quote:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:The concept of "the Word" is fascinating to me. It is a concept that runs throughout the Bible.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
John 1.1
quote:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
quote:Not entirely on this verse; compare Phillipians 2:5-7:
Originally posted by noelper:
Am I correct in thinking that on this verse rests the premise of Jesus' co-equality with God, also Jesus' pre-existence before the incarnation ?
(What a wonderful idea for a thread, thanks Pyx_e.)
quote:The NIV clarifies my understanding; 'in the nature' = in the image of God, as we all are made.
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
quote:I agree, Barnabas. We also need to be careful not to divorce what Jesus was too much from what "the Word" actually is.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jesus is seen very much as the "living Word" and "the Word made flesh". The Word Alive, if you like. The issue for interpretation is always that the Word was made flesh and we should discourage ourselves from turning him back into "mere" word (or words).
quote:The reference seems to be to the fact that God is depicted in Genesis as creating by speaking:
John 1.3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
quote:This is described by the Psalmist as creation by the Word:
Genesis 1.2 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light….
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
quote:How does "the Word" create?
Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
quote:The Word of God creates. It also accomplishes what He sends it to do. God's words are not just sayings. They are described as something that forms and gives life to the world. This is in keeping with the way that Jesus spoke about His own words:
Isaiah 55.10 “ For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,
11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it."
quote:Jesus seems to mean that His words will change the world, restoring its life. The imagery used is also about bringing light where there is darkness.
Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
quote:The nature of the Word as God is that of an immaterial Spirit. This Divine nature subsists in the Person of the Son. A person is a subject relating to themselves and to other beings, in this sense God can be spoken of as being three Persons. The Person of the Divine Logos did however assume human nature as Jesus. So we have human nature and Divine nature subsiting in the same Divine Person. Jesus had human nature but properly speaking was not a human person, but a Divine Person. This does not diminish His humanity, it elevates it, for divinization does not destroy the human person, but perfects it. Jesus acts with perfect human-ness precisely because He is a Divine Person.
Originally posted by Pearl B-4 Swine:
Jesus, the physical human-form expression of God, was for ever 'with' God(The Word)and participated in forming everything that is. But what kind of identity or substance was Jesus before he got born of a human mother? What was he doing all that infinity of time before he was conceived? I like to think of Jesus as the part of God that does have substance, not just an abstract idea of "the Word". Hard to visualize the Body and Blood pre-existing the physical world.
quote:Yes, indeed, the Stoics knew "the Word" as the original creative power that brought the cosmos into being. John takes this idea and, rather like Paul talking about the "unknown god", says, "Now let me tell you all about this 'Word' and what it really is." He combines Stoic philosophy with Hebrew theology very elegantly: he begins with the words of Genesis 1:1 -- "In the beginning..." -- and goes on to suggest that the "Word" is what God spoke when he created the cosmos; and that in Jesus of Nazereth, the "Word" is expressed in human form. It's significant that in John's Gospel, miracles (which he calls "signs") are nearly always accompanied by sermons. Jesus's sermons are "the Word", and proof of that is that this "Word" demonstrates extraordinary powers, even to the extent of restoring life -- that which the Word had initially created.
Originally posted by Carabao:
I think John is interacting with contemporary philosophical thought. Mr Wikipedia says, "The Stoics understood Logos as the animating power of the universe". Its very interesting that John should use a technical term from a worldview which he disagrees with. That's why sometimes 'Logos' is translated as Tao in Chinese Bibles.
quote:Thank you, Rewboss. I love how you put this. It nicely answers Pearl B-4 Swine's question as to where Jesus was before the Incarnation.
Originally posted by rewboss:
He combines Stoic philosophy with Hebrew theology very elegantly: he begins with the words of Genesis 1:1 -- "In the beginning..." -- and goes on to suggest that the "Word" is what God spoke when he created the cosmos; and that in Jesus of Nazereth, the "Word" is expressed in human form.
quote:It is remarkable how true this is. He even stated that this was His purpose:
Originally posted by rewboss:
Jesus, the Word, came to preach, not to perform cheap magic tricks.
quote:This illustrates how central it is that He is the Word, come to re-form the world by the power of the divine truth.
Mark 1:38 “Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I have come forth.”
Luke 24:46 ...it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations...
John 18.37 "For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
quote:An even clearer passage -- to my mind -- is John's account of the feeding of the 5,000. Right after this event, Jesus tries to slip away, but the crowd catch up with him. He answers them quite harshly: "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill" (Jn 6:26), before hosting a question-and-answer session on the Bread of Life.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:It is remarkable how true this is. He even stated that this was His purpose:
Originally posted by rewboss:
Jesus, the Word, came to preach, not to perform cheap magic tricks.
quote:
Mark 1:38 “Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I have come forth.”
quote:Great point. I'm sure that there are many similar examples. They illustrate the fact that He is the Word personified.
Originally posted by rewboss:
He answers them quite harshly: "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill" (Jn 6:26), before hosting a question-and-answer session on the Bread of Life.
Compare that with Matthew and Luke's account of the first temptation: to turn stones into bread. Jesus refuses on the grounds that "man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matth. 4:4).
quote:
John 3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
quote:
2He was with God in the beginning.
quote:It does make you wonder what is meant by "with God" as opposed to "was God."
Originally posted by jinglebellrocker:
quote:
2 He was with God in the beginning.
code:[b]John 1:1-2 [/b](ESV)
a. In the beginning was the Word,
b. and the Word was with God,
b'. and the Word was God.
a'. He was in the beginning with God.
quote:Three persons, one essence. It's a fumbling attempt to explain how Jesus and God can be the same, and yet not the same.
Originally posted by Freddy:
It does make you wonder what is meant by "with God" as opposed to "was God."
quote:Oh, OK.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Three persons, one essence. It's a fumbling attempt to explain how Jesus and God can be the same, and yet not the same.
Originally posted by Freddy:
It does make you wonder what is meant by "with God" as opposed to "was God."
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:In a cyclical (as opposed to linear) view of time predicated in the bible, all the heavenly host seem to be present at the creation.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness....
quote:This is my own view, but John's gospel opens the way for expansion, if only because of the author's desire to forge the theological link between Old and New Testaments. I am unsure if the process aids my understanding of the Godhead, however. God as the Alpha and Omega I can deal with; God as the Son and the Holy Spirit becomes problematic.
Jews have never thought that these imply a plurality of persons. But why would they be plural?
quote:So true! I easily relate to the idea that God is the beginning and the end, and all things in between. But I also struggle with the tri-personal imagery.
Originally posted by noelper:
God as the Alpha and Omega I can deal with; God as the Son and the Holy Spirit becomes problematic.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
)
quote:This verse assures me that Love empowers the universe.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
quote:I don't think Jesus and the Father are two different persons out of necessity; they are two different persons because they are. This verse is trying to explain that.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Since when does a person need a whole new person to speak?
quote:I see. So God does not have to be a Trinity in order to function. He just happens to be a Trinity.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:I don't think Jesus and the Father are two different persons out of necessity; they are two different persons because they are. This verse is trying to explain that.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Since when does a person need a whole new person to speak?
quote:No. He is bound by His own laws, which follow from His essence, which is love and wisdom. Not that this has anything to do with the Trinity.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
God isn't subject to any necessity. Don't Swedenborgians believe that too?
quote:Oh. Sorry, Alexis. I wasn't meaning that. I was just asking idle speculative questions about the need for a Trinity. I wondered if it was tied to function somehow.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
You were the one trying to make God "need" to be a Trinity, not I.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:Or rather, God does it through the Word.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
quote:Does that mean that without noelper we can't move to verse 4?
Originally posted by noelper:
quote:This verse assures me that Love empowers the universe.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
_____________________
Edited to add :
Stop
noelepr the thread is again yours to move to the next verse. If you commnet on the verse you stop the movement to the next one and you have to then post it when this verse is fully discussed.
Pyx_e Host.
quote:
4In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
quote:I think the idea is that whereas all created things receive their life from God, the Word has life in itself, since it, or He, is God.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I wonder what exactly "in him was life" means. There's life in a dog or a cherry tree; presumably something beyond this mere biological fact is alluded to here?
quote:Even more than that, Jesus not only has life, He is able to give life:
John 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.
quote:It seems to me that all of this is mentioned as a testification that Jesus, as the Word, is God Himself.
John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Great observation. Seems right to me.
Originally posted by noelper:
Maybe all these ideas come together in John's theology, if we imagine the cosmic 'Big Bang' as the creative power of Life emanating from the Word, which God spoke at the beginning of linear time.
Which then continued to resonate into the great Amen, previewed in the Revelation.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:I'm interested in the two parts of the verse: in him was life, AND that life was the light of men. To me, the second says something about the first. When I think about "the light of men", I think about what we commonly understand as the differences between humanity and other forms of life--what humans have and zebras, say, do not. Some say "a soul"; some say "an intellect". I read the verse as alluding to the idea that Jesus had an abundance of those things: that in following Christ one connects more strongly to the better parts of humanity, just as humanity draws the better parts of itself from the nature of God.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I wonder what exactly "in him was life" means. There's life in a dog or a cherry tree; presumably something beyond this mere biological fact is alluded to here?
quote:As noelper suggested, it would seem to me that the phrase "in him was life" means that the Word was the source of all life. Though the second phrase "And that life was the light of men" would seem to indicate that this "life" was more than simply biological animation.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I wonder what exactly "in him was life" means. There's life in a dog or a cherry tree; presumably something beyond this mere biological fact is alluded to here?
quote:John amplifies the light hypothesis in this passage:
The theme of light in John's gospel would suggest that this light is revelation of, and relationship with, God.
Therefore the Word mediated access to the Divine.
quote:The contrast between light and dark becomes the joyful basis for a simple, almost childish differentiaion of God's Children, with Christ as the Head, speaking to the Father in our defence.
1 John 1 : 5-7
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light ; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
quote:
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
quote:That's right.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
understood, or overcome? Seems you always get a footnote giving that alternate reading.
quote:I would go with comprehend or understood. The darkness was not able to receive the light.
New King James Version:
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.
Footnotes: John 1:5 Or overcome
King James Version:
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
New International Version
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
Footnotes: John 1:5 Or darkness, and the darkness has not overcome
New American Standard Bible
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.
Footnotes: John 1:5 Or overpower
American Standard Version
5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.
quote:I love this. The principle is that good understands evil, but evil can't understand good. I think it is a great truth.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
"I say to you, Frodo, that even as I speak to you, I perceive the Dark Lord and know his mind, or all of his mind that concerns the Elves. And he gropes ever to see me and my thought. But still the door is closed!"
quote:John is a bit of an expert in double meanings; the word he uses can have either sense and I wonder if here he uses it deliberately to mean both? Perhaps the English word "mastered" is a better translation?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
understood, or overcome? Seems you always get a footnote giving that alternate reading.
quote:
I Cor 2 :14-16
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"
But we have the mind of Christ.
quote:
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
quote:
7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
quote:
8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
quote:I always understood that God had to be a plurality of persons because he is a God of love and you always need an object for Godly love. The third person means that God was never alone even at the moment of Christ's dereliction on the cross.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I see. So God does not have to be a Trinity in order to function. He just happens to be a Trinity.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:I don't think Jesus and the Father are two different persons out of necessity; they are two different persons because they are. This verse is trying to explain that.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Since when does a person need a whole new person to speak?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Freddy, it makes sense in the Greek text.
Originally posted by Freddy:
It does make you wonder what is meant by "with God" as opposed to "was God."
quote:No, it wasn't
When God said "Let there be light" that voice and that saying was the Word of God. That
Word was "with" Him.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:<wink>
No, it wasn't
quote:I'm fine with the Word being the One who uttered the voice.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Was reffering to the FIRST "was", i.e. Freddy saying that the Word was that VOICE instead of the One Who uttered that voice.
quote:or
9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
quote:
This was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world
quote:Alternatively, it is invisible light; the mystical light, which vivifies all matter and is " the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1 KJV.
...physical (natural) light is self-evident and doesn't require a witness to point out it's there unless we've become so used to the light that we no longer notice its presence and have fallen into taking it for granted.
quote:I'm trying to catch up to Pyx_e, who joined a month before me and has been ahead ever since.
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
oooh, Freddy, that's an exact 6,000 posts! cool!
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:A question here: are you saying these are alternate translations?
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
No probs LMC.
Well Done Freddy! A very considered set of posts from a lovely fellow.
Anyway back to teh good stuff:
quote:or
9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.quote:
This was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world
quote:A third alternative:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
A question here: are you saying these are alternate translations?
If so, do you know which is favored? And if neither, how will we discuss them, since the emphasis in each is quite different?
quote:Translation is difficult. You have to learn to put up with a certain amount of ambiguity.
That was the true Light which, coming into the world, gives light to every man.
quote:No. It seems to me the light is the life of God; divine energy, so to speak.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is it evident to everyone that the meaning of "light" has to do with Jesus' teaching of the gospel?
quote:Yes, if we accept that the fundamental message from God as expounded in the life, death and resurrection of Christ, is that the Law of Love is transforming and life-giving.
Is it evident to everyone that the meaning of "light" has to do with Jesus' teaching of the gospel?
quote:It might have been qualified by v.12 (i.e. it depends on receiving him) - though we haven't got there yet.
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
"Gives light to EVERY man?" Am I flogging the dead horse of universalism when I note this?
quote:Can't it be "both/and" rather than "either/or" ?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:No. It seems to me the light is the life of God; divine energy, so to speak.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is it evident to everyone that the meaning of "light" has to do with Jesus' teaching of the gospel?
quote:Alexis I like what Lynn says here. I agree.
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
quote:Can't it be "both/and" rather than "either/or" ?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:No. It seems to me the light is the life of God; divine energy, so to speak.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is it evident to everyone that the meaning of "light" has to do with Jesus' teaching of the gospel?
I like your phrase, MT, "the light is the life of God" resonating with verse 4, "In him was life, and that life was the light of men." Very nice!
quote:In any case, am I right to think that the light which "is the life of God; divine energy, so to speak" is also manifest in Jesus' teaching of the gospel?
Isaiah 9:2,6 "The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light; Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, Upon them a light has shined.
Isaiah 42:7 "To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house."
Malachi 4:2 But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings.
Numbers 24:17 "I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; A Star shall come out of Jacob
Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine; For your light has come! And the glory of the LORD is risen upon you. {2} For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, And deep darkness the people; But the LORD will arise over you, And His glory will be seen upon you. {3} The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:That's an interesting thought. There's no doubt that the Gospel means to start that way, and I think you may be onto something here.
Originally posted by Anselm:
I wonder whether what John is doing here is working through the OT categories and claiming Jesus as their fulfillment.
He starts with the Word, Light, Life from the creation account, moves onto Moses, passover etc etc?
quote:Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Moses, though, and Passover?
quote:But I thought Anselm was talking about John when he referred to Moses, not Paul?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Moses, though, and Passover?
Also Orthodox hymnography for "Easter" (i.e. Pascha, i.e. Passover) is replete with equating Jesus with Passover.
And Moses himself said God would send a prophet like unto himself, and exhorted the people to listen to him when he finally arrove.
quote:I mean the rite of baptism, to which Jesus Himself submitted, attested to it's significance in the journey of faith towards God - albeit there is little or no indication of previous practice in the inter-testamental period. The conflated Johns are making a very significant theological statement of a new beginning for the Word - which had always been present, nonetheless.
I don't see how the Red Sea crossing is related to the baptizing of Jesus. At this point, it is still clearly a baptism for repentance (not unMosaic, but not very "Exodus" either, is it?)
quote:In this context, John's baptism in the waters of the Jordan signifies the same separation that historical Israel underwent in the Exodus - to me anyway.
1 But now, this is what the LORD says—
he who created you, O Jacob,
he who formed you, O Israel:
"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
2 When you pass through the waters,
I will be with you;
and when you pass through the rivers,
they will not sweep over you.
When you walk through the fire,
you will not be burned;
the flames will not set you ablaze.
3 For I am the LORD, your God,
the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
quote:I haven't had much of a chance to follow this thought up with an actual look at the passage, but I was thinking of the reference in v.17 with regards to Moses and v.29 in reference to the Passover.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:That's an interesting thought. There's no doubt that the Gospel means to start that way, and I think you may be onto something here.
Originally posted by Anselm:
I wonder whether what John is doing here is working through the OT categories and claiming Jesus as their fulfillment.
He starts with the Word, Light, Life from the creation account, moves onto Moses, passover etc etc?
Moses, though, and Passover?
quote:
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
quote:It really is. This was God, and we not only didn't recognize Him, we actively rejected Him.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's really such a huge idea, isn't it? That the Creator of the Universe would come walk among us, unrecognized?
quote:The Greeks (and I'm sure others) had this idea, too: that the gods would come to earth in disguise and human beings wouldn't know who they were.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:It really is. This was God, and we not only didn't recognize Him, we actively rejected Him.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's really such a huge idea, isn't it? That the Creator of the Universe would come walk among us, unrecognized?
I would say, though, that realizing how we reject our Creator is a significant part of how He brought "the light."
quote:My view is that in one sense Israel represents all of humanity, and therefore the whole world. In a more particular sense, though, Israel is God's "own" - meaning "His church" or those who have His Word.
Originally posted by Anselm:
Is Israel, in it's failure as a nation to recognise it's messiah, representing all humanity, so that when Israel fails to recognise the creator among them, one could say that "the world" failed to recognise Jesus? Is the next verse an epexegetical comment on this verse?
quote:It must be. Along with the rest of that paragraph. Otherwise an anti-Israel note is introduced - which is definitely not the writer's intent.
Is the next verse an epexegetical comment on this verse?
quote:
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
quote:That's right. So it was a big disappointment - like finding a leafy fig tree with no fruit, or trying to get fruit from the vinedressers and having no luck, or inviting people to a feast and having them not come, or like entrusting a fortune to servants, who then do nothing with it.
Originally posted by noelper:
Spiritual Israel have always been the apple of God's eye and of His own gracious choosing.
quote:Noelper, that says it very nicely. Jesus seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about this rejection - not just of Him, but of all prophets.
Originally posted by noelper:
In my view, the entire political (small p ) structure of God's teaching is centred upon rejection and the overcoming thereof. Dispassionately speaking, Jesus would have died of a broken heart.
quote:Pax, I think that's right. It seems like he is saying that God's people had continually rejected Him, so now He came into the world Himself, and they would reject Him again. Very much like the wicked vinedressers in Matthew 21.
Originally posted by Pax Christi:
I can't remember where I read it, but I thought that this verse referred more to the coming of and rejection of Wisdom prior to the incarnation. (As in Proverbs 1)
quote:They don't sell it ouitside the US.
This really stood out in the 2003 film "The Gospel of John", a word-for-word version
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Really? You can't buy things on Amazon?
Originally posted by noelper:
Freddyquote:They don't sell it ouitside the US.
This really stood out in the 2003 film "The Gospel of John", a word-for-word version
quote:Hmmm. Could you explain that?
Originally posted by noelper:
BTW I meant that rejection (and the salvic counter of 'Love your enemies') is the political message of both Old and New Testaments, culminating in the admission to the Kingdom of those who had formerly rejected the Creator and His Way - exemplified in the life and death Jesus.
quote:Umm...
Is it that we humans rejected God, so Christ came to reverse that rejection, but we rejected Him too. Yet He succeeded anyway, causing us to reject our former rejection, mend our ways, and return to God. Is that what you mean?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:But isn't Wisdom a "She"?
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
I can't remember where I read it, but I thought that this verse referred more to the coming of and rejection of Wisdom prior to the incarnation. (As in Proverbs 1)
Pax
quote:Introducing a feminist note....
But isn't Wisdom a "She"?
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Um....the verse says "He."
Originally posted by noelper:
TubaMirum
quote:Introducing a feminist note....
But isn't Wisdom a "She"?
The French used to have a disorder relating to ' Unrequited Love', for females incarcerated in nut-houses..... Hence Jesus was the original feminist, in more ways than one.
quote:They don't sell it ouitside the US.
Originally posted by noelper:
[QB] Freddy
[QUOTE]
This really stood out in the 2003 film "The Gospel of John", a word-for-word version
quote:I concur.
The identification of the two is so thorough that John can say "he" of Wisdom, because it was the Word/Jesus who was rejected in Her.
quote://tangent alert//
Originally posted by noelper:
Could we agree to note that Jesus was far less anti-women than His Apostle Paul and subsequent Church leaders ?
quote:That would be a very worthwhile thread. Go for it.
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
This belongs on a new thread, but I think I can demonstrate that Paul was in fact, quite pro-women. Not the monster the "subsequent Church leaders" made him into. Would that be a worthwhile thread?
quote:Actually, there is nothing unique in that. Many ancient Mediterranean gods (handsome young men, especially) died and then resurrected from the dead.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But this is different, because this time God comes to live and die as a human being. That's what gives this story its amazing, shocking twist.
quote:That would be enormously helpful to someone who has long puzzled over some of Paul's teachings - most especially because they flatly contradict the example set by Jesus.
This belongs on a new thread, but I think I can demonstrate that Paul was in fact, quite pro-women. Not the monster the "subsequent Church leaders" made him into. Would that be a worthwhile thread?
quote:I can't see how this can be about the pre-incarnate wisdom. There has been no mention of wisdom so far, and indeed, I don't think John develops the theme of wisdom at all.
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
I can't remember where I read it, but I thought that this verse referred more to the coming of and rejection of Wisdom prior to the incarnation. (As in Proverbs 1)
quote:ISTM to more likely refer to the work of the incarnate Jesus that we see in the gospel.
(ESV)
[11]He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. [12] But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.
quote:Yes, universalist, if that's what was going on. I'm not sure that this was the way that Jesus saw it:
Originally posted by universalist:
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned Israel's "rejection" of God. Possibly, Israel (like many of us today) was rejecting wrong and slanderous images of God, presented by its religious leaders, and as presented by some of ours in the Church today. Such "rejection" would only be an honest thing...
quote:Jesus seems to blame the people for rejecting a loving God.
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
quote:It is repeated in the historic period:
Deuteronomy 9:7 Do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath in the wilderness. From the day that you departed from the land of Egypt until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the LORD.
quote:The early prophets dwelt on this theme:
Judges 2:17 Yet they would not listen to their judges, but they played the harlot with other gods, and bowed down to them. They turned quickly from the way in which their fathers walked, in obeying the commandments of the LORD; they did not do so.
quote:As did the latter prophets:
Isaiah 65:2 I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people,
Who walk in a way that is not good,
According to their own thoughts;
quote:I guess it could be true that Israel and Judah only rebelled against the wrong and slanderous images of God that they were presented with. This doesn't seem to be the slant that most of the texts give it.
Malachi 2:11 Judah has dealt treacherously,
And an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem
quote:So in saying "His own did not receive Him" it seems consistent to say that John is speaking of Jesus' rejection as well as alluding to a pattern that stretches back into history.
Matthew 23:34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,
quote:Dating from the Golden Calf experience to the treatment meted out by the Pharisees and Saducees, the parable of the tenants and Jesus's denunciation of blind leaders, suggest to me that He perceived the religious leaders as primary source of apostasy. This is also borne out by the fact that few, if any, of the prophets were priests.
I guess it could be true that Israel and Judah only rebelled against the wrong and slanderous images of God that they were presented with. This doesn't seem to be the slant that most of the texts give it.
quote:
12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
quote:As it always has been and always will be.
"The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."
quote:It's interesting, because the idea of believing in Jesus' name seems to be limited to John and 1 John. The link noelper makes with the name of God is supported by John 17:11f where God's name and Jesus' name are linked and perhaps the name sums up the being, along the lines of the use of "I Am" in 8:58.
Originally posted by Anselm:
Why do you think John specifies believing in his name, why not just believing in Jesus? How do you believe in a name?
quote:This reading of the Name, defines the parameters of Jesus' instruction about prayer.
Isaiah 42.8:
I am the Lord, that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to idols.
quote:That is, unless we call upon compassion, slowness to anger, love, fidelity, forgiveness or deferred judgement
John 14: 13-14
And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 4You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
our prayers will not be answered.
quote:The use of ‘son’ language in John does seem to be limited to Jesus (though I note that the compilers of the KJV translate ‘τεκνα’ in v.12 as ‘sons’ – bless ‘em!).
Originally posted by Anselm:
It's also interesting that John uses the word τεκνα rather than υιοι which I was expecting.
Ie - John avoids using the Old Testament title of "Sons of God" to use a more generic "children of God".
Any thoughts as to why John may have done this? How is the phrase "Children of God" used in the rest of the gospel?
quote:Surely has something to do with the fact that the KJV refers to the 'children of Israel' on 27 pages-worth of Bible Gateway references ? As compared with zero in the NIV....Ummm....doesn't it ?
Any thoughts as to why John may have done this? How is the phrase "Children of God" used in the rest of the gospel?
quote:That's how I read it. Or at least that those who would receive Jesus if given the opportunity. Or that those who receive the light, wherever they may live, and live in a way that is consistent with what Jesus taught, are saved.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Does the verse we have reached (v.12) counter that, at least as far as John in concerned? In other words, only those who receive Jesus are covered by salvation.
quote:No.
Does the verse we have reached (v.12) counter that, at least as far as John in concerned? In other words, only those who receive Jesus are covered by salvation. Or is ‘salvation’ too much to read into the phrase “the authority to become children of God”?
quote:
12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God
quote:They seem awfully similar.
children born not of natural descent,
nor of human decision
or a husband's will
quote:I understand this to mean that accepting and living by the light that Jesus came into the world to bring causes a re-birth to happen inside of a person.
John 3.3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
quote:Anslem,
Originally posted by Anselm:
Any thoughts about if there is a difference between the three negated options?quote:They seem awfully similar.
children born not of natural descent,
nor of human decision
or a husband's will
quote:That's a new interpretation on me, Freddy! My church upbringing taught the line that this was all about the one-off event of salvation at the beginning of the Christian life. So, I've had another look at the text in chapter 3.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The person is then gradually re-born, a new birth brought about by God.
quote:Yes, maybe what I said is not the traditional interpretation. I may be wrong about it.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:That's a new interpretation on me, Freddy! My church upbringing taught the line that this was all about the one-off event of salvation at the beginning of the Christian life. So, I've had another look at the text in chapter 3.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The person is then gradually re-born, a new birth brought about by God.
Accepting that the Christian life is certainly one of growth and devleopment, I hesitate a bit about drawing on John 3 for it. My only concern is that birth is being presented somewhat as a one-off event: John 3:3 uses an aorist subjunctive form of the verb used for 'bringing forth' or 'being born'; which rather implies a singular activity rather than a process. Similarly, in verse 5 "enter the kingdom..." implies a one-off event of entering, rather than a process.
At risk of incurring another diatribe from SteveTom ) quote:Could it be that this is covering (in reverse order listed);
Originally posted by Anselm:
Any thoughts about if there is a difference between the three negated options?quote:They seem awfully similar.
children born not of natural descent,
nor of human decision
or a husband's will
quote:Anselm,
Originally posted by Anselm:
Could it be that this is covering (in reverse order listed);
- legitimate heirs
- adopted heirs and
- illegitimate children
quote:
13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
quote:No, I read it as talking about the unique process of becoming a child of God as opposed to the three known ways that one became a part of a family in the ancient world.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Is that from relating the three clauses to the "those believing in his name" phrase, rather than "become children of God"? If the former, it would mean that God's call covers all types of people, not being concerned about their status, which is the way you read it, I gather?
quote:I guess we have already been discussing this. Let me add that by "birth" here I understand a person being "made new" by God in a miraculous way.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
quote:That is, our native will prompts us to be self-centered and materialistic. But God does not curse or destroy us because of our natural desires. Instead He leads our internal states through alternations, which are like seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night.
Genesis 8.21 Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”
quote:
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
quote:
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
quote:"He was before me" surely connects to
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
quote:Is it John recognizing His divinity, or just that He will fulfill the prophecies?
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
quote:
16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.
quote:Don't know Greek so may be out of my league. Hope it's OK to jump in. If there is a 'new exodus' theme here, The 'we' must refer to all who benefit from the 'tabernacling'or dwelling among us of v14. In the exodus the Israelites benefited from having God in their midst. It the new covenant, believers in the Christ have a parallel blessing to that available under Moses.
Originally posted by Anselm:
Stop
Who do you think John means by "we"?
quote:In a general sense I think that he means all of humanity, since Jesus saved the human race from destruction.
Originally posted by Anselm:
Who do you think John means by "we"?
quote:The 'his' refers to both God and Jesus as in the context of the prologue the two are identified. v1 "The Word was God". I've always understood this as John's thesis statement.
Originally posted by Anselm:
Regarding "the fullness of his grace"
Who is the "he" - God or Jesus?
Is the 'fullness of grace' the Word-become-flesh & the revelation of God's glory, or is it that we can be called Children of God, or...?
quote:Hope it is OK to move on here. It is a while since anyone has posted. Also, these two verses seem to go together so does anyone object to them being discussed together?
(16) For of his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
(17)For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realised throgh Jesus Christ
quote:Thank you, Jamac, for moving this forward.
Originally posted by Jamac:
V17 by mentioning moses seems to be creating a link to the exodus. Does anyone see John's portrayal of Christ as heralding a new, kind of spiritual exodus one involving a new revelation of grace and truth.?
quote:All of the links you mention are thematically, 'exodus' links. I got the idea of John being concerned to portray Jesus as signalling a new kind of creation (the Christian) and a new destiny, or new exodus, for God's new people (the church,)from an Aussie Bible teacher named Rick Watts who is I think, presently in a Bible college in Canada. I must say it seemed to make sense of a lot of John's selections from Christ's life. The water into wine for instance at Cana definitely has a 'new creation' link. The feeding of the 5000 has a real echo of manna in the wilderness (an exodus link.)
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Verse 17 does indeed seem to fill out the “grace after grace” in verse 16 and “grace and truth” in verse 15: the Law was given through Moses, then grace and truth came into being through Jesus. Two things stand out for me: there is no hint of any negativity about the Law here - it was a grace from God; yet a greater grace/truth came via Jesus. The former (Law) was merely given, whereas the latter was inherent in Jesus himself in a way that the Law was not in Moses.
On the exodus link, how strong does this appear? There are four links to the past so far: creation, becoming God’s people, wilderness dwelling (the glory ‘tabernacled’, v.14) and Sinai (the giving of the Law). The actual exodus as such seems to be missing. I wonder if John was casting a wider net over Israel’s history in general?
quote:
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known [NIV].
No one has seen God at any time. The only conceived Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him [World English Bible].
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart,who has made him known [NRSV].
quote:Is it "God the one and only" or the "only begotten Son"? The Greek seems to say the former.
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.[NKJV]
quote:This is the NASB version with a gloss that 'only begotten God' is said by later manuscripts to read 'only begotten son'
V18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him.
quote:This is as close to the original as you can get if you don't know Greek.
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
quote:That's right, Moo. The NIV is way off in this instance, it seems.
Originally posted by Moo:
This is as close to the original as you can get if you don't know Greek.
quote:Do we know what "on the bosom" means? Is that just an expression, like "right-hand man," or something similar? Or does it have to do with the heart? "A man after God's own heart"? Or "The Son God loves"?
Originally posted by Moo:
Here is Young's Literal Translation's version of that verse.quote:This is as close to the original as you can get if you don't know Greek.
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
Moo
quote:Moo
22"Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
quote:The word used here is also κολπος
He, leaning back thus on Jesus' bosom, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?"
quote:Is John (the writer John) concerned to clarify any misconceptions here about just who was and who was not the Messiah? Were people confused about the role of the Baptist and how it fitted with that of Christ?
v19 And this is the witness of John when the Jews sent to him priests and levites from Jerusalem to ask him "Who are you?"
v20 And he confessed and did not deny, and he confessed, "I am not the Christ." (NASB)
quote:This business of John the Baptist'
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Is it OK to post again? Hope so, and here are the next three verses:
21 So they asked him, "What are you then? Are you Elijah?" nd he said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."
22 So they said to him, "Who are you, so we can give an answer to those who sent us? What do you have to say for yourself?"
23 He said: "I am 'the voice of one crying out in the desert, "Make straight the way of the Lord,"' as Isaiah the prophet said."
quote:I have a question for anybody who might know: Does the "Lamb of God" usage here refer back to something in the Hebrew Bible, or is it new?
29
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
30
He is the one of whom I said, 'A man is coming after me who ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.'
31
I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing with water was that he might be made known to Israel."
32
John testified further, saying, "I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him.
33
I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.'
34
Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God."
quote:Come to think of it, being a Lamb associated with God never really seem to imply that there was much to look forward to in the future!!
Genesis 22 (ESV)
[7] And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" [8] Abraham said, "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together.
quote:
Isaiah 53:7 (ESV)
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
quote:The phrase "Lamb of God" is used outside of the NT in document known as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The phrase occurs in two places, set out below. The problem is that we don't know if this work was penned by Christians or whether it pre-dates Jesus. Some of the terminology is Daniel-like, some very close to our John passage. It does reflect a view of the Lamb in more ram-like terms; a lamb that had no intention of taking sacrifice lying down, as it were. Some information on the document can be found by linking here.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Does the "Lamb of God" usage here refer back to something in the Hebrew Bible, or is it new?
quote:Enochian fragments are known from Qumran. Whilst I appreciate that this narrative may have more in common with the language of the book of Revelation, nevertheless it does also help to provide evidence of similar pre-existing use of the same (or very similar) imagery.
And I saw that a white bull was born, with large horns and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him and made petition to him all the time. And I saw till all their generations were transformed, and they all became white bulls; and the first among them became a lamb, and that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns on its head; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen. And I slept in their midst: and I awoke and saw everything. This is the vision which I saw while I slept, and I awoke and blessed the Lord of righteousness and gave Him glory.
quote:
35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples,
36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God."
37 The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
38 Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which translated means Teacher), "where are you staying?"
39 He said to them,"Come, and you will see." So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon.
quote:Have you noticed that it is the same group of Galilean disciples who end up back at the lake with Jesus in the last chapter of the book?
Originally posted by Spong:
Why is the call of the disciples so different in John than in the synoptics?
quote:Interesting that the ones who respond to Christ are John's disciples. This confirms Johns ministry as a sort of gatekeeper I think. I've heard it said that the folk who embraced the Baptist's ministry also embraced that of the Lord.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
John 1:43-44 [NIV] -
43 The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me."
44 Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida.
quote:What would you say is the significance of this? Is it just that news spreads faster in a family and if one brother 'signed-up' it was more likely that others in the family would too? Or is there something more to it than that?
Originally posted by Jamac:
Interesting too that the apostolic band contains sets of brothers. Surely not coincedental
quote:Quite true. Though a fair number of church evangelists seem to persist in the idea that the 'mission week' should take place in a church building, presumably believing either that the church members are more in need of the gospel than anyone else (which could be true!), or that unbelievers will somehow wander in off the street and be saved. Perhaps they need a John the Baptist type figure out front of the church extolling the sandal laces of the preacher inside!
Originally posted by Jamac:
Interesting too that it is the disciples who seek the discipler and not the other way round. This isn't a model of discipleship on often currently sees.
quote:You know I never had a mentor in the faith a guru to follow. And I notice the lack of fathers. Even now If I saw a tremendous example of a father in the faith I'd want to sit at his feet like Mary did to Jesus. A pity that such people are so rare. Most of our leaders have their head but not the heart experience . It's one of the reasons I don't like church. I'm an internal leaver as they say.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:What would you say is the significance of this?
Originally posted by Jamac:
Interesting too that the apostolic band contains sets of brothers. Surely not coincedental
The apostolic band contains family, sure but it also contained a tax collector and a zealot. Zealots had a tendency to assassinate zealots.
On reflection I think Jesus choice is a microcosm of the huge range of potential adherents he would attract. Family members to sworn political adversaries.
quote:Quite true. Though a fair number of church evangelists seem to persist in the idea that the 'mission week' should take place in a church building, presumably believing either that the church members are more in need of the gospel than anyone else (which could be true!), or that unbelievers will somehow wander in off the street and be saved. Perhaps they need a John the Baptist type figure out front of the church extolling the sandal laces of the preacher inside!
Originally posted by Jamac:
Interesting too that it is the disciples who seek the discipler and not the other way round. This isn't a model of discipleship on often currently sees.
quote:Always going, but never leaving, is it, Jamac?!
Originally posted by Jamac:
Even now If I saw a tremendous example of a father in the faith I'd want to sit at his feet like Mary did to Jesus. A pity that such people are so rare. Most of our leaders have their head but not the heart experience . It's one of the reasons I don't like church. I'm an internal leaver as they say.
quote:Yes..Boo Hoo. Not about me though..apologies. Jesus I'm sure was never boring; but the church can be tedious...can't we?
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:Always going, but never leaving, is it, Jamac?!
Originally posted by Jamac:
Even now If I saw a tremendous example of a father in the faith I'd want to sit at his feet like Mary did to Jesus. A pity that such people are so rare. Most of our leaders have their head but not the heart experience . It's one of the reasons I don't like church. I'm an internal leaver as they say.
I suppose the danger of putting faith in another human is that they might - being human - fail you. In addition, some people seem to put their faith in church structures and when those fail, their faith is also damaged. Perhaps the aim is to go straight to God, via Jesus, to avoid these dangers; by all means engage in church, listen to leaders, read the bible, but never just stop at those points; always revert to the Father.
quote:Someone should write a Christmas play about that.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Here's a thought: Philip, Andrew and Peter were all so fed up with the local synagogue that they jumped at the chance to found a new movement.
Reading into texts can be so much fun.
quote:The passage has a number of allusions to Scripture which indicate that Nathanael had solid grounds for his exclamation. The first is the greeting Jesus used to him...
John 1:45-51...
The interesing idea in it is that Nathanael recognised Jesus very suddenly and on very little apparent evidence.
quote:Awesome.
Originally posted by Ed Form:
quote:The passage has a number of allusions to Scripture which indicate that Nathanael had solid grounds for his exclamation. The first is the greeting Jesus used to him...
John 1:45-51...
The interesing idea in it is that Nathanael recognised Jesus very suddenly and on very little apparent evidence.
Verse 47.
Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"
This is a reference to Jacob whose name means 'one who supplants by guile' and whose name was changed to Israel which means 'God prevails'. The name-changing occurred after Jacob wrestled with the angel and prevailed and was declared to be a powerful prince with God [Genesis 32:28]. Nathanael was somewhat disturbed by this greeting because he asked...
Verse 48
...Whence knowest thou me?
The way this was said strongly suggests that Jesus had read Nathanael's mind accurately, not only had he discerned that Nathanael was a simple, guiless man, but also that he had been ruminating on the development of the character of Israel/Jacob immediately before his brother came to fetch him and Jesus' very obvious reference to the Peniel events really shocked him.
Jacob was actually on his way to find a wife from among his mother's kin when he met the angel, and the very next incident in John is the wedding at Cana, so it seems possible that this was Nathanael's marriage and that Nathanael had sat under the fig tree to contemplate his future, and that his thoughts had dwelt upon the example of Jacob who had his natural guile drummed out of him by hard experience so that he was molded into a godly prince - a fitting father for the chosen people.
Jesus next words contain another strong scriptural reference...
Verse 48
...Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
The idea of calling someone under a fig tree lead us into Zechariah 3:10...
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.
The name of the town Cana means Vineyard, and they were in that neighbourhood so both plants were in evidence and Nathanael had initially doubted that any thing could come out of Nazareth [verse 46] - it means branch-town. So, when Jesus lead him to the great prophecy of Joshua the high priest, and the verse that says...
Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. [Zechariah 3:8]
...Nathanel recognised that he was in the presence of a man who could read minds and who had already been recognised as Messiah by his brother. His conclusion - that the elevation of Joshua to high honour as God's true priest was a symbol of this very man - resulted in his declaration...
