number of portions of what he has been learning.
I haven’t been able to listen to the podcast on my phone. It’s an android. I’m wondering if it is on itunes? I’m listening on my laptop now.
Michelle, Yes, it is on iTunes, but it is also on Google Play, which should work for an Android as well? The links are found here:
https://redeeminggod.com/subscribe-to-podcast/
Let me know if that works.
The Gospel of John is the least likely to contain historically authentic words and teachings of Jesus, and even Evangelicals admit it probably does not contain the exact words of Jesus, more like paraphrases. https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2015/06/biblical-scholars-including-those-who.html
I think you are on the right track. This means that John’s Introduction (John 1:1-18) must be understood as Yahweh God, through Jesus, beginning the New Creation. John 1:1 and following is not telling us that Jesus was present and involved in the creation at Genesis 1 of matter (land, seas, animals, etc.), but uses Genesis 1 language to show us that God is at work in the human Jesus to bring about the New Creation. Compare Matthew 19:28. Jesus is the firstborn of God’s creation/creatures by virtue of being the firstborn, literally, from the dead (Colossians 1:15-18, Revelation 1:5).
Could you elaborate on what you said concerning Jesus and his sacrifice not being a ransom for sin?
Rev 5 (and others I think) say with his blood he purchased for God a people