Verse 49
...Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."
Jesus then expressed pleasure that Nathanael was convinced by so small a demonstration of his powers and continued...
Verse 50-51
...You shall see greater things than these." And He *said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
This was another reference back to the inital Jacob/Israel ideas and contains a lovely prophecy of Jesus as the altar stone that Jacob set up and upon which the angels ascended and descended.
Ed Form
quote:We must be very careful when pondering sayings like this; its too easy to always look for an event of transcending majesty, of the type we find in the transfiguration. In that case Jesus' promise that some of the disciples would see him coming in his kingdom was immediately fulfilled by a kingdom vision on the mountain top, but in this case the explanation is less dramatic, although this was, in fact an altogether more mighty and astonishing claim.
In what sense do we see, and did Nathanael see, angels sacending and descending on the son of man?
quote:Given the background in the OT (and elsewhere) of locating God’s residence ‘on high’ – a theme consistent with the beliefs of other semitic religions in the region where high mountains were seen as the place for God’s residence – the imagery of God’s messengers ascending and descending would fit with the idea of God making his decrees in his court and the messengers then setting out to deliver them on earth. The particular image of the ziggurat fits here: steps to ‘heaven’ – the top, where God’s council sits and where God has his dwelling. Jacob’s designation of the site where he had his vision in Gen. 27 as “House of God” reflects this as well.
Originally posted by Jamat:
In what sense do we see, and did Nathanael see, angels ascending and descending on the son of man?
quote:According to NT Wright, the so-called Messianic Secret in Mark has three levels:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In what sense do we see, and did Nathanael see, angels ascending and descending on the son of man?
quote:(This kind of saying-narrative parallelism between gospels might be similar to what we see in Luke where Mark's action against the fig tree becomes a parable about a fig tree?)
John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?"
And Jesus said to them, "While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
"But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.
"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results.
"No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins." Mark 2:18-22
quote:John uses the 'hour' word a few times in his gospel. On Jesus' lips it seems to refer to his death and resurrection - c.f. 7:30; 8:20; 13:1 and 17:1. Jesus escapes death in his ministry because his time had not yet come. It's pushing things a bit, though, to assume that Jesus was avoiding a miracle with wine at Cana in case he was killed and the time wasn't right! Stoned, perhaps, in more ways than one...
Originally posted by pimple:
2:4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
That last phrase would have been full of meaning for John's first readers. But what could it possibly have meant to Mary when he said it?
quote:Naturally, asking Jesus to "give them wine" when "his time has come" has to be a reference to the Lord's Supper.
Originally posted by pimple:
Yes, but why tell mum? Or are we to read it as an aside? Mary is told at the Annunciation, of course, that - hmm, just checked. Where is she forewarned of tragedy? - but she wouldn't have known its nature in advance, surely?
quote:Not sure if this is a real match, but Mark 7:1-5 has some information on it.
Originally posted by pimple:
2.6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for cermonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
2:7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water; so they filled them to the brim.
Does anybody know just how the jars were used in the purification rite? It might not be significant, but while we're here...
quote:Jumping in the sandbox with the quote you might have been referencing. Since the water-into-wine marks the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, I always gloss the "my hour has not yet come" as "I'm not sure I'm ready to start this thing yet." You know--no turning back once this one hits the news. I imagine, regardless of how much of the divine Jesus had in him, this would have been a bit of a nail-biter on the human side of things.
Originally posted by pimple:
Yes, but why tell mum? Or are we to read it as an aside? Mary is told at the Annunciation, of course, that - hmm, just checked. Where is she forewarned of tragedy? - but she wouldn't have known its nature in advance, surely?
quote:I read that verse as the master of the banquet doing the "aside to one side", since he, not Jesus, speaks in the next verse.
Originally posted by pimple:
But is it signifiant that he takes the bridegroom on one side? It is for me. It's often the way that Jesus works in his healing miracles - though Mark has him occasionally doing the big public charismatic thing.
quote:Pant...pant....pushing legs on faster in attempt to keep up with pace of this thread...puff....puff....splutter....
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."
Or am I reading this wrong and that's Jesus talking? If so, he sounds a bit self-congratulatory to me...
quote:There's a strong sense that John uses the metaphor of a court room in his gospel; evidence (signs) are produced and witnesses are called upon, the reader is the jury (whoops - that's a bit of an anachronism; judge, perhaps?) who is called by the advocate to believe the evidence.
Originally posted by pimple:
The importance of belief to John may be guaged by the fact that he uses the word "belief" and its various grammatical forms over 100 times.
By contrast, Mark uses the word scarcely a dozen times, and Luke even less. Why?
quote:So that's why we are galloping through John 2! Keeping one step ahead of the Spanish Inquisition! And I thought it was to save my evangelical blushes regarding the mention of <mouthing the word:> alcohol (steps smartly aside to avoid lightening bolt...)
Originally posted by pimple:
Sometimes the traditionalists can't "keep up" and the developing church anathematises the stick-in-the-muds. ... So John is not just concerned with belief "pure and simple" (as if!) but with belief in the emerging, predominantly gentile, high christology which the miracles "prove".
quote:No, although doctors say that I am young (and who am I to disagree with the experts?), there does come a time in a (young) man's life when he gets used to mulling over individual words, letting the savour oooooooooooze its way past individual taste buds, dripping down the gullet in a controlled, enjoy-every-second-of-this manner, allowing the gastric juices oodles of time to collect, organise and swamp the conglomerate mass, absorbing every ounce of natural, organic, goodness; dispersing it throughout the body in a growing, soothing, enveloping whole........
Originally posted by pimple:
Who's galloping? How long does anyone need to think about a single verse and a fairly non-controversial comment, before joining in the discussion?
Is there a tension here? You mean in the gospel, or on this thread? Anyone want to take it one from here? I'll go away for a bit, so as not to rush you...
quote:I think it's important to note that the text does not say that Jesus hit any person or animal with the whip. What it says is
Originally posted by pimple:
It rather depends on whether Jesus was exercising his prerogative as God, or setting an example as a human being, doesn't it? Or maybe he just "lost it" on this occasion (that wouldn't be John's take, of course!)
quote:I interpret this to mean he used the whip to drive the animals from the temple; you can drive animals with a whip without actually hitting them. When the owners of the animals saw them going out, they naturally followed their merchandise.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
quote:Moo,
Originally posted by Moo:
I think it's important to note that the text does not say that Jesus hit any person or animal with the whip. What it says isquote:I interpret this to mean he used the whip to drive the animals from the temple; you can drive animals with a whip without actually hitting them. When the owners of the animals saw them going out, they naturally followed their merchandise.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
quote:I suppose it depends on how one reads the “all” (pantas) and that sneaky little conjunction (te) in verse 15.
“And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen...”
quote:I’m interested to know why John’s version of this differs from the other gospels’. The relevant passages are: Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17 and Luke 19:46, all of which have Jesus saying, “...you have made it [my house] a den of robbers” (ignoring Matthew’s typical change of tense here).
Originally posted by Grits:
v.16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
quote:At least in John He doesn't knock over tables and chairs, unlike in Matthew:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
If the NASB and similar versions are correct, then although Jesus may not have physically touched anyone during the whipping, perhaps it was not foremost in the average trader’s mind that day to test Jesus’ pacifist tendencies!
quote:Somebody could have gotten hurt!
Matthew 21:12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I am not at home and don't have my Greek text with me. The translation quoted here says
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I was going along with this until I looked up the passage following Grits' latest post - and saw that the grammatical structure seems to imply that Jesus drove them all (i.e. the people mentioned in the previous verse) out. The animals appear as an afterthought. The NASB translates the relevant section as:
quote:I suppose it depends on how one reads the “all” (pantas) and that sneaky little conjunction (te) in verse 15.
“And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen...”
If the NASB and similar versions are correct, then although Jesus may not have physically touched anyone during the whipping, perhaps it was not foremost in the average trader’s mind that day to test Jesus’ pacifist tendencies!
quote:The phrase 'both sheep and cattle' suggests to me that 'all' refers to all the animals, not the people.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
quote:That was the NIV take on it, Moo; the translations come down on two sides on this. The NASB and NIV are examples of both. Assorted Greek and English versions of vv.14 and 15 can be found here.
Originally posted by Moo:
I am not at home and don't have my Greek text with me. The translation quoted here saysquote:The phrase 'both sheep and cattle' suggests to me that 'all' refers to all the animals, not the people.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
Moo
quote:I think it was another attempt to entrap Jesus. If he said she should be stoned, he would come across as harsh and vindictive. If he said she should go free, he was trashing the Law. Jesus side-stepped this one very well, as he did so many others.
Originally posted by pimple
I can't help thinking of those later on in the gospel who were outraged by a woman's infidelity. Did they think that the action in the temple marked Jesus out as a "sound" judge to take the woman to?
quote:Whoops! It's probably down to me, isn't it, seeing as I posted first after the last move-on. So, John 2:17 [NIV]:-
Originally posted by pimple:
Thanks, Moo. Time to move on?
quote:The quote comes from Psalm 69:9 (in the NIV - some translations incorporate the Psalm heading as verse 1; for these the relvant verse = 10. In the Greek Septuagint the Psalm to look for is Psalm 68:10). The full Psalm covers over 35 verses and can be linked to here.
His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
quote:The impression, I think, is that Psalm 69 describes Jesus' inner thought processes, and the anguish behind His radical actions.
Originally posted by pimple:
It's an odd allusion for John, isn't it? The tenor of the psalm is almost like Gethsemane - an interlude John conspicuously leave out.
quote:What, then, to make of the fact that this is one "aggressive" display by Jesus, early in his career according to John, coupled with the fact that the second half of Psalm 69 has a fair bit of smiting going on? (Did Jesus start out more on the Zealot side of things and "gentle down" over time once the Zealotry was clearly not working? Oy.)
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:The impression, I think, is that Psalm 69 describes Jesus' inner thought processes, and the anguish behind His radical actions.
Originally posted by pimple:
It's an odd allusion for John, isn't it? The tenor of the psalm is almost like Gethsemane - an interlude John conspicuously leave out.
quote:Yes, the open desire for revenge in Psalm 69, and throughout the Old Testament, is out of keeping with Jesus' teaching.
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
What, then, to make of the fact that this is one "aggressive" display by Jesus, early in his career according to John, coupled with the fact that the second half of Psalm 69 has a fair bit of smiting going on?
quote:As I see it, the Old Testament penchant for violence is spiritualized in the New Testament. Physical destruction at the hand of God or Israel is converted to the self-destruction of hell. Revenge is rejected, but is replaced by the idea that everyone receives what they give.
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
One of the most significant schisms I see between Old and New Testaments is the rethinking of violence directed against others: I stake my faith on a Jesus who wouldn't be praying or living the second half of that Psalm. Does this pose a reconcilation challenge for others, or just me?
quote:Thanks for that, Freddy--it makes good sense.
Originally posted by Freddy:
As I see it, the Old Testament penchant for violence is spiritualized in the New Testament. Physical destruction at the hand of God or Israel is converted to the self-destruction of hell. Revenge is rejected, but is replaced by the idea that everyone receives what they give.
quote:A disturbance in the Temple could have attracted a massacre by [a] zealous Jews or [b] jittery soldiers. So this response to Jesus' bit of anti-social behaviour seems quite moderate by comparison. It's almost as though the Jews would have accepted Jesus' behaviour if he could prove his point. Or was this a Socratic trap?
2:18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
quote:17 His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
quote:Do feel free to comment on it if you want to TM; it's part of the same episode and we're bound to be flitting back and forth as we go through sections....
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Oops, sorry. No, it wasn't, but I missed it.
Carry on.)
quote:Thanks, Nigel. I noticed last night at Tenebrae that the first reading was Psalm 69, which contains the "...Zeal for your house has eaten me up..." passage. That Psalm also later speaks of the narrator being thirsty, but being given vinegar to drink.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:Do feel free to comment on it if you want to TM; it's part of the same episode and we're bound to be flitting back and forth as we go through sections....
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Oops, sorry. No, it wasn't, but I missed it.
Carry on.)
quote:Which brings us back to that question: why did John place the temple cleansing episode so early in his gospel, when the other gospel writers have it close to the end, forming part of the climax to Jesus’ earthly ministry? This is assuming that John is referring to the same incident and that there were not two similar but separate events. Freddy noted this to be his take on it (posted on previous page).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And also John puts the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, not the end. That must occur soon, although I can't remember exactly when it does.
I don't know exactly what this all means, but it seems clear that John is always trying to establish Jesus as Redeemer and Son of God - and as the fulfillment of Prophecy.
quote:
2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
quote:The way it appears in the UBS text, it is Jesus answering the Jews directly ("Jesus answered and said to them..."), followed by the verb for 'destroy' in its second person plural aorist imperative form, which implies that Jesus was telling the Jews, "Youse destroy..." (struggling to find a second person plural form in UK English! Perhaps "You all destroy..." for some USA speakers?)
Originally posted by pimple:
Who's doing the destroying, in the Greek - is it clear?
quote:
30 And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! [NIV]
quote:
22 Therefore, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they came to believe the scripture and the word Jesus had spoken.
23 While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, many began to believe in his name when they saw the signs he was doing.
24 But Jesus would not trust himself to them because he knew them all,
25 and did not need anyone to testify about human nature. He himself understood it well.
quote:This seems interesting to me, because there are two distinct "reads" of Jesus' reticence in revealing himself to human beings. The first is the one suggested here: that he knew about "human nature" (since he's 100% human himself!) and did not "trust" people.
22when, then, he was raised out of the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this to them, and they believed the Writing, and the word that Jesus said.
23And as he was in Jerusalem, in the passover, in the feast, many believed in his name, beholding his signs that he was doing;
24and Jesus himself was not trusting himself to them, because of his knowing all [men],
25and because he had no need that any should testify concerning man, for he himself was knowing what was in man.
quote:Jesus, probably still in Jerusalem is approached secretly by one of the ruling Pharisees, Nicodemus, as opposed to your standard village Pharisee. Nicodemus seems to be on the verge of belief so Jesus challenges him and says if he wants to understand God properly he needs to be 'born again'.
3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (esv)
quote:It could be an example of how Jesus cuts through conversation niceties to get to the real issue; John records a number of other instances where Jesus apparently ignores the question and throws out a statement that unbalances the person he’s talking to. For example, there’s the reply to the Jews in 2:18-19 and the response to the Samaritan woman in 4:9-12. Here, could it be that Nicodemus had prepped his conversation and wanted to get to the point via a reasoned route, but Jesus swung him away before he could get into his swing? In which case perhaps Jesus knew that talk of signs would not answer Nicodemus' real issue.
Originally posted by Luke:
Nicodemus wants to know if God is with Jesus or not but Jesus seems to respond with a tangent about the Kingdom of God. This must mean there is a connection between knowing and understanding the signs of God and the Kingdom of God.
quote:Wow, this is a really interesting idea, Nigel! Wonderful take!
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Incidentally, I wonder if chapter 3 begins a ‘flash-back’ to Jesus’ ministry? Chapter 2 ended with the confrontation in the temple, which the other gospels place near the end of Jesus’ life. Perhaps John places that event up front in his gospel to establish where the battle lines were drawn and over what issues (where Jesus got his authority from – validation of his message, in other words); then he does a back flip to present a series of events that deal with that very issue: validating Jesus, starting with Nicodemus’ visit. John, in this scheme, is not concerned with presenting everything in order of time, but in setting out what he sees as the key issues and then dealing with them with whatever episodes he deemed relevant. We catch up again with the Passover events again in chapter 12.
quote:Up until now I had thought that Nicodemus was either being grumpy or was somewhat dim; he either didn't like Jesus' response to his conversation opener and decided to be picky on the literalistic level, or he was completely at sea over Jesus' use of the 'born' language. I thought that he (Nicodemus) might have circulated this encounter to the early church in a self-deprecating way to demonstrate how astute Jesus was compared to his own silliness.
"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
My guess is that you are not an old man?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
quote:
The other night I was talking with an aquaintance who was baptised as a child but lately has been worshipping with one of those necktie/microphone groups.
He said that they are taught differently to what the church has believed and taught for two thousand years, that this verse in John 3 does not refer to baptism, but instead to simply being born.
I tried to argue with him, though I am not a biblical scholar, that that particular idiom "born of the water" is used no where to refer to simply being born. It doesn't follow that our Lord would create a new metaphor for human birth and then it be misunderstood until the 19th century, until The Founder of a Movement gets it right.
I also brought up angels, who "see the kingdom" but they weren't "born of the water". He said but the next verse refers to "what is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of the spirit is spirit," this linking "born of the water and thee spirit".
Well, what are Jesus and Nick talking about here?
quote:I’d better come clean (washed by water?!) and say that I have not been totally convinced that John 3:5 is a reference to baptism. But then again, I’m not really convinced by any other interpretation either!
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
quote:I feel more comfortable with the idea of figurative language, certainly, given Jesus' extensive preference for it - as you note TM re: parables. I'm still having a hard time associating this verse with literal baptism in any form. I guess we really need a dyed-in-the-wool baptist (not necessarily a Baptist...) who is willing to defend the position and can put up some arguments we can look at.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Could "water" be simply a metaphor - an allusion to "the repentence required for water baptism"?
quote:At the risk of incurring the wrath of pro-baptists across the Ship, I have to agree. As soon as we have to provide opt-out clauses for something (e.g., what about children who die unbaptised, etc), then it seems to me we lose the argument for it.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I just can't get with the idea that only the baptized can find eternal life.
quote:There was a thread on baptism, wasn't there, about a year ago? I tried searching on Purg, but couldn't find it. I'm pretty sure it ranged over a number of texts, but I can't remember whether it came to any conclusion - probably not!
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm glad to hear that water baptism isn't necessary for salvation - that's the only reason we don't practice it.
quote:That's the key issue, I think Mama Thomas, from this, isn't it? If the church has held a view over a particular text for so long, what possible validity can a different interpretation have, especially if it arises fairly recently (well, within the past few centuries, anyway). My particular Christian background (which has been somewhat eclectic over the years), is one that recognises that we have substantial material today that was not available to the early church, in terms of documents and processes etc. This material has helped to throw more light on the opinions and ways of expressing oneself from the time of Jesus. So I like to weigh all interpretations up to see which one is more likely.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
He said that they are taught differently to what the church has believed and taught for two thousand years, that this verse in John 3 does not refer to baptism, but instead to simply being born. ...that particular idiom "born of the water" is used no where to refer to simply being born. It doesn't follow that our Lord would create a new metaphor for human birth and then it be misunderstood until the 19th century, until The Founder of a Movement gets it right.
quote:It's the surrounding context of verse 5 that leads me to doubt that water baptism was the reference. This verse - v.6 - seems to back this up. There's a reference here to physical birth, I think, when Jesus talks about flesh and this contrasts with the need for a Spiritual 're-birth' before a person can see the Kingdom.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I also brought up angels, who "see the kingdom" but they weren't "born of the water". He said but the next verse refers to "what is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of the spirit is spirit," this linking "born of the water and the spirit".
quote:Or have we already included these verses in the discussion?
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
quote:John seems to be making use of one of his double-meaning words in this verse. The word pneuma (πνευμα) is used at the beginning and end of the verse (in a genitive form at the end) and can be translated ‘wind’, ‘spirit’ or ‘Spirit’ (i.e., Holy Spirit). The English translators are all agreed that ‘wind’ is the imagery and ‘Holy Spirit’ the connotation. The imagery of ‘wind’ is also used in Ecclesiastes 11:5 –
* The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. [NET Bible];
* The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. [NIV];
* The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit. [NASB];
* The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." [ESV];
* The wind blows wherever it pleases; you hear its sound, but you cannot ell where it comes from or where it is going. That is how it is with all who are born of the Spirit. [Jerusalem Bible].
quote:So it's a case of clear words, but what’s it all about?! I think Jesus is saying that you (i.e. Nicodemus and his colleagues) shouldn’t bother trying to understand the process of being born again / from above; that’s something God does. The evidence, however, of such a re-birth will be noticeable. The idea of evidence being available for all to see crops up elsewhere in the Johannine writings, e.g.:-
As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things. [NIV]
quote:
* No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. [1 John 3:9 NIV];
* Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. [1 John 3:24 NIV]; and
* We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. [1 John 4:13 NIV]
quote:I'm not sure if that's what you call "plain English" or not, though.
5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'
but I'm sure it's not what Jesus meant. Ithink Nigel has it - the phrase is, I think, elliptic - you're meant to get it without it being spelt out.
quote:
9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?
quote:I was thinking Jesus', because this seems to be a theme in all the Gospels, but perhaps you're right that it's both....
Originally posted by pimple:
Of which time? The evangelists's or Jesus'? Perhaps both?
quote:Sudden shift into the first person plural here!
I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.[NIV]
quote:Or the 'we know' could refer to general knowledge. I would never say, "I know the earth is round." I would always say, "We know the earth is round."
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Although much of the dialogue concentrates on the one-to-one conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, Nic starts off by saying, "Rabbi, we know..." (in verse 2). The fact that Jesus uses the plural again in verse 11 ("we know) might indicate that these two were not alone: that their respective disciples were also present.
quote:True, yes, it could be that; though I wonder - would Jesus would use that technique to emphasise his testimony? Presumably it might fall outside of the accepted general knowledge or acceptance? Still - given Nicodemus' credentials later on, perhaps he does agree here with Jesus against his fellow leaders.
Originally posted by Moo:
Or the 'we know' could refer to general knowledge. I would never say, "I know the earth is round." I would always say, "We know the earth is round."
quote:Having just returned from a spate of "Man is the Master" activities vis-a-vis my PC, I'm somewhat glad to see that I haven't missed anything on this thread. I had a thought that everyone would have got passed the parousia by now. So now, where were we?
Originally posted by pimple:
Shall we go on?
quote:
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
quote:Thanks TM! Good to be back!
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I was just going to post asking about you, Nigel; glad to see you back!
quote:I guess the answer to this in part depends on which side we come down on in the debate exemplified by C.K. Barrett -v- C.H. Dodd: Was John drawing his material from the same sources as the synoptics (especially Mark), or was he reliant on independent sources?
Originally posted by pimple:
Is this Jesus speaking through John, or John speaking through Jesus?
quote:It's always difficult, isn't it, to know just where to place the slider on the scale between what Jesus might have said and what John is saying. Personally I would probably pop it between v.12 and v.13 - which is probably a good time to add that verse to the discussion!:
Originally posted by pimple:
I just got the impression that from the previous verse to to the end of the chapter John forgot himself and was writing in something like a prophetic trance. ... it always comes as a shock when I see it in black and white as the words of Jesus himself. It's not. It's about Jesus, IMO. This doesn't invalidate either its message or its value as a hook for meditation and faith. Strict inerrantists might disagree one that point. But it's only my opinion.
quote:Perhaps John leaves off with Jesus asking the question at the end of v.12 ("...how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?"), then he moves into the commentary mode (or prophetic mode) to refer to the Son of Man.
John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven – the Son of Man.
quote:The trouble though is that it isn't really safe to take a usage in one context and assume it applies elsewhere. If we were to continue to apply the "even" (or "i.e.") interpretation to Ephesians 1:2, we would get -
Originally posted by NJA:
Vine's dictionary points out that kai, the greek word translated "and" in born of water and spirit" really means "even". He gives various examples:-
Eph:1:1: . . .to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus
quote:which raises some strange linguistic and doctrinal issues!
..."Grace, i.e. [kai], Peace to you from God our Father, i.e. [kai], the Lord Jesus Christ"
quote:I found 12 usages of the 'Son of Man' phrase in John through a search.
John 3:13-15
No one has ever gone into [ascended to] heaven except the one who came from [descended from] heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
quote:I wonder, given this, if the reference to being 'lifted up' in John 3:14 refers not to crucifixion (the conclusion I have come across on this more often than not), but to vindication: just as Daniel's Son of Man enters heaven after suffering, so Jesus is associated here with the vindicated Son of Man figure. Once he is vindicated, he is also given authority to vindicate his followers by giving them eternal life.
Daniel 7:13-14
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
quote:I'm probably not the only one here who had this (especially verse 16) as a memory verse in Sunday School. Good idea, that; though can lead to unintentional lip-service and a lack of understanding.
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
quote:
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth...
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
quote:Hope jumping in here does not cut across too much.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
John 3:16-17 work well together:-
quote:I'm probably not the only one here who had this (especially verse 16) as a memory verse in Sunday School. Good idea, that; though can lead to unintentional lip-service and a lack of understanding.
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
So, what does it mean? Why did John introduce "one and only son" terminology here? Was it to recall similar words in 1:14 and 18 and if so, why? -
quote:
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth...
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
quote:I like the link between John 3:16 and Gen. 22:2 (and also verses 12 & 16) and the reference to 'unique.' The word used in the Masoretic Hebrew text is:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My understanding of 'only son' here is that it is best read as 'unique son'
The genesis of this is God's word to Abraham "Take your only son whom you love.." But Abraham had Ishmael then. The Hebrew is best translated 'unique'. Isaac was a stand alone choice, the one God chose. Jesus is the same.
quote:All the English translations I looked up here translate yahid as “only”; I know some would conclude that the writer of this unit might have been unaware of the Ishmael events and therefore meant to say “only” in the sense of an only child – and that this heightens the sense of doom when Abraham seems ready to sacrifice that very child. Loss of only child meant loss of family line and as a result loss of promise for Abraham. However, “unique” fits well here, given that Ishmael was out of the picture anyway, both physically and by way of promise.
Gen.22:2 [NIV]
“Then God said, "Take your son, your only [yahid = יחיד] son, Isaac, whom you love...”
quote:The translators were either working from a different Hebrew text to the one that has survived in the Masoretic tradition, or they chose to translate things differently. The Hebrew word for love that is usually translated by agapetos is ahab (or ahabah = אהב / אהבה). I suppose it is just possible that a scribe misread the Hebrew word for “only”, but it's not an obvious similarity (יחיד versus אהב).
Gen.22:2 [LXX - NETS]
“Take your beloved [agapetos = αγαπετος] son, Isaac, whom you love...”
quote:
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
quote:A difficult one - or rather three - for someone who's favourite gospel is not NO.4 to deal with. But I think I ought to try. John here is no longer talking here about beliefs, but about deeds, actions. Which makes it that much more powerful. But we are not told whose deeds and which particular actions, which makes it that much more sinister - the inference is "they know who they are" but the average reader doesn't, and it takes the scholarship of someone like R.E.BROWN even to make an educated guess.
19 "... And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."
quote:Perhaps another reading is that Jesus came into the world as light into darkness; what follows is the human reaction: those who prefer to hide their deeds have to move out of the light so that their deeds can remain hidden (i.e. they reject Jesus' offer of reconciliation). Those who accept that offer, move to the light (I have real trouble shaking the image of a moth here...).
Originally posted by pimple:
A wholly sceptical take would be "those who do not come to Jesus must be evil. So they must do evil things. So they skulk in the dark so that they don't get found out." That's an a priori argument, I think, and not very helpful.
quote:Of course, that's what the word "baptise" means.
Originally posted by pimple:
Did he always baptize by total immersion, I wonder?
quote:I'm not that sure about that... In modern Greek vaptizo has the meaning of a total immersion, and this is supported also by the ancient practice of the church to use triple immersion for baptism... Even the ancients said that baptizing by triple immersion was an oral commandment of Christ...
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And the proper meaning of "baptizo" would be to "wash, pour, apply water to"--not necessarily total immersion.
quote:It would seem from this that John didn't just, so to speak, pass his hairy goatskin mantle to Jesus, but that the two were active independently for some time, each with his own coterie of followers (this may explain the confusion over the Magnificat , which fits the context of John's birth more appropriately than that of Jesus, from what I remember of my (limited) theological training.
John 3:29-30 "....He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease."
] quote:The inference in the last couple of sentences seems to be that those who do not believe in the Son are ipso facto disobedient. What also follows from this is that faith is divinely commanded. That doesn't sit very easily with grace being offered..
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, yet no-one accepts his testimony. Whoever has accepted his testimony has certified this, that God is true. He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the son and has placed all things in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God's wrath.
quote:John subverts that "no-one" in his next sentence. But who is the witness here, in John's mind? Jesus? John (the evangelist)? John the Baptist? If it's Jesus, John is saying that Jesus has seen and heard - what?
He testifies to what he has seen and heard, yet no-one believes his testimony.
quote:Sorry for delay - catching up!
Originally posted by pimple:
John (the evangelist) does somewhat bowdlerise the traditional metaphor of bride and bridegroom here. The bride was usually Israel IIRC, and God was the bridegroom. There's no earthly reason why a mere friend of the bridegroom should be so overjoyed, is there?
quote:That's an apt analogy - John's gospel does seem to use the picture of a law court setting as a basis for his message. Testifying; signs (evidence) in support; "this is the verdict"; standing condemned; truth and falsehood. If that is the setting, then perhaps when he wanders from narrative to his conclusions (presumably he has by this point in the Baptist story), he is speaking from the vantage point of a lawyer explaining the ins and outs of the legal system. Or perhaps better, an advocate speaking to his audience who acts as the judge? The audience has to make its mind up - here John sets out the evidence, pleads the case and seeks to convince the judge (or jury) of the truthfulness of his case.
Originally posted by pimple - re John 3:31-36 :
Either John is biting off more than he can logically chew, or I'm a devil - according to John. I plead not guilty.
quote:There's a similar saying in chapter 1:11-12 - "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him...". I suspect John is reflecting a general attitude with the "no-one" bit, then gets more specific about the benefits associated with the few ("the one") who do "receive". If Jesus is the one who comes from above here, then he is the messenger from God, speaking God's message; a bit like an ambassador.
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:John subverts that "no-one" in his next sentence. But who is the witness here, in John's mind? Jesus? John (the evangelist)? John the Baptist? If it's Jesus, John is saying that Jesus has seen and heard - what?
He testifies to what he has seen and heard, yet no-one believes his testimony.
quote:Similar themes in both sections. Then the question arises: do the narrative sections add to, alter or contradict these themes?
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God. The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him. [NIV]
quote:Not sure where in the OT mention is made of a specific 'Jacob's Well' in this location, but there is a well site near modern Nablus that is associated with this very well.
[Gen. 33:18-20 – NIV] After Jacob came from Paddan Aram, he arrived safely at the city of Shechem in Canaan and camped within sight of the city. For a hundred pieces of silver, he bought from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, the plot of ground where he pitched his tent. There he set up an altar and called it El Elohe Israel.
[Joshua 24:33] And Joseph's bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. This became the inheritance of Joseph's descendants.
quote:Interesting reply. Jesus says that the Samaritan did not know God's gift. What gift is that in this context? An oblique reference to Jacob's Well, with its running (living) water, perhaps? Or a link to the second clause – the gift being the one doing the asking?
Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."
quote:Again - a good knowledge (and pride?) in the fact that the well had heritage that predated Jerusalem and the southern Jewish religion. It might be described as living water because it was on a running spring, not a stagnant pool. Jesus seems to be acknowledging the heritage, but only to use it as a springboard for a bigger point.
"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"
Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."
quote:
John 4:13-15 [NIV]
Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."
quote:This is a theme Jesus might have picked up from the likes of:
John 7:37-39 [NIV]
On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
quote:...and...
Isaiah 55:1-3
"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters;
and you who have no money,come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
my faithful love promised to David.
quote:...and possibly...
Ps. 36:9
For with you is the fountain of life;
in your light we see light.
quote:Interestingly, in the Samaritan woman episode Jesus does not make an explicit reference to a Scripture, as he does in John 7. This would be fitting here - the Samaritans did not recognise as Scripture any writing beyond the Torah, so making direct references to Isaiah would have been meaningless.
Isaiah 12:3
With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.
quote:The tenses are interesting; in His explanation, since Jesus is then speaking in the future tense, it could reference the Holy Spirit (and, as others have observed, the Holy Spirit 'fell' on people in the Hebrew scriptures but apparently didn't inhabit in the same way, post-Pentecost). My own take has been to think of it as salvation, as eternal life but there are so many places where I wish the disciples (and other folks) had come along and asked very specific questions of Him; He was usually willing to explain but didn't generally offer the explanations and waited to be asked (shades of "you have not because you ask not").
Originally posted by Pooks:
I am interested in Shipmates' understanding of what Jesus meant by 'spring of water' in his reply to the woman.
I know there are people who understand this as refering to the Holy Spirit, some even link it with another verse to validate the practice of 'speaking in tongues'. Others may see this as refering to Jesus' teaching only. What is your understanding of this term?quote:
Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."
quote:If the living water bubbling up within you references your eternal life (rather than simply this temporal one), I think your priest's speculations are very possible, and perhaps all the more so if the living water is indeed the Holy Spirit or the life of the Spirit within us...
Originally posted by CuppaT:
I don't know; I'm clueless, and was just telling my priest so on this very passage recently. I don't see springs of living water welling up in me. I see tears, and hard things. He said maybe tears (of repentance and concern for others) were a part of the living water.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
). After all, she has nothing to lose - why not see where this curious man takes the conversation (and I dare say, having been married 6 times, the woman was not afraid to converse with men).quote:Well, yeah there's that
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
After all, she has nothing to lose - why not see where this curious man takes the conversation (and I dare say, having been married 6 times, the woman was not afraid to converse with men).
. And not because he's God, but rather because he's my older brother. Interest. Just. Not. There.
quote:The relationship will, of course, be purely Platonic!
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
...He's the Bridegroom and we're the Bride - in Heaven we may discover no one puts off the vibe like Him--
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(Why the heck did you come here and ask in the first place? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
) Then when the woman replied, probably with a bit of hackle, by asking a challenging question, this guy then changes the subject and starts to talk about her life... I mean, if I were her, I would probably run off at this point like she did and not without some uncharitable thoughts either. (Ooops, that's the next verse.) I bet if he were posting on the boards here, he would probably get taken to Hell several times over for making wild claims, not answering the questions put to him and for outing a Shipmate.quote:Continuing the tangent briefly, there's always another Messianic psalm, Ps 45, which starts:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's a total tangent, but I've always wondered if he COULD give off those kinds of vibes. Not that I'm questioning his humanity, you understand. But at least to me, he comes off so much as a member of one's close family (liked or otherwise!) that the concept of marrying him --
But who knows?
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But Lamb darlin' you're forgetting He's the Bridegroom and we're the Bride - in Heaven we may discover no one puts off the vibe like Him--
quote:This is SO going in the quotes file.
Who, after all, likes having a decent theological debate interrupted with statements about God?
This is one of the most fascinating tangents I've seen in a while...
quote:It may be, but I'm not sure. Without getting too weird (--too late!), Jesus explains that in heaven we will neither marry nor be given in marriage but rather be like the angels (Matthew 22:24). I often hear married people say that doesn't apply to them because they're already married but that completely misses the point of the parable (the woman was married to seven brothers, successively - but in the resurrection she's not married to any of them (besides, it would be unfair for all eternity, to boot!). The image of God as Husband to Israel and Jesus as Husband to the church are repeated Biblical images; if it's really just Platonic, than why use this image over and over again?
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:The relationship will, of course, be purely Platonic!
He's the Bridegroom and we're the Bride - in Heaven we may discover no one puts off the vibe like Him--
quote:Clearly Jesus 'gets away' with stuff that most people wouldn't - power of charisma, power of His authority? I don't know. But I love the idea of calling Jesus Christ to Hell... of course, He's been there already and taken captivity captive...
Pooks said:
I bet if (Jesus) were posting on the boards here, he would probably get taken to Hell several times over for making wild claims, not answering the questions put to him and for outing a Shipmate.
But perhaps as Nigel has already pointed out, Jesus has a way of unsettling people with the unexpected then while they are still reeling from surprise, he gets to the point.
quote:I am SO going to regret this, but...
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:The relationship will, of course, be purely Platonic!
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
...He's the Bridegroom and we're the Bride - in Heaven we may discover no one puts off the vibe like Him--
quote:and...
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
It may be, but I'm not sure.... The image of God as Husband to Israel and Jesus as Husband to the church are repeated Biblical images; if it's really just Platonic, than why use this image over and over again?
quote:Don't worry - I was only joking!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...I really wouldn't want to start talking about "platonic" here. ...
quote:
John 4:16-18
16 He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."
17 "I have no husband," she replied.
Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."
quote:and I burst into tears. When I read the Isaiah passage I recognized my former husband in it, as much as it made me uncomfortable (I spent a really long time defending him--).
“I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband.”
quote:I've shared that experience with close Christian friends, with my priest(s) and assorted ministers over the years and only one person ever recognized the passage from the address. "John 4:17?" she said, "that's Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well, isn't it?" Kudos to my friend Laura.
For the fool speaks folly, his mind is busy with evil: He practices ungodliness and spreads error concerning the Lord; the hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water.
quote:I love your honesty.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
[small personally significant semi-tangent]
When my ex- blew up our marriage, I spent a year praying for reconciliation and restoration; I held fast, thinking three of us made a covenant (him, me, God) and two of us were still there so the covenant is still there, right? Apparently not; a year after the dramatic split I was at a Christian conference and attended a session on journaling as a tool for greater intimacy with God (I'd done a lot of journaling in my early 20s of the navel-examination sort and found it useless so I went, hoping to redeem the process).
It was pleasant and interesting as we worked through several techniques and then, end of the day, our leader presented something John and Paula Sandford do: prayerfully ask God for scripture addresses (e.g., "Is there something from Your word you want me to 'get' right now?"). As she was explaining what to do if you get Hezekiah 14 or Isaiah 9:37, I silently threw the question up to God and immediately received: John 4:17, Isaiah 32:6, Revelation 4:10. I jotted them down and waited until she stopped explaining then looked them up.quote:and I burst into tears. When I read the Isaiah passage I recognized my former husband in it, as much as it made me uncomfortable (I spent a really long time defending him--).
“I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband.”
quote:I've shared that experience with close Christian friends, with my priest(s) and assorted ministers over the years and only one person ever recognized the passage from the address. "John 4:17?" she said, "that's Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well, isn't it?" Kudos to my friend Laura.
For the fool speaks folly, his mind is busy with evil: He practices ungodliness and spreads error concerning the Lord; the hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water.
[/semi-tangent]
So I confess that this verse, having been used profoundly and personally by God in my private life, is hard for me to read without the overtones and qualifiers that my experience brings to it.
In fact, the way God used it with me is rather the opposite of the meaning here, as we continue on to verse 18.
quote:The thought that occurred to me when reading this (and which has sort of lain in mull mode since) concerns that very point: When something affects a person powerfully, how is it possible for them to step back from the personal impact in order to see a wider horizon?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
So I confess that this verse, having been used profoundly and personally by God in my private life, is hard for me to read without the overtones and qualifiers that my experience brings to it.
quote:How can Christ speak positively to the fact that this man she is currently living with is not her husband? The same way He knows she's had five husbands before him (and possibly other co-habitations; we don't know) - He is God incarnate and, even having set aside His blazing glory in order to walk among us, He is informed by the Holy Spirit, the ideal of how we as His followers should be inhabited and informed by the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Harking back, then--I wonder a bit about the "You have no husband... the man you now have is not your husband" thing. I've not studied up on Samaritan culture, but I imagine it was much like that of the Jews, where an otherwise unmarried couple living together as man and wife would probably constitute a marriage (albeit an irregular one). There certainly was no central legal registry, licenses, etc. though there might have been a marriage contract (ketubah). So how can Christ speak so positively about "this man is not your husband"? The only answer that occurs to me is (sadly) that the man she "had" was in fact legally another woman's husband, and had deserted her without benefit of divorce. In which case it would be easy to see why she would be shunned.
quote:But whatever verse you're referencing, the observation of our nature is true; it's like the old phrase about the preacher who hits too close to home, "he stopped preaching and started meddling!"
"...for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."
) but I know a couple of cases where it appears to have happened, where God limited further damage/injury by taking someone out.quote:Lewis allowed himself to be drawn ever closer, ever deeper (higher up and farther in, as he puts it in Narnian terms). It's not how we start; it's how we finish.
C.S. Lewis said:
In Trinity term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England
quote:The prostitution/fornication or divorce thing is not too hard to understand, once we grant the idea that marriageable women had to be free of previous relationships (and alas, divorce is never really over, is it?
21 No priest is to drink wine when he enters the inner court. 22 They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests.
). As I know from bitter family experience.quote:And somewhat interesting that John did not replace Zion or Gerizim with 'church', or even some form of 'Johannine Community', when the opportunity presented itself here.
Originally posted by Jamat:
To both Jews and samaritans, where one worshiped, was the issue.
To Jesus the issue was who worshipped. They had to be true worshipers. In other words ones who acknowledged his mission in the wider context of the revelation he was bringing in that time. ...
For sure though, he was directing worship away from the temple system of sacrificing animals and making it into a more individual and internal concept.
quote:I have always understood a practical rather than an expositional understanding of these words.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:And somewhat interesting that John did not replace Zion or Gerizim with 'church', or even some form of 'Johannine Community', when the opportunity presented itself here.
Originally posted by Jamat:
To both Jews and samaritans, where one worshiped, was the issue.
To Jesus the issue was who worshipped. They had to be true worshipers. In other words ones who acknowledged his mission in the wider context of the revelation he was bringing in that time. ...
For sure though, he was directing worship away from the temple system of sacrificing animals and making it into a more individual and internal concept.
I've often wondered what John actually meant by the phrase 'Spirit and truth' here. Is he equating spirit with God or referring to a human spirit? Is truth the same here as in the "way, truth and life" phrase? Is John linking forward to the Spirit passages in chapters 14-16 and the truth exchange between Jesus and Pilate in 18:36-38?
quote:Absolutely!
Originally posted by fusilli:
Remeber too that 'spirit' is the same word as 'breath'. It is easy to 'worship' God in truth only - it is a dead, cerebral sort of worship. God can breathe life into such worship.
The breath of God puts God's life in us - God in us = enthusiasm (well that's what the root word means). I come from a pentecostal background where it is plainly also possibel to worship with enthusiasm and little regard for truth. Perhaps that is worship in 'spirit' but not in truth. Jesus brings truth to such worship.
I think Jesus is saying that true worship must be both - based on truth, inspired (breathed into) by the Spirit.
quote:I've wondered about that from time to time, too. fc. The question I had was: "What happened to the land?" If 'Israel' flowed into 'church' (somehow) and God remained God, where did the land flow? Is there a geographical space as gift for the people of God now? Some options:-
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But surely sacred space is necessary at times? ... Is it possible to say that sacred space is a necessary evil?
quote:To what, or to whom, is Jesus referring here? An insight into adultery, divorce, or widowhood? Or does it not really matter in this context?
John 4:16-18 [NETS]
Jesus said to her, “Go call your husband and come back here.” The woman replied, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “Right you are when you said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the man you are living with now is not your husband. This you said truthfully!”
quote:
Gen. 24:10-14 (NIV)
Then the servant took ten of his master's camels and left, taking with him all kinds of good things from his master. He set out for Aram Naharaim and made his way to the town of Nahor. He had the camels kneel down near the well outside the town; it was toward evening, the time the women go out to draw water. Then he prayed, "O LORD, God of my master Abraham, give me success today, and show kindness to my master Abraham. See, I am standing beside this spring, and the daughters of the townspeople are coming out to draw water. May it be that when I say to a girl, 'Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,' and she says, 'Drink, and I'll water your camels too' - let her be the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac. By this I will know that you have shown kindness to my master."
quote:
Gen. 29:1-12
Then Jacob continued on his journey and came to the land of the eastern peoples. There he saw a well in the field, with three flocks of sheep lying near it because the flocks were watered from that well. The stone over the mouth of the well was large. When all the flocks were gathered there, the shepherds would roll the stone away from the well's mouth and water the sheep. Then they would return the stone to its place over the mouth of the well. … While he was still talking with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep, for she was a shepherdess. When Jacob saw Rachel daughter of Laban, his mother's brother, and Laban's sheep, he went over and rolled the stone away from the mouth of the well and watered his uncle's sheep. Then Jacob kissed Rachel and began to weep aloud. He had told Rachel that he was a relative of her father and a son of Rebekah. So she ran and told her father.
quote:I wonder if John was harking back to these when he included this story in his Gospel? It's a device used to introduce a male to a female, leading to a betrothal. For one of John's first readers, reading this for the first time, would s/he have wondered about that?
Ex. 2:15-21
When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well. Now a priest of Midian had seven daughters, and they came to draw water and fill the troughs to water their father's flock. Some shepherds came along and drove them away, but Moses got up and came to their rescue and watered their flock. When the girls returned to Reuel their father, he asked them, "Why have you returned so early today?" They answered, "An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock." "And where is he?" he asked his daughters. "Why did you leave him? Invite him to have something to eat." Moses agreed to stay with the man, who gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage.
quote:
Jer. 2
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem:
" 'I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me
and followed me through the desert, through a land not sown. ...
13 "My people have committed two sins:
They have forsaken me, the spring of living water,
and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.”
quote:It might be that this is another example of John's use of double meanings, but another interpretation would be to draw the comparison with the earlier episode with Nicodemus: a religious person in conversation with Jesus about getting into God's Kingdom. Jesus picks up on a pertinent fact – Nicodemus is old and the Samaritan women is at a well – and uses that as a springboard for making an apparently absurd claim.
Proverbs 5
3 For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil;
4 but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. ...
8 Keep to a path far from her, do not go near the door of her house,
9 lest you give your best strength to others and your years to one who is cruel, ...
15 Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
quote:I don't know whether you are already familiar with it, but if not pick up a copy of Jack Miles' Christ: A Crisis In the Life of God. Among many other things, Miles discusses the episode of the woman at the well in a way that develops these themes elegantly. I don't know whether I buy his interpretation, but I know that I find it delightful. FWIW
Originally posted by pimple:
That's a meal and a half to chew over! Thanks.
quote:This doesn't seem to follow. It would make perfect sense to say these things if we assume that John was writing at any time. The knowledge that John assumes is that the Temple was not yet destroyed when Jesus spoke. The real point that Jesus makes in this speech is that of 4:23-24. The fact that John gives the speech a prophetic motif is a pretty suspect basis for claiming a date that is widely seen as decades too soon. It is perfectly reasonable for John to adopt this tone on literary grounds alone.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
One thing that occurs to me on the dating of John: as far as I know, the Samaritan practice of worshipping at Mount Gerizim continued unabated when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed. Would this not point to John having written this passage before AD 66-70? Otherwise, the point of comparing one centre of worship with the other in favour of a third option (spirit and truth) rather falls flat, I would have thought. If the temple was no more, would there have been any point in wasting ink in making the comparison?
quote:I pretty sure the subject of what "spirit and truth" means here has been discussed before in Kerygmania, but I can't remember where. There are some passages in the Jewish Scriptures that link to this saying and may be focus of Jesus' (or John's!) statement.
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.
quote:It's not brought out in the English translations too well - and that may be because it isn't relevant) - but I adapted it in the above quote: Jesus' reply uses the “I am” phrase (ego eimi = εγο ειμι). It's an emphatic of saying “That's me” - and that may be all that's intended here - but John does record this phrase on Jesus' lips in other places. most notably in John 8:58, where it really does seem to be a link to God's personal name (Yahweh). Could be John is making a 'Messiah = Lord' thing here in chapter 4.
The woman said, “I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
Jesus replied, “I Am – the one speaking to you”.
quote:My mother used to warn me about speaking to strange women, too.
At this point the disciples came back. They were shocked because Jesus was speaking with a woman. However, none of them asked what he wanted or why he was speaking with her.
quote:She left the water jar there by the well! She was in a great hurry to share her discovery.
Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, "Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?" They left the city and were on their way to him.
but there's a very powerful message coming across here, which I think John has probably captured in spite of himself!
)quote:Focus, Nigel, focus. The old proverb quoted in v.37 (“One sows and another reaps”) doesn't occur in this form in the Jewish Writings. It could be that Jesus is telling his followers that whatever they think has been taught (sown) in the minds of people outside of Israel, those people don't need to be initiated into a Judaic catechism before they can properly be 'saved.' They are ready for the Kingdom right where they are, if only the Kingdom apostle knows how to address them.
A guy walks into a pub and sees Jesus at the bar. “Hi there, J; how's it hanging?”
“I will hang for three days and will then draw the world to me.”
Pause while brain ticks over – and back again. “I'll have what he's having” (addressed to bartender). Turns back to Jesus: “So... nice day out, then?”
“My Father has days of eternal bliss.”
“Don't we all” said with a chuckle, broken abruptly while brain wonders at the appropriateness of that response, but unable to figure out just what would have been an appropriate response. “Nuts, perhaps?” Passing the tray along the bar.
“The time is coming when nuts will be ground down to dust and will be blown away by the wind.”
“Yeah, I'm allergic, too.” Sips thoughtfully at drink. Realises that this approach is unlikely to achieve philosophical nirvana, so adopts gulping at drink approach. “How's the old woman, then?”
“You have had seven women and the woman you have now is not a woman.”
A guy totters out of a pub...
quote:My take on John's account is that he is portraying Christ as the new Moses. Clearer later in the loaves miracle but Jesus' metaphor of spiritual food and him as source of same harks back to the manna event in exodus.
John 4:31-38
Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, "Rabbi, eat something". 32 But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about." 33 So the disciples said to one another,"Surely no-one has brought him something to eat?" 34 Jesus said to them, my food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work
quote:What did that mean? Jesus was to finish off God's work? Did he? Which work was finished? Or does it refer to something ongoing?
My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish/accomplish/bring to a conclusion his work
quote:Speculating here but since it was A Samaritan woman who is the relevant person here, he could be making a point that his calling was also ultimately to the gentile world. His work was 'complete' when his message, reached the wider world not just jews. This statement pre empted later events in other words.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
An intriguing phrase on Jesus' lips in verse 34:-
quote:What did that mean? Jesus was to finish off God's work? Did he? Which work was finished? Or does it refer to something ongoing?
My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish/accomplish/bring to a conclusion his work
quote:Agree, as if prefiguring Paul in Romans 8-10, the jews rejection is the Gentiles opportunity.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Yes, that's a possibility - Jesus as a model of the Jewish responsibility to be a light to the gentiles. He represents Israel as it was meant to be and goes into Samaria to 'gospel' a representative of the Samaritans.
I just wonder if that would really constitute bringing God's plan to a conclusion? I suppose reconciling the world to God could be the ultimate conclusion and Jesus sets the pace for his followers.
quote:If John is deliberate in his plot thus far, he has recorded Jesus engaging with a religious Jewish teacher (Nicodemus), a religious Samaritan woman, and now he brings on a senior civil servant. Is this administrative officer a Gentile? It would be neat move it he was – given that we would then be moving outwards from Jerusalem and the Jewish religious establishment, through Samaria and now on to the world (First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin!), in a script reminiscent of the post-resurrection call to be witnesses to the good news “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts1:8, see also Luke 24:47). An echo of this here in John, perhaps?
In Capernaum there was a royal official whose son was sick. When he heard that Jesus had come back from Judea to Galilee, he went to him and begged him to come down and heal his son, who was close to death.
quote:Often wondered about this. Were the Jews wrong to insist on some validation of the claims by assorted leaders and Messiahs that kept popping out of the woodwork? How else to test the claims? Without a sign that the claimant was supported by God, wouldn't any old charlatan lead the people astray? From the religious leaders' point of view, they seem to be between a rock and a hard place. Unless John is on about something else...
So Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe."
quote:I always understood - or rather, was told - that this was indeed John's intent. And that's why it makes such good drama. There's a unity of time, place and action. Time: the week before the Passover. Place: Jerusalem ( or the journey to it) Action: Crucifixion and resurrection.
There seems to be a deliberate time-stamp to the narrative
quote:
The royal official said [to Jesus], "Sir, Come down before my son dies." Jesus replied to him, "Off you go; your son will live." The man believed the word spoken to him and departed.
quote:[John4:51-54]
As he was going down, his slaves met him and told him that his child was alive.52 So he asked them the hour when he began to recover, and they said to him, "Yesterday at one in the afternoon the fever left him."53 The father realised that this was the hour when Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he himself believed.54 Now this was the second sign that Jesus did after coming from Judea to Galilee.
quote:A fair whack of discussion has arisen out of these few verses. Which Jewish feast and does it matter? Is it really 'Sheep Gate' that is being referred to, or another – and where is it anyway? Does it matter? Is it Bethzatha, or Bethesda, or something else? Does it matter? Should it really be 'Aramaic' when the Greek says 'Hebrew'? Does it matter? Does the use of the present tense (“Now there is in Jerusalem...”) argue for a pre-AD 70 date for John's Gospel? Some later manuscripts add “waiting for the moving of the water” at the end of this passage and a few begin the following verse with a note that an angel of the Lord would pop down from time to time to stir things up, giving the opportunity for the first disabled person to get into the water and be healed. Does it matter that this was probably a later addition and therefore not part of what John had to say?
After this there was a Jewish feast, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool called Bethzatha in Aramaic, which has five covered walkways. A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying in these walkways.
quote:It does sound rather dismissive in the cold light of day! It was more a thinking out aloud as I read those few verses again - Thought: John packs a fair amount of geography into this section; presumably he meant to do so (i.e. he wouldn't waste valuable parchment space on boring his readers with a "And here's one of me with Granny at the seaside - and another one - and another one..."). So, why is it there? That's the question for me. Why did John think it worthwhile to keep his readers up to speed on location, location, location?
Originally posted by pimple:
To whom? Do you mean should it matter?
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
...the TROOF should shine through.
quote:The idea that John was following a model established by Jesus – that of provoking a response – is a neat one. I'm sure the same could be said of all the biblical writers, but John seems to be capable of knitting together a variety of styles to do this. He sets up a historical framework ('at a certain place in a certain time'), spins a good yarn (story-telling as narrative), weaves in tension (confrontation of Jesus with religious teachers), knits it together with theology (seamless cohesion between the plot and the bits where John makes a point about God and his ways of working), ties it off with some tidy metaphors (light v. darkness, receive v. not-receive, life v. condemnation...), and then to exhaust my knitting metaphor, he 'pulls the wool over our eyes' in a nice sense, of course, by having us think we were just reading a book only to stop us dead in our tracks afterwards when it dawns on us that he had successfully drawn us into another world and forced us (even if we were unaware of it) to decide for or against the message. Clever John, eh?
Originally posted by Jamat:
...provoking a response...
quote:
John(?) 5:3b-4
...waiting for the water to move. For an angel of the Lord went down from time to time into the pool and stirred up the water. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.
quote:“It's just round the next corner.”
Originally posted by pimple:
...are we there yet?
quote:Rather close to some healing events where you have to be well enough to get there...
John 5:5-7
Now a man was there who had been disabled for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and when he realised that the man had been disabled a long time already, he said to him, “Do you want to become well?” The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up. While I am trying to get into the water, someone else goes down there before me.”
quote:Is it me or is there an emphasis on picking up a mat and walking?
John 5:8-13
Jesus said to him, “Stand up! Pick up your mat and walk.” Immediately the man was healed, and he picked up his mat and started walking. (Now that day was a Sabbath.) So the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and you are not permitted to carry your mat.” But he answered them, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’” They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up your mat and walk’?” But the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped out, since there was a crowd in that place.
How well you know me. quote:There is a sense here, isn't there, that Jesus picked the moment deliberately? It's a Sabbath and then Jesus - instead of just healing the man and moving on - specifically tells him to do something naughty on a Sabbath (walk around with his mat).
Originally posted by Jamat:
Such a great story! It isn't so random when you see how Jesus seems to use it to confront the leaders over the sabbath.
But I love the way Jesus just picks the man and the moment no one would expect too!
quote:This verse implies that Jesus was actively looking for the healed man. A rather – on the face of it – anomaly; the man is at the Temple, good little righteous man that he is apparently, yet Jesus strongly advises him on the subject of sinning. What is meant by this? Did Jesus refer to the man's paralysis as being a result of sin? There is little else in the narrative to give any clue, is there?
John 5:14 (NET version)
After this Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “Look, you have become well. Don’t sin any more, lest anything worse happen to you.”
quote:I am not sure what you are saying Lamb Chopped. Are you saying that because he was told "Don't sin anymore" that John is saying his sickness had been the result of sin, but that message contrasts with John 9:3 where John relates that sickness is an occasion to demonstrate God's action than be fault finding (my understanding)?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No, not much clue what was going on there. And I agree, Jesus was looking for him.
I suppose his paralysis MIGHT have been the obvious result of some sin (obvious to Jesus, that is). I mean, supposing he managed to drop through a weak spot in somebody's roof while trying to burgle the house. Or the paralysis was the result of an unlucky blow his paramour's husband got in after catching them in bed. Or something. . .
If it isn't something like that, it doesn't fit well with the other occasions where Jesus got very sharp with people who thought sickness was a result of personal sin.
quote:We've reached chapter 5:4, Latchkey Kid, – the last verse to be posted about 5 posts ago. The idea is that we move on about one verse at a time, which was the OP stipulation, although a later post conceded that there might be times when a bit more would assist with the context. The first person to make a comment on the verse then becomes responsible for moving it on again after a suitable pause to permit comments / discussions. And because I can't keep my fingers closed it will fall to me to move it on again in due course!
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
...I am not clear which verse(s) we are up to.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
) slinks away in shame. And that's when Jesus tells her to sin no more. It's for her ears only.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
My work here is almost done.
quote:I've heard this explanation before, and it kind of makes sense...that he had given up asking for help, and Jesus was pointing this out.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Yes, it certainly feels as though we are missing some important piece of information here somewhere!
One thought - suppose the man, crippled for 38 years, had become accustomed to his condition and was not really wanting to be healed any more? Jesus' question to him - "Do you wish to get well?" (v.6) might have been a veiled criticism: "What? Don't you want to be healed?"
The man's answer is evasive, not a Yes or a No, but an excuse: "No point, mate; I'm always at the back of the queue." To which Jesus simply cuts to the quick with a metaphorical kick up the nether. Perhaps the sin was in not being prepared to seek or accept the chance of healing for such a long time, assuming that God wasn't in that business and that chance was all he had to go on.
Possibly.
quote:and ask the obvious question [touched on above] - who is the audience (or who is the writer) that 'the Jews' are referred to in such an alienating way?
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him.
) ) We have not disavowed them, but they have disavowed us. And that creates terminology problems.
quote:But these were floating in and out of Jerusalem, right, like the Ethiopian eunuch? But I think you're right, ALL the Jews would have objected to Sabbath breaking.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Not sure that'll work too well when the book of Acts is filled with references to expatriate iudaioi, most of whom doubtless went expat long before the divvying up of the province...
quote:Thank you, that makes more sense.
... We refer to them as St. X's, the name that used to belong to all of us in common, and we ourselves have not relinquished; but to hear us talk, you'd think there was a clear division between us. (God knows what they call us; probably unprintable. ) We have not disavowed them, but they have disavowed us. And that creates terminology problems.
) is that pure poetic license to translate thus?![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
quote:[John 5:17]
But Jesus answered them, "My Father is still working, and I also am working."
quote:If you are interested in a more detailed study, then you might enjoy Martin Hengel's The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ
Originally posted by NJA:
(Slightly off topic but why is it called the gospel of John?
It never says he wrote it, unlike Revelation.)
quote:and even stronger,
when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:7
quote:to Jesus' much more straightforward (and clever! argument:
I said, "You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince." Psalm 82:6-7
quote:And for outright declaration,
The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—-do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." John 10:33-38
quote:Again, there was nothing wrong with their intelligence, they saw what he was driving at perfectly clearly. It's what got him crucified.
Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.' John 8:54
quote:Jesus was pointing out to them that they were being inconsistent. "Is it not written in the law that you profess to uphold?" He was hoisting them with their own petard.
Originally posted by pimple:
But why did Jesus say "Is it not written in YOUR law....." (I can't do italics at the moment). I'm sure there's a satisfactory explanation but I don't know what it is.
quote:Because by the time the Gospel of John was written, Christianity had become a separate entity from Judaism.
Originally posted by pimple:
This is not, I hope, a quibble. I found your post very interesting. But why did Jesus say "Is it not written in YOUR law....."
) who manage to coordinate their moves in a totally awe-inspiring way.quote:John 5:21
Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes
still recognize the outlines of the story of Adam and Eve ("Hey Mom, wasn't he that guy that got nekkid? And something about a snake and an apple?") quote:{John 5:22-23)
The father judges no-one but has given all judgment to the Son,(23) so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
quote:Because of my own beliefs, I take that as Christ carefully choosing words so as not to deny that he is God, or good, but rather to challenge his questioner to consider that very possibility. I base this on the belief that he was and is God and therefore would not deny being God, but also that he knew that his message would be rejected by virtually everyone if he openly declared himself to be God at that point in his ministry. So to me, the two passages seem to be very similar.
Originally posted by pimple:
... sounds odd. Compared with other comments like "why do you call me good? Only God is good."
quote:Sorry to be unclear. I was harking back to Jesus' comment that he could only do what he sees the Father do. The emphasis seems to shift in the verse where he says God doesn't judge but has given the Son the power to do so. But I don't think this is meant to be some sort of partial abdication, is it?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um, now I'm confused. What miracles are you referring to in Jesus' time that the Father was involved in, but not Jesus, and the disciples knew about them?
I thought "age of miracles" referred to Jesus' work in his own right and through the early church?
Have mercy on the clueless.
It's exactly what he does when he's doing Biblical exegesis.quote:[John 5:24]
Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life...
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Pimple, you'll have to set me straight if I don't understand what you're getting at, I'll answer from where I stand. John is near and dear to the Lutherans (duh) for this very emphasis on faith/belief over and against works/actions done to merit God's favor. And for those of us who are temperamentally inclined to the terminal guilties over every breath we take, John is a lifesaving corrective. I just love that bit, "what must we do to be doing the works of God?" and they get the answer "believe on the one God has sent!" Slightly unexpected. And a great comfort to us who have failed yet again!
Having stated the obvious, two questions. Do these words have a particular significance for particular christians, with regard to age, churchmanship, or any other factor?
And who was John himself particularly concerned about?
quote:[tangent]
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yo Pimple, "impatient" is the right answer. I dislocated a shoulder bellydancing and am in a sling. Be nice to me.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Or maybe it's just the image of me bellydancing at all! quote:In context it must mean the Father but it's an odd thing to say. ould be that John, imagining Jesus speaking, makes something like a Freudian slip, but there's really no way of telling. All the way through this passage he is saying that he and the Father are effectively one, and the repeats and the switches are meant to reinforce that. I think.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I assume "him who sent me" is the Father, but I have to wonder what it means to believe the Father. Is there anything in the Greek to shed light on that?
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:In context it must mean the Father but it's an odd thing to say. Could be that John, imagining Jesus speaking, makes something like a Freudian slip, but there's really no way of telling. All the way through this passage he is saying that he and the Father are effectively one, and the repeats and the switches are meant to reinforce that. I think.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I assume "him who sent me" is the Father, but I have to wonder what it means to believe the Father. Is there anything in the Greek to shed light on that?
quote:I think you're right. And I'm not sure John was tying himself in knots, I think Jesus was very carefully crocheting himself into knots on purpose. Himself. Themselves. Themself. Whatever.
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:In context it must mean the Father but it's an odd thing to say. ould be that John, imagining Jesus speaking, makes something like a Freudian slip, but there's really no way of telling. All the way through this passage he is saying that he and the Father are effectively one, and the repeats and the switches are meant to reinforce that. I think.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I assume "him who sent me" is the Father, but I have to wonder what it means to believe the Father. Is there anything in the Greek to shed light on that?
quote:The obvious question here is how the dead hear -is John talking about their (disembodied?) souls? That verse has already been quoted in the "Those who have no hope" thread. But the next one, not:
v25. Very truly I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
quote:Because he is the Son of Man - not because he is the Son of God. Don't geddit. The rest is in the other thread but I'll repeat it here for convenience:
v26. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself; 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment, becaause he is the Son of Man.
quote:I have purposely not looked any further than this yet. All may become perfectly clear. But what is not clear at the miment is whether believers are happy with the idea that those who believe now have eternal life, but those who are already dead will have to have worked for it!
v.28 Do not be astonished at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice. 29 and will come out - those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
quote:It's worth remembering that just as he created everything through the power of his word ("Let there be...") so we are getting the same thing in this new re-creation. "Hearing the voice of the Son of God" through whom all things were made is sufficient to reconstitute creation as it should be. Even inanimate matter runs to obey him!
At the round earth's imagined corners blow
Your trumpets, angels, and arise, arise
From death, you numberless infinities
Of souls, and to your scattered bodies go ...
quote:I think this is a reference to the fact that, as the Son of Man, he is therefore the head of the whole human race by right of kinship and not simply by right of creation. Therefore he has authority to deal with matters among his own family. A very delicate and courteous handling of our situation on the part of God the Father! (wouldn't you rather be dealt with by a fellow human being, even though the omni- stuff means that the judgment would be the same anyway? It's irrational, I know, but to me it just feels better)
Originally posted by pimple:
But the next one, not:quote:Because he is the Son of Man - not because he is the Son of God. Don't geddit.
v26. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself; 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment, becaause he is the Son of Man.
quote:AND a triple post, forgive me for being greedy.
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:I have purposely not looked any further than this yet. All may become perfectly clear. But what is not clear at the moment is whether believers are happy with the idea that those who believe now have eternal life, but those who are already dead will have to have worked for it!
v.28 Do not be astonished at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice. 29 and will come out - those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Boy am I looking forward to this holiday. Have fun!
I am avoiding housework. But the way we resolve this as Lutherans is by pointing to that verse "without faith it is impossible to please Him," meaning that somebody's works can be good, wonderful, awesome in human eyes (including mine) but from a divine perspective nothing's going to make the grade if that pinch of faith has been left out of it.
quote:Indeed and perhaps my favourite poem. The explosion of energy, reciting the newly discovered sperical Earth, the tautology of "numberles infinities".... I could go on for several hours.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for how the dead hear--in this particular verse I think we've got a reference to the same kind of set up that Lazarus had, namely, that the living voice of Christ called him/his dead body out of the grave, and the whole Lazarus, body and soul united, responded. (Heard a great joke about this once, suggesting that Jesus had to say "Lazarus, come out"--because if he hadn't used the guy's name, everybody in that graveyard would have responded!)
Anyway, this scenario was repeated several times in Jesus' earthly ministry that we know of (Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, the young man of Nain) and doubtless many times we don't know of. It is a kind of foretaste of the Last Day when the Lord returns "with all his holy ones" and everyone has body and soul reunited, this time forever. I love Donne's description:
quote:It's worth remembering that just as he created everything through the power of his word ("Let there be...") so we are getting the same thing in this new re-creation. "Hearing the voice of the Son of God" through whom all things were made is sufficient to reconstitute creation as it should be. Even inanimate matter runs to obey him!
At the round earth's imagined corners blow
Your trumpets, angels, and arise, arise
From death, you numberless infinities
Of souls, and to your scattered bodies go ...
quote:I agree with Gee D - I don't see these verses as necessarily having anything to do with physical life and death, or with whether or not our physical ears are still working. If verse 24 has established that those who have passed from death to life are those who hear his word and believe "him who sent me," then it makes sense to me to take "the dead" in verse 25 as referring to those who have not yet passed from death to life, that is, who have not yet heard his word and believed. Furthermore, verse 25 seems to equate that with hearing the voice of the Son of God. Verses 28 and 29, though, seem to equate hearing the voice of the Son of Man with judgment, which determines between the resurrection of life and the resurrection of condemnation.
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:The obvious question here is how the dead hear -is John talking about their (disembodied?) souls?
v25. Very truly I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
OK fellas. you're safe now...
quote:The shift between sons is interesting: why associate the act of judging with a son of man, but link other Godly functions with the Son of God (assuming all the references to 'Son' in vv.19-24 are to Son of God, on the basis of v 18 = “...not only was Jesus working on his day off, but he was calling God his 'father,' which put him on a par with him.”)
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:Because he is the Son of Man - not because he is the Son of God. Don't geddit.
v26. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself; 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment, becaause he is the Son of Man.
quote:In both books this son of man accesses God, and in both the context is of a courtroom at judgment time.
Dan.7:13-14
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
quote:I've got a little hypothesis about the soul! It doesn't exist.
Originally posted by pimple:
I have tried to follow up the interesting replies to my query on the body/soul duality issue by referring to other threads. IngoB was useful up to a point, but not having the brain of a neuro scientist I think I must be content with the fact that a some form of duality, though understanding of it has changed through the centuries, is still a christian "given".
It's hard to square any idea of personal resurrection without it.
quote:John, of course, is the author who uses the most Greek of Greek terms in the Gospel, yet when he uses the word traditionally translated by 'soul' (psyche), it is predominately used to refer to sacrificing one's life to save another. Soul for John is the entire life - bar nothing - rather than a segmented eternal spark.
quote:The obvious question here is how the dead hear -is John talking about their (disembodied?) souls?
v25. Very truly I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by pimple:
Thanks, Nigel. Would the ordinary man in the street in John's day have picked up the Daniel reference, I wonder.
quote:[John5:31-33]
"If I testify to myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that his testimony to me is true. You sent messengers to John, and he testified to the truth..."
quote:I'm not too fussed about whatever heading the ordinary human editors of a Bible translation chose to stick over the section, honestly. I've been involved in a Bible editing project myself, take that stuff with a truckful of salt.
Originally posted by pimple:
That sounds like the pitch for today's christians - and perhaps also for the readers of John. But Jesus doesn't sound like he's looking for converts here. He's beginning a finely tuned rant against those (Jews) who have accused him of blasphemy and are conspiring to kill him.
Hmm, looking ahead, Jesus does want his hearer's to be saved. But there's more stick than carrot. A bit at a time though. The passage was marked "witnesses to Jesus". These are not just human witnesses. But the big human one comes first:
quote:[John5:31-33]
"If I testify to myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that his testimony to me is true. You sent messengers to John, and he testified to the truth..."
I found the first sentence wierd but I'm sure it's an idea lost in translation. "If I blow my own trumpet, I must be lying" is not, I think, what he is saying, but something rather more like "If I write my own glove-puppet testimonial, it's worthless." Assuming that he knew the language we'd be using a millenium later...
I had always assumed that the people who quizzed John the Baptist must have been the latter's followers. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps a particular clique among John's gang - we'll see.
quote:The Greek translations use the noun ergon for 'work' and John's Gospel uses the verbal form ergazomai. On the face of it this is in direct conflict with the Sinai Law and the Jews in John 5 certainly took it this way.
NET Bible
Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there must be a Sabbath of complete rest, a holy assembly. You must not do any work; it is a Sabbath to the Lord in all the places where you live.
quote:Against this Jesus argues “My Father has been working right up to now...”
Gen. 2:2-3 NET Bible
By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased [Heb = shabbat] on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.
quote:[John 5:33-34]
...You sent messengers to John, and he testified to the truth. Not that I accept such human testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved...
quote:[John5:35-38]
He [John the Baptist] was a burning and shining lamp, and you [A] were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36But I have a testimony greater than John's. The works that the Father has given me to complete, the very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf.[B] You [C] have never heard his voice or seen his form, 38and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent.
quote:Wouldn't we all.
Originally posted by pimple:
I'd really appreciate some help with this one!
quote:All that talk of John, testimony, light, representing God...
A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. ...
We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’” ...
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
quote:John doesn't make many direct references to OT passages compared to his Gospel colleagues, but he does pull together quotes and allusions from across the three main divisions of Scripture (Law, Prophets, and Writings). The only reference John uses (thus far) in the Jewish Scriptures to eternal life is in 3:14, a reference to Numbers 21:9, where Moses made a serpent of bronze and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live. John uses this to support the idea of Jesus being lifted up so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. Not sure that this is the same reference here in 5:39f. Perhaps John is sweeping up a wider thrust of Scripture here, though it would be interesting to know what Jesus was referring to as support for the 'Son' providing eternal life.
John 5:39-40
You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, but it is these same scriptures that testify about me, yet you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.
quote:[John 5:41-43]
"....I do not accept glory from human beings. But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him."
quote:Hypocrites, eh? He's such a josher!
Mark 5:5-7 (NET Bible)
The Pharisees and the experts in the law asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with unwashed hands?” He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.
They worship me in vain,
teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.”
quote:Thanks for that thought; I've often wondered why John would bother to focus so much on Temple and ritual if his work had been distributed post-AD70. I know he doesn't bother mentioning the Sadducees as a grouping and they (if Josephus is correct) drop out of view with the destruction of the temple, yet temple as a theme is still up there quite prominently in John.
Originally posted by pimple:
The quasi-political leaders Jesus had to contend with would have had no temple to operate from when the last gospel was finally written, so I suspect that John is also concerned about those who want to have their cake and eat it, the new gospel and the old traditions, even more precious when so much that was familiar to them must have been either destroyed or under threat.
quote:[John5:44-47]
How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you set your hopes. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote how will you believe what I say?"
quote:[Luke:19 29-31]
Abraham replied "They have Moses and the prophets. They should listen to them." He said, "No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent". He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rise from the dead'.
quote:[John6;1-2]
After this, Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias. A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick.
quote:The snake thingy has to do with "God made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21)
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Why a snake, for instance?! This would be so much more simpler if Moses had been told to lift up a statue of a lamb!
quote:Teach me to read the NT without having the NT in mind, eh?!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sorry to tangent, but you did ask!
quote:Someone hostly is probably going to come along and rap me on the nose, but I'll tangent a little further with thee, my dear...
Originally posted by pimple:
Another tangent, I'm afraid. As well as the serpent who is going to bruise our heels ever since the Fall, snakes also have a long history as symbols of wisdom and healing. Is there no likelihood at all that this would have meant anything to the early church?
quote:The harping on wisdom, Christ crucified, and the Greeks, all in this one chapter, irresistably brings to mind the snake on a pole/Christ on the cross thingy for me. After all, nobody has ever considered the devil stupid, except in the eternal sense. But that's the most important sense. And because he's lacking it, the "real" snake has now been replaced by the healing Snake, our Lord Jesus himself. He is the true wisdom and true healing from God.
1 Corinthians 1:22-25: For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
quote:A gap of time, it seems, after chapter 5. It will be interesting to see if the deliberate mention of the next Passover has any bearing on the understanding of what follows.
John 6:3-4
So Jesus went on up the mountainside and sat down there with his disciples. Now the Jewish feast of the Passover was near.
quote:This is a pretty astonishing response to the crowd's approach. Clearly it would not be incumbent on Jesus and his followers to feed the multitude, however long you stretch the laws on hospitality! Yet their very basic needs seem to be his first concern.
when he looked up and saw a large crowd coming towards him, Jesus said to Philip, 'Where are we to buy bread for the people to eat?
quote:I'm not sure why, really. Jesus is a teacher, and the text says explicitly that he was asking this to "test" Philip--so it's artificial in the same sense in which I say to my son, "Now what is zero minus three?" The question is designed to provoke thought, not to elicit an answer that will help the questioner. He knows what he's going to do already.
What troubles me here is that, in a sense, that is the opposite of, or a distortion of, the truth.
quote:[John 6:6]
He said this to test him, because he knew, himself, what he was about to do
he declines to simply create bread out of nothing, and gives a little boy and his lunch a starring role instead; then he gets the disciples to hand it out [see parallel passages; in this one John glosses over the actual instrumentation, though a moment's thought is enough to show anybody that Jesus couldn't have done the distribution singlehandedly, though he was behind it all*]. As the miraculous bit seems to have been taking place literally within the disciples' own hands, every time they broke off a piece and still had plenty left, well... perhaps we can acquit Jesus of grandstanding. quote:[John 6:5-7]
When he looked up and saw a large crowd coming towards him, Jesus said to Philip, "Where are we to buy bread for these people to eat?" He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do. Philip answered him, "Six months' wages [Gk. 200 denarii] would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little."
quote:[John6:8-10] Some commentaries point out that the five thousand was just the men!
One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish. But what are they among so many people?" Jesus said, "Make the people sit down....[and although we know the story very well, we hold our breath. while John, the consummate dramatist, delays the action with a quite unnecesary comment about bloody grass!]
Now there was a great deal of grass in the place, so they sat down, about five thousand in all
quote:{tangent alert}
Originally posted by pimple:
and although we know the story very well, we hold our breath. while John, the consummate dramatist, delays the action with a quite unnecessary comment about bloody grass!
quote:It's not essential to the narrative. In fact it slows the narrative down.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What on earth is so out of line about someone saying that people sat on the grass?
quote:My point exactly. Who said anything was out of line? Jeepers! Don't any of you read decent thrillers?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:It's not essential to the narrative. In fact it slows the narrative down.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What on earth is so out of line about someone saying that people sat on the grass?
Moo
quote:[John 6:11] Did anybody else feel a slight shiver at that verse? Perhaps it depends on your churchmanship. Now I haven't been to communion for years (not a boast, that) but there are bits of the Anglican ASB rite that was which will remain with me forever.
Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted
quote:It occurred to me that this might have a biblical origin and was surprised, on checking to find that it's at Mark 14:23 - the institution of the Lord's Supper. Sometimes the similarities between John and the synoptics are as interesting as the differences.
...who in the same night that he was betrayed, took bread, and blessed it...and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying 'Take, eat; this is my body...
quote:[John 6:12
When they were satisfied, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments, so that nothing may be lost."
quote:[John 6:13]
So they gathered them up, and from the fragments of the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten, they filled twelve baskets.
quote:[John 6:14]
When the people saw the signs that he had done, they began to say, 'This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.'
quote:[John 6:15]
When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
quote:This is traditionally taken as a prophecy of the Messiah, who is the prophet par excellence--which is also why the leaders ask John "Are you the Prophet?" as if they had a specific one in mind. This is the one.
15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— 16 just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.' 17 And the LORD said to me, 'They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.
quote:For the above to be true, we have to believe that John knew both the corporarte mind of the people and the mind of God. For many christians this is no problem whatsoever. But even they should be honest to recognise that this is a different sort of witness - the religious sort, that has its own unchallengeable rules. He is not witnessing here to what anybody said or (until Jesus goes to the mountain) did, but what they thought.
When Jesus realised that they were about to take him by force [were they?]and make him king [again, were they, necessarily?], he withdrew agai n to the mountain by himself.
quote:We don't necessarily have the whole story. I don't think John included every detail. He must have told the disciples that he was not going with them, and they should go to the boat and cross the lake by themselves; otherwise they wouldn't have left.
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:For the above to be true, we have to believe that John knew both the corporarte mind of the people and the mind of God. For many christians this is no problem whatsoever. But even they should be honest to recognise that this is a different sort of witness - the religious sort, that has its own unchallengeable rules. He is not witnessing here to what anybody said or (until Jesus goes to the mountain) did, but what they thought.
When Jesus realised that they were about to take him by force [were they?]and make him king [again, were they, necessarily?], he withdrew agai n to the mountain by himself.
)
quote:[John 6:16-17
When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
quote:[John6;18-19 - my bold]
The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were terrified.
Sorry Pimple, but that one won't fly. (No, I realize it wasn't yours) Problem is, a basic rule of interpretation (which is based on human nature) is that when in doubt, you take the more difficult reading--which would be that Jesus was walking ON the sea. Because anyone making a mistake in transmission, literary or oral, would be bound to change to the easier/more comprehensible form. But nobody changes the self-explanatory "by the sea" to "on the sea". Well, unless they're deliberately messing with your head.
quote:The lake is less than ten miles wide and surrounded by mountains so I would guess that the whole shore was visible from any point on it.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...I can't see them (even in a storm!) getting so kerfluffled that they ended up within eyeshot of the shore (at night!) without knowing it.
quote:[John 6:20-21]
But he said to them, "It is I [Gk. lit.'I am']; do not be afraid." Then they wanted to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the land toward which they were going.
I really don't think so, even if this is (as I think) an identity claim. There are more reasons to make his identity clear to the disciples than to bask in shocked admiration. quote:[John 6:22]
On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.
quote:It can be explained as an artefact of translation. The Greek word translated here as ‘saw’ can also carry the meaning ‘understood’. We do just the same in English – when you’ve had a complex situation explained to you, the response is very often: ‘Oh, I see...’. (Thus using the metaphor of vision to express mental comprehension.)
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:[John 6:22]
On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.
Oh dear! Talk about lost in translation! You can't notice on Tuesday something that happened on Monday - not the way John puts it (I'm sure somebody's going to correct me there!) The only thing I'm not sure about here is whether the fault is John's or the editors of RSV. The obviously ludicrous statement could easily be corrected by saying "remembered" instead of "saw".
quote:I think he means that if you take it over-literally, you have the people seeing (today) something that they really could have seen only yesterday (e.g. that Jesus hadn't gotten into the boat, and so forth). It's possible to realize that fact (after slowly gazing around bleary-eyed in the morning) but to SEE it suggests that it is happening right now--unless you have special TARDIS eyes or something.
On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.
quote:[John 6:22-27]
Next morning the crowd were still on the opposite shore. They had seen only one boat there, and Jesus, they knew, had not embarked with his disciples, who had set off by themselves. Boats from Tiberias, however, had come ashore near the place where the people had eaten the bread over which the Lord had given thanks. When the crowd saw that Jesus had gone as well as his disciples, they went on board these boats and made for Capernaum in search iof him. They found him on the other side. 'Rabbi', they asked,'when did you come here?' Jesus replied, 'In very truth I tell you, it is not because you saw signs that you came looking for me, but because you ate the bread and your hunger was satisfied. You should work, not for this perishable food, but for the food that lasts, the food of eternal life.
And so forever doing the unexpected, in hopes of prying open a mind or two by the shock.
quote:Well, in that case I've clearly misrepresented Jesus and apologize to both of you. But I really do think he was trying to get their focus OFF the miraculous and on to what he was teaching--and going into any detail about how he got from point A to B was bound to further derail that conversation. I mean, can you see him saying "Well, actually I walked on the water"? that would have pretty much destroyed whatever concentration his listeners might have been able to muster up. It's a pity they had to remain baffled (at least until one of the disciples spilled the beans, if they ever did). But from a teaching standpoint, there are some answers that, if you give them, you're automatically guaranteed a destroyed teaching session. You might as well dismiss class at once, if you know what I mean. And Jesus truly believes that what he has to teach them is of far greater importance than a mere miracle.
Originally posted by pimple:
You know, that's what niggles me about religious people some times. If they don't understand the question, they call it stupid. If they feel threatened by it, they go for the jocular (in a friendly, jugular way, you understand)!
What the crowd is clearly asking - perhaps in a roundabout way because they do feel stupid - they've beemn tricked somehow, perhaps? - what they mean is how did you get here? There wasn't a boat - we remember they'd all gone, and we saw the disciples go off by themselves...but here you are.
Now what's inane about honest bafflement?
Maybe John, too thinks people shouldn't ask awkward questions?
quote:I take it as meaning that the primary purpose of his miracles was to encourage people to see that he was indeed the Son of God rather than to temporarily satisfy their physical needs. And when I read:
In very truth I tell you, it is not because you saw signs that you came looking for me, but because you ate the bread and your hunger was satisfied.
quote:I notice that he exhorts them to work for their food. In response to miracles, I think we can tend to (a) focus on our material and temporal needs or desires and (b) become passive in our relationship with God, neither of which is the response he hopes for.
You should work, not for this perishable food, but for the food that lasts, the food of eternal life.
quote:Apologies from me, too. I think I agree that Jesus didn't want to focus on the signs everyone was asking for. But John particularly, and the other evangelists to a degree, did.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Well, in that case I've clearly misrepresented Jesus and apologize to both of you. But I really do think he was trying to get their focus OFF the miraculous and on to what he was teaching--and going into any detail about how he got from point A to B was bound to further derail that conversation. I mean, can you see him saying "Well, actually I walked on the water"? that would have pretty much destroyed whatever concentration his listeners might have been able to muster up. It's a pity they had to remain baffled (at least until one of the disciples spilled the beans, if they ever did). But from a teaching standpoint, there are some answers that, if you give them, you're automatically guaranteed a destroyed teaching session. You might as well dismiss class at once, if you know what I mean. And Jesus truly believes that what he has to teach them is of far greater importance than a mere miracle.
Originally posted by pimple:
You know, that's what niggles me about religious people some times. If they don't understand the question, they call it stupid. If they feel threatened by it, they go for the jocular (in a friendly, jugular way, you understand)!
What the crowd is clearly asking - perhaps in a roundabout way because they do feel stupid - they've beemn tricked somehow, perhaps? - what they mean is how did you get here? There wasn't a boat - we remember they'd all gone, and we saw the disciples go off by themselves...but here you are.
Now what's inane about honest bafflement?
Maybe John, too thinks people shouldn't ask awkward questions?
quote:Yes - I hope someone will try to answer that question. Sometimes it appears to be something you work for, which makes sense to me, while more often in John it's something you merely have to believe in (merely!) That's much more metaphysical and for me, much more difficult.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
To follow up on Lamb Chopped's point a bit, there are two parts of Jesus' reply that particularly strike me. When I read (italics mine):
quote:I take it as meaning that the primary purpose of his miracles was to encourage people to see that he was indeed the Son of God rather than to temporarily satisfy their physical needs. And when I read:
In very truth I tell you, it is not because you saw signs that you came looking for me, but because you ate the bread and your hunger was satisfied.
quote:I notice that he exhorts them to work for their food. In response to miracles, I think we can tend to (a) focus on our material and temporal needs or desires and (b) become passive in our relationship with God, neither of which is the response he hopes for.
You should work, not for this perishable food, but for the food that lasts, the food of eternal life.
Of course, that still leaves the obvious question of what the food of eternal life actually is.
quote:The food of eternal life is the love which flows between God and us and us and God.
originally posted by pimple:
Yes - I hope someone will try to answer that question. Sometimes it appears to be something you work for, which makes sense to me, while more often in John it's something you merely have to believe in (merely!) That's much more metaphysical and for me, much more difficult.
quote:[John 6:27-29]
"Do not labour for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
quote:I think so, too. John really does seem to be doing another his “let's see where we can go with this word/theme” devices here. He focuses on the 'seek-find-work-believe' collection of ideas.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I notice that he exhorts them to work for their food. In response to miracles, I think we can tend to (a) focus on our material and temporal needs or desires and (b) become passive in our relationship with God, neither of which is the response he hopes for.
quote:Your last sentence is deceptively simple. Would you like to enlarge on it, for the benefit of someone who's seriously interested?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:The food of eternal life is the love which flows between God and us and us and God.
originally posted by pimple:
Yes - I hope someone will try to answer that question. Sometimes it appears to be something you work for, which makes sense to me, while more often in John it's something you merely have to believe in (merely!) That's much more metaphysical and for me, much more difficult.
To love God with all of the heart, soul, mind and strength requires effort and focus.
quote:The way I see it, our relationship with God affects the whole of our lives. The first commandment confirms this. To love God with our strength means to show it in a physical way, through good works. To love God with our minds means to include God in our conscious thinking. To love God with our souls means to incorporate God into our emotional responses, so that it will show in our relationships. To love God with our hearts means to connect with God through prayer and silence, and to give our love expression through music, song, dancing, the arts etc.
Originally posted by pimple:
Your last sentence is deceptively simple. Would you like to enlarge on it, for the benefit of someone who's seriously interested?
quote:The second of the greatest commandments from the OT scriptures that Jesus selected, loving others as ourselves, naturally follows if we make the effort to focus on and love God in every aspect of our lives.
Originally posted by pimple:
That's very lucid and helpful. I can see why it's hard work! You make no mention of the second half of the Golden Rule - to love your neighbour as yourself. But neither does the first commandment, IIRC. But Jesus himself didn't omit it. (All this from memory - I may be quite wrong.
Nigel M, too, points out how John uses "work" in his wordplay. But his focus seems to be not so much love of God as belief in Jesus. Don't ask me to distinguish between the two. John doesn't!
But "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" seems to me to narrow the focus somewhat.
"Only believe, and thou shalt see
His joy and crown eternally" goes the hymn, and I'm not knocking it. But my gut reaction is "Is that really it? It describes a mindset that I have seen exhibited by devout parishioners wh in all seriousness ask a newly appointed vicar if he (it must be he) is a Christian - question that cannot be answered without admitting or denying a great deal of baggage that is, implied, but not stated, in the question.
quote:[John6:30-31]
So they said to him, "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'he gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
quote:[John6:32-33]
Then Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, [who said it was?] but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. Fot the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives light to the world."
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Thanks again, Raptor. I think ,maybe you're a bit hard on the passive receptors. You're not a teacher, are you? (Must try harder...)
Many of my perrenial (perennial?) hangups are, I have just discovered, being engaged with on the faith v works thread, so - back to the fourth gospel.
quote:[John6:30-31]
So they said to him, "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'he gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
So far, so good, they want proof. But again, who are "they"? This is why I ask:
quote:[John6:32-33]
Then Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, [who said it was?] but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. Fot the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives light to the world."
This where the sermon proper begins, and it works on both reason and the emotions. So I won't carp on the atrocious mixed metaphor in that last sentence of Jesus!
He is stating quite categorically that he does not share in the ancestral tradition that his onlookers claim. He is not a Jew! This is not antisemitism on John's part, it's just him portraying Jesus saying "I'm God." In a rather roundabout way. What follows should be read more as a meditation, I think, than anything else. It may or may not be historical. What, I think is unchallengeable is that the appeal of these discourses is the numinous feelings that they evoke. Reading them, you might well feel that you are being addressed by Jesus directly.
I have known one or two excellent priests who could do just that. Start off with a tale of holidays in France and the importance there of fresh bread, anf before you know where you asre he's talkinf about the bread of heaven, and you don't notice the join. Powerful stuff.
An observation may trigger a response in the hearer, but it doesn't turn the observation into a judgement. I'm hard on no-one, but we're often hard on ourselves.quote:That's a good question. Even if people in the crowd had been quoting from Ps. 78:24 when they said, "As it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat'" it's hard to see how Moses could have been the 'He' there. In the Psalm the 'He' refers quite clearly back to 'God', not Moses. So why did Jesus state the seemingly obvious?
Originally posted by pimple:
(Quote from 6:32)Then Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, [who said it was?]
quote:That places Moses as an actor in the signs - without necessarily removing God as the first cause.
No prophet ever again arose in Israel like Moses, who knew the Lord face to face. He did all the signs and wonders the Lord had sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, all his servants, and the whole land, and he displayed great power and awesome might in view of all Israel.
quote:[John6:34-37]
They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." (35)Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.(36)But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.(37)Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away.
quote:I wonder if there is more to that "Sir, give us that bread always". It seems to echo the response of the Samaritan woman at 4:15 -
Originally posted by pimple:
Points well taken. Of course, Jesus was not saying "I'm not a Jew" nor even "I'm not a Jew like you" - but I think the tone here and there is such that John, rather than Jesus himself, is trying to distance himself from the absolute Jewishness of Jesus - or perhaps he's just doing it without trying, by accident, as it were.
The talk continues with words of great hope and encouragement, with here and there an (?exasperated) warning to unbelievers:
quote:[John6:34-37]
They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." (35)Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.(36)But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.(37)Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away.
quote:The request is not accompanied by any statement of faith, and I've always regarded it as somewhat arch - especially as Jesus promptly sends her off to find her husband (who isn't her husband, nudge, nudge). So it is simply an acknowledgment that what Jesus is offering is worth having - nothing more.
The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water"
quote:[John6:38-40]
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.(39)And this is the will of him who sent me, that I lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.(40)This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day."
quote:[John6:45-48]
"...It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. (46)Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.(47) Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. (48) I am the bread of life.
quote:It didn't sound smug to me in saying that you were 'one of the lucky ones', but interesting in that it implies that you may see eternal life as a promise worth holding onto only if someone is suffering in this life.
Originally posted by pimple:
I think you've answered my question and your own, LC. That the end of the Cosmos is not the end at all - just a transition point, leading to something better. If there were nothing after the end of everything we know (and much more besides) what would be the point of being "woken up" or lifted up to eternal life?
I think I can see why eternal life is attractive to many people. Me, I'm content with this one, brief though it is. But I'm one of the lucky ones, in many different ways.
quote:[John6:45-48]
"...It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. (46)Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.(47) Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. (48) I am the bread of life.
It's a strange mixture of styles. Here, with the quote, Jesus sounds like he's having a discussion with another rabbi. Elsewhere it sounds polemical to modern ears - but the Jews were (and still are!) used to robust discussion. Overall, if you just sit and read the whole piece without interruption (you wish!) it has a soothing, almost hypnotic effect.
The Eucharist must be much in people's minds whenever Jesus is talking of bread and wine. Does this help or hinder our understanding of Jesus/John's original intent?
quote:Especially since it was an unpleasant job usually done by servants. There was a lot of dung as well as dirt in the roads, and sandals provided very little protection.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's in John's gospel that Jesus washes the disciples' feet in chapter 13, surely the most poignant demonstration of service.
quote:Of service, yes. Of suffering, no - not on the scale of Isaiah, surely? The washing of feet was a commonplace courtesy IIRC, and only in the houses of the rich would this have been done by servants.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's in John's gospel that Jesus washes the disciples' feet in chapter 13, surely the most poignant demonstration of service.
quote:[John 6:49-50] "Your" - not "our" ancestors. He seems to be saying that those who believe in him will not die, like the ancestors died. All of them? Moses? Elijah? Ah, no he wasn't there at the Exodus, was he. But it is still not clear to me what is being said here. It can't be taken literally, can it? Because just as the ancestors died, so do we all, Christians or not. Is this not true?
Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.[50]This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
quote:Then there's the reference to the temple in chapter 2, where Jesus talks about the destruction of his body and it's being raised again in three days.
NET Bible
He was treated harshly and afflicted, but he did not even open his mouth.
Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block, like a sheep silent before her shearers,
he did not even open his mouth. He was led away after an unjust trial – but who even cared?
Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living;
because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded.
They intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb,
because he had committed no violent deeds, nor had he spoken deceitfully.
Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill,
once restitution is made, he will see descendants and enjoy long life,
and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him.
Having suffered, he will reflect on his work,
he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done.
My servant will acquit many, for he carried their sins.
So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes,
he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful,
because he willingly submitted to death
and was numbered with the rebels,
when he lifted up the sin of many and intervened on behalf of the rebels.
quote:It seems to me that (as Nigel M points out) Jesus is referring to them (the ancestors who fled Egypt and ate manna in the wilderness) dying in the wilderness because they refused to enter the promised land of Canaan (which I take to represent heaven and eternal life). Numbers 14:32:
Originally posted by pimple:
Because just as the ancestors died, so do we all, Christians or not. Is this not true?
quote:It doesn't make sense to me that he would be referring to their ancestors dying as a normal part of life.
But as for you, your corpses will fall in this wilderness.
quote:[6:50-51}
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.
quote:[52] Jesus replies (though John does not say they disputed with him but, tantalisingly, does not answer the question:
The Jews then dicputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
quote:[53-56]
So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them..."
quote:He is setting 'flesh' against 'spirit' and referring to natural descent as opposed to Godly descent. 'Flesh' may not have quite the same negative connotation for John as it has for Paul, but it is still strange to hear Jesus say that he came down from heaven (“I am the bread from heaven”) and that whoever 'eats' from his natural human descent will live forever. That implies believing that Jesus did indeed have a natural human descent, yet his opponents had no problem with that concept! They believed that! It was the spiritual / heavenly side they were struggling with. Logically, if Jesus was promoting arguments for his heavenly descent, then the correct metaphor to use here would have been “eat of my spiritual body that came down like manna from heaven – that will get you saved.” Instead John has chucked a bucket of cold water over his audience and anticipated their reaction by recording the obvious objection as coming from the Jewish leaders.
But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children – children not born by human parents or by human desire [lit., will of the flesh] or a husband’s decision, but by God. Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. [John 1:13-14]
What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the spirit is spirit. [John 3:6]
quote:[John6:57-59]
"...Just as the livinng Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.[58]This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever."[59]He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
quote:I can't think of anything contemporaneous to Jesus' time - though I'd like to do a search through the Dead Sea Scrolls to see if they contain any similar language use: 'crunching' or 'chewing' (as Lamb Chopped pointed out) on Jesus. Finding something would certainly throw some light on what John intended to be understood by the readers at this point. Either it was deliberately difficult to understand, or it was easy to understand and difficult to accept!
Originally posted by pimple:
Is there any extant contemporary Jewish response to this extraordinary teaching?
quote:I don't see "Nigel's motivations and posting style" up there anywhere. And it certainly isn't something that should be the sole subject of a Kerygmania post. If you have any actual comments that Nigel made to attach your assessment to, Shamwari, go for it, but otherwise, this is not the place for an isolated character study.
Originally posted by NJA:
Jesus would have fitted in with Old Testament "types and shadows".
The Passover lamb was to be eaten:
"they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. (Ex. 12:8-9)
Not raw - Jesus cannot be digested naturally
Not sodden - do not attempt to add water "water down".
Roast with fire - through the Holy Spirit
Like many religious people, I tried to "digest" Jesus but couldn't get the strength that meat advertised ... until I received the Holy Spirit, then his Life became mine, my daily diet.
quote:Pardon?
Originally posted by pimple:
(creep!)
Thanks for the clarification.quote:I expect I speak for everyone when I say "The more, the merrier. LC!"
Can I throw in some wildly assorted thoughts?
quote:[John6:60-62]
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?[61]But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you?[62]Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
quote:To me this resonates again with Revelation and the victory of the Lamb theme. I wonder if the wilderness and manna link has to do with the followers of Jesus remaining loyal despite local difficulties, in view of the fact that they have a promised land ahead of them?
I was watching in the night visions, and with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him. To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty. All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. His authority is eternal and will not pass away. His kingdom will not be destroyed.
quote:Nigel, this throws up some very difficult questions. Who is the "son of man" in your own reference, and is that person the same as the Son of God? I suspect not. In your quotation from Daniel, is is important that the one approaching is like a son of man - and not the Son of Man. To me, this suggests that this is in fact Christ, who became incarnate, and was like a son of a man, just as you and I are. I agree that this resonates with the passages from Revelations to which you refer.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
It is interesting to see the range of significance that this larger passage throws up. The new verses throw in yet another apparent disconnect: what - if any - connection was being made between the chewing on Jesus' flesh / drinking his blood, and the son of man ascending? And why would the latter apparently be an even greater stumbling block to understanding (or believing) than the first?!!
A son of man entering the presence of God harks back to Daniel 7:13-14
quote:To me this resonates again with Revelation and the victory of the Lamb theme. I wonder if the wilderness and manna link has to do with the followers of Jesus remaining loyal despite local difficulties, in view of the fact that they have a promised land ahead of them?
I was watching in the night visions, and with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him. To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty. All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. His authority is eternal and will not pass away. His kingdom will not be destroyed.
quote:I think this summary and the introduction in chapter 1 are crucial for understanding John's intention in respect of the titles he uses. When I place the summary alongside the introduction and chapter 6 (among other places), I see some interesting links. John introduces the 'Christ' title in his introduction and provides a translation in 1:41 (= the messiah). The messiah was the God-appointed figure (symbolised by anointing) with the responsibility of stewarding God's creation and people. 'Son' was another title that had similar associations, it referred to someone who had authority and responsibility to act on God's behalf. When John the Baptist links the title 'The Son of God' with the other title 'The Lamb of God' in chapter 1 (vv 29-36), I think he is drawing on the theme in Isaiah – spelled out more fully in the book of Revelation – of a figure who suffers for his loyalty and who is vindicated as a result (to the woe of his enemies). Holding that thought in one hand for a moment...
...these [miraculous signs] are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
quote:I'm not sure that John here meant the proper name 'Jesus' as such. I think there's something more going on. I have been wondering if the referent is to the memra of God (equivalent to Word of the Lord) and through that a very close link to God the Father. The 'Name' Jesus has been given, as 'Word,' has been with God from the beginning (1:2) and was actively involved in creating life (1:3). This links nicely with the focus of chapter 6 – Jesus has been sent to bring real, full life, to those who believe.
But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children, children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.
quote:Whether the correct reading is of angels travelling upon this figure, or travelling to heaven and then to the figure, the context would be of the Son of God / King person also being the point of contact between God's presence and the earth. The link between this figure and those other titles suggest to me that there was no intention to distinguish a Son of Man from Daniel's 'one like a son of man.' The attributes of both seem to be one and the same.
”...you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on [or to?] the Son of Man.”
quote:I think you're right about Daniel; it doesn't read like a title there. It seems to have made a transition to a title (with definite article) sometime after Daniel and before the writing of 1 Enoch 37-71 and 4 Ezra 13 (2 Esdras), which might just mean those later writers were referring back to Daniel - “The one who appeared in human likeliness to Daniel.”
Originally posted by pimple:
I am surprised that "son of man" is read as a title in Daniel. In the dream as described in NRSV, the literal translation from the Aramaic is given as a footnote, while the text has "one like a human being...." which AFAIK is both accurate and sensible.
quote:Just as an aside - barley loaves were apparently "poor fare — tasteless, teeth-bending biscuits that were barely edible" - hardtack
Originally posted by pimple:
ok. Back one and forward two, for the convenience of those who don't have a bible handy:
quote:[John 6:5-7]
When he looked up and saw a large crowd coming towards him, Jesus said to Philip, "Where are we to buy bread for these people to eat?" He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do. Philip answered him, "Six months' wages [Gk. 200 denarii] would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little."
There is an interesting difference between this and the synoptic versions. Mark gives the fullest, probably earliest account, in which the problem of how to feed the crowd comes from the disciples. Jesus' response to the dilemma is to tell them "You feed them then - give them yours."
which seems to suggest that J wasn't prepared to do all the work himself!
Matthew gives an abbreviated version, while Luke, the "evangelist for the people" as one old Benedictine once told me, leaves it out entirely. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong it seems an odd ommission.
Now putting these accounts (or lack of them) next to John's is not for the purpose of settin g one witness against another. The differences need to be acknowledged. For some, they will pose problems; for others, it will only open us up to a wider range of possibilities.
So back to John, who always depicts Jesus in a pro-active, never a re-active role:
quote:[John6:8-10] Some commentaries point out that the five thousand was just the men!
One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish. But what are they among so many people?" Jesus said, "Make the people sit down....[and although we know the story very well, we hold our breath. while John, the consummate dramatist, delays the action with a quite unnecesary comment about bloody grass!]
Now there was a great deal of grass in the place, so they sat down, about five thousand in all
quote:Hardtack is a generic term to describe military-type biscuits - the Rakik is a type of cracker which could be seen as a barley flour version of wheat hardtack.
Originally posted by pimple:
Sorry - perhaps I'm in too much of a hurry. But the link is all about Gideon. I guess it's about what G fed his army on. Hard tack? I thought that was the (British) navy!
Shamwari. No need to be alarmed. You're not the only Christian who believes that the gospels should not - or cannot - be read literally. But unless there are going to be so many tangents based on the varieties of metaphorical interpretation placed on, or derived from, John, that we never get through the gospel at all, those of us with minority views might get more out of the discussion if we make some attempt to listen to the traditionalists. We don't have to agree with them, but our own understanding can be enlarged that way. This is only my personal opinion and not an attempt at sub-hosting.
quote:It's a good point and we haven't really discussed this, or at least it's been a while since pimple also raised it as an issue. The following occurred to me:-
Originally posted by shamwari:
The debate assumes that the words recorded are the actual words of Jesus...
quote:[John6:64-64a]
[63]"...It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.[64]But among you there are some who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe..
quote:He seems to be saying that although he (Jesus) had chosen Judas (why - knowing him to be the betrayer?) the Father had blocked his choice.
[64b] For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him.[65]And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.
quote:Hardly surprising.
[66] Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.
quote:Even if you take the words which start "Jesus said" as authentic words, John's Gospel usually goes on to commentry. There are places, often further on in the same passage, where it is clearly John commenting on what has been said or what has happened. What is not clear is where the words of Jesus end and the words of John start.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Time for just a quick post and then have to push off for another week...
quote:It's a good point and we haven't really discussed this, or at least it's been a while since pimple also raised it as an issue. The following occurred to me:-
Originally posted by shamwari:
The debate assumes that the words recorded are the actual words of Jesus...
For myself, I think all points made on the thread thus far would still stand, even if nothing in the gospel could be traced back to "the very words" of Jesus. The reason would be that John (or whatever name the author or authors had) is within the historical cone, as it were, that has its originating focal point attached to the experience of being a follower of Jesus during his earthly ministry. John draws out significances that are firmly based on an authorial meaning. This is a similar point to the one you make, I know, but I don't see it as a block to significance.
quote:Couldn't agree more with your first paragraph. Not being a conventional christian I have reservations about the rest. But the significance of John's gospel is enormous - much too important to be left to conventional christianity! So welcome aboard, and don't mind my heterodox mutterings.
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:Even if you take the words which start "Jesus said" as authentic words, John's Gospel usually goes on to commentry. There are places, often further on in the same passage, where it is clearly John commenting on what has been said or what has happened. What is not clear is where the words of Jesus end and the words of John start.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Time for just a quick post and then have to push off for another week...
quote:It's a good point and we haven't really discussed this, or at least it's been a while since pimple also raised it as an issue. The following occurred to me:-
Originally posted by shamwari:
The debate assumes that the words recorded are the actual words of Jesus...
For myself, I think all points made on the thread thus far would still stand, even if nothing in the gospel could be traced back to "the very words" of Jesus. The reason would be that John (or whatever name the author or authors had) is within the historical cone, as it were, that has its originating focal point attached to the experience of being a follower of Jesus during his earthly ministry. John draws out significances that are firmly based on an authorial meaning. This is a similar point to the one you make, I know, but I don't see it as a block to significance.
In the end it does not really matter, all are words of the Gospel, and should be taken as such rather than explained away.
Jesus is the Good Shepherd; Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life etc. It is up to us to live out the reality of this in our lives.
quote:...in the words of many of the disciples who no longer followed Jesus. So Jesus asked the Twelve, "Are you pissed off too?" Or in the vernacular...
Originally posted by pimple:
Pissed off.
quote:John 6:67-69
So Jesus said to the twelve, “You don’t want to go away too, do you?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God!”
quote:Oh dear. I'm afraid the examples that leap to mind for me are cases where the demons are speaking (e.g. Mark 1).
Originally posted by pimple:
Now we have another title - "The holy one of God" - is it used anywhere else or is it just an expression of faith used by Peter on the spur of the moment? Is it equivalent to "the Messiah"? Or does "of God" carry even greater significance?
[Edited to remove half a page of "killing me" emoticons]
quote:[John6:70-71]
Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil." He was speaking of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot[parentage varies in different ancient texts], for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him.
quote:[John7:1] It might be useful to get out of the way the problem (for some) of who Jesus' brothers were (or weren't). Without a gloss from the evangelist to say otherwise, we must assume he was happy with the idea of Mary having had other children besides Jesus.
After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish [other authorities say was not at liberty] to go about in Judaea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him.
quote:[John7:2-5]
Now the Jewish festival of Booths [or Tabernacles] was near. [3]So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judaea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; [4]for no-one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." [5](For not even his brothers believed in him)
quote:Sorry, I'm a bit slow off the mark here. This subject was thoroughly chewed over in the thread: Perpetual virginity of Mary? now residing in Oblivion, which I followed at the time of its creation. To save fellow Kerygmaniacs the trouble of reading all 6 pages, I would say that the case was 'not proven' either way.
Originally posted by pimple:
It might be useful to get out of the way the problem (for some) of who Jesus' brothers were (or weren't). Without a gloss from the evangelist to say otherwise, we must assume he was happy with the idea of Mary having had other children besides Jesus.
Well, no. We mustn't assume anything, I guess. Any comments?
quote:I think I see what you mean, LC, though I might express it slightly differently - an example, perhaps, of the tone of the text (or even the subtext) surviving translation, and allowing us to read (cautiously!) between the lines - a not uncommon facet of biblical narrative, if you are open to it.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Spite, malice and jealousy. Read it aloud with a snarky voice and you'll see.
quote:Well - for a bit, anyway. I just love the qualification "but your time is always here" - skittling any chance of his followers using the same excuse!
[6]Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.[7]The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil.[8]Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come" [9]After this, he remained in Galilee.
quote:I think I see what you mean, LC, though I might express it slightly differently - an example, perhaps, of the tone of the text (or even the subtext) surviving translation, and allowing us to read (cautiously!) between the lines - a not uncommon facet of biblical narrative, if you are open to it.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Spite, malice and jealousy. Read it aloud with a snarky voice and you'll see.
quote:Well - for a bit, anyway. I just love the qualification "but your time is always here" - skittling any chance of his followers using the same excuse!
[6]Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.[7]The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil.[8]Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come" [9]After this, he remained in Galilee.
quote:There seems to have been an element of family involvement in Jesus' movements; the way things are expressed suggests that mum and the gang were not a rare sight on the road with him. Socially, that makes sense; there was greater family cohesion then. The surprise element would more likely have been the times when Jesus was not in their presence, e.g., when he tells them to go to the feast without him. Whoa; we're not quite there yet... Anyway, I tend to agree that these are blood-brothers of Jesus, if only because I can't really see anything in the texts to suggest that the authors thought otherwise.
After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples.
quote:[John7:10-12]
[10]But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but [as it were] in secret.[11]The Jews were looking for him at the festival and saying "Where is he?"[12]And there was considerable complaining about him among the crowd.
quote:[John7:12-13]
[12b]While some were saying, "He is a good man," others were saying, "No, he is deceiving the crowd." [13]Yet no one would speak openly about him for fear of the Jews.
quote:Also, the koine word for Jew is the same as the word for Judean.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Since the people (crowds) speaking are almost certainly Jews (duh, it's one of the three major pilgrimage feasts in Jerusalem, whaddya expect), this is one of the many cases where context pretty much forces us to take "the Jews" as meaning "the Jewish authorities."
quote:[John7:14-15]
[14]About the middle of the festival Jesus went up into the temple and began to teach.[15]The Jews were astonished at it, saying, "How does this man have such learning [or know his letters] when he has never been taught?
quote:The problem is - how many people have said just that? It's the standard prophetic pitch: Thus saith the Lord...
[16]Then Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine but his who sent me.[17]Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own.[18]Those who speak on their own seek their own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him s true, and there is nothing false in him...
quote:I don't see this as the standard "God spoke to me" pitch at all. I mean, you hear that, and it's usually followed up with "So send me buckets of money RIGHT NOW." (We have a very popular looneytunes prophetess of that sort not a long way from my home.) Same old, same old.
[16]Then Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine but his who sent me.[17]Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own.[18]Those who speak on their own seek their own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him s true, and there is nothing false in him...
quote:Um, actually it was Paul who sat at the feet of Gamaliel, not Jesus; and as far as his pre-baptism life, Jesus appears not to have done anything out of the ordinary barring a shenanigan when he was twelve. So I'm thinking "run the carpenter shop, assist widowed Mum to raise younger siblings, etc." Nazareth was not a hotbed of intellectual activity.
Originally posted by pimple:
I certainly take the point of your last couple of paragraphs, LC; but as for teaching in the temple, I thought it was the (synoptic?) tradition that Jesus did, in fact (if we can say "in fact" of anything about Jesus' early life) teach regularly in the synagogues, was a well known rabbi, and had probably sat at the feet of Gamaliel some time. But this is off the top of my head and I need to check it out - though it's perhaps no big deal. Peo[ple then, as now made assiumptions about the famlous, not allof which can be true.
quote:[John7:19-21]
"...[19]Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you looking for an opportunity to kill me?" [20]The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who is trying to kill you?" [21]Jesus answered them, "I performed one work, and all of you are astonished..."
quote:But this does not finish the argument about people (impotently) desiring to arrest him, as we shall see...
"...[22]Moses gave you circumcision (it is, of course, not from Moses, but from the patriarchs) and you circumcise a man on the sabbath.[23]If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I healed a mon's whole body on the sabbath? [which I guess answers the question in the previous post - but it seems a long time away; perhaps in the editing process it got detached from the original story of the man healed on the sabbath?][24]Do not judge by appearances but judge with right judgment."
I don't suppose it really matters whether that is Jesus or John here, after all, Moses DID give them circumcision (for the second time, after they'd apparently given it up mostly during their time of slavery). So if John is being a tad pedantic, that's all right. quote:Actually, I think that's quite possible because I don't think it was a correction, I think it was a clarifying distinction.
Originally posted by pimple:
The correction I was referring to was in verse 22 - though it's possible I suppose that Jesus himself was talking in brackets!
quote:Here's my take on it:
Incidentally, what's the significance of circumcision coming from the patriarchs and not from Moses? I thought in my ignorance that Moses was a patriarch anyway.
quote:[John7:25-26]
[25]Now some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, "Is not this the man whom they are trying to kill?[26]And here he is, speaking openly, but they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Messiah?..."
quote:
[27]"...Yet we know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from."
quote:Oops! Just read the first post! Apparently I can restart the study by saying ” start”. And I durn thought I had kilt the thread! So ” Start”!
30 At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. 31 Still, many in the crowd believed in him. They said, “When the Messiah comes, will he perform more signs than this man?”
32 The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him.
quote:Sorry, on all counts. Lemme get the hang of it, yes?
Originally posted by pimple:
P.S. Could you possibly explain to this ignoramus what all those other numbers are - 101 -137, etc. - thanks.
quote:Jesus' last discussion with his disciples at the last supper was very largely about this. As I recall, he said something along the lines of "If I didn't go away, the Holy Spirit would not come to you; but if I go away (=die), I will send him to you." He later goes on to talk of sending us "another Comforter" and so on, which has always been interpreted as a reference to Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit to dwell permanently and intimately with all of us who believe.
Originally posted by pimple:
Would anyone like to explain, or comment on, John's belief that "the Spirit hadn't yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified"?
quote:I understand the text to mean any person hung on a tree is already cursed. Leaving of the body overnight leads to defilement of the LAND.
Originally posted by pimple:
[Tangent alert] Paul's quote from Deuteronomy (cited above) is fascinating in it's own right. An executed criminal whose corpse is hung on a tree must not remain there overnight, because a corpse left overnight on a tree is cursed by God.
So the executed criminal is not by virtue of his punishment separated from God. But if he is left on the tree he is cursed - that is, the criminal, not the people who leave him there. Or perhaps it's implicit that they are cursed too.
But hang on a bit! Christ's body was not left on the tree overnight, so Jesus was not cursed. So WTF is Paul on about? [Tangent over] Not that Paul's exegesis would get him many marks in a modern seminary, bless him!
quote:Yes Boss Lady, No Boss Lady, Three bags full, Boss Lady! See how easy it is!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, it sure beats calling the Lord a meat puppet.
quote:[John 7:53-8:2]NRSV
Then each of them went home, while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them.
quote:Not sure how to take that "surreal".If that's trans-pond for "what a load of bollocks" I quite understand your frustration, LC. It sounds like the authentic Jesus to me, and it's one of my favourite stories, worth close reading.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well that was surreal.
Never mind.
The reason I think the John 8 bit is genuine is because it SOUNDS so much like Jesus. Not just the compassion, but the way he lets the bastards blow themselves out while he doodles on the ground--and then stands up and totally devastates them with a single line. And goes back to doodling.
If I were going to fake a Jesus episode, I never would have had the genius to put in that kind of totally irrelevant detail. If it's not real, it should be.
quote:[John 8.3-4]
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him,"Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery..."
quote:Literary criticism is a bit like adultery. You find cheating texts in all the wrong places.
Originally posted by pimple:
...the story of the woman taken in adultery, which has had a chequered history in the history of the bible's compilation.
quote:Yeah , I was playacting a suitable response to unreasonable behavior. Now I have to apologise to The Kebab again... SORR-eeeee-Y!
Originally posted by tomsk:
Footwasher - your mushroom stuff is referring to Lamb Chopped's other thread? I thought at first that you were making connections that few others could follow, but then I thought that might be me...
quote:Even today such executions are carried out in some places, but I think in Jesus' day a more liberal attitude prevailed. There seems to be evidence for this in Matthew's description of Joseph the carpenter's dilemma on finding Mary with child. Recognising Jesus as a gift of God (to Mary), he decides to make an honest woman of her to save her "from public disgrace". I don't think that's a euphemism for public stoning. Even the strict Mosaic law on divorce was a matter of debate.
"Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
quote:Hardly begins to describe the problem they present him with.
They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him
quote:My understanding is that, at the time, betrothal was as good as marriage as far as the legitimacy of the child was concerned, meaning that the only issue would have been whether or not Joseph was the father. If everyone assumed he was (which is what I would guess), then there would have been no problem at all.
Originally posted by pimple:
The fact that Mary had been found with child before her marriage was not in dispute - only its interpretation.
quote:It certainly rings bells (wedding bells? Belles?). From memory the betrothal period could last for many months, during which both parties to the betrothal made plans and got their resources sorted out. No sexual intercourse, though; the female stayed at her father's house. The advent of a child during that period would have been a problem – though as pimple pointed out, Judaism was a very diverse religion during the period before the war of AD 66-70. There were many 'sects' and discussions over what was proper and what was not. I'm not sure if there was a point of view that would tolerate a pregnant betrothed without comment.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Can anyone comment on the accuracy of this view of betrothal?
quote:Interesting - I had not come across that as an option before. John doesn't hint, but I suppose Daniel's episode before the emperor might have come to mind among John's readers/hearers.
Originally posted by footwasher:
The words on the sand were probably "Mene, mene, mene,tekel, upharsin."
quote:[John 8.6b]
Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
quote:Well, now you've made the titillating remark, you may as well enlighten us. The only "I will weep" I can find is at Isaiah22:4 and Jeremiah48:32. Are you referring to one of these?
Originally posted by agingjb:
For no reason except the fact that it's coming up in a chapter or so, I wonder about "I will weep".
quote:[John 8.7-8]
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you whi is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
...but it's not for me to condemn those who condemn......
quote:(Link updated)
Orthodox tradition has it as retold by
quote:
St Nikolai Velimirovich:
...
Then the legislator of morality and human conduct stooped down to the ground, smoothed out the dust with the palm of His hand, and began to write (John 8:6). What did the Lord write in the dust? The Evangelist maintains silence concerning this and does not write of it. It was too repulsive and vile to be written in the Book of Joy. However, this has been present in tradition, and it is horrible. The Lord wrote something unexpected and startling for the elders, the accusers of the sinful woman. With His finger He disclosed their secret iniquities. For these pointers-out of the sins of others were experts in concealing their own sins. But it is pointless to try to hide anything from the eyes of One Who sees all.
"M (eshulam) has stolen treasures from the temple," wrote the Lord's finger in the dust.
"A (sher) has committed adultery with his brother's wife;
"S (halum) has committed perjury;
"E (led) has struck his own father;
"A (marich) has committed sodomy;
"J (oel) has worshipped idols."
And so one statement after another was written in the dust by the awesome finger of the righteous Judge. And those to whom these words referred, bending down, read what was written, with inexpressible horror.
(What Was Christ Writing on the Ground?)
quote:[John8:8-11]
And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no-one condemned you?" She said, "No-one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."
quote:[John 8.12 NRSV]
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
quote:I can run with this. As people mirror Jesus the light is not only reflected back directly to its source from the individual, it's also reflected back indirectly as his light is refracted through others within the community.
Originally posted by pimple:
The idea that light, like everything else given by the Father, returns to Him, is a beautiful image.
But in the natural world, light does not return unless it meets a reflector. Most time it is deflected or refracted rather than reflected back to its original source. In the process it is partially absorbed by some surfaces and split by others into a myriad of colours - none of which is pure light. Seeing light partially doesn't necessrily mean seeing it grey or gloomy.
[ETA - the knowledge of which should enable us to enhance John's imagery, rather than question its scientific validity]
quote:[John 8.13-16a] It's very much of its time I guess, this quasi-legal bickering, with Jesus (apparently) insisting on having his cake and eating it. I think I find it difficult because I once knew a priest who preached just like that; I'm sure other shippies will help me to take it more seriously.
Then the Pharisees said to him, "You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not valid." 14 Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid because I know where I have come from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I judge no one. 16 Yet even if I do judge..."
quote:[John8.16-18]
"...Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is valid; for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father [or "he"] who sent me. 17 In your law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. * 18 I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me testifies on my behalf."
quote:[John 8.19-20]
Then they said to him, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also." He spoke these words while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him, because his time had not yet come.
quote:What follows is speculation, not certainty.
Originally posted by pimple:
Sorry - that was pimple in curmudgeon mode.
quote:[John 8.19-20]
Then they said to him, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also." He spoke these words while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him, because his time had not yet come.
Only two verses, but quite a lot of meat on the bones. Jesus is deliberately confrontational, and it's almost inconceivable that the people he's challenging would not want to lock him up - or worse. John acknowledges this, and both explains it by saying "his hour had not yet come" and in the same breath, so to speak, reminds us that it will.
Why is Jesus teaching in the treasury? Is this inspired by the synoptic accounts of the "cleansing of the temple" - driving out the money-changers? Or was this another part of the temple. Was it usual to use the treasury for teaching? If so, it doesn't look as though Jesus was teaching in one of the outer courts available to just anyone. And he is engaging in a remarkable tour de force of self-publicity, while the sceptics continue banging on about Abraham. People had more time for long speeches in those days, of course. Think of Paul and one of his hearers falling asleep and falling out of the window.
quote:I think this might explain the rather odd conditional (and yes, Greek does have conditionals, though I haven't got the Greek text in front of me just now). But if the English is rendering the Greek correctly, you have a conditional which is NOT contrary-to-fact ("If I do judge"), one which strongly suggests that at some other time and in some other place, Jesus does/will judge, though he isn't doing so now. And that might explain why we aren't given a construction like "but if I DID judge" or "if I WOULD judge," which both imply a situation that isn't real. "If I DO judge" leaves the door open for Jesus to start doing so at some later point in time.
22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
quote:[John 8.21]
21 Again he said to them, "I am going away, and you will search for me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come."
quote:Yup. There it is.
Originally posted by footwasher:
John 7:33-36 NET
Then Jesus said, “I will be with you for only a little while longer, and then I am going to the one who sent me. You will look for me but will not find me, and where I am you cannot come.”
Then the Jewish leaders said to one another, “Where is he going to go that we cannot find him? He is not going to go to the Jewish people dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks, is he? What did he mean by saying, ‘You will look for me but will not find me, and where I am you cannot come’?”
This is Jesus warning the Jewish people that His offer is for a limited period only, as He will be going away. We know now He is talking about the Ascension, but at the time this information just went over their head. John repeats this pattern throughout his Gospel, and it kind of puts his readers at ease, knowing that the teaching they received was as startling to the Apostles as it is now to them. "Yup, we heard and we didn't understand at first either! So don't worry, you'll soon be up to speed!"
quote:[John 8.22-24]
22 Then the Jews said, "Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23 He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he."
quote:Jesus and A.N. Other versus the State in a judicial enquiry, where Jesus and A.N. Other are the two necessary witnesses – and also, apparently from the John context, the Judges.
[NET Bible]
Deut. 17:6 = At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
Deut. 19:15 = A single witness may not testify against another person for any trespass or sin that he commits. A matter may be legally established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
quote:This would carry forward the theme Jesus has been alluding to thus far – that what is at stake here is judgement leading to sentence of death. The rebels will die as a result of their rebellion (sin) and will miss out on entering the promised land.
NET Bible
Fathers must not be put to death for what their children do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin.
quote:Actually, to any criminal claim--or to any claim in general (I'm thinking of testimony about disputed possessions right now). Godly claims didn't come into it, for the simple reason that they were not made (first commandment). Unless you count the numerous self-promoting prophets, and their judge was generally time, as in: "Did it come true? No? Okay, hand me a rock."
Originally posted by Nigel M:
There is that tension in the passage between the court setting, where legal parameters apply (two witnesses needed...) and the theological fact that one of the witnesses is claimed to be God himself. Surely the point of the legal rule was to ensure there were two 'earthly' witnesses to any Godly claim?
quote:Well, you COULD see this as an allusion to the baptism of Jesus, and "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!" Which was rather public, though disputed by many.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Isn't it cheating by Jesus and John to claim “My message and I are from God” and then to whip out another claim – that God is sending the message and messenger? It's a claim about a claim, not a witness to a claim. Where is the testimony from God as a witness, if not from the words and deeds of Jesus, who is making the claim in the first place?
quote:Very true. Me, I think he's messing with their heads. After all, this is NOT a formal legal setting, nobody is (officially) on trial here, and if Jesus chooses to mess around with the rules of procedure on such an occasion, who's to blame him? I think he's doing the usual good teacher thing, where you grab the moment, grab the handle the students are handing you (whatever that may be) and skillfully use it to bring the discussion round to what YOU want to talk about--for their own sake. It takes quick wits and a nimble tongue, but if you can do it, it works so much better than "hush up, you in the back row, I'm trying to talk about God here."
Originally posted by Nigel M:
It is not surprising that Jesus' testers respond with a “So where is your 'Father', then?” (v. 19). Obviously a second witness would need to be sensually present (i.e. capable of being perceived by at least two of the human senses). The response is on a par with Nicodemus' and the Samaritan women's responses to Jesus' startling sayings. They may seem pettish, but are actually very understandable. Jesus is just not playing by the rules! . . . There's more to this plot than meets the eye.
quote:Ouch, yes. He doesn't pussyfoot around. Which makes me wonder if some of the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" fans have ever read these passages.
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:[John 8.22-24]
22 Then the Jews said, "Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23 He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he."
Which also answers the question I put above. This totally uncompromising stance is quite a big part of the gospel which even some liberal Christians love so much.
quote:[John 8.25-27]
25 They said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Why do I speak to you at all? [or What I have told you from the beginning."]26 I have much to say about you and much to condemn; but the one who sent me is true, and I declare to the world that I have heard from him." 27 They did not understand that he was speaking to them about the Father.
quote:This occurred in some fake King-James-style writing where the author was consistently placing the "not" after the verb; so the meaning is therefore either
He knew not to consult the Lord.
quote:[John 8.28-30]
28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he [Gk "I am"], and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me. 29 And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him." 30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him.
quote:[John 8.29-32]
29...And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him." 30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him. 31 Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
quote:The "Very truly" start of Jesus' reply is one of those Amen, Amen, sayings, which I believe refer as often as not to the previous speaker's remarks ("Yes, Yes, I know that, but....") - which shows him in a far more approachable light than the rather pompous-sounding (in English) "Verily, verily".
33 They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, 'You will be made free'?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed...
quote:See? I told you so!
37 "...I know you are dewscendants of Abraham;yet..
quote:The lack of understanding of - or better, resistance to - Jesus' explanations of God and his message links back to the theme in the Introduction: The light has been shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it (John 1:5).
John 8:37
I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. But you want to kill me, because my teaching makes no progress among you.
quote:This verse is capable of being translated in few different ways, but in light of how the conversation moves on I think Jesus is being recorded as making a distinction between his father (God) as author of his teaching, and his accusers' father (identity about to be revealed explicitly) who authors their teachings and actions. To show this I need to bring in the next few verses, with apologies for adding a chunk, but I'm not sure how else to show where this is going.
John 8:38
Just as I speak what I have seen while with the father, so also you do what you have heard from your father.
quote:Jesus has been making the same distinction Paul makes later, between descendants (seed) of Abraham and children of Abraham. Children behave like their father – that is a more important category than those who may well be descended from Abraham, but who behave differently. They must have a different father. Jesus provokes the response: “We are not bastards” (or possibly, 'sons of whores'). There's likely an implied accusation against Jesus' heritage in this response – we aren't the illegitimate sons here! Jesus' response to this? These very Jews are in fact the illegitimate ones: their father is not Abraham, neither is it God; they are the devil's spawn. This neatly cuts them off from God's kingdom – and by implication those who John as author is getting at among his readership.
John 8:39-44a
They answered him, “Abraham is our father!” Jesus replied, “If you are Abraham’s children, you would be doing the deeds of Abraham. But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God. Abraham did not do this! You people are doing the deeds of your father.”
Then they said to Jesus, “We were not born as a result of immorality! We have only one Father, God himself.” Jesus replied, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here. I have not come on my own initiative, but he sent me. Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. ...
quote:Indeed, that's the Gurkha kukri* question, isn't it? Once we uncover the meaning of a passage (the author's intent that has a moral claim on us), what do we do with it? Can we shove it back into its canonical casing, hoping nobody notices, and go about our normal routine as though we had never made that discovery? Surely we are obliged honestly to tackle the issues that come out with the meaning.
Originally posted by pimple:
How do those who love John's gospel cope with this? Do they feel they can, themselves, adopt the same - or a similar - stance, towards their neighbours?
quote:Oh dear. Of Jesus, or me? Or John, I suppose.
Originally posted by pimple:
Thank you. That's very revealing.
quote:[John 8.44-45] I will check back a couple of posts in case I haven't been paying proper attention. Who, exactly, was a murderer from the beginning? The devil? From the beginning on what? Whom did he murder? Am I being particularly dense here?
You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
quote:So what happened to "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." Are God and his works so fragile that another part of creation can totally destroy his good work? It seems to say Satan is nearly equal to God, which I believe is a far cry from the truth. And is Jesus saying this of everyone, that everyone is almost terminally resist to God's call? Or is he speaking to those who have shown themselves to be, those Jews who are arguing with him? I find it ironic that the same conversation starts with: "So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” And now suddenly they are all arguing.
'That one' then refers to the devil as a murderer and the father of all lies. He was a murderer from the beginning because he destroyed Adam's innocence (Gen. 3, cf. Wisd. 2.24; Rom. 5.12.) and stood in opposition to God from the beginning of Creation. Jesus addresses those who have inherited lies from their father the devil, were born into lies and deceit through their father the devil and cannot discern truth. They are unable and unwilling to acknowledge the Truth in Jesus that He embodies.
quote:[tangent]
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
What these Jewish folks were clinging to was their Jewish identity as descendents of Abraham and people of his covenant with God. And I think much of this comes from being brutalized by Roman occupation and memories of the Exile. That's why the Pharisees were so strict. If God were going to continue to be the Hebrew nation's protector, its own God, the people were going to have to keep their eye on the covenant. They would have to cross the Ts and dot the Is ritually to really set themselves apart from pagan worship. The nation had messed up before and if the Pharisees had any say in it, they wouldn't again.
They certainly weren't expecting a wandering prophet to demand they keep their eyes on him for ultimate salvation. That was waaaay out there in left field. It was too big a leap, even for those who "believed" him.
quote:Perhaps John was calling to mind that saying of Jesus when he wrote 1 John 3:15 and the use of a different Greek word is merely down to differences in translating from Jesus' original Aramaic saying.
“You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder [verbal form of phoneutes],’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.
quote:That may be right and I understand the link to Gen. 3, but I was thinking that using 'murder' in English versions perhaps doesn't get the gist, or nuance, of John's intent here. I was wondering whether there existed in second temple Judaism a tradition associating the devil with that particular phrase that John was tapping into.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...I think trying to make a difference between murder proper and manslaughter based on the Greek here is probably a step too far.
quote:[John 8.46-47]
"...Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God."
quote:[John 8.48]
The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?"
Love to see God being human.
quote:A small point, LC, but when it comes to the printed word, a tone of voice is almost always in the ear of the reader - especially when the text a third party account of something originally in another language. Don't you agree?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, the thing about the sin of pride is that you're only guilty of it if you make Jesus' statement AND you're lying. From the sound of things, nobody did, and Jesus was confident nobody could. I can tell you, if I said the same thing, there'd be choruses of answers! (as the entire House of Lamb rises to shout each other down)
What I love is the tone of total exasperation in Jesus' voice. It's like "Get.A.Freaking.Clue, people." Or as he said earlier, "Why do I even bother to talk to you at all?"
quote:Section (D) (7:25-8:47) can also be broken down further.
(A): Jesus quietly slips up to Jerusalem and the temple (7:1-15)
(B): Jesus presents his credentials (7:16-19)
(C): Accusation of demon-possession and rebuttal (7:20-24)
(D): The issue – is Jesus really the Messiah? (7:25-8:47)
(C'): Accusation of demon-possession and rebuttal (8:48-53)
(B'): Jesus presents his credentials (8:50-58)
(A'): Jesus quietly slips away from the temple (8:59)
quote:* I've left 7:53-8:11 out from this (the woman caught in adultery).
(1): The issue that needs resolving – is Jesus to be accepted as the Messiah? (7:25-36)
(2): Jesus' claim – belief in him will result in life; water metaphor (7:37-39)
(3): Division among the commoners as a result of this claim (7:40-44)
(4): Division among the authorities as a result of this claim (7:45-52)*
(5): Jesus' claim – belief in him will result in life; light metaphor (8:12)
(6): Validity of Jesus' claim – Jesus and Father are two witnesses (8:13-20)
(7): Jesus' second claim – those who do not believe in him will die (8:21-30)
(8): The issue turned round – are the authorities to be accepted? (8:31-47)
quote:Certainly; but as we experience even on this very Ship, you can often infer it with fair accuracy.
Originally posted by pimple:
A small point, LC, but when it comes to the printed word, a tone of voice is almost always in the ear of the reader - especially when the text a third party account of something originally in another language. Don't you agree?
Hmph, Nigel. Yes, I suppose John is a far more more clever man than I took him for. KI mean, it's too neat not to be deliberate, ain't it? And I'm sure there are more of these to come.quote:Sometimes it's possible to sense the struggle the translator had with John's phraseology. I get that sense occasionally when listening to the odd actor playing parts in Shakespearean plays – and also when hearing some reciters of the King James' Version. When it's not the first language, it can sounds strained and obviously unnatural. Actors need to work at making Shakespearean language sound natural – otherwise I for one end up wishing dear old Bill had just made his lines shorter.
John 8:50-51
Jesus answered, “I am not possessed by a demon, but I honour my Father – and yet you dishonour me. I am not trying to get praise for myself. There is one who demands it, and he also judges.
quote:[John 8.51]
"...Very truly, I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see death."
quote:[John8.52-53]
The Jews said to him,"Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say, 'Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.' 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Who do you claim to be?"
quote:[John8.54-59]
Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, 'He is our God,' though you do not know him. But I know him; if I would say that I do nor know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word. Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day [Heb.11.13]. He saw it and was glad." Then the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM [my caps]." So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
quote:All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners
quote:Aha. Just what the doctor ordered. A nice, gentle, relaxing story of a healing just in time to restore one's equanimity and sence of balance. No in-depth theological issues to worry about.
John 9:1
Now as Jesus was passing by, he saw a man who had been blind from birth.
quote:I mean. Dang!!!!!
John 9:2
His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man or his parents?”
quote:Not even Jesus resolves the issue with a completed one-off answer. He focuses on this one man and on outcomes, not causes. A very OT answer to an OT issue.
John 9:3
Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.
quote:[John9.4-5]
"...We [or 'I']must work the works of himwho sent me [/us] while it is day; night is coming when no-one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
quote:And John leaves it there. During the healing sequence John does not record Jesus as referring to sin at all; no “Your sins are forgiven, get up and walk” mantra here.
John 5:14
“See! You've been healed! Now don't sin any more, in case anything worse happens to you.”
quote:[John 9.6-7]
When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man's eyes, saying to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see.
quote:[John9.8-9]
The neighbours and those who had seen him before as a beggar [including the disciles?] began to ask "Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?" Some were saying "It is he" . Others were saying "No, but it is someone like him." [Pre-empting the obvious sceptical attack]
quote:The blind guy certainly is a colorful character. We are used to Jesus being awesome, but this guy rocks. "Can't you just be happy for me, assholes?"
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
However, I suspect that is because of the interplay between the local religious authorities and the newly sighted man, who does an extraordinary job of witnessing to Jesus' work and keeping to the key point (unlike his interrogators). I rather think John included the miracle mainly because it furnished the opportunity for the conflict that followed.
quote:[John9.9-12 and I'm still 22 verses behind the rabbit...]
He kept saying, "I am the man." But they kept asking him, "Then how were your eyes opened?" He answered, "The man called Jesus made mud, spread it on my eyes, and said to me, 'Go to Siloam and wash.' Then I went and washed and received my sight." They said to him, "Where is he?" He said, "I do not know."
Sorry, sorry, sorry...
quote:[John9.13]
They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formally been blind.
quote:[John9.14-16a]
Now it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. Then the Pharisees also began to ask him how he had received his sight. He said to them, "He put mud on my eyes. Then I washed, and now I see." Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not observe the sabbath."
quote:[John 9.16b-17]
But others said, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?" And they were divided. So they said again to the blind man, "What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened." He said "He is a prophet."
quote:[John 9.18-19] Some might say the Jews employed a healthy scepticism. The parents do not recognize the implied slur in the questions put to them (i.e. "was he really born blind...?") but in taking the question at face value and answering it honestly, throw the questioners on the back foot:
The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?"
quote:]John 9. to v21].
His parents answered, "We know that this a our son [and not a stray beggar we thought we could make a ready buck out of] and that he was born blind; but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him. He is of age. He will speak for himself."
quote:Or perhaps both?
John 9:22
His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jewish authorities. For the Jewish leaders had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.
quote:The man's just not playing their silly game, is he?
24 So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and they said to him, "Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner." 25 He answered, "I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.
quote:[John9.24-25, 26-27]
26 They said to him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?" 27 He answered them, "I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again. Do you also want to become his disciples?
quote:[John9.28]
28 Then they reviled him, saying, "You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses."
quote:[John9.29]
We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.
quote:[John 9.30-34]
30 The man answered, "Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that GOd does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. 31 Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." 34 They answered him, "You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?" And they drove him out.
quote:You have no idea how desperately I want to post that in the Quotesfile. Out of context, of course.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Aha! Sin! At last!
quote:You're probably right that most people's theology at the time included blindness or what have you as a punishment for sin. But I took "God does not hear sinners" to be a reference to Jesus, not to the blind man, meaning in effect that if Jesus had been the kind of wicked person the religious leaders were claiming, God would never have allowed him to do this miracle. Yet here the miracle is. Walking and talking and looking down its newly visible nose at the religious leaders.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
John brings that theme back into play for us. The ex-blind man provides us with the conundrum:
[1] God does not grant audiences to rebel petitioners [God will not hear sinners], only those who are loyal to God and behave that way will be heard.
[2] There has never been a recorded case of a blind person's eyes being restored. It would have to be an act of God to do this.
And yet here is a case of a man's eyes being restored. The way this is presented provides good support for seeing the standard theology of the day to be one where blindness is equated with sin and no doubt prompting plenty of fulfilling hours of debate on the finer matters (him? Or his parents?).
The problem for the religious authorities is that seeing is believing. It's quite fun to see them at the crossroads, facing a paradigm shift... But then they fall back into secure denial mode. The only answer they can stomach is that [1] above trumps [2]. Rebellion must have influenced this blind man before he was born (he was birthed completely in sin). So in answer to the disciples' question back up in verse 2, it must have been the man's parents who sinned.
Just to be on the safe side, though, this man is also expelled from the community.
quote:It seems that most English versions translate the quote from Jesus as “Do you believe...?” but this is ambiguous in English – it can mean something like, “Do you believe that the son of man exists?”, which is not what John is doing here. This is Jesus actively locating the man who had been rejected by his 'own' (perhaps a little Johannine precursor of Jesus as Word – from chapter 1 – coming to his own but being rejected by his own?), and setting up a context of a new relationship out of rejection. All sorts of pastoral lessons there!
John 9:35
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out and he found him and said to him, “Do you yourself trust in the son of man?”
quote:Inwardly? Or by some act of obeisance? Does it matter?
36 He answered,"And who is he, sir? Tell me so that I may believe in him." 37 Jesus said, "You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he." 38 He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshipped him.
quote:[John9.39-41]
39 Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind." 40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not blind, are we?" 41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say 'We see', your sin remains.
quote:That passage moves on to some direct warnings of impending catastrophe.
“Go and tell these people:
‘Listen continually, but don’t understand!
Look continually, but don’t perceive!’
Make the hearts of these people calloused;
make their ears deaf and their eyes blind!
Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
their hearts might understand and they might repent and be healed.”
quote:I find a lot of Christians see the performance of miracles as proof of God's existence or His working in the world. Because of this I prefer mostly to talk about signs rather than miracles, especially as miracles are now seen as breakings of the natural law.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Interesting though. And I'm not sure he means to convince them of the miracles so much as he is using the stories "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ," the one God promised to send all those years ago. And here we get a man acknowledging that very thing by worship.
quote:This demonstrates where the written Word is rather poor at communication. "Reading the words as they stand" means being unaware of the cultural and theological baggage you/I bring with you/me.
Originally posted by shamwari:
In which case, LC, you might like to punctuate the whole Biblical story indicating when or where to tonally indicate frustration, sarcasm. hyperbole.
Most people simply read the words as they stand.
J.Jeremias indicated that the emendation proposed is entirely legitimate and , if adopted, would make reading the words as they stand theologically defensible.
quote:You sound a bit frustrated.
Originally posted by shamwari:
In which case, LC, you might like to punctuate the whole Biblical story indicating when or where to tonally indicate frustration, sarcasm. hyperbole.
Most people simply read the words as they stand.
J.Jeremias indicated that the emendation proposed is entirely legitimate and , if adopted, would make reading the words as they stand theologically defensible.
quote:[John 10.1]
"Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit."
quote:[John 10.2-3]
2. "...The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice.
But should we wait till we get to that very, very tempting chapter? Because if you get me going on it, I won't shut up.
quote:[John 10.3-4] From this insistence on the pastor's voice, I'm pretty sure this is happening at night. It's a fascinating account of a rural tradition at once familiar and at the same time far removed from our own experience. If the shepherd calls them all by name, it must be a fairly small flock - which is perhaps why they share a fold with someone else's sheep - perhaps its a common pound. The sheep recognize him not by sight but by his voice - important for John's readers/hearer's since they can no longer see the shepherd John is referring to.
3 "...the gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice..."
quote:Does anyone think anything is being implied about the other shepherds, or the sheep which do not belong to the shepherd as a spiritual illustration?
A peasant family might own 10-15 sheep, at most forty. But when we are told that a person has a hundred sheep, we are awared that the reference is to a flock which belongs to an extended family or perhaps even to the village.
quote:[John 10.5-8]
5 They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers." 6 Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they dis not understand what he was saying to them. 7 So again Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you [see Nigel's post above on the "very truly" sayings], I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and bandits, but the sheep did not listen to them..."
quote:As I understand it, a sheepfold did not have a gate/door; once the sheep were inside, the shepherd lay down at the entrance to prevent thieves or wild animals from getting to the sheep.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I have to admit that locating Jesus as the courtyard door (v.7) was unexpected; usually the metaphorical link is to something animate.
quote:That's my understanding, too. Sleeping and living with the flock is how the shepherd smells of them and they in turn recognise him. He knows the bleats of each, and they know his voice. The shepherd is truly guardian of his flock.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:As I understand it, a sheepfold did not have a gate/door; once the sheep were inside, the shepherd lay down at the entrance to prevent thieves or wild animals from getting to the sheep.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I have to admit that locating Jesus as the courtyard door (v.7) was unexpected; usually the metaphorical link is to something animate.
Moo
quote:[John10,9-10]
"...9 I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will comin and go out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
quote:Yes, the idea of the shepherd as the guard to the sheep pen is one that there is evidence for across the ancient near east; I had been assuming that here in John, but I was intrigued by the terms and associated imagery he uses in this passage and it led me to think a bit differently.
Originally posted by Moo:
As I understand it, a sheepfold did not have a gate/door; once the sheep were inside, the shepherd lay down at the entrance to prevent thieves or wild animals from getting to the sheep.
quote:[John10.11-12]
11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.12 The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away - and the wolf snatches them and scatters them..."
quote:That seems plausible, but I'd love to know if we have any contemporary reference to it. Otherwise I'd worry that its another one of those nice sermon-illustration stories that someone made up once to explain away the text. (q.v. camels, eyes of needles, big and little gates, [/i]passim[/i])
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:Yes, the idea of the shepherd as the guard to the sheep pen is one that there is evidence for across the ancient near east...
Originally posted by Moo:
As I understand it, a sheepfold did not have a gate/door; once the sheep were inside, the shepherd lay down at the entrance to prevent thieves or wild animals from getting to the sheep.
quote:Yes of course. And the other prophets. They habitually use shepherds as metaphors for the rulers of Israel. Read Zechariah, especially chapters 10-13, which is specifically Messianic and has the Lord himself becoming a shepherd. In Jeremiah 23, the LORD will scatter the false shepherds and gather his scattered sheep and lead them home, and raise up a new king like David. And Israel's favourite foreign king, Cyrus or Persia, was called a shepherd as well as a Messiah, in Isaiah 44 & 45.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
A possible setting by way of background could be Isaiah 42 to 49, which deals with God's people as the blind and deaf who need to see and hear correctly (e.g., 42:18-25 ). They need leading out (43:8) and the way to do this is to call them by name, e.g.:
Isa. 43:1 “I have called you by name, you are mine.”
Isa. 45:3 “...you may know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by name.”
Isa. 45:4 “I call you by name and give you a title of respect, even though you do not recognize me.”
Isa. 49:1 “...from birth he has made mention of my name.”
These sets of passages resonate with John 9 and 10. We have the blind man who receives sight and the 'blind' leaders who remain blind even though they claim they can see. We have reference to the authentic shepherd calling by name (10:3). The sheep recognise and follow him.
Perhaps, then, John has used Jesus' sayings here to reignite a memory of the heritage Isaiah was tapping into. Jesus sets up the imagery of shepherd/sheep and the threats and risks associated with that setting. He then taps into parts of the image in turn: he is the gate in the sense that.... he is the shepherd in the sense that....
quote:And half a dozen shorter passages in other prophets, or prophets quoted in other books.
For thus says the Lord God: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places to which they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the watercourses, and in all the inhabited parts of the land. I will feed them with good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel shall be their pasture; there they shall lie down in good grazing land, and they shall feed on rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord God. I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice.
quote:Peeling away received incrustations from received wisdom is certainly a worthy task; there is no shortage of reference to the sheep pen motif in shorter commentaries and sermons - and all without reference to evidence.
Originally posted by ken:
That seems plausible, but I'd love to know if we have any contemporary reference to it. Otherwise I'd worry that its another one of those nice sermon-illustration stories that someone made up once to explain away the text.
quote:[J0hn10.13-15]*Because is one of John's favourite words. In that form and also as "for" or "since". He's especially fond of the Greek word "gar" (phonetically) which lends an air of mystery to the short ending of Mark's gospel.
13 The hired hand runs away because* a hired hand does not care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. Iknow my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep
quote:Not only did they not do their own verse-numbering, they wrote entirely in capital letters with no punctuation. It's not always easy to determine where one sentence ends and another begins. This problem is especially acute when reading Paul's letters.
Originally posted by pimple:
I don't know why, but the beginning of a verse in mid-sentence like that is unusual for the discourses. As if "just as..." were either a gloss or an afterthought by the evangelist, or something unintentionally left out and remembered later.
But did the evangelists do their own verse-numbering?
quote:[John 10.16]
16 "...I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my vouice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
quote:Though part-time discipleship is not what the Gospels teach, IMO.
Originally posted by Moo:
It seems to me it's probably easier to take time off from fishing than from shepherding.
quote:I agree with you.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Gentiles. IMNSVHO.
quote:It may require another thread indeed; it is a very interesting topic. My take would be that in fact the NT writers were so immersed in their Jewish Scriptures that rather than mangle the text in the absence of context, they actually understood the original context better than perhaps our more modern commentators have done. This section in John could act as an example.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I take some comfort in seeing that the New Testament writers in their use of the OT do not have our concerns about being (in)consistent with the original context and the meaning that intended audience would understand.
quote:[John 10.17-20]
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.
quote:As
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.
quote:
My Father loves me, and I am my Father's beloved and gladly obedient son. This fact is evident in my actions. Specifically, in the fact that I have come for the purpose of dying to save humanity, and then rising again. I am in perfect accord with the Father on this, for we are of one heart and mind.
I am not being forced to do this--no one is taking my life away from me against my will. And that includes people on earth--nobody here has the power to kill me without my consent. Death has no power over me. But I give that consent freely, and so I will die when I choose--and I will rise again, when I choose. I have the power to do that, you know. And a good thing, too, because that is the mission my beloved Father has given me.
quote:Got it in one, Latchkey Kid! I am having trouble in squaring this (over)confident docetic/gnostic apparition, who regards his imminent death with complete equanimity (because he can die and live again as and when he chooses) with the real man in the next chapter who weeps at the predicament and suffering of his friends. Here he is all God - no man.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Yes. Though we could claim to have the power to lay down our lives, we could not claim to have the power to raise it again.
quote:I'm like that sometimes. If I am dealing with a very difficult situation I veer back and forth between complete peace, because I'm sure God is in charge, and something verging on panic, because I know the situation is bad.
Originally posted by pimple:
I am having trouble in squaring this (over)confident docetic/gnostic apparition, who regards his imminent death with complete equanimity (because he can die and live again as and when he chooses) with the real man in the next chapter who weeps at the predicament and suffering of his friends. Here he is all God - no man.
quote:[tangent]
Originally posted by Moo:
Jesus and the apostles were Jews. When John refers to the Jews, he means the religious authorities and those who supported them mindlessly.
Unfortunately the church lost sight of this fact.
Moo
quote:Easy to see where that "mad, bad or God" trichotomy comes from, isn't it?
Again the Jews were divided because of these words. Many of them were saying, 'He has a demon and is out of his mind. Why listen to him?' Others were saying, 'These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?'
quote:Should the John passage be read in this light; that it applies to us as well?
‘A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!
quote:I'm going to keep an eye out for a possible chiasm as we plod on through John, because if he has set us up to climb (like shepherds) the mountain of chapter 10 then he may have had in mind a downhill run afterwards. We'll see... I may be setting this up to fail. Sort of a chasm, rather than chiasm.
Originally posted by pimple:
The following completes the section about physical/spiritual blindness (and the chiasm?)...
quote:The whole of Matthew 10 is very pertinent, I think. Whereas in John, Jesus's "paranoia" (as the Jews see it), is restricted to one or two oft-repeated phrases, in Matthew we have it concentrated, as it were, in one apocalyptic outburst. The reference to Beelzebub is given out of context, but clearly refers to the time
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
This brings to my mind Matt 10:24-25
quote:Should the John passage be read in this light; that it applies to us as well?
‘A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!
quote:It does apply to us, as anyone who's been slandered can tell you. We had a bad time about six years back where three loonies got together and drove us out of our old church, along with half the congregation. You would not believe the slanders they spread about us--and the only real defense to their crap was the same used for Jesus in the John passage: "these are not the words of one who commits adultery/steals the offering/has wild orgies/prostitutes him/herself/throws children out into the snow to die. Can a person who does those things also care for the dying/visit and nurse the sick/love the unlovable/feed the hungry/find jobs for the poor?"
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
This brings to my mind Matt 10:24-25
quote:Should the John passage be read in this light; that it applies to us as well?
‘A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!
quote:A new setting - a temporal and spatial break in the performance. The setting John provides here is useful, but is it going to be significant for what follows? We may not know until we get into the 'what follows' and it may be purely circumstantial, but it is another example of John's use of geographical locations in his plot. He does like to specify the Jerusalem, and especially temple, positions. The 'Feast of Dedication' (as most English versions have it), Hanukkah, starts in winter, around the Nov/Dec time of the Gregorian year. This year (2012) it apparently starts on Saturday, 8 December. The NET Bible note has this to say about it:
The time had come for the annual Dedication-Renewal festival, which occurs in winter. Jesus was walking in the temple area known as Solomon's Colonnade.
quote:The colonnade John mentions faced into the temple area from the east side. It was something of a pre-Herodian structure. It had some significance for the early christians following Jesus' resurrection; it receives honourable mention in Acts 3:11 and 5:12.
The feast of the Dedication (also known as Hanukkah) was a feast celebrating annually the Maccabean victories of 165-164 – when Judas Maccabeus drove out the Syrians, rebuilt the altar, and rededicated the temple on 25 Kislev (1 Macc 4:41-61). From a historical standpoint, it was the last great deliverance the Jewish people had experienced, and it came at a time when least expected. Josephus ends his account of the institution of the festival with the following statement: “And from that time to the present we observe this festival, which we call the festival of Lights, giving this name to it, I think, from the fact that the right to worship appeared to us at a time when we hardly dared hope for it” (Ant. 12.7.6 [12.325]).
quote:[John 10.24-26]
So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered, 'I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name testify to me; but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep...'
quote:No, the first mention of Jesus as Messiah is when he spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, in John 4:25-26
Originally posted by pimple:
Is this the first actual mention of Jesus as Messiah in the gospel? Has the attitude of 'the Jews' changed from outright opposition to one of curiosity?
quote:Many Jews would have said Jesus should not talk to any woman, much less a Samaritan. It is remarkable that he first announced his Messiahship to such a person.
The woman said to him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I am he, the one who is speaking to you.’
quote:[John 10.27-30]
'...My sheep hear my voice. I know them and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no-one canm snatch it out of the Father's hand. * 30 The Father and I are one.'
quote:I agree - powerful and reassuring words indeed. I'm talking with the senior Sunday School tomorrow on some of the names of Jesus - Bread of Life, Light of the World and Good Shepherd. This is one of the passages to which I shall be referring.
Originally posted by pimple:
Thanks, Moo. Remarkable, indeed. But not untypical!
The comfort and reassurance this passage has given to people from all walks of life down the ages can hardly be overstated. We could argue for hours over the meaning of the phrase "eternal life" but to those whose mortal existence, here and now, is or was under imminent threat of extinction, it means simply that whatever happens, the believer is in the hands of a powerful, merciful and forgiving Father.
quote:[John 10.31-32]
The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus replied, 'I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?
quote:Probably because Jesus's statement in v.30 'I and the Father are one' is so close an echo of Deut.6:4 'Hear, O Israel, The LORD our God, the LORD is one' that it was taken as a claim to divinity. (Or so it says in the notes in my ESV
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
What would have been the justification for stoning Jesus? Is there a Levitical provision?
) quote:There then follows a short, quaint theological exchange (with the onlookers freeze-framed, so to speak, with stones held aloft....)
The Jews ansered, 'It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.'
quote:Well, I'm sure it is, but my time (at the library) is almost past. Could somebody kindly finish Jesus' reply and possibly find a link to the scripture he refers to?
Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your law, "I said you are gods?"
quote:Whoa, there! There's a world (or a heaven!) of difference between "I am God's Son" and "The Father and I are one".
'...If those to whom the word of God came were called "gods" - and the scripture cannot be annulled - can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said "I am God's Son"?'
quote:I think the visual setting is of a courtroom with God standing to pronounce his judgement following the evidential hearing (the judge standing to deliver judgement being the norm in many legal settings around the world). This courtroom is God's, but it is also where the other 'gods' meet in the divine assembly to seek judgements and authority for action. This setting seems to me to be the most natural in the context of the times and more so than other options proposed by some commentators (fearful, I suspect, of a threat to monotheism) such as the 'gods' here being a reference to human judges, or that Israel's God has somehow invaded the Canaanite pantheon's assembly to denounce them. These options raise too many complications in respect of this text.
God stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the gods he renders judgement.
He says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions and show favouritism to the wicked?
Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless!
Vindicate the oppressed and suffering!
Rescue the poor and needy!
Deliver them from the power of the wicked!
They neither know nor understand.
They stumble around in the dark,
while all the foundations of the earth crumble.
I thought, ‘You are gods;
all of you are sons of the Most High.’
Yet you will die like mortals;
you will fall like all the other rulers.”
Rise up, O God, and execute judgement on the earth!
For you own all the nations.
quote:[John 10.37-39]
If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is is me and I am in the Father." 39 Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.
quote:[John 10.37-39]
Originally posted by pimple:
If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is is me and I am in the Father." 39 Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.
quote:[John 10.40-42]
He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing earlier, and he remained there. 41 Many came to him, and they were saying "John performed no sign, but everything that John said about this man is true." 42 And many believed in him there.
quote:[John 11.1-2]
Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill.
quote:There must be something in this, given the space John (the author) devotes to John (the Baptist). Whether the author was concerned about the following that the Baptist had and saw this as competition, I'm not sure. It may well be – Josephus at any rate gives John a favourable write up and more space than Jesus* in his works, though that be because Jesus' death was associated with Rome (something Josephus may not have wanted to emphasise) whereas the Baptist could be safely fobbed off on Herod.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Aren't the verses in play (John 10:40-42) consistent with the author's intent to argue for Jesus' authenticity over other competitors like John who still had followers even at the time of the Gospel's writing?
quote:[John 11.3-4]
So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, 'Lord, he whom you love is ill'. But when Jesus heard it, he said, 'This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God's glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.'
quote:I've read 8 pages: 1/3 of the way there.
P.S. Autenreith Road. What a task you have ahead of you! I wish you well. I hope you're a fast reader!
quote:John 11:5-6
Jesus loved Martha, her sister, and Lazarus. When he heard that Lazarus was sick, he remained in the place where he was for two more days.
quote:[John11.7-8]
Then after this he said to the disciples, "Let us go to Judaea again." 8 The disciples said to him, "Rabbi, the Jews were just now trying to stone you, and are you going there again?"
quote:I don't think something is necessarily missing. I don't think Jesus is talking about literal day and night. I can't quite put my finger on what he is talking about, but something like "we'll be OK because God (metaphorically, light) is with us.". There may also be a rebuke intended for the disciples who have so quickly forgotten the implicit request from Mary and Martha to come help Lazarus.
Jesus answered, ‘Are there not twelve hours of daylight? Those who walk during the day do not stumble, because they see the light of this world. But those who walk at night stumble, because the light is not in them.’
quote:Thomas the doubter, Thomas the realist. Thomas the faithful. Thomas the brave. Thomas behaves like a normal human being. Jesus does not. But John is hardly concerned, at times, with Jesus as a human being, or so it appears. He is only concerned with Jesus as God. Every strange thing that Jesus thinks, says, or does in this story can be explained by that simple phrase. He was God. End of problem. End of dialogue. Comments?
The disciples said to him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will be all right." 13 Jesus, however, had been speaking about his death, but they thought that he was referring merely to sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead. 15 For your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe [answers AR's query].But let us go to him." 16 Thomas, who was called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him.
quote:I've always read Thomas as making a faithful, loyal, confused statement here, as in "I don't understand Jesus, but let's go die with Him." But now I ' m wondering if the tone wasn' t maybe sarcastic, and the referent of "die with him" was Lazarus.
Originally posted by pimple:
OK -to tie in some of the points above, here are verses 12-16:
quote:Thomas the doubter, Thomas the realist. Thomas the faithful. Thomas the brave. Thomas behaves like a normal human being. Jesus does not. But John is hardly concerned, at times, with Jesus as a human being, or so it appears. He is only concerned with Jesus as God. Every strange thing that Jesus thinks, says, or does in this story can be explained by that simple phrase. He was God. End of problem. End of dialogue. Comments?
The disciples said to him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will be all right." 13 Jesus, however, had been speaking about his death, but they thought that he was referring merely to sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead. 15 For your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe [answers AR's query].But let us go to him." 16 Thomas, who was called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him.
quote:I think the idea you're getting at is expressed in both places: just before raising Lazarus "Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me” (John 11: 41, 42). He seems to make it pretty clear here that He prays aloud before raising Lazarus so that the onlookers will explicitly see the miracle as a sign of God's power demonstrated through Jesus.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Aren't the signs in John given "so that you might believe" (not sure where I'm quoting that from precisely, but it sounds Biblical -- maybe it's from the evangelist's comments at the end of John?)? So raising a dead man to life is a big huge whopping mega-sign, and Jesus waits a few days so he can deliver that sign. Doesn't he say something like that himself after raising Lazarus (or maybe before raising Lazarus)?
[Hmmm, looking at John and can't find either of those in quite the form I thought was there. But I still basically think what I said, so do you agree or am I wrong?]
quote:[John.11.17]
When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been been in the tomb four days.
quote:Yes, that makes sense. Better safe than sorry. But I think the "four day rule" - if there is/was such a thing, might refer to the time at which a person might be certified dead "officially" rather than when they can be buried. So my suggestion that Jesus was attempting to delay the burial may be totally wrong.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Given the climate, immediate burial was I believe the norm.
quote:[John 11.18-19]
Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, some two miles [Gk:1stadia] away, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them about their brother.
quote:[John 11.20-22]
when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out and met him, while Mary stayed at home.21 Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.22 But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him."
quote:Here it is.
Originally posted by pimple:
Here as elsewhere the women act independently. but I've forgotten where to find the passage where one of them does the washing up amd complains that the other just sits and listens to Jesus.
quote:[John11.23-24]
Jesus ssid to her [Martha], "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again at the resurrection on the last day."
quote:Verse 25 is quoted at the beginning of many a funeral, and guarantees eternal life to the believer. The second sentence of verse 26 seems to offer the added comfort that the belief may be by proxy. If Martha believes, Lazarus will walk. But perhaps there is still the sine qua non for (the risen) Lazarus that he must also believe for the promise to remain?
25 Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection [and the life]. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?
quote:Is verse 27 meant to hark back to 3.1-2, wher Nicodemus, and important Pharisee, comes to Jesus by night (thus showing himself, in John's cosmology, not to be on the side of the angels)?
27. She [Martha] said to him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world." 28. When she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary, and told her privately, The Techer is here and is calling for you,"
quote:Do I understand correctly that you are you suggesting that addressing Jesus as Teacher is equivalent to addressing him as Messiah? Jesus is frequently called Teacher throughout the Synoptics, both directly and indirectly, so it must have been a common title for him during his ministry. I think when Martha refers to "the Teacher" when speaking to Mary, it's just that they were used to calling him that. (And that saying "The Messiah is calling for you" might have been a little confusing at that point.)
Originally posted by pimple:
But there's no ambiguity with Martha. She uses the definite article, which suggests that The Teacher is a formal title. AFAIK, nowhere else in the bible is this title used as a synonym for Christ/Messiah. But I may be wrong.
quote:Or does this mean that Lazarus was believing and therefore will rise?
Verse 25 is quoted at the beginning of many a funeral, and guarantees eternal life to the believer. The second sentence of verse 26 seems to offer the added comfort that the belief may be by proxy. If Martha believes, Lazarus will walk. But perhaps there is still the sine qua non for (the risen) Lazarus that he must also believe for the promise to remain?
quote:Perhaps I'm biting off too big a chunk of text here, but it seems all of a piece to me. I see two things going on: (1) Mary's swift and silent, no-excuses response to the news that Jesus is calling for her. She goes, without explanation, such that (as Lamb Chopped pointed out upthread) the others misunderstood her motivation, or at least that's the way John paints it. It's as if Mary knows there's more going on here, that Jesus is going to offer her something, she doesn't know what, but there's an act of faith in the rapidity of her response. (2) I think the rest of the chunk exists pretty much to move the action forward, to get all the witnesses out of the house and onto the path where Jesus was, in order to set up the next exchange.
29And when she heard it, she got up quickly and went to him. 30Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31The Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary get up quickly and go out. They followed her because they thought that she was going to the tomb to weep there.
quote:
Martha said to Jesus [trying to keep the accusatory tone out of her voice], “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. [deep breath, squares shoulders] But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.”
Jesus said to her [with compassion and reassurance], “Your brother will rise again.” [as in, NOW]
Martha said to him [cautiously, in case she's misunderstanding him--she really hopes he means what she THINKS he means!]: “I know that he will rise again--in the resurrection on the last day.” [mental addition: "That's what you meant, right? You aren't getting my hopes up here for something a bit more immediate, are you?"]
Jesus said to her, [No,] “I [heavy emphasis] am the resurrection and the life. [Not the end of the world--I who am standing right here, right now, dealing with this situation!] Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
[Totally confused now, but very hopeful,] She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.” [Mental addition: "At least I know that much, whatever else you're going on about. And boy, I hope it's what I think you're planning to do. Must.get.Mary.now..."]
quote:Some translators (NT Wright, for one) translate "the Jews" in John as "the Judeans" -- in contrast to the Galileans, as Jesus and most of his followers would have been.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Why does v 30 say "The Jews"? Who else would there be? I checked the Greek to make sure it was there.
quote:Yes, the Greek word can mean Judean or Jew.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Some translators (NT Wright, for one) translate "the Jews" in John as "the Judeans" -- in contrast to the Galileans, as Jesus and most of his followers would have been.
quote:They may have been hiding for fear of the Judeans. The religious authorities were Judean, and the disciples were Galilean.
Originally posted by pimple:
That makes sense - and certainly makes reading the gospel easier. Perhaps we've got so used to the disciples, post crucifixion, hiding in the upper room "for fear of the Jews" that it's difficult to accustom oneself to the more awkard -sounding "for fear of the Judaeans".
quote:[John 11.32-34]
32 When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. 34 He said, "where have you laid him?" They said to him, Lord, come and see."
quote:Moo
Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
quote:Or started to cry, or broke down, or burst into tears, depending partly on your christology, I guess. Anyone who has found him/herself in the position of having to be strong for other people in the presence of one's own grief might come close to understanding what's going on here.
Jesus began to weep [NRSV]
quote:illustrates how sometimes it is very hard to know the face value or intended meaning of a passage.
The Greek word used here for Jesus’ weeping (ἐδάκρυσεν, edakrusen) is different from the one used to describe the weeping of Mary and the Jews in v. 33 which indicated loud wailing and cries of lament. This word simply means “to shed tears” and has more the idea of quiet grief. But why did Jesus do this? Not out of grief for Lazarus, since he was about to be raised to life again. L. Morris (John [NICNT], 558) thinks it was grief over the misconception of those round about. But it seems that in the context the weeping is triggered by the thought of Lazarus in the tomb: This was not personal grief over the loss of a friend (since Lazarus was about to be restored to life) but grief over the effects of sin, death, and the realm of Satan. It was a natural complement to the previous emotional expression of anger (11:33). It is also possible that Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus because he knew there was also a tomb for himself ahead.
quote:I think it was grief, not just for Lazarus, but also for Mary and Martha and their grieving friends. It was grief for human suffering and bereavement.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Dunno about that. I think it was simple grief for a friend, no matter how temporary his death..
quote:I still think it was grief over the death of Lazarus and part of the communal grief.
Originally posted by pimple:
Thanks for the note, Latchkey Kid. How would you answer your own questions?
quote:Others re-act less sympathetically:
36 So the Jews said, [QUOTE]"See,how he loved him!"
quote:- which takes a bit of unpacking. Are these the words of blissfully (or not so blissfully) ignorant people covering their embarrassment in the presence of extreme emotional pain? Or the words of a bunch of evil, unbelieving scoffers? The answer has to take into account the fact that the hiding of raw emotion was never much lauded in the middle east, and also that if they are scoffers, their question admits the healing of the blind man - so where's the scoff?
37 But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
quote:Verse 39 here follows KJV and many other translations in the past. NRSV has a significant change:
38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb; it was a cave, and astone lay upon it. 39 Jesus said, "Take away the stone."Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, there will be an odour, for he has been dead four days." [RSV]
quote:- which is a more literal translation (the
...."Lord, already there is a stink, because he has been dead four days."
quote:There is the possibility that some stench was apparent because the stone seal was not complete, so that it was clear that there would be much more if the tomb was opened.
Originally posted by pimple:
Both may be read as common-sense assumptions - don't open the tomb and let the stench out.
But the second can also be read by literalists as a statement of fact. In fact, Martha cannot
know there is a stench until the tomb is opened (if the stench is already apparent to everyone, there is no point in refusing to open the tomb).
The first is a plausible part of an actual event, IMHO. The second is an unnecessary and inaccurate dogmatic statement.
You may think I'm being picky. I am. As were the editors of NRSV.
quote:I agree completely, but ...
Originally posted by pimple:
... literal translations aren't always best. What the speaker meant is sometimes lost that way, and it's the meaning that counts.
quote:... if the meaning of the original text really is that "the dead man" came out, then I want to know that. It might seem silly, or it might just be the way the text identifies which man came out (i.e. "the man who was dead" as opposed to any other man there). But I don't want a translator deciding to adjust the meaning based on ideas such as the text should never be silly, or that it needs to be more consistent. Ideas like that should be applied in our hermeneutics as we decide what the text means to us.
My beef is, if you want to believe that what climbed out of the tomb was a stinking corpse
(and NRSV does say "the dead man" came out, which is just plain silly) then that's nothing for me to argue with.
quote:and then goes on to explain to his Father why he is thanking him!!
Jesus said to her,"Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, "Father, I thank you for having heard me...
quote:[John 11.40-43] Without which instruction, Lazarus might have been inclioned to stay where he was. Whom could he trust? He was ill. Now he is conscious and discovers that he has been buried. But the voice of his friend assures him that it is safe to come out into the open.
...42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me." 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out"
quote:Yes you've got it Nigel, and if I find the original later I'll try to post that too.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Thanks RE - I think the link may have broken somewhere along the line, but I did a bit of searching around the host site and wondered if this was an option?.
I'll have a look further a bit later...
quote:I personally don't have the spare time, but I will add that reading "soul" (nephesh or psyche) as "living being" is pretty standard Seventh-day Adventist practice, since we don't accept the Platonic separation of soul and body. However, we don't have our own Biblical translation so I've never looked at how the texts would read if you did that across the board. It's the reading I'm used to in Genesis 2:7 (where man doesn't "have" a soul; he "becomes" a soul) and the Ezekiel passage referenced above.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
An interesting exercise would be to go through the entire bible and replace the word 'soul' with something more akin to 'living being' and see if that produces any anomalies. Spare time, any living-being?
quote:Why just hands and feet - it must be an allusion to the hands and feet of the crucified Jesus, no? As is the cloth round the head - probably a napkin to prevent the dead man's jaw from falling - and a detail also found later in John's description of the empty tomb (J.A.T. Robinson made quite a meal of this in The Priority of John)
The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his feet wrapped in a cloth...
quote:[John 11.44]
...Jesus said to them, "Unbind him and let him go."
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:[John 11.44]
...Jesus said to them, "Unbind him and let him go."
"let him go" - would it be straining the metaphor too much to think of the Exodus here?
)
quote:And to hope that the real Elizabeth (in this case) - Elizabeth Jennings - has stopped turning in her grave. Jennings wrote two poems entitled Lazarus several years apart; in the first she asks the risen L why he didn't answer the questions she assumed people must have asked him, and in the second, why people didn't ask those questions in the first place. She was clearly puzzled and distressed by this. A devout catholic all her life, she was a victim of her religion's reluctance to answer questions - or even allow them to be asked. And for all her hurt, she constantly blamed herself. Jesus wept!
There is a strange strand of christian thought which believes that although Lazarus died, he continued to be fully conscious in some way. The renowned poet Elizabeth Bishop is one of several people I have read, wondering if Lazarus really wanted to come back - presumably from heaven, where his immortal soul watched the whole scene.
quote:[John 11.45-46]
Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done.
quote:That's an interesting point.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
In order to accuse him of breaking Sabbath laws, his accusers had to implicitly acknowledge that he was in fact the one "doing" the miracles, which fact they would then ignore as a possible sign that he was operating under God's authority.
quote:Possibly a justified fear? The Roman authorities (sometimes) being more tolerant than (some) early christians? The important thing being whether other beliefs posed a serious challenge to the status quo?
47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and sid, "What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place [or 'temple' - Greek = just 'our place'] and our nation.
quote:Certain lyrics from Jesus Christ Superstar come to mind.
John 11:49-50 NET Bible
Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know nothing at all! You do not realise that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.”
quote:I've no idea whether Caiaphas or John were conscious of the Numbers passage. It may be that Caiaphas believed he was invoking a brilliant biblical principle - attributed to no less an authority than Moses - when he determines that God (with a bit of human help, of course) would judge Jesus as a sinner apart from the rest of the community.
The appeal in the verse is that it is better for one man to die for the whole nation than the whole nation for one man (see also John 11:50)
quote:[John 11.50-53]
"...50 You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed." 51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death.
quote:This follows hard on the heels of vv10-11 where John noted that Jesus had come to 'his own' but they had not accepted him. This feels like a tidy fit with where we are in John 11 – Jesus' 'own' are on the verge of taking the final irrevocable step of rejection.
NET Bible
But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children — children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.
quote:As an act of solidarity with the hoi polloi, I've added this to the Quotes File!
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Hang on. Did I just lump myself in the (parenthetical) set of Hoi Polloi???
quote:Interesting little fact included by John, given that he could have marched straight from the decision to execute Jesus to the fateful Passover climax. John has emphasised that Jesus was in the habit of attending the festivals in Jerusalem, but here he has Jesus first ducking out of sight with his followers and eluding the authorities. No doubt the right time hadn't yet come for the handing over, yet John chooses not to get to that time just yet.
John 11:54
Therefore Jesus no longer went around openly among the Jewish authorities, but went away from there to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and stayed there with his disciples.
quote:[John 11.55-57]
Now the Passover of the Jews was near [now where have we heard that before? and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.56 They were looking for Jesus and were asking one another as they stood in the temple, "What do you think? Surely he will not come to the festival, will he?" 57 Now the chief priests nad the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who knew where he [Jesus] was should let them know, so that they might arrest him.
quote:[John 12.1-2]
six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 2 There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.
quote:I'll have a look to see how this passage (as it goes on) might reflect a mirror on the previous side of chapter 10 (following the idea that chapter 10 is a linch-pin or peak in John's piece.
John 12:3
Then Mary took half a litre of expensive aromatic oil from pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus. She then wiped his feet dry with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfumed oil.
quote:[John 12.4-6]
But Judas Iscariot, on of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him) said. 5"Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?"
6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)
quote:[John 12. 7-8]
7 Jesus said,"Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. 8 You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."
quote:There's a possible structure – though I'm not sure whether it was a conscious intent by John – based around the following:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Is there a structure in this pericope starting with Lazarus in vv1&2 and ending with Lazarus in vv 10&11?
quote:There could be a play off between Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead and the fact that Jesus would be handed over to die. Perhaps raising an expectation that Jesus' death may not necessarily be the end of the story?
12:1 – It's to the place where Lazarus lived that Jesus came; John reminds his readers that Lazarus was the one raised from the dead by Jesus
12:4 – Judas interrupts the flowing narrative with his spoiler; John reminds his readers that Judas is the one who will betray Jesus
12:9 – Lots of people came to see Lazarus (not just Jesus); John reminds his readers that Lazarus was the one raised from the dead by Jesus
quote:[John 12. 9-11]
9 When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 SO the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and believing in Jesus.
quote:You've lost me there - can you elaborate?
Originally posted by pimple:
This is not the only place where John assumes an unpleasantly dog-in-a-manger attitude to wannabe christians with the wrong credentials.
quote:How? The disciples had been very wary even about coming as close as Bethany (when Jesus received the news of Lazarus's illness). But now they seem to be living it up. Lazarus has become some sort of local celebrity on his own account. But Bethany is not Jerusalem. The synoptics describe how Jesus sends the disciples on ahead to book the four-legged taxi for the trimphal entry. but John jumps straight to the event itslf.
12 The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem.
quote:[John 12.12-13]
So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna!
Blessed is the one who comes in the
name of the Lord -
the king of Israel!"
quote:I don't see the dog-in-a-manger attitude. On the contrary, John is showing lots of people not-us (many from the great crowd of the Jews) coming over and joining us. (And yes, it is odd that the Jews are portrayed in contradistinction to the followers of Jesus, since all followers of Jesus were Jews at that time, but that viewpoint is part and parcel of the whole of John's Gospel and we may as well understand what John is saying in a positive way rather than getting wholly stuck on the underlying illogicality of it.)
Originally posted by pimple:
And now for another interesting detail:
quote:[John 12. 9-11]
9 When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 SO the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and believing in Jesus.
It's clear that the "crowd of the Jews" does not mean the "Jewish authorities" here. It's the genuine interest of ordinary people. This is not the only place where John assumes an unpleasantly dog-in-a-manger attitude to wannabe christians with the wrong credentials.
Does this reflect an actual event or events? Were there, in fact, attempts on the life of Lazarus? The bible doesn't answer that. And who would benefit from the death of Lazarus? Forget I asked that (hastily stowing my Dan-Brown-channelling hat under the table). More likely, the "plot" is part of some first or second-century conspiracy theory (plus ca change...) but useful to add weight to John's message.
quote:Those words are pretty close to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (LXX) text of Psalm 118:25-26 (Ps. 117:25-26 in the Greek version). There is a resonance with the wider context of that Psalm, with its focus on God's faithfulness and loyalty to the covenant, leading to his coming to deliver his people from oppression. The temple theme – not far off in John – is present there, too.
”Hosanna!” (Yahweh, please save us!)
Blessings on the one coming in the Lord's name!
quote:And so on. The wider context of the Psalm fits quite well with John's plot; I think he may well have expected his hearers / readers to have picked up on the link. Very political.
From the distress I cried out “Yah!”
Yah answered me and put me in a wide open place.
Yahweh's for me, I'm not afraid! What can humans do to me?
Yahweh's for me as my helper; I, yes I, will stare triumphantly at those who hate me!
[Then follows tale of oppression with God's deliverance, followed by these links to the temple:]
Open for me the gates of justice!
I will enter through them and give thanks to Yahweh.
This is Yahweh's gate - the godly enter through it.
I will give you thanks, for you answered me, and have become my deliverer.
The stone which the builders discarded has become the cornerstone.
This is Yahweh's work. We consider it amazing!
This is the day Yahweh has brought about. We will be happy and rejoice in it!
Please Yahweh, Save us! Please!
Please Yahweh, Prosper us! Please!
Blessings on the one who comes in Yahweh's name!
On you we'll pronounce blessings in Yahweh's house.
quote:There it is again - light!
The Lord is God,
and he has given us light.
Bind the festal procession with branches,
up to the horns of the altar
quote:I thought so too.
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Behave? On the contrary. I thought it was genius!
quote:Does THIS help?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:I thought so too.
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Behave? On the contrary. I thought it was genius!
Moo
quote:Don't you just hate it when that happens?!
Originally posted by pimple:
the meaning of the last phrase (in Hebrew) is uncertain...
quote:
John 12:14-15
Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, “Don't be afraid, people of Zion; look, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt!”
quote:[John 12.16]
His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written of him and had been done to him.
quote:No comment! But there's lots of serious stuff in the sandwich filling. See you next week.
For what comeliness and beauty will be theirs! Grain will make the young men flourish, and new wine the virgins.
quote:[John 12.17-20]John really squeezes every last ounce of worth out of the Lazarus story. I'm about to be squeezed out myself - my session is up in seconds...
So the crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to testify.* 18It was also because they heard that he had performed this sign that the crowd went to meet him. 19The Pharisees then said to one another, ‘You see, you can do nothing. Look, the world has gone after him!’
quote:For the sake of any uininitiated lurkers, the above post alludes to the belief among some (but not all) Christians that the fouth gospel was written by John, son of Zebedee, who was also the Beloved Disciple, who was told by Jesus at the crucifixion to look after his (Jesus') mother.
Originally posted by daisymay:
And a lot of what John writes is what Jesus's mother has told him, since she lived with him later. They were not killed as many were.
quote:Philip already gets special mention in chapter 1:43-51. He is introduced there as Philip from Bethsaida, the same home town for Andrew and Peter. He introduced Nathaniel to Jesus at that point. Here he discusses with Andrew what to do about the Greek request. Perhaps he was a bit of a networker, or perhaps he preferred to check things out with others before taking action. He seems to have been a personable fellow for the Greek pilgrims to pick on him to be their advocate. And he has such a nice Greek name.
Now some Greeks were among those who had gone up to worship at the feast. So these approached Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and requested, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew, and they both went and told Jesus.
quote:This might be important for John – that Jesus and his disciples were to have a role in mission to the world.
The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these things about Jesus, so the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to arrest him. Then Jesus said, “I will be with you for only a little while longer, and then I am going to the one who sent me. You will look for me but will not find me, and where I am you cannot come.”
Then the Jewish leaders said to one another, “Where is he going to go that we cannot find him? He is not going to go to the Jewish people dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks, is he? What did he mean by saying, ‘You will look for me but will not find me, and where I am you cannot come’?”
quote:I think that is right, but also more than that. John has Jesus pointing out several times earlier that his hour has not yet come. If you had chosen to include v23 in this group, it goes straight on to say..
...Why introduce the Greek pilgrims into the narrative at this point?
...This might be important for John – that Jesus and his disciples were to have a role in mission to the world.
quote:So it is the appearance of the gentiles who want to see Jesus that signals that Jesus' period of earthly ministry is now drawing to a close. It follows a fairly regular expression in the OT that on the arrival of the age to come, the nations will recognise the one who is to come, and rejoice and be glad (as for example in the messianic psalm 72).
Jesus replied "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified."
quote:A rather significant shift in tenses occurs in the narrative at this point. John has made liberal use of the aorist tense to mark the passage of events, split occasionally by other tenses when he wants to highlight something. Here he glides smoothly from aorist to imperfect and then into the present tense with the verbs. It's a useful signal in a text that – along with all the biblical and non-biblical texts from antiquity – would have been designed to be read out loud. The shift would have alerted the reader (speaking as part of reading, whether singly or in a group) to something important, something close up and personal, in your face, present tense. It puts the reader in with the actors on the stage.
Now some Greeks were among those who had gone up to worship at the feast. So these approached Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and requested, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew, and they both went and told Jesus. Jesus replied, “The time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
quote:
I tell you the solemn truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it produces much grain.
The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life.
If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the Father will honour him.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So it is the appearance of the gentiles who want to see Jesus that signals that Jesus' period of earthly ministry is now drawing to a close.
quote:Notice the word "replied". Jesus' words are in some sense an answer to the fact of the Greeks coming. Jesus sees this as evidence that the time of his death is at hand. I'm not sure if Jesus is using "to be glorified" to mean "to die" (because the cross is paradoxically his glory) or if he is referring to his resurrection and ascension shortly afterward. But that whole complex of events is clearly in view.
Now some Greeks were among those who had gone up to worship at the feast. So these approached Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and requested, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew, and they both went and told Jesus. Jesus replied, “The time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the solemn truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it produces much grain. The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life.
If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the Father will honour him.
quote:[Mk 14.35]
And going a little further, he threw himself on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him
quote:My guess is that neither of these accounts (Mark's and John's] should be seen as absoltute historical truths. Both authors are using witness accounts to propagate their own agendas, so the fact that they might seem to contradict one another is not really significant. Two people looking at the same man at different times and in different places. Perhaps Mark, given the chance to revise his gospel fifty years later, might have had a different view of things.
He came a third time to them and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and tyaking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
[Mk 14.41
quote:
Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say - 'Father, save me from this hour? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name. Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.
quote:[John 12.29-33]
29 The crowd standing there heard it and said it was thunder.* Others said "An angel has spoken to him." 30 Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not for mine. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 33 He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die.
quote:Presumably “the law” here refers more widely to the whole Jewish scriptures, not specifically the first 5 books, as there is no direct reference to “the messiah will remain forever” in the latter. The nearest comes from Psalm 89:35-37...
John 12:34
Then the crowd replied to Jesus, “We have heard from the law that the messiah [Christ] will remain forever. So how can you argue that ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? What kind of 'Son of Man' are you talking about?”
quote:Or perhaps the crowd were summarising the scripture's overall take on messiahs.
Once and for all I have vowed by my own holiness,
I will never deceive David.
His seed [offspring] will last forever.
His throne will endure before me, like the sun,
it will remain stable, like the moon,
his throne will endure like the skies.”
quote:What struck me was the repetition of the verb katalambano (to master / seize / overpower = καταλαμβάνω) here in verse 35 and back in 1:5 - “The light is shining in the darkness and the darkness has not mastered it.”
John 12:35-36
Jesus replied, “There's only a little time of light left with you. Keep going while you still have light so that the darkness may not master you. Anyone walking in darkness doesn't know where he is going, so as long as you have light trust in it and you will become sons of light.”
Then Jesus went away and hid himself from them.
quote:This feels like John starting a summary on everything that has gone on before - the seven signs he's recorded - and the rejection Jesus has experienced. Again there's the link back to chapter 1:
John 12:37
Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him.
quote:Or maybe it's not a summary it's a parenthetical note (like this) because (looking further up the thread) I saw how popular these were!
John 1:9-11
The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him.
quote:Interesting. Is John proposing that these poor leaders hadn't a hope in heaven of belief because God had cut off the faith-line-of-communication to them?
John 12:38-41
Isaiah said, “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, because again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their heart, and turn to me, and I would heal them.”
Isaiah said these things because he saw the messiah's glory, and spoke about him.
quote:Perhaps that was the 'world' of understanding that John was evoking in his audience.
Isaiah 6:9-12 NET Bible*
He said, “Go and tell these people:
‘Listen continually, but don’t understand!
Look continually, but don’t perceive!’
Make the hearts of these people calloused;
make their ears deaf and their eyes blind!
Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
their hearts might understand and they might repent and be healed.”
I replied, “How long, sovereign master?” He said,
“Until cities are in ruins and unpopulated,
and houses are uninhabited,
and the land is ruined and devastated,
and the Lord has sent the people off to a distant place,
and the very heart of the land is completely abandoned.
quote:Interesting question. I wonder if actually it is all connected and John is really pointing to the suffering of Christ as an uber-sign of who he is? So his logic is: well I've told you all the signs that Jesus did and the people/leaders still didn't believe. (Just like they didn't believe Isaiah). So now I'm going to tell you about the ultimate sign that shows Jesus as Isaiah's Suffering Servant??
Originally posted by Nigel M:
All of which leaves us with more questions – the first to occur to me was “What was John's argument about here?” “Where is his logic going?” This links with the observation IconiumBound makes about signs, because if John wanted to prove somehow that Jesus was a messiah on the basis of miraculous signs (like those John records), then wouldn't Isaiah 53 (and 6) have been the last places to come to mind in support? What have they to do with the kind of signs Jesus was performing?
quote:Been thinking about this too. Maybe it is simply that they are miraculous.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Mind you, I'm a bit stuck on what passage in the OT John could have used in support of signs. There isn't much of the “Behold! My servant will turn water into wine!” out there. That being so, I wonder why he thought it a killer argument to focus on the miracle signs in the first place? How do they support the claims of a messiah?
quote:So maybe there is also then an expectation that the message of a true prophet would also be accompanied by signs and wonders.
If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
quote:The works here appearing to refer to the miraculous signs.
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
quote:Quite a few interesting things could be said about this, for example how darkness was something that had a defined place and was to be controlled, just as much as light. There was to be no encroaching of boundaries – darkness was not permitted (ordained) to try and take over the place occupied by light.
Gen. 1:14-18 (attempted translation from Göttingen edition of LXX)
And God said, “Let lights come into being in the heavenly expanse [firmament] to lighten up the earth as a way to split in half [distinguish completely?] the day from the night. These will act as signs to mark seasons, both days and longer periods of time. They will provide light for the earth from their heavenly position." And so it was – God made the two great sources of light: the greater light controlling the day and the lesser light controlling the night, and the stars. God set them in their ordained place in the heavenly expanse so that they would lighten the earth, to control day and night and to split in half light and darkness. God saw that this was good.
quote:The great bit about the connection to Genesis is that the signs (in terms of the stars which are used for navigation and to give direction) appear at night in the darkness. So I can absolutely see the analogy of the lights (signs) shining in the darkness – pointing the way to Christ.
On the con side, John does not seem to imply that darkness is a proper thing with its own place. It doesn't play a part in marking time sequences, for example.
quote:I know this has caused people to wonder in exactly what way Isaiah saw Christ's glory.
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
quote:Well, Handel certainly does! But I can see why that's a problem for the Jews, many of whom see battered and beleaguered Israel as the victim.
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Also (before we move on) interested by v41...
quote:I know this has caused people to wonder in exactly what way Isaiah saw Christ's glory.
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
I wondered whether on the basis that at this point in the narrative John is equating Jesus "glory" with his coming suffering that what John means here is that Isaiah saw that the Messiah was to suffer (which reinforces the quotation of Isaiah 53). So John is identifying Jesus as Isaiah's suffering servant?
quote:I see the point you are making but I don't quite see Is 53 that way. I don't think Isaiah's Suffering servant is universally hated - nor that the text requires that. (For example Isaiah says "he was rejected by men" not "rejected by all men"). So I don't see any requirement for Jesus to be universally misunderstood for the Suffering Servant to apply to him. Having said that I doubt that anyone including the disciples had the foggiest idea what was going on at this point - not until afterwards did they get an inkling - so in that sense Jesus is universally misunderstood at this juncture - even by his followers.
Originally posted by pimple:
The biggest problem I see for modern Christians accepting John's (or Handel's) interpretation of the Suffering Servant poem is that Isaiah's scapegoat is universally hated, and regarded as being afflicted by God as punishment for some unmentionable sin.
But Jesus was not universally misunderstood. John makes it quite cjear that Jesus suffered at the hands of the "baddies" - the non-believers, the ones who walked intransigently in their own darkness. My description here is probably as mixed up here as John's, but do you see (roughly) what I mean?
quote:I am feeling very over my head in all this. I take "Isaiah saw Christ's glory" to be a straightforward reference to his vision of the Lord in the temple (Isaiah 6 again). When Isaiah saw the Lord that day, he saw specifically the second Person of the Trinity. And when that Person commissioned him to a frustrating and largely fruitless ministry, he did so knowing that his own personal ministry was going to be the same thing but more so. And yet both went ahead with it. Which is pretty much the pattern of God' interaction with humanity from the very beginning, isn't it? He reaches out, we screw up the response, he rolls his eyes and starts again...
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Also (before we move on) interested by v41...
quote:I know this has caused people to wonder in exactly what way Isaiah saw Christ's glory.
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
quote:You may be right. John is quoting both Isa 6 and 53 at this point so either or both seem valid to me. I was just interested by the fact that earlier in John 12 Jesus is talking about his "glorification" appearing to refer to his imminent crucifixion. Hence the reason I was interested in John referring to Isaiah seeing Christ's glory. Did he mean Christ's Majestic Glory or his suffering and death. Either appear reasonable interpretations so apologies for any confusion I created.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am feeling very over my head in all this. I take "Isaiah saw Christ's glory" to be a straightforward reference to his vision of the Lord in the temple (Isaiah 6 again).
quote:You may be right, but I think to translate "rejected by men" as "rejected by some men" rather waters down the point Isaiah is making. I've always taken it as meaning "rejected by mankind/his fellow men." Perhaps a Hebrew scholar can help. The more important point is that the suffering servant doesn't answer back - he doesn't raise his voice in the street, whereas the Johanine Jesus gives as good as he gets in verbal terms.
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:I see the point you are making but I don't quite see Is 53 that way. I don't think Isaiah's Suffering servant is universally hated - nor that the text requires that. (For example Isaiah says "he was rejected by men" not "rejected by all men"). So I don't see any requirement for Jesus to be universally misunderstood for the Suffering Servant to apply to him. Having said that I doubt that anyone including the disciples had the foggiest idea what was going on at this point - not until afterwards did they get an inkling - so in that sense Jesus is universally misunderstood at this juncture - even by his followers.
Originally posted by pimple:
The biggest problem I see for modern Christians accepting John's (or Handel's) interpretation of the Suffering Servant poem is that Isaiah's scapegoat is universally hated, and regarded as being afflicted by God as punishment for some unmentionable sin.
But Jesus was not universally misunderstood. John makes it quite cjear that Jesus suffered at the hands of the "baddies" - the non-believers, the ones who walked intransigently in their own darkness. My description here is probably as mixed up here as John's, but do you see (roughly) what I mean?
quote:Sorry yes I think your phrase "rejected by mankind/his fellow men" sums it up nicely. I just don't think that a generalisation like that means necessarily every single person rejected him. Though as I said above in practice even his disciples abandoned him even if they didn't "reject" him.
Originally posted by pimple:
You may be right, but I think to translate "rejected by men" as "rejected by some men" rather waters down the point Isaiah is making. I've always taken it as meaning "rejected by mankind/his fellow men." Perhaps a Hebrew scholar can help. The more important point is that the suffering servant doesn't answer back - he doesn't raise his voice in the street, whereas the Johanine Jesus gives as good as he gets in verbal terms.
quote:There seems to be a mixed message here - on the positive side more people actually believed in Jesus that might've appeared but then actually the phrasing makes those who did believe but didn't speak out sound gutless.
John 12:42-43
Nevertheless, even among the rulers many believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they would not confess Jesus to be the Christ, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue. For they loved praise from men more than praise from God. NET Bible
quote:
(His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jewish religious leaders. For the Jewish leaders had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.
quote:Sounds like a revival of the heresy of donatism.
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Looks like we've exhausted the glory debate so moving on...
I remember someone who visited Eastern Europe a lot after the end of the Cold War saying that there were issues for Christians who claimed to have been Christians all along but had not done anything to bring themselves to the notice of the authorities and therefore had not suffered any persecution. Those that had endured persecution regarded them with suspicion or as somehow not proper Christians as they hadn't suffered. I wonder if John has something similar in mind.
quote:I've no idea what the heresy of donatism is but it sounds painful!
Originally posted by Gee D:
Sounds like a revival of the heresy of donatism.
quote:Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Donatists said that no-one who had in even the slightest way compromised with the secular authorities in the days of persecution could be accepted into the Church after Constantine's conversion. Augustine was one of those who preached against it.
quote:In fact, we don't know what he did, aside from providing a tomb. The gospels do not provide a detailed biography of everyone whose life touched Jesus'.
Originally posted by pimple:
If you're not a martyr you're not kosher? Presumably Joesph of Arimathea comes under this heading - without whose intervention the body of Jesus might have been dumped in a common grave? Yet I have heard one ordained prat denigrate him "When all is said and done, what did he do but bury his Lord?" was his final sneer.
quote:Nothing to add. Just
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Hadn't twigged this before – one of the advantages of plodding through each verse in detail – but most English versions (including, sadly, the NET Bible) render verse 43 to include the English word “praise,” as in: “they loved praise from men more than praise from God.”
This could cloud what John was doing, because he uses the theme word “glory” here: “they loved human glory rather than God's glory.”
That puts the saying smack on the button with his other 'glory' statements – John's faithful colleagues and audience had seen Jesus' glory (1:14), even Isaiah had seen his glory (12:43), and those who had so seen were confessing it. I wonder if that throws some light on the reason for these verses? Were those who failed to confess their loyalties openly in danger of more than just excommunication from the Jewish community? Were they also in danger of de facto loyalty to darkness, basking in human pseudo-light (glory) rather than the legitimate light?
quote:I wasn't sure where to break as this section to the end of 13 feels like a summary of Jesus' message before John moves on. It's not clear to me what the occasion of these words were or even if they are one pronouncement by Jesus or several packaged together by John as a summary. Anyway the initial statements in these verses flow naturally from the darkness/light discussion above. But also show the importance of the relationship between Jesus and the Father and Jesus showing what the Father is like. I've never spotted this but there is a link into the discussion between Jesus and Philip in 14:9 (oops sorry jumping ahead, rewind).
John 12:44-46
But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in me does not believe in me, but in the one who sent me, and the one who sees me sees the one who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in darkness. NET Bible
quote:I imagine this to be in the context of Jesus teaching in the temple - or more accurately debating with the religious leaders. In my mind Jesus probably utters these words at some point in the week leading up to his death & resurrection - Jesus gives various discourses in the Temple - many directly challenging the establishment. (I think it might've been noted upthread that Jesus switches from withdrawing and staying out of trouble to directly confronting the authorities from the Triumphal Entry onwards.)
Originally posted by pimple:
This is the first time I've noticed that Jesus is shouting here. Why do you suppose that is?
quote:I think I see what you mean, based on John's intention in writing, as in John 20:30-31:
Originally posted by pimple:
As well as reiterating the relationship of Jesus with the Father, this and many other passages like it also repeat the uncompromising inference that "He who doesn't see me/believe in me doesn't not see me/believe in me, but the one who sent me."
In a sense, this sort of statement always leaves me in the dark. For John, the important thing is to say (and mean) "I believe in Jesus/God."
But how can an inquirer/non believer say that if (s)he has serious doubts about what such an admission means to the evangelist? The evangelist might think the convert is saying "I believe what the evangelist believes". But the evangelist is just as human as the (would be) convert, and, frankly, just as fallible.
quote:I guess knowing what was in John's mind when he wrote is supposition. But rather than him meaning: "I want you to believe what I believe about Jesus" maybe it is more relational than that? "I want you to meet Jesus through my writing, to encounter him and what he was like, to see for yourself that he was who he claimed to be. Once you have had that encounter everything else will follow on."...?
Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. NET Bible
quote:I suspect John is doing what all his compatriots did: draw (consciously or unconsciously) on the worldview of covenant to support the idea that staying in a community required the attribute of loyalty, whereas anti-social behaviour required rendition!
Originally posted by pimple:
...I find it hard to understand how John's countering one sort of viciousness with another...can be eqated with any understanding of christian love.
quote:So are Jesus words here where this idea comes from for (1) John that Jesus says, "I am the light, I have brought the light of God, you now need to live in the light of that" (pun intended). I.e. Jesus has provided us the means to walk in the light (his intent is that we should not/need not/will not walk in darkness) but there is an element of choice on our part to live this out and walk in the light (or not and stay walking in the darkness).
Now this is the gospel message we have heard from him and announce to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him and yet keep on walking in the darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth. But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. NET Bible
quote:
The people walking in darkness
see a bright light;
light shines
on those who live in a land of deep darkness.
Is 9:2 NET Bible
quote:Much as I would love to do that it would take centuries! Anyway interested to see what pimple comes up with....
Originally posted by Nigel M:
We might have to go at it syllable by syllable to get the most out of it!
quote:Echoes of John 3:17-18?
John 12:47-8 (NET)
If anyone hears my words and does not obey them, I do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not accept my words has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day.
quote:Thoughts?
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned.
quote:So I suppose the question arises: Is there anything significant in John's use of the two Greek words here? Or is this just a stylistic thing – John worrying that he has flogged rhema to death in the verse and decides not to bore his audience any more?
If anyone hears my words [rhema in plural] and does not obey them, I do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not accept my words [rhema in plural] has a judge; the word [logos] I have spoken will judge him at the last day.
quote:Perhaps this is about Jesus acting as the message-bearer from God, one who also interprets that message for his hearers. That might explain the link with God as judge – it's his message and he will judge on the basis of people's response.
So then the Jewish leaders responded, “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying [logos] that Jesus had spoken.
quote:I suspect that's the case.
So we are thrown back on John's usage. This may be one of those limited occasions where a NT writer may have drawn his vocabulary from a non-Jewish setting to make a deliberate point.
quote:(Isaiah 11:1-4, NIV)
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord.
He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,
or decide by what he hears with his ears;
4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy,
with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.
quote:That is interesting, HRB, given the Hebrew word isn't 'word' but 'stick / rod.' I wonder where the Greek translator got 'word' from here?
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
...the interesting point is that the LXX has "the word (λόγῳ) of his mouth".
quote:To be honest, I would be surprised if we ever found out. It may simply be that the LXX is following another tradition at this point, and translated faithfully. I checked the Isaiah scroll from Qumran, which has a number of points of variance with the (later) Masoretic, and which often follows the LXX on those points. But it too has "rod" at this point.
That is interesting, HRB, given the Hebrew word isn't 'word' but 'stick / rod.' I wonder where the Greek translator got 'word' from here?
quote:Rounds off another chapter and emphasises the Jesus-as-herald (or authorised messenger) from God. So Jesus speaks God's words.
John 12:49-50 (NET Bible)
For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the Father has told me.”
quote:Moo - my fault entirely - apologies. Festive wooziness is my only excuse.
Originally posted by Moo:
Here is the text of Genesis 2:8-17.
Please remember to post a link to the text you are discussing.
Moo, Kerygmania host
quote:OK might be totally off beam here but is this just a bit of parallelism/repetition?
Originally posted by Nigel M:
...and moving back to the agenda...
quote:Rounds off another chapter and emphasises the Jesus-as-herald (or authorised messenger) from God. So Jesus speaks God's words.
John 12:49-50 (NET Bible)
For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the Father has told me.”
Another sneaky word in there – God's 'commandment' is eternal life. His commandment? Which? Where?!!!!
quote:
John 6:68 (NIV)
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
quote:An interesting thought. I wondered though whether John would have signalled Genesis more if he was referring back to the Eden event. I know he uses Genesis as his opening gambit in the introduction (“In the beginning...”), but I'm not sure how far it would have been active in his audience's mind here in chapter 12. If Isaiah was being front-and-centered in this chapter, would Genesis have been uppermost in the mind? I know Isaiah is a good commentator on Genesis' creation account, but whether people would have worked back from John through Isaiah to Genesis here...
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Gen 2:8-17?
quote:It feels as though John uses it in the sense of “providing authority for,” as part of an authorised mission to accomplish something. Jesus is given the power to do something on behalf of God.
“No one takes it [my life] away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
quote:I think you're right about the parallelism – and possibly this parallel pushes further back to explain the logos term a bit: God commands [gives a command = entole] Jesus to pass on God's message [logos] to the world. This message offers two outcomes – eternal life for those who accept it, judgement for those who don't. In this case, the commandment results in life, rather than just “is” life.
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
is this just a bit of parallelism/repetition?
quote:Some interesting similarities. Jesus is sent by God and doesn't come to judge, but there is one who will judge: Moses (or more specifically, the words that Moses wrote).
...the deeds that the Father has assigned me to complete—the deeds I am now doing—testify about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified about me. You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time, nor do you have his word residing in you, because you do not believe the one whom he sent. You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.
“I do not accept praise from people, but I know you, that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me. If someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe, if you accept praise from one another and don’t seek the praise that comes from the only God?
“Do not suppose that I will accuse you before the Father. The one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what Moses wrote, how will you believe my words?”
quote:No disagreement at all with the first bit. But in the last sentence I am wondering if there is more to it. My thought runs along these lines...
I think you're right about the parallelism – and possibly this parallel pushes further back to explain the logos term a bit: God commands [gives a command = entole] Jesus to pass on God's message [logos] to the world. This message offers two outcomes – eternal life for those who accept it, judgement for those who don't. In this case, the commandment results in life, rather than just “is” life. (Nigel M)
quote:It does seem to fit into the general nexus of statements about God and Jesus that amount to the same thing on comparing.
Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 16:6 (NET)
quote:In that context we have the supreme god El, god over all gods, known across the ancient near east, known and worshipped by Israel's fathers, now confirming that he will not be known just as the absentee landlord who appears once in a while to blast the earth if it appears to be getting out of control, but as the El who will be with the Israelites. This seems to be a more contextual understanding of the “I Am” phrase in verse 14 – it builds on the use of the same verb in verse 12 (highlighted in bold above); the 'name' means “I am going to be with you.” This also maps nicely on to Isaiah's reminder to Israel of God's name in 7:14, “...his name will be Immanuel”, the “God [El] is with us” name.
[God – El] replied, “Surely I will be with you, and this will be the sign to you that I have sent you: When you bring the people out of Egypt, you and they will serve God [El] on this mountain.”
Moses said to God [El], “If I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God [El] of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’—what should I say to them?”
God [El] said to Moses, “I am that I am.” And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” God [El] also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The Lord [YHWH] —the God [El] of your fathers, the God [El] of Abraham, the God [El] of Isaac, and the God [El] of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation.’
quote:Unusual to have just the one verse to post!
Just before the Passover feast, Jesus knew that his time had come to depart from this world to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now loved them to the very end.
quote:John seems to run to a different timetable around the final Passover compared to the synoptic gospels, but he does single out this meal as something more than just a regular evening meal between Jesus and his disciples. The standard term for the daily family-type meal refers to simply taking bread (where 'bread' had become a synonym for what we call 'meal' – though I guess for many the staple crop was the meal). Here in verse 2 we have a deipnon (= δεῖπνον), which is something more formal, though not usually used for important full-blown banquets. Such a meal was often used in someone's honour.
The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus.
quote:We think we know what John meant Jesus thought, yes?
and during supper [3]Jesus,knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God..
quote:[John13.3-5]
...[4] got up from the table [Gk = from supper] took off his outer robe, and tied a towel round himself. [5] Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him.
quote:[Luke 22.27 - but you need to read on a bit to get Luke/Jesus' complete point. It's rather complicated]
For who is greater? The one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves...
quote:Jesus as ever is modelling how he wants is disciples to behave. Guess it's not just Peter that's failed to get the point over the centuries....
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
quote:Nudge, nudge! It really does get to John, the fact that Judas was there at times when Jesus (knowing Judas's intentions) and/or the disciples [who knew he was a thief??] should have chucked him out. There's so much light/dark, sight/blindness faith/doubt them/us in John. Judas is a disturbing grey area (and so, possibly, is the Beloved Disciple) and he has to keep the meassage clear and simple. Isn't that the problem with so much religion, now as then?
John 13.6-106He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, ‘Lord, are you going to wash my feet?’ 7Jesus answered, ‘You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand.’ 8Peter said to him, ‘You will never wash my feet.’ Jesus answered, ‘Unless I wash you, you have no share with me.’ 9Simon Peter said to him, ‘Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!’ 10Jesus said to him, ‘One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet,* but is entirely clean. And you* are clean, though not all of you.’
quote:That's definitely one of the biggie issues in the whole disciple thing: Why was Judas tolerated? We don't get a convincing answer in any of the gospels. If it really was the case that (at least) Jesus knew that Judas was going to be problematic, why retain him in the company?
Originally posted by pimple:
It really does get to John, the fact that Judas was there at times when Jesus (knowing Judas's intentions) and/or the disciples [who knew he was a thief??] should have chucked him out.
quote:I think I'm with Lamb Chopped. Why are any of us tolerated? I actually take comfort from the fact that Jesus put up with Judas. If he can put up with Judas he can put up with me
Originally posted by Nigel M:
That's definitely one of the biggie issues in the whole disciple thing: Why was Judas tolerated?
quote:Hmmm. I've heard the suicide by cop thing before and in one sense I get it. I agree Jesus is in control of his destiny - everything he does is very deliberate and I believe he knows full well what the outcome will be. But not quite the same thing as suicide by cop. I don't think Jesus wanted to die - the Garden of Gethsemane would indicate that. But he did want to obey his Father. In that sense both Father and Son are equally culpable. It is their plan to accomplish whatever really happened in that cosmic transaction that occurred between Father and Son on the cross.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Jesus remains in control of his destiny, perhaps even to the point of allowing Judas to have his head of steam. A type of 'suicide by cop'?!
quote:If this was Jesus' definition of someone under the influence of the devil, then I think it likely that John intended this same set of attributes to be in play when he records Judas as being under the same influence.
”You [the authorities] are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies. ... You don’t listen and respond, because you don’t belong to God.”
quote:This section acts as an orienter for the audience. It demonstrates the intensity of the moment. Jesus knows the time, the 'very end' is near, there is a meal in honour underway and we have the protagonists on stage (devil and Judas). Jesus continues to demonstrate loyalty (the proper meaning of the English word 'love').
Just before the Passover feast, Jesus knew that his time had come to depart from this world to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now loved them to the very end. The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart of Judas, Simon Iscariot's son, that he should betray Jesus.
quote:The rationale for the footwashing episode is given: it is because God has authorised Jesus to act with all power and that he was now going back to God.
Because Jesus knew that the Father had handed all things over to him, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, he got up from the meal, removed his outer clothes, took a towel and tied it around himself. He poured water into the washbasin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel he had wrapped around himself.
Then he came to Simon Peter. Peter said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not understand what I am doing now, but you will understand after these things.” Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet!” Jesus replied, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head!” Jesus replied, “The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean.”
quote:Partaking in the meal, sharing the loyal service from Jesus, even following in his most close circle; none of this was enough to guarantee acceptance by God (and Jesus?). The word 'clean' (καθαρός = katharos) is crucial here. It's used extensively in the LXX (for the Greek translations of the Hebrew texts) to pick up on the concept of ritual purity and innocence. I think John is picking up on this, too: by 'clean' he means 'innocent.' Not clean = guilty.
“And you [the disciples] are clean, but not every one of you.” For Jesus knew the one who was going to betray him. For this reason he said, “Not every one of you is clean.”
quote:Now the impact the footwashing should have on the disciples. Loyal service is service.
So when Jesus had washed their feet and put his outer clothing back on, he took his place at the table again and said to them, “Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and do so correctly, for that is what I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you too ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example—you should do just as I have done for you. It's absolutely the case that the slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you understand these things, you will be blessed if you do them.”
quote:John's take on things. He records the fact that not all are loyal; not all will truly serve. He backs this up with the quote from Ps. 41:9 [LXX 40:10; MT 41:10] (“Even my close ally whom I trusted, he who shared meals with me, has turned against me.”). The Hebrew wording is interesting: the 'close ally' is 'a person of my peace' with ramifications of a loyal agreement (covenant) between them; and 'turned against' is 'made his heel great against me' with the ramifications of utter shame and dishonour being shown to the speaker – showing one's heel in the culture being a sign of intense disgust to the other. Dirty soles of feet being shown; not clean, not footwashed.
“What I am saying does not refer to all of you. I know the ones I have chosen. But this is to fulfil the scripture, ‘The one who eats my bread has become my enemy.’ I am telling you this now, before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am he. I tell you the solemn truth, whoever accepts the one I send accepts me, and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.”
quote:How dramatic is that? Interesting, that those present did not, at the time, think there was anything untoward.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 13.21-38
Jesus Foretells His Betrayal21 After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, ‘Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.’ 22The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he was speaking. 23One of his disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclining next to him; 24Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. 25So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, ‘Lord, who is it?’ 26Jesus answered, ‘It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.’* So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot.* 27After he received the piece of bread,* Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, ‘Do quickly what you are going to do.’ 28Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29Some thought that, because Judas had the common purse, Jesus was telling him, ‘Buy what we need for the festival’; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.
quote:...which might mean that this Judas / bread event carried significance among the disciples after the event.
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you... For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself. That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead. But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world...
quote:This seems related to John 9:4:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
p.s. The last sentence in v30 feels really significant too: "and it was night".
quote:Moo
We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work.
quote:I think you're grasping for Khiasmos, Chiasmus being the latinized form. To be pedantic.
Originally posted by pimple:
Thanks. To be pedantic, I think it's CHIASMUS but I wouldn't put my shirt on it (on it my shirt I'd decline to put, but!)
quote:So we saw Jesus talking about "glorification" in ch 12 apparently in reference to his death. What do people make of these two verses?
John 13:31-32 (NET)
When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. 13:32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away.
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I am sorry but I find Nigel's posts a bit OTT.
John is not playing games of hide and seek. In retrospect you can find all sorts of sub-plots going on and John can be made to look like an author playing with his audience; hinting at this; anticipating this; suggesting this.
Its all a bit too academic and retrospectively tantalising to me. Interesting. Illuminating in part. But academic.
quote:If 'Interesting. Illuminating in part.' is not good enough for you, then please join in and do better. Personally, I do appreciate an academic approach instead of people just making assertions without being able to back them up with either a social, historical or literary context. I think it is a good practice for learning how to justify one's beliefs.
Originally posted by shamwari:
Its all a bit too academic and retrospectively tantalising to me. Interesting. Illuminating in part. But academic.
quote:"Little children" ? "And as I said to the Jews..." When? Haven't got a concordance handy.
John 13.33-3433 Little children, I am with you only a little longer. You will look for me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, “Where I am going, you cannot come.” 34I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 8.16-2116Yet even if I do judge, my judgement is valid; for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father* who sent me. 17In your law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. 18I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me testifies on my behalf.’ 19Then they said to him, ‘Where is your Father?’ Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’ 20He spoke these words while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.
Jesus Foretells His Death21 Again he said to them, ‘I am going away, and you will search for me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.’
quote:* not all early manuscripts have this line.
(A) Now is the son of man glorified
(B) God is glorified in him
(C) If God is glorified in him*
(B') God will also glorify the son in himself
(A') and will do it at once
quote:Not sure about the mystification, but I'll give it a shot. "Little children"--this is a term of endearment. You'll notice he refers occasionally to other adults in this way, particularly those in great trouble--the woman who had been bent over for sixteen years (severe osteoporosis or scoliosis?) comes to mind, he called her "daughter."
Originally posted by pimple:
And so:
quote:"Little children" ? "And as I said to the Jews..." When? Haven't got a concordance handy.
John 13.33-3433 Little children, I am with you only a little longer. You will look for me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, “Where I am going, you cannot come.” 34I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.
, I think he had the right priority.
quote:I remember that chorus, daisymay; though I can't remember the verses now!
Originally posted by daisymay:
Our family children, and when I was very little, sing "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong, they are week and He is strong. Yes, Jesus loves me! Yes, Jesus loves me! Yes, Jesus loves me - the Bible tells me so." And there are also 3 verses.
quote:I have a sneaky suspicion that my Sunday School teachers kept that a deep secret from me. Or perhaps memory retention was an early challenge!
Originally posted by daisymay:
Does that remind you?
quote:I never knew there were verses! Like NigelM, I've only ever heard the refrain.
Originally posted by daisymay:
"Jesus loves me He who died, heavens gates to open wide. He will wash away my sin, let his little child come in."
"Jesus loves me, He will stay close beside me all the day. And his little one will take up to heaven for His dear sake."
And always, "Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so."
Does that remind you?
quote:Which I know is not in John, but whilst these two commandments are in the Law and summarise the Law (old commandments); Jesus describes "love one another" as a new commandment. Even tho' love one another could be regarded as simply another way of saying "love your neighbour as yourself". Is there a hint here of a new dimension? We have love for God (up), love for neighbour (out) and love for those within the community/church (in)? Or am I reading too much into this?
Jesus said ..., “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” Matt 22:37-40 (NET Bible)
quote:I can't resist adding the verse which so horrified my sister when I sang it at her:
7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8 At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because[a] the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. 9 Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him[b] there is no cause for stumbling.
quote:If I've understood it correctly "took up residence" is a translation of tabernacled. So God had once again "taken up residence in the tabernacle" with his people. The tabernacle was filled with the glory of God but this time the tabernacle/temple was Jesus' body. So is that one of John's reasons for writing to show that Jesus' coming was a fulfilment of the return of the Skekinah glory to Israel?
John 1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence 36 among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. (NET)
quote:Thoughts? Interesting that the community of disciples (the kingdom of God?) is to be characterised and recognisable by love - loving one another is the USP as it were.
John 13:35
Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another.” NET Bible
quote:[John 13.36-37 Peter's pride is staggering, and I'm sure he has no idea what he is saying. "Anywhere you can go, I can go. Anything you can do, I can do." Never trust a man who promises too much, topo easily! Jesus will let him down as lightly as he can, but Peter needs to know the truth about himself. Did he ever ? Some say he got there in the end]
Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered,"Where I am going [i.e. to his Father in heaven] you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterward." [i.e. Peter, too, will die one day] Peter [totally missing the point, as usual] said to him, "Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you."
quote:[John 13.38]
Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times.
quote:I'm not sure I see the interruption here? This feels like a natural part of a back-and-forth conversation. I don't see any need to regard it as stitched in. What makes you think this pimple?
Originally posted by pimple:
I can't see John interrupting the narrative here just for dramatic effect. It's probably the other way round, isn't it? Jesus's comforting discourse is the stuff of the fourth gospel, but he has to include the story of Peter's denial somewhere, to make sense of the so-called reinstatement of Peter in Chapter 21. So it's the stitching in of the the denial prophecy I find awkward here, rather than the comfortable words after it.
quote:Jesus speaking.
John 14:1
“Don't be stressed out; you all believe in God – believe also in me.”
quote:...and then we have the 14:1 part.
“Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away. Children, I am still with you for a little while. You will look for me, and just as I said to the Jewish religious leaders, ‘Where I am going you cannot come,’ now I tell you the same.
“I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another.”
Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” Peter said to him, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!” Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? I tell you the solemn truth, the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times!”
quote:In other words, now that Judas has left my betrayal is imminent. The hideous death awaiting me will actually be a glorious victory for God. But it is only hours away....
When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away.
quote:So I want to leave you with some important words that you won't understand now but will make sense later. I can see how distressed you are but there are some important things I need to share now.
Children, I am still with you for a little while. You will look for me, and just as I said to the Jewish religious leaders, ‘Where I am going you cannot come,’ now I tell you the same.
quote:I want to talk about love. I want your love for each other in the new community you will build in my name to be its defining characteristic. {Jesus is just introducing this theme when he is interrupted by Peter}
“I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another.”
quote:Hold the phone. What do you mean you are only with us for a little while. Where on earth are you going?
Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?”
quote:{patiently}Don't worry about that now Peter you'll be following me soon enough. Now I was saying about love one another...
Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.”
quote:Jesus is a little firmer this time...
Peter said to him, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!”
quote:You don't know what you are saying Peter but I know what it around the corner and your bravado now will fail you...
Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? I tell you the solemn truth, the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times!”
quote:OK let's deal with your worries first - then we'll get back to that really important message I had about love one another...
“Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me. There are many dwelling places in my Father’s house. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going away to make ready a place for you.
quote:I like the way John has drawn things into a tight spot here. Up until the middle of chapter 13 he has portrayed Jesus in the open, in almost constant battle with the Jerusalem authorities and in addition there has been the undercurrent of betrayal; all was not well in the camp of his followers. The darkness was always pushing against Jesus from people inside and out.
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
...now that Judas has left my betrayal is imminent. The hideous death awaiting me will actually be a glorious victory for God. But it is only hours away....
quote:Yes, I think the way the gospel has been crafted indicates that this is not something that comes later; the written form of the text is simply a final point of the work - it is built on years of teaching this stuff. The oral tradition that underlies written works at the time has been somewhat underestimated, methinks!
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
On your point about the closeness of Christ and God I agree that this is central to John's purpose in writing. I don't necessary see this as a late edition after the other gospels but maybe there were reasons why John felt it important to especially emphasise this.
quote:yes - totally agree. But the disciples keep going off on a tangent....
Originally posted by Nigel M:
The pause-for-breath-point before the final showdown comes as soon as Judas leaves. I get the sense of Jesus heaving a relieved puff of breath and then getting on with the “Now...!” It's as though John has him saying: “At last! We're finally alone without darkness in the midst. Now we can get on with the stuff I really need to tell you, my loyal followers.”
quote:When growing up, this little passage with its picture of a 'house' simply connoted a large physical building with many rooms. The image meant – I thought and was not disabused at the time – that heaven was a bit like that. God had plenty of room for his followers in heaven and that (if one pushed the analogy a bit) we would all have our own little 'bedroom' or such like to ourselves. Places of responsibility, sort of thing.
John 14:2
In my Father’s house there are many dwellings. If that wasn't the case I would have told you because I'm off now to get a place ready for you.
quote:I can't now remember, but is that the hotel that was designed for passengers booked on the packet ships to the New World? I stayed there once and having found the front door to my room - which opened outwards rather than in, to allow large chests to the dragged in - I spent a happy half-hour opening and closing inside doors trying to find the actual bedroom.
Originally posted by pimple:
This was my late sister's favourite verse - in KJV: "In my Father's house there are many mansions...."
It doesn't sound so odd to me now, having spent Holy Week in the Britannia Adelphi in Liverpool!
quote:Not sure how important this is for John's message, but that little phrase, “I will come again”, could be an eye opener for his audience. After all, if Jesus was going to die in obedience to his father’s will so that God's family could be revived and brought back into a proper relationship with him, then it would have been enough to say: “I go and make ready a place for you, then I will take you to be with me”. No need, surely, for the 'come again' statement. That raises some interesting questions around second comings. We've probably been taking a second coming for granted, but I wonder how much of a new thing that might have been for the early Christians. God was going to bring his kingdom into play again, he was going to achieve this through Jesus (his obedience through suffering, death, and resurrection), but that was not going to be total deal. There was a recognition that a second event would be needed – Jesus was going away, his followers couldn't go with him, so he would have to come back some day for them. “Again I will come.” Obviously this quickly became a major topic of hope for the Christians.
John 14:3
And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too.
quote:John sweeping up one of the themes again from his introduction (1:14 - ...the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father). He links the word 'truth' with a few other concepts in his work, such as light and spirit.
John 14:4-7
“You know the way where I am going.”
Thomas said, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going. How can we know the way?”
Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him.”
quote:
John 14:8-9a
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content.” Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father!
quote:That sparked another link in my mind to N. T. Wright's take on what Paul did. Wright focuses quite a bit on the Shema as a core element in Paul's theology. For Paul (argues Wright) Jesus' life, death and resurrection is what God's long awaited return actually looked like. God returned in and through Jesus (the overlap here with John's Jesus-and-the-Father-are-one theme). The question arises then, Does this new view clash with the fundamental Jewish monotheism that can be found throughout the second-temple literature? Wright suggests it doesn't; the one creator God had promised to return to his people and had in fact now done so. He did it in and through Jesus, which did not diminish his divine uniqueness.
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Now Jesus is reinforcing that he and the Father are one, if you've seen one you've seen the other. Surely for Jews brought up on the Shema (The Lord our God is one) this is tough to get your head around.
quote:Rhetorical question following from the last statement. Expects the answer, “Yes, of course I do believe!”
John 14:9b-10a
“How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?
quote:- perhaps because people are looking ahead and wondering? What sort of questions are being begged here? If Jesus is going back to his Father, and expecting his work not only to be continued, but improved/enlarged by those who he has taught and trusted, what sort of status do they have? It's an awesome responsibility. And I don't think he's talking about saying their prayers and expecting their kudos to be enhanced by a miracle or two. What do you think?
John 14.9-129Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.
quote:It puts a great deal of trust in those Jesus leaves behind (including Judas? - John will have to answer that, and I'm sure he will. I can see, now, why there had to be only one apostate).
John 14.13-1713I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If in my name you ask me* for anything, I will do it.
The Promise of the Holy Spirit15 ‘If you love me, you will keep* my commandments. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,* to be with you for ever. 17This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in* you.
quote:Do tell! Why?
Originally posted by pimple:
I can see, now, why there had to be only one apostate).
quote:The commandments--well, I take the passage to answer that question itself, here:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I assume “in my name” here is equivalent to saying “with my authority” rather than applying a verbal formula that by simple virtue of its usage (in English?!) guarantees delivery. I'm probably not the only who has heard the idea taught that so long as you (simply) ask for anything whatsoever in Jesus' name (i.e. make sure you park the word 'Jesus' in the prayer), Jesus will give it to you.
Of course moving the reference to the question of authority doesn't remove the question, How do I know I'm asking for something with Jesus' authority? How do I ensure I have that authority from Jesus in the first place before making the request?
John's answer appears to be that the Father resides in the person and works through him or her. The person has to be loyal to Jesus (“if you love me...”) - that also appears to be a precondition for effective and affective prayer. John, however, doesn’t go into the detailed process for ensuring that the classic paper clip can be moved across the table by prayer alone!
And commandments. What commandments? To what is our John referring here?
quote:Do tell! Why?
Originally posted by pimple:
I can see, now, why there had to be only one apostate).
quote:This would make the commandments = love one another, and bear the lasting fruit of love. Which is both an old and a new commandment, because while he's saying it here very clearly as a sort of "last words" before dying, it has been the theme of his whole ministry.
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (John 15:12-17)
quote:This seems to me to be the main thrust of what Jesus is trying to get over - love one another. Everything else revolves around that.
“I give you a new commandment – to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. NET Bible
quote:This is phrased as a conditional. If you should love me...then I will...” That's interesting. It suggests that a disciple had first to obey the commandments and that this was a pass/fail requirement for receiving the Spirit. Obey my rules, then and only then will I send you the Spirit.
“If you love me, you will obey my commandments. Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate...”
quote:
John 14:18-19 NET Bible
I will not abandon you as orphans, I will come to you. In a little while the world will not see me any longer, but you will see me; because I live, you will live too.
quote:[John 14.21]
"They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them."
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:[John 14.21]
"They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them."
Well, I think I want to take issue with that. I can vouch personally for the fact of Jesus revealing himself to those who love him. But I refute unequivocally any idea that this happened (in my case) as a result of any moral rectitude on my part. John (not Jesus!) is way off here.
Are you sure that you've understood him correctly? But to those who love him, he's basically saying, "You'll get what you want, never fear.")
quote:It is not moral rectitude but loving our brothers and sisters that is commanded. Or is it a "commandment" since how can love be commanded? Being and acting lovingly can be done, so in some circumstances this may be all that can be hoped.
Now by this we may be sure that we know him, if we obey his commandments. Whoever says, ‘I have come to know him’, but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, ‘I abide in him’, ought to walk just as he walked.
Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word that you have heard. Yet I am writing you a new commandment that is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. Whoever says, ‘I am in the light’, while hating a brother or sister, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves a brother or sister* lives in the light, and in such a person* there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates another believer is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go, because the darkness has brought on blindness.
quote:Which is especially conspicuous when the rabbit is hightailing it away.
Originally posted by pimple:
Little white rabbit tail.
quote:[John14.22-24]
Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, ‘Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?’ Jesus answered him, ‘Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.
quote:That is indeed a big hurdle for readers of the bible (ditto all texts): to put oneself in the shoes of the original author/audience so as the more fully understand what was being said. It's one of the right questions to ask - What would the followers of Jesus have understood by the phrase "I am going to the Father"? A parallel question is the same one in respect of John's audience. Would they have understood the same thing as those in that nighttime before the arrest?
Originally posted by pimple:
Basically, I think that present-day Christians are concerned primarily with their own need for comfort, with a very limited capacity for appreciating that of others, then or now.
quote:[John 15.1-4]
'I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine-grower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit.
You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.
quote:I'd never really thought about this before, but really, at its heart, the word means "to cleanse." It gets used in Greek as a technical term for pruning, but that's an extension of the basic meaning. It's not really a pun, where a word is ambiguous between two meanings and the word-play takes advantage of this. It's more that pruning is understood in Greek as the vinicultural equivalent of cleansing in most other spheres.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The same word katharo can be translated either as "to cleanse" or "to prune." He's playing on words.
quote:No, I think it's an example of forgiveness--an acted out parable. He says to Peter, "you folks have already had a bath and need only to have your feet washed--except for one", which makes sense if the bath = one-time baptism and the footwashing = the everyday repentance and forgiveness of daily sins. In that case, the footwashing is something where we should "do as I have done to you"--that is, forgive one another. That way the whole community stays clean, healthy, and fruitful.
Originally posted by pimple:
So it is an extension of the foot-washing metaphor. The physical cleansing of the disciples by washing their feet is also a symbol of his having cleansed - or purified - them spiritually, so that they can continue the work (bear fruit in the vine metaphor) given to Jesus by his Father.
And the example of service he gives to them in the former example is a sort of add-on freebie and not the main point?
quote:You'll notice the passage isn't about true vs. false vines, but rather about fruitful vs. fruitless vine branches. False vines aren't even mentioned. You can say they're implied, but you could just as easily say that "true vine" is another way of saying "the spiritual reality that natural vines mirror, just as the sun and moon are mirrors of God's true eternal light."
Originally posted by pimple:
They were fishermen mostly, not vine-growers. I wonder what they made of it all? It makes no sense to a reasonable modern person now to think of "false vines" as opposed to the true vine. The poor bloody vine is only as good as the gardener. But in Jesus' day all creation seems to have had some sort of soul, so that when Jesus curses an unproductive fig tree and it dies, the wise heads of the faithful nod in approval.
quote:I'd be inclined to go this way. There are good shepherds and bad shepherds in John, but there's only really one vine in this symbolic universe, and it's true, ie. reliable. The question is how deeply we're rooted in it (to mix the metaphor a little!)
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll notice the passage isn't about true vs. false vines, but rather about fruitful vs. fruitless vine branches. False vines aren't even mentioned. You can say they're implied, but you could just as easily say that "true vine" is another way of saying "the spiritual reality that natural vines mirror, just as the sun and moon are mirrors of God's true eternal light."
quote:I suppose the facile answer to pimple's question would have something to do with bearing fruit, but that seems to easy and too short-term. ("Look! Results! Jesus is with me!") Whereas "abiding" seems to be a long-term thing, at least to me.
I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
quote:It's not a direct link in the Gospels, but I would think it's a fairly straight-forward indirect link to Jesus' statements that loving him means following his commands.
Originally posted by pimple:
1. How would the disciples have known they were or were not abiding in Jesus. What, specifically, was Jesus demanding they should do or not do?
quote:Number [1] is the hardest one to answer, given the post-Enlightenment notions of how texts were put together. There's that suspicion about any claim to make a historical link between what's in the text and what was in the historic event the text purports to represent. The issue is whether any text from the past can be taken seriously as a source of historical information. John's gospel is quite overt in stating that it has a reason and purpose for its existence, which causes some to back away from treating it as in any sense historical. Still, one does have faith in the oral and community tradition theory, that when someone like John takes material and presents it in public this way, he puts it up for scrutiny to be tested by those who were witnesses and who could besmirch what he wrote if they thought he was taking liberties with history. John seems to have survived the cull of public scrutiny.
Crap spouted by pimple:
1. How would the disciples have known they were or were not abiding in Jesus. What, [* ]specifically[/* ], was Jesus demanding they should do or not do?
2. How would John recognise, publicly and/or privately, those of his readers who were abiding in Jesus?
3. Did anyone then, and does anyone now, have the authority to judge who may or may not be abiding in Jesus?
quote:[John 15.8-11]
8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become [or 'be'] my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.
quote:I'm going to try to take a whack at this, though it's probably unwise as my brain is fuzzy from headache etc.
Originally posted by pimple:
I think I put the cart before the horse again!
1. How would the disciples have known they were or were not abiding in Jesus. What, specifically, was Jesus demanding they should do or not do?
2. How would John recognise, publicly and/or privately, those of his readers who were abiding in Jesus?
3. Did anyone then, and does anyone now, have the authority to judge who may or may not be abiding in Jesus?
quote:The answer is yes. Jesus has this authority, and he has clearly delegated it (for certain values of "delegated") to the church. Meaning the church as an assembly or group, not as a single individual, no matter what his office. Matthew 18 lays out the procedure.
3. Did anyone then, and does anyone now, have the authority to judge who may or may not be abiding in Jesus?
}]quote:I agree with this, with the added stuff from upthread that "keeping my commands" in the Greek is perhaps better translated as "cherishing, treasuring" with the add-on note that naturally that's going to include trying to do them. But the main emphasis is not on some kind of bare order, but is more in tune with doing things because the person you love is made happy by that. Similar to "Dad would have wanted me to do things this way." The attitude of a child, not a slave.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:It's not a direct link in the Gospels, but I would think it's a fairly straight-forward indirect link to Jesus' statements that loving him means following his commands.
Originally posted by pimple:
1. How would the disciples have known they were or were not abiding in Jesus. What, specifically, was Jesus demanding they should do or not do?
quote:This may be pushing the picture language too far, but was Jesus saying that there is a role for Christians in casting out of the community any who do not match loyalty with actions, but that ultimate destruction remains God's prerogative? He is the one, in other words, who gathers up the dry branches that have already been cast out.
“If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and are burned up.”
quote:[John 15.12-17]
'This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends, You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am goving you these commands, so that you may love one another.'
quote:Powerful stuff indeed, the very core of Christianity. Without love, forget it. Without love we're not doing what God wants of us. Without love, we can't bear the fruit that will last. Why would we grow in patience, in kindness, in gentleness? Why would we be faithful? God will give us everything we need to enable us to love one another, if we yearn for it and ask for it, which we will if we love and trust God and want to serve God's purposes, knowing that they're good.
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:[John 15.12-17]
'This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends, You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am goving you these commands, so that you may love one another.'
This is powerful stuff. Powerful religion can be difficult to cope with. Or argue with. Or demand explanations of. So I will sit down, shut up and listen. And hope...
quote:Matt 26:50
Originally posted by pimple:
Indeed. Doesn't Jesus, in one of the synoptics, greet Judas as "friend" at the very moment of his betrayal?
quote:Them and us.
"If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world - therefore the world hates you...
quote:I rather like this approach for a translation that recontextualises the meaning for what many of us encounter today. I would go so far as to say that "finding irrelevant" is what many would say about our faith.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
What does John mean by 'hate' here? Or perhaps better: Does the English word 'hate' really cover off the meaning of the Greek word John used?
My preference is to go with the Hebrew background and say that the meaning is closer to 'not accepting' or 'not choosing' (an antonym of 'love' = choose to accept, along with the associated responsibilities of being committed to). Of course it's possible for someone who does not choose to accept something to slide along the spectrum towards something more akin to the meaning of 'hate' in English.
A sense of 'choosing not to accept' does seem to fit John's earlier note in his introduction that the Jesus' own did not receive him (1:11).
quote:[John 15.20]
Remember the word that I said to you, "Servants are not greater than their master." If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also...
quote:[John 15.21]
But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
quote:Actually, we're back to tireo, to "treasure, keep, heed" one's word. In this case it does not refer to obedience, but to hearing and believing the Gospel. If they had listened to Christ, they would have listened to the disciples also. Since they refused to listen to Christ, what surprise is there if they reject the disciples' message also?
Originally posted by pimple:
Yes, I think there is much in this passage which becomes unnecessarily alienating because of the various idiomatic variations in translation. I've heard the whole lot preached as though it were all literally understandable and written in modern English (or even worse, in "God's language" - that of KLJV!)
quote:[John 15.20]
Remember the word that I said to you, "Servants are not greater than their master." If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also...
The rhetoric almost becomes absurd here. It seems to say "If they did what I told them to do, they will do what you tell them to do." So it's all about power then? Surely not!.
quote:there's nothing paranoid about it. it's prophetic. Jesus knew very well (and needed no divine power to foresee) that these people whom he was sending out "as sheep among wolves" were going to get treated very, very badly. Early church history bears this out. Modern missionary experience also bears this out. There's something about Jesus' message that causes an allergic reaction in some people. The "offense of the cross," I think they call it. And I have met this offense in people I dearly love and know well (family members, yeah).
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:[John 15.21]
But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
The paranoid innuendo in that phrase "they will do all these things to you" is typical of frightened modern cults or people who adhere to a very rigid set of beliefs and adopt a siege mentality when, for instance their racist or homophobic remarks are criticised or punished. Indeed, some of them find validation for their bigotry in the martyrdom they see themselved enduring.
But It's not, to my mind, what John's gospel, at heart, is about.
quote:It makes no sense for God to give His only-begotten Son out of love and a desire to save the world, and then constrain the effect based on a belief in a literal name. (What does believing in a literal name mean, anyway?) It makes somewhat more sense to constrain it based on a belief in the Son who bears the name, but it makes a lot of sense (to me) that the effected salvation would be inherent in a belief in the Divine qualities the Son embodies. It also makes a lot sense to interpret the last part of the quoted passage as saying that anyone who does not believe in those qualities (e.g. love, compassion, righteousness, mercy) judges themselves rather than being judged by someone else.
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
quote:
Matt. 7:22
“On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many miracles in your name?’”
Mark 16:17
And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will expel demons, they will speak in new tongues...
Lk. 24:47
...repentance and the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem
Phil 2:10
...at the name of Jesus every knee should bow
quote:Looks as though the Qu'ran is the place to go!
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I'm really hoping someone can briefly outline any scholarly arguments there might be against (or for) the validity of interpreting NT references to Jesus' name as references to the qualities he embodies.
quote:[John 15.22-25]
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It was to fulfil the word that is written in their law, "They hated me without cause".
quote:I didn't see any of that (not sure I understood) at all. What I saw was basically this (LC's expanded version):
Originally posted by pimple:
Where were we? I think
quote:[John 15.22-25]
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It was to fulfil the word that is written in their law, "They hated me without cause".
quote:[John 15.22-25]
"If I had not come [as God incarnate walking the earth as a man] and spoken to them [a man speaking to men face to face, rather than in a remote way like inspiring a text or sending an angel with a message], they would not have sin [= that is, I would not judge them guilty of sin, I would not blame them]; but now they have no excuse for their sin [because, frankly, I've bent over backwards to win them back, I've done everything I can think of now, and there's nothing else I can do, no matter how hard I try]. Whoever hates me hates my Father also [because we are one, and there's no getting over it. They've seen me, they've seen the Father. They've hated me, well...]. If I had not done among them the works [=miracles clearly derived from God's power] that no one else did, they would not have sin [= I wouldn't blame them even though I talked to them as God face to face! But heck, I even did miracles so they'd know who I am!]. But now they have seen and [still, in spite of everything I tried,] hated both me and my Father. [What a pity, but it's not unexpected. After all, we knew they were going to be that way from the beginning.] It was to fulfil the word that is written in their law, "They hated me without cause". [Still, I had to try, didn't I?]
quote:[John 15.26-27]
"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning."
quote:Will you accept an improper theologian?
Originally posted by pimple:
Points taken. The criteria required by modern sceptics are more various and more involved - but that's too big a tangent for here, I think.
quote:[John 15.26-27]
"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning."
This was always one of my favourite Johanine verses, the promise of TRUTH available to all honest believers, straight from he horse's mouth, so to speak. Of course I no longer read it quite so naively. Could a proper theologian enlarge on who the Advocate was/is, how (s)he is seen now, and whether this helps us with the thorny old problem of the Trinity?
quote:[John 15.26-27]
"When the Advocate [=Holy Spirit] comes [=at Pentecost], whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is,] the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify [to you and all who are willing to listen] on my behalf. You also are to testify [to the world] because you have been with me from the beginning [and therefore you are my eyewitnesses]."
quote:And you'll be able to say "we told you so..."? Well no, not those of you who are dead, obviously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 16.1-4
16‘I have said these things to you to keep you from stumbling. 2They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. 3And they will do this because they have not known the Father or me. 4But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them.
quote:Why so negative? "When their hour comes," that is, "when all these things happen to you that I've just been describing," you'll be able to say, "Ah yes, I remember Jesus told us this would happen. No need to freak out, God is still in control even though it looks like everything's going to hell in a handbasket right now. But he knew, he warned us, he told us the truth--and so we can trust him when he tells us it won't last forever and things will get better, too."
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:And you'll be able to say "we told you so..."? Well no, not those of you who are dead, obviously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 16.1-4
16‘I have said these things to you to keep you from stumbling. 2They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. 3And they will do this because they have not known the Father or me. 4But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them.
quote:There are, of course; and this would probably make a great separate thread. My guess is that you have to play it by ear. If there's any chance of persuading those who are kicking you that they've mistaken God's will, I suppose you have to try. But if that's clearly a lost cause, then use the forum they've given you to do whatever good you can--even if that means being "in your face" to them. Stephen's speech, for instance, did not persuade any of his persecutors AFAIK; but it seems to have had a powerful effect on a minor onlooker and approver, Saul of Tarsus.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Something else rather interesting in here: doing something in the earnest belief that one is actually doing what God wants (“...those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God”). I suspect there are members a-plenty on the Ship who have been at the sharp end of a kicking by those with authority in the Christian community and for whom this saying resonates. Questions surface immediately, of course: Which party is in the right and how can you tell? We know Jesus is the good chap in the confrontation with those with religious authority in his day, but how would the average person in the Temple courts have known that? How should Christians deal with instances of this kicking – do as Jesus did and engage in a 'in-your-face' challenge (a la Stephen in Acts) even though that kind of rocking the boat can lead to expulsion if not from the church then at least from the inner clique?
quote:[John 16.4b-8]
"...I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you [understood = to help you personally] 5 But now I am going to him who sent me [?understood = I am going to die];
Yet none of you asks me 'Where are you going?' [because the inference is fairly obvious?] 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. [But who would not have preferred by far the continued presence of Jesus himself?] 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:
quote:This is how I read it, rightly or wrongly (most likely, naively (is that a word?)).
“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
quote:It came in the passages about cutting your leg off or even casting out an eye 'if it scandalizes you = causes you to sin.' A problem passage for some people because it involved not just self-mutilation but cutting yourself off from the synagogue - and even in a metaphorical sense that's very harsh [See Matthew 18.8ff and Mark 9.43ff]
Then back in 15:18ff Jesus talks about something that John reckoned was important enough to refer to in his introduction: the 'world' did not accept Jesus and this is why it is unlikely to accept his disciples (1:10f, “...the world did not recognise him...”). That must have been one of the issues John wanted to confront by pulling together in this work the material he had been using. There may also be another reason, linked to this one, reflected in 16:1. That's the reference to 'falling away' (skandalizo = σκανδαλίζω), which John uses only once elsewhere in his work – 6:61, when Jesus is aware that some of his disciples are struggling to accept Jesus' teaching and asks them, “Does this cause you to stumble / fall away?”
quote:[John 16.8-14]Which promises have been kept? Or are being kept? Or will be kept? In the first two cases, if applicable, there must be many examples of how. Could shippies come up with one or two?
And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.
I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
quote:Frankly, I just didn't understand what you were talking about. Hoped someone wiser would chime in.
Originally posted by pimple:
Which was a tangent of little import, perhaps.
quote:The phrase "prove the world wrong about" is translated in other versions as "convict the world of" or even "convince the world of". I'm also finding "rebuke" and "reprove" or "judge." The Greek is ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ. I'm sticking the whole difficult passage below for future reference.
And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.
quote:ἐλέγξει is the future form of ελέγχει, which is the word that is giving my brain conniptions. It's weird, because the Spirit is going to ἐλέγξει the world about three things, one of them definitely positive (righteousness) and the other two negative or possibly so (sin and judgement). I can't bend my brain around a concept that would work equally well for all three.
8 καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ περὶ κρίσεως· 9 περὶ ἁμαρτίας μέν, ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ· 10 περὶ δικαιοσύνης δέ, ὅτι πρὸς τὸν [e]πατέρα ὑπάγω καὶ οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με· 11 περὶ δὲ κρίσεως, ὅτι ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου κέκριται.
quote:and that's where it all falls apart again.
When he comes, the Spirit will convict the world about sin--the Spirit's doing that job because they wouldn't listen to me, didn't believe me, so now they have to deal with the Spirit; he will convict them about righteousness, because I'm going to the Father and won't be around to be the living example of righteousness for all eyes to see, so now that's the Spirit's job too; and last, he will convict them about judgement because.... because....
quote:Catching up again! That 'scandal' language in the bible is dramatic, somewhat extreme, and very tense. It's drawn from the Jewish scriptures, where the literal sense was of a baited snare or of being lured into a trap. It was also used metaphorically to connote something that leads to the destruction of a person. The route to that destruction is rebellion against God's rule (sin). So something attractive was being used to entice people away from the path they should follow and into a trap from which they could not escape until the gamekeeper came along and killed them. Some examples:
Originally posted by pimple:
Going back a bit, two of the synoptics made much of that word derived from skandalon...
quote:There's a lot more of that language use in the OT and it must have formed a powerful and present image in the minds of Jesus' contemporaries. Fear of being trapped by something alien, something superficially attractive, that would result in destruction at the hands of God. In no small part of explains the sincere desire of the Jewish authorities to investigate each and every teaching that sprang up, in case it turned out to be – from their understanding – a snare. They were empowered by God to root these snares out and keep the people on the right path. They felt that by engaging in verbal investigation with the potential trapper they could winkle out the trap – taking seriously the likes of Proverbs 12:13 - “The evil person is ensnared by the transgression of his speech, but the righteous person escapes out of trouble.”
Ex. 10:7. Pharaoh's advisers advising Pharaoh on Moses' demand to let the Hebrews go out from Egypt:
“How long will this man be a snare (moqesh = מוֹקֵשׁ) to us? Release the people so that they may serve their God, Yahweh. Do you not know that Egypt is destroyed?”
Ex. 23:32f. God's warning to his people not to mingle with Canaan's inhabitants:
“You must make no covenant with them or with their gods. They must not live in your land, lest they make you sin against me, for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”
Isa. 8:12-15. God encourages Isaiah not to be swayed by conspiracy theorists:
“Do not say, ‘Conspiracy,’ every time these people say the word. Don’t be afraid of what scares them; don’t be terrified. You must recognize the authority of the Commander in Chief - Yahweh. He is the one you must respect; he is the one you must fear.
He will become a sanctuary,
but also a stone that makes a person trip
and a rock that makes one stumble to the two houses of Israel.
A trap and a snare to the residents of Jerusalem.
Many will stumble over the stone and the rock, and will fall and be seriously injured, and will be ensnared and captured.”
Amos 3:5f.
“Does a bird swoop down into a snare on the ground if there is no bait?
Does a trap spring up from the ground unless it has surely caught something?
If an alarm sounds in a city, do people not fear?
If disaster overtakes a city, is the Lord not responsible?”
quote:Or in other words, that the world is indeed being mugged by a stuffed bear.
The advocate will present evidence sufficient to secure a conviction on an indictment containing three counts:
On the first count, that the world stands accused of treason (sin), in that (hoti) it did wilfully and with malice aforethought levy war against the sovereign God;
On the second count, that the world stands accused of acts contrary to God's justice, in that it did murder God's lawfully appointed representative; and
On the third count, that the world stands further accused of treason, in that it did adhere to the sovereign God's enemy who had been subject to sentence following conviction of crime.
quote:This is how stories are told in times when there is time to listen to them - at bedtimes, perhaps. This is how whole dialogues are remembered, and woe betide any parent who tries to alter a word of it! Compare and contrast this homely style with the learned commentaries written about it.
15 All that the Father has is mine [!] For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 16 A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me.' 17 Then some of his disciples said to one another, 'What does he mean by saying to us, "A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me"; and "Because I am going to the Father"?' 18 They said, 'What does he mean by this "a little while"? We do not know what he is talking about [the pimples go back a long way...] 19 Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, 'Are you discussing among yourselves what I meant when I said, "A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me"?
Back to grabbing Jesus around the ankles again, toddler style, and wailing into his skirts.quote:These terms may all be substitutes for the same entity (whether metonymy or synonyms) in John's book, as references to Satan / the satan.
8:44 (Jesus speaking)
“You people [i.e. the Jewish authorities] are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.”
13:2
The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus.
quote:As an arch-rebel "rules" a usurped territory. In other words, by sheer terrorism and nastiness, and on a temporary and non-authorized basis. It's no reflection on the rightful King--anyone can be rebelled against, as long as free will is part of the equation. What matters is that God took steps to set it right. And mercifully arranged it so that the worst of the suffering would fall on himself.
Originally posted by pimple:
But in what sense does the Devil/Satan rule in John's world. I knew a cleric once who was fond of telling us that Christians were in the world but not of it. He was himself not what I would describe as "other-worldly".
Does John - or do the gospels as a whole - claim that the world was literally in the thrall of evil until the death and resurrection of Jesus?
If so, wouldn't that beg the question of God the Father's historical responsibility? Did he sacrifice his only son to atone for his own impotence/incompetence/
indifference?
quote:That is one of the crucial questions here and I think LC is right about this being understood by John's audience in the context of rebellion. That opens up new vistas on John – and perhaps not just on him, but also on how the first Christian community saw its place in the grand scheme of things.
Originally posted by pimple:
But in what sense does the Devil/Satan rule in John's world.
quote:This parable seems quite clear – the immediate referent of 'tenants' is what John would have termed the Jewish authorities (or 'Jews' in his language). Two things occurred to me:
Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one, and threw him out.
Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.’ But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let’s kill him so the inheritance will be ours!’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.”
Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour, because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.
quote:Two tenses there: judgement NOW (bellow: When do we want it?), but being thrown out as a process beginning NOW but not being complete until some indefinable point in the future.
”Now is the judgement of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.”
quote:That suggests John was not being too idealistic in his view of contemporary events. The Christian community is protected, but everyone else is still (post-Jesus' resurrection) established under the Ruler's power.
We know that everyone fathered by God does not sin, but God protects the one he has fathered, and the evil one cannot touch him. We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
quote:[John 16.20-22]Jesus (and John) were men of their time. Neither would have heard of post-natal depression, cruelly exacerbated by the expectations put on all mothers by blissfully ignorant men.
"...20 Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will have pain, but your pain will turn to joy. 21 When a woman is in labour, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world. 22 So you have pain now; but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no-one will take your joy from you.
) ).quote:[John 16.23-28]
"...23 On that day you will ask nothing of me.* Very truly, I tell you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.* 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. 25 I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures, but will tell you plainly of the Father. 26 On that day you will ask in my name. I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.* 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and am going to the Father."
quote:I don't think Jesus was letting the disciples down gently, either. The time for that was long since past. This is the same man who said things like "take up your cross and follow me" and "the Son of Man will be betrayed, handed over to his enemies, and killed. On the third day he will rise." There was also all that scary apocalyptic teaching we see in places like Matthew 24 etc., none of it pulling any punches.
55 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover. 56 They kept looking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple courts they asked one another, “What do you think? Isn’t he coming to the festival at all?” 57 But the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who found out where Jesus was should report it so that they might arrest him.
quote:It's almost as if Jesus had two things he wanted to drive into their thick heads: 1) who he was, and 2) what he was going to do. Once they had 1) correct, he moved on immediately to 2). Which they really didn't grasp hardly at all until it happened.
5 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, ...."
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
quote:Well, you say so. My experience as a reader is that they harmonize very well. And character assassination, seriously? Where precisely in the earliest church do you see anybody heaping nasty shit on Judas? What I see (in Paul, Acts, etc.) is an awed, frightened silence--and when they can't avoid mentioning him, they very carefully tiptoe around it ("He went to his own place," not "that motherfucking son of a bitch done killed our Jesus and we gonna see him FRY in hell!").
Originally posted by pimple:
I don't think you can use sayings selected by the synoptic writers to confirm your understanding of Jesus' saying and actions in John. They just don't harmonize. And the nonsense with the ointment is a very obvious exercise in character assassination. Earlier accounts don't point the finger at Judas, do they? Once a scapegoat is established, people with axes to grind and unresolved stuff on their consciences can heap all manner of **** on them, with complete impunity.
quote:There certainly is not any such rule on this thread, speaking from a Hostly perspective.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Back to your main point. AFAIK, nobody made a rule on this thread that we couldn't use the Synoptics to understand what's going on in John. It has certainly been the historic practice of the Christian Church. I am of course aware that I am in a minority here for holding to this, but that ought to make me a piece of rare and refreshing fruit to y'all (bananas, maybe, but still).
quote:[John16.29-30]
His disciples said, "Yes, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure of speech!Now we know that you know all things, and do not need to have anyone question you; by this we believe that you have come from God."
quote:[John 16. 30-33]
31 Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe? 32 The hours is coming, indeed it has come [?], when you will be scattered, each one to his home,and you will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone because the Father is with me. 33 I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution, but take courage; I have conquered the world!
quote:Roughly two thousand years so far.
Originally posted by pimple:
Not quite clear what you mean by that LC. How long have we been in that stage?
quote:What can I say? Thank you? Sorry? Yeek? Good to know take yourself less seriously than I do me
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I say "I don't know" all the time.
This is LL posting: Uhhh... What she said...
LC again: I think he's agreeing with me in teenage-speak. Anyway...
It's hard to read people over the internet. If I seem to have a lot of ingenious answers, and pop up with them at the drop of a hat, it's not because I am worried or trying to be a know-it-all. It's simply because I'm a geek. A completely nerdy geek, of the type that wears Spock ears to conventions and recognizes the caffeine molecule on a T-shirt a block away. The kind that writes "butyl mercaptan" on a particularly bad piece of writing.
And unfortunately my geekery is at its height (depth?) with the Scriptures. I read commentaries for fun, and I learned Greek and Hebrew mainly because I wanted to (a couple other reasons but the real one is geekish pleasure). I'm sorry. I try not to be too much of a pain.
ETA: As for my faith, it is what it is. I don't suppose I can judge how strong or weak it is with any kind of accuracy, and there's certainly no reason why you need to be impressed by it. I'm not.
quote:Only if I can somehow dump my disbelief in supernatural miracles and pray for an extra twenty years! (You never know)
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I still find this way of working through John quite helpful – the slow but steady approach forces a focus on things that would probably otherwise slip under the radar. Some things on our radar are not even picked up in commentaries, which gives me pause to think that even though we've gone through John this way, we've still probably only scratched a few inches below the surface (inch = about one hin's worth of a cubit).
So once we've reached the end of John, shall we start up a thread to do John one verse at a time?
quote:Unpacking the phraseology here – we've got another couple of those perfect tenses: The hour has come, ...those you have given him. Do they refer to activities that have been completed by the time Jesus was speaking, or an activity to be completed in the future?
Jesus spoke these things, raised his eyes to the skies, and then said:
“Father! The hour has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son might glorify you, just in the same way as you have given him authority over all people so that to those you have given to him he can give eternal life.”
quote:[John 17.3-5]
And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed
quote:At my church, it was once the practice that the whole Farewell Discourse from John's gospel was read by candlelight at the end of our Maundy Thursday dinner, and then we would walk in silence into the church for Communion.
Originally posted by pimple:
I've never heard that read out in church, have you?
quote:[John 17.6-8]
"I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. [A] 7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you, for the words which you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me..."
quote:
John 17:9
I am praying on behalf of them. I am not praying on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me, because they belong to you.
quote:[John 17.10-12]
All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them [difficult to see how that works, exactly]. And now I am [effectively] no longer in the world, but they are in the world ,and I am coming to you. Holy Father [I haven't noticed that form of address before - no longer "abba"?0] protect them in your name that you have given me [?], so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them I protected them in your name that you have given me [?] I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost,[Gk: except the son of destruction] so that the scripture might be fulfilled...
quote:Here's where I differ from you two--I don't think most or all of this is John's wording, John's concepts, John's choice of presentation. Particularly in this prayer, I think it is Jesus's, and John is reporting what he heard and recalls, with the help of the Holy Spirit, naturally. I can't help wondering whether the focus on John is becoming a way to get Jesus off the hook for unpleasant things he said or did. Not that anyone is doing this intentionally, but the concern does creep in. Forgive me.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
“Son of destruction” - a rather extreme term. 'Destruction' and 'lost' in this verse are from the same word form and the phrase could read: “Not one of them was destroyed except the one destined for destruction...” It's the Greek term used to translate the Hebrew word associated with complete destruction without mercy. 'Lost' is a bit too weak in English, really. It does throw some light on the disciples' view of Judas' final outcome. Even if he show remorse over his act of betrayal, John at least was convinced that Judas was irrevocably damned.
The remorse bit is found in Matthew 27:13 - “When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.”
quote:John is somewhat ambivalent about the concept of “world” in his Gospel; he states it was all created by God (through Jesus), but that it did not recognise him. So when John records Jesus saying that he is speaking 'in' the world, is that significant, or just another way of saying “I'm not dead yet...”?
“...these things I speak in the world” (ταῦτα λαλῶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ)
“...because they are not out of the world, just as I am not out of the world” (ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου)
“...I am not asking you to take them out of the world...” (οὐκ ἐρωτῶ ἵνα ἄρῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου)
“...but that you keep them out of the evil [one]” (ἀλλʼ ἵνα τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ)
“They are not out of the world just as I am not out of to the world” (ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ εἰσὶν καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου)
“Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world” (κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον)
quote:Well, first of all, if anybody can join it. See "Christian church"
Originally posted by pimple:
So how is a specially selected, close-knit fifth column at work in a society perceived as hostile not some sort of elite task force?
. That sort of knocks the "elite" right out of it. Second, when the fifth column (not my choice of words, but whatever!) is acting on behalf of the ordinary citizens and against their oppressors.quote:Okay, let me start here. (We're really having difficulty connecting, maybe this will do the trick.)
Originally posted by pimple:
No. It's more like this. If this were a film, a silent Jesus with (his) prayer as a voice-over would be very moving - and possibly, no probably very effective evangelizing. But you're right in objecting to my description of the scene as modern because this isn't a film script.
Some things, some very personal things - such as the treatment of Jesus by the soldiers before his execution - are best left inexplicit. The gospels largely recognize tis, I think.
So help me out with this. Why is it when reading Chapter 17 of John's gospel I see in my mind's eye not Jesus praying to the Father, but John and some of my former friends praying to the gallery - like the Pharisees Jesus was so scornful about?
)quote:Well, first let me say that I don't mind the attitude. I may call you on it once in a while, but it doesn't disturb me personally. Better an engaged person with attitude than a half-asleep "whatever you say" deadhead in the pew. You know?
Originally posted by pimple:
Baggage again, probably. The Jesus of John is so unlike the Jesus I grew up to love. And that's part of why I'm hanging out here. To deal with John properly I have to read it it and read it all and not give up.
One good way of doing that is to write it out and this is a convenient place to do it. I started out with the very condescending attitude that of all those good Christians who claim to love the gospel of John, I doubt if many of them have read the whole thing (crediting them with my own impatience, perhaps). And it seemed to me that a
clever way of testing whether they did really love it - all of it - would be to keep he thread going and see just how many of them can stomach it. Where are the hoards of loving Christians ("love" appears more in John's gospel than in any other) eager to share their delight in it? Are they not significant by their absence? Or have I frightened them all away? Perhaps they think scepticism is dangerous - something they might catch from someone unsound in the faith? All I'm hostile to, LC, is the smug, self-satisfied attitude of those who want to regard ten scattered verses of a gospel or two as slam-dunk evidence for the justification of their narrow perspectives.
I'm not really that nasty. I get carried away...
) and leaves the man going what? but still greatly impressed. Enough to become a follower later on, and bury Jesus in spite of the dangers attached to that. But Jesus defends Mary, and publicly praises her (yes, another humble woman) in spite of the fact that one of his chosen twelve (and a man!) is making pious noises in her disfavor. That took guts.quote:I'll admit that I'm not much of hoard, but I take great delight in John's gospel - it's pretty much my favorite book of the Bible because it sings to me every time I read it. As for sharing that delight, I'd love to, but posting to do only that would be pretty boring. Your skepticism is by no means dangerous or frightening - you and I just have very different ways of approaching the text and it leaves me with very little that I can contribute.
Originally posted by pimple:
Where are the hoards of loving Christians ("love" appears more in John's gospel than in any other) eager to share their delight in it? Are they not significant by their absence? Or have I frightened them all away? Perhaps they think scepticism is dangerous - something they might catch from someone unsound in the faith?
quote:[John 18.1]
After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered.
quote:[John 18.2]
Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, Because Jesus often met there with his disciples.
quote:[John 18.3]
So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and weapons and torches.
quote:I'm sure you're right about this--there's a verse somewhere when they determined to wait till after the Passover for just the same reason. Not that they did actually end up waiting, but the logic was sound.
Originally posted by pimple:
That's an interesting question. I think it might be answered later on in the text. The authorities were scared of a day-time arrest, weren't they - because of the possibility of a pro-Jesus riot. I'm sure I read that somewhere.
quote:Certainly. And referring to different issues. The "take up your cross" bit refers to a lifelong attitude which may or may not lead to actual physical martyrdom at some point. But as for the week of Jesus' passion, Jesus clearly didn't want his disciples to die right then (see: "If it's me you want, let these people go"). There was a mission to continue and a church to start. Who would be there to do that if the key trained leaders had all bitten the dust at the same time?
Originally posted by pimple:
As for protecting his followers, that's also ambiguous. The synoptics have Jesus wanting his disciples to stay awake to pray with him, and also giving would-be adherents the uncompromising charge of "anyone who wants to save his life must lose it" and "take up his cross and follow me".
I don't see that as a big problem. Different sayings at different times.
quote:The footnotes proliferate here - just the NRSV editors being honest here, I think. They're not adding much, just trying to capture the tone, the atmosphere, as well as the baldly-stated words, (which won't be enough for modern Christians to "get" - or which they might be tempted to embellish (perish the thought!) independently!
4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, "Whom are you looking for?" 5 They answered, Jesus of Nazareth" [Gk Jesus the Nazorean] Jesus replied, "I am he." [Gk "I am"] Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.
quote:Yes, I was rather coy, wasn't I? What I meant was (from my lofty intellectual perch, you understand!) that whereas Jesus, as quoted by John, simply keeps repeating "I am" - a highly significant phrase without any embellishment (I am the true vine, the way, I am the way, the truth and the life etc) The NRSV says "I am he" then "I
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence, pimple; would you be willing to clarify?
There are two things I find interesting in this passage. One is the repetition of the modifier, "Judas, who betrayed him." The writer wants to be sure we don't forget who did it. The level of enmity towards Judas seems considerable!
But earlier in the sentence, we have Jesus, "knowing all that was going to happen to him." Jesus the Christ, the pre-existent Word, omniscient: John leaves no doubt.
quote:[John 18. 6-9]
6 When Jesus said to them, "I am he", they stepped back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them "Whom are you looking for?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth". 8 Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he" [Gk "I am"] So if you are looking for me, let these men go." 9 This was to fulfil the word that he had spoken, "I did not lose a single one of those you gave me."
quote:This is the sort of fine detail that does make John convincing. We don't know who the Beloved Disciple was (pace those who think they do!) but we have the name of the high priest's slave. (Priest's had slaves? Oh, I guess everybody did).
10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus.
quote:That was discussed on this thread. This post helps clarify the matter.
Originally posted by pimple:
The stuff about the sword puzzles many people. Why were they armed? Did or did not Jesus authorise it? And why was Peter not arrested on the spot, regardless of the fact that Jesus was the prime target?
quote:Moo
The context of the time (based on similar settings today) suggests that the carrying of a personal utility bladed device would have been advantageous when it came to preparing food, particularly for a team on the move. I doubt food came pre-prepared much at the time, more likely fish needed filleting, lambs needed beheading, etc. And in remoter areas the threat from wild animals might also motivate the carrying of something by way of protection.
<snip>
I suspect, then, that Simon “The Blade” Peter had about his person the sort of knife / dirk that a fisherman would carry in case he came upon a severe case of a fish that needed a good fillet. When it came to Jesus' arrest, I imagine this would suit better a hand-to-hand grappling type of activity, where the guard laid hands on Jesus and Peter laid hands on him, one thing led to another... If a full-blown sword had been used I'd have thought a severed ear would have been the least of the guard's worry: skewered skull or sliced shoulder blade would have been on the menu as well.
quote:Sorry, LC - I haven't the foggiest idea what you're on about here.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Pretty hard to arrest a man when the primary evidence for his attack has vanished. (And whining "but Jesus HEALED him!" would tend to undermine their other case, which is a prosecution for blasphemy. Since when does God give blasphemers divine gifts of healing?)
But don't try it at home!quote:[John 18.11]
Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?"
quote:[John 18.12-14]
So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish police arrested Jesus and bound him. First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people.
quote:[John 18.15]
Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.
quote:I think the inference is that Judas falls back with them, rather than the mob alone falling back and leaving Jesus and Judas face to face. It's a clumsy theological point IMV, making it clear - as if John hadn't done so enough already, that Judas separates
Originally posted by Nigel M:
This prayer of chapter 17 is foreign sounding to many Western ears. Apart from the concepts that John repeats (e.g., “I in them and you in me” which gets too close for me to ignore to “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...I am the Walrus...”), there is the feeling that we are eavesdropping on what should be a private prayer. Still, this is 'other' literature, so I'm going with the flow. Perhaps prayer was the routine of a day – the worry beads.
There is an interesting bit about Judas in 18:2-6 – the logical flow in the text:
[1] Judas secures an official team from the Jewish authorities
[2] Jesus comes out to meet them and confirms his identity - “I Am”
[3] Judas the betrayer is standing there with them
[4] So they fall back.
How does [4] follow on from [3]? In what way does Judas' being there with the arresting team relate to the retreat when Jesus says “I Am”?
quote:Not sure who's post your are answering, LC - or how.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think that's really stretching it, sorry.
There's a very practical reason for Judas to be there. It's not all that easy to identify one out of twelve guys in the dark in an olive orchard under the trees, no matter how famous the man may be. You want to bring someone who can guarantee you've got the right man.
For that matter, I'm sure the high priests etc. wanted Judas to visibly "finish the job"--no sneaking off to Tarshish or wherever with the money while the soldiers get sent on what just MIGHT turn out to be a wild goose chase after all. After all, they ARE trusting the word of a traitor as to where Jesus is. And what if he's turned his coat twice? Best to verify.
quote:[John 18.16]
16 but Peter was standing outside at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in.
quote:Sorry to be replying late, pimple. All I was intending to convey is that J of A had not at that point been mentioned anywhere in Jesus' story, so I find it unlikely that he was the unnamed disciple in this episode. (J of A does not appear until after the crucifixion in John or the Synoptics.) I'll hold off on discussing the rest of it until we get to 19:38.
Originally posted by pimple:
Mamacita. With regard to Joseph of Arimathea. I know you can't be implying that he didn't actually exist before verse 19.38, but what exactly are you implying? That he wasn't brave enough? I mean, just about everybody - including Peter - was scared out of his wits around this time. You have a point though - if it was J. of A. why not name him? So the beloved disciple is still the most likely candidate, I think.
quote:That other disciple: There was an intriguing theory (referred to in the notes of the NET Version) that this unidentified disciple was actually Judas (yes, him of the betraying trend), on the basis that he had dealings with the High Priest and that it was unlikely for Galilean fishermen to be known to the High Priest. It's a thought.
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:[John 18.15]
Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.
So who was he?
quote:Until you pointed it out the significance had passed me by. After all, I mean, where will it all end? Women Chief Priests? Universal Suffrage???
Originally posted by pimple:
Another Johannine detail, not found elsewhere, AFAIR. A female bouncer, no less!
quote:[John 18.17-18]
17 The woman said to Peter, "You are not also one of this man's disciples, are you?" He said, "I am not." 18 Now the slaves and the police had made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were standing around it warming themselves. Peter also was standing with them and warming himself.
quote:[John 18.19]
19 Then the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.
quote:Today is Palm Sunday? What happened to this event in John's narrative? I've had it explained to me some time ago, but I can't remember the reason.
20 Jesus answered, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple [[Not true, actually - unless the synoptic writers were lying], where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said."
quote:I think the line of questioning used here against John the Baptist may well be similar to that used against Jesus at this trial. “Who are you?”
NET Version
Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” He confessed—he did not deny but confessed—“I am not the Christ!” So they asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No!” Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
John said, “I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.” (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) So they asked John, “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, who is coming after me...
quote:[John 18.22-24]
22 When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" 23 Jesus answered, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
quote:After which we expect some reaction from Peter, but John switches immediately to Jesus' continued interrogation. And there is something missing here, surely? Annas has sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas, but what happens between Caiaphas and Jesus?
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They asked him, "You are not also one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not." 26 One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" 27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment the cock crowed.
And of course he can't say anything, because they have to stick together.quote:I might be wrong, but I thought that Caiaphas was High Priest for some years. As has already been pointed out upthread, the Romans made this position a political football, hence the fact that whilst being High Priest should have been "for life", there were a number of ex-High Priests knocking around at the time.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
John makes the point that Caiaphas was High Priest “for that year”, which might reflect the time constrained element imposed from outside.
quote:I find it interesting how the scene with Peter changes subtly from one gospel to another.
Originally posted by pimple:
Meanwhile, back outside by the brazier...
quote:
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They asked him, "You are not also one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not." 26 One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" 27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment the cock crowed.
quote:You're talking about the "properly bribed witnesses" again. This must be mighty confusing to some people. We are supposed to be studying the fourth gospel here. If you are going to drag the synoptics in you ought to reference them, and say why they are relevant. You are regarded as a competent bible scholar after all - but not all your readers are!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I assume more of the same, which is why John doesn't bother to record it.
This is all my mental image and probable total hooey, but the way I visualize this scene has Jesus showing up at the house of the high priest. Annas is present but Caiaphas is delayed for some reason or another (on the pot? who knows?) and Annas, though not OFFICIALLY the high priest at that moment, can't resist sticking his oar into his son-in-law's business, just for a bit, especially since he still holds much of the power and honor of the position, and nobody's going to stop him...
so he gets on with interrogating Jesus (in a very slovenly, shockingly unlawful manner) and manages to bollix things up pretty thoroughly before Caiaphas arrives on the scene, with the properly bribed witnesses to make it all look legal, and probably pretty pissed off to find Dad's been meddling ...
But of course, I could be entirely wrong.
quote:Thank you for taking the trouble I was too lazy to go to. The differences between the synoptic accounts and John are substantial and significant. The accounts neither "prove" their validity by the bits that agree, nor "disprove" anything on account of the apparent discrepancies. They are different views from different communities and individuals at different times, and they are all interesting.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:I find it interesting how the scene with Peter changes subtly from one gospel to another.
Originally posted by pimple:
Meanwhile, back outside by the brazier...
quote:
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They asked him, "You are not also one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not." 26 One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" 27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment the cock crowed.
In Mark, Peter is the courtyard, sitting with the guards beside the fire. The servant girl twice accuses him of being a follower of Jesus. Finally, it is pointed out that he is a Galilean. Peter curses and denies knowing Jesus. The cock crows a second time, and Peter breaks down and weeps.
In Matthew, Peter is again in the courtyard (though there is no mention of a fire). This time, two different servant girls accuse him of being a follower of Jesus. Finally, it is pointed out that it is his accent which has betrayed him. The cock crows (only once), Peter leaves, weeping bitterly.
In Luke, it is very similar to Matthew, although there are elements of Mark (the fire is there and the explicit mention of his accent is missing).
In John, we have Peter being brought in by the other disciple (that's new). Again we have the first two questions, fairly similar to the other gospels. But then the final accusation is based not on his Galilean accent, but that he was seen in the garden of Gethsemane. More over, the one accusing him is a relative of the man whose ear he has cut off (again - only John makes this point).
What may also be interesting is that John doesn't mention anything about Peter being distraught when the cock crows. Again, perhaps he presumes that the readers will already know this. He also doesn't mention the bit about Peter curses and making oaths. All in all, it is far less dramatic scene than in the other gospels.
quote:Pimple, remember--you don't get to decide that posts based on material from the synoptics is out of bounds here. We had a ruling on that, remember?
Originally posted by pimple:
You're talking about the "properly bribed witnesses" again. This must be mighty confusing to some people. We are supposed to be studying the fourth gospel here. If you are going to drag the synoptics in you ought to reference them, and say why they are relevant. You are regarded as a competent bible scholar after all - but not all your readers are!
quote:[John 18.28-32]
28 Then they took Jesus from Caiaphus to Pilate's headquarters [Gk The praetorium]It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate went out to meet them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" 30 The answered, "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you." 31 Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law." The Jews replied, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death." 32 (This was to fulfil what Jesus had said when he had indicated the kind of death he was to die.)
quote:Look, if you don't find it helpful, just scroll by. You're obviously interested in John qua John, its differences from the other gospels, ways of deconstructing the text, and so on. That's fine. I am interested in John not so much as an author but because of what he reports about Jesus, and therefore I'm naturally going to add that to what I already know of Jesus from the Synoptics.
Originally posted by pimple:
Absolutely nothing hellworthy here, AFAIS. I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't refer to the synoptics on this thread - I've done it myself, on several occasions. My beef was about including material which is exclusively synoptic in a comment on a passage in John, as though the two were inextricably intertwined. It doesn't irritate me, I just don't find it very helpful in getting to grips with what John's gospel is all about - it's difficult enough on its own.
quote:A while later, Josephus records,
Antiquities of the Jews, chapter 2
Valerius Gratus...deprived Ananus [the Annas of the NT] of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor. ...
quote:That might imply Caiaphas hung on for a few years, or because Josephus wanted to talk about other historical events, perhaps it was coincidence that Caiaphas was in office when Josephus gets back to Jerusalem in his narrative.
Chapter 4
[Vitellius] deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him.
quote:On the capital punishment point, there isn't a clear reference in records to the Romans imposing a law on the Jews preventing them from carrying out an execution – and the mention of stonings here and there suggest that the Jews had the power. What the gospels seem keen to point out, though, is that the case of Jesus was being presented as a political act threatening imperial peace, rather than a strictly religious affair limited to the confines of Judaism. Jesus had to be seen to be executed by Rome, for the sake of the Jewish nation. The Jewish authorities had to get Rome to accept that Jesus was a pretender, in effect, to Roman rule (perhaps even a threat to Causer’s rule?).
Chapter 4
Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them leave to have the care of the high priest's vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly, although at this time they were laid up in the tower of Antonia... [T]he Romans, when they entered on the government, took possession of these vestments of the high priest, and had them reposited in a stone-chamber, under the seal of the priests, and of the keepers of the temple, the captain of the guard lighting a lamp there every day; and seven days before a festival they were delivered to them by the captain of the guard, when the high priest having purified them, and made use of them, laid them up again in the same chamber where they had been laid up before, and this the very next day after the feast was over. This was the practice at the three yearly festivals, and on the fast day; but Vitellius put those garments into our own power, as in the days of our forefathers, and ordered the captain of the guard not to trouble himself to inquire where they were laid, or when they were to be used; and this he did as an act of kindness, to oblige the nation to him.
quote:Given the politically charged atmosphere, the irony over Barabbas is heavy.
[b]John 18:33-40
So Pilate went back into the governor’s residence, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus replied, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”
Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.”
Then Pilate said, “So you are a king!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
Pilate asked, “What is truth?” When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish leaders and announced, “I find no basis for an accusation against him. But it is your custom that I release one prisoner for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?” Then they shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.)
quote:[John 19.1-7]
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2 And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they dressed him in a purple robe. 3 They kept coming up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and striking him on the face. 4 Pilate went out again and said to them, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no case against him." 5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them "Here is the man!" 6 When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him. I find no case against him." 7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God."
quote:Which seems to answer your query as to where the greater responsibility lay. Pilate now tries to avoid crucifying Jesus - but not, in this account anyway, from any sense of justice but from cowardice. "Even more afraid than ever, we heard, but John doesn't say anything about him being afraid before, so it's reasonable to assume that for John's readers, Pilate already had a reputation for cowardice as well as cruelty.
8 Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. 9 He entered his headquarters again and asked Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Pilate therefore said to him, "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you? 11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of the greater sin."
quote:
12 From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor."
quote:Handed him over to whom? His own soldiers presumably, not the chief priests. But you can see, can't you, why for so long , today, Good Friday, was the traditional time for Jew-baiting by pious Christians dazed from fasting and with a limited understanding of the scriptures.
13 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat [or seated him] on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew [that is, Aramaic], Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, "Here is your King!" 15 They cried out "Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!" Pilate asked them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but the emperor." 16 Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.
quote:Similarly, although the relevance of the word Gabbatha in the verse is debated, its etymology suggests the idea of 'elevation', which is what was going to happen to Jesus. I like the idea that John might have been doing this deliberately.
By myself I make this oath — what I say is true and cannot be rescinded.
Surely every knee will bow to me, every tongue will swear allegiance.
quote:[John 19.16b-25b]
So they took Jesus; 17 and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew [Aramaic] is called Golgotha. 18 There they crucified him and with two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them. 19 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth [or the Nazorean], the King of the Jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do not write
'The King of the Jews', but, 'This man said, I am the King of the Jews.'" 22 Pilate answered them, "What I have written, I have written." 23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one foe each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. 24 So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it." This was to fulfil what the scripture says,
"They divided my clothes among
themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots."
25 And that is what the soldiers did.
quote:Something peculiarly Johannine.
John 19:25-27
Now standing beside Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, look, here is your son!” He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time the disciple took her into his own home.
quote:Thank you, Nigel, for reading my mind. I'm sure we're going to get there!
28 After this, when Jesus knew that all was finished, he said (in order to fulfil the scriptures)"I am thirsty." 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
quote:Not sure if the concern for his mother was prompted by another bit of that Psalm:
I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads. ...
I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
quote:Then John broadens the world out with details associated with the treatment of the Passover lamb and the need for cleansing, apposite given the proximity of hyssop:
Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
quote:That last quote from a passage in Zech 12-13...
John 19:31-37
Then, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not stay on the crosses on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was an especially important one), the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to have the victims’ legs broken and the bodies taken down. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men who had been crucified with Jesus, first the one and then the other. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out immediately. And the person who saw it has testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe. For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his will be broken.” And again another scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced.”
quote:"according to the burial custom of the Jews..."
38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus but a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. 39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no-one had ever been laid. 42 And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
quote:I agree completely that the timescales concerned argue against the proper preparations for burial. Although John is very vague about the time of the death of Jesus, the other gospels place it very firmly at 3pm. There is no doubt that the body would have remained on the cross for some time after death. Sunset at that time of the year in Jerusalem would be about 7pm. So the body would have been taken down from the cross and hastily placed into the tomb before 7pm - the start of the Sabbath.
Originally posted by pimple:
I've been thinking about Nicodemus and all that Myrrh and aloes. 100 pounds! With Jesus' own body-weight - no doubt much wasted, that would have taken some lifting. As to the anointing, I'm not sure John meant us to think the men did it. Think about it - the body was taken down as a matter of some urgency, and Jewish days begin in the evening, not the morning. So there would hardly have been time to prepare and embalm the body. Since the tomb was close by, Jesus was probably wrapped (with decent haste) together with the spices and carried to the tomb and left there for the ministrations of the women after the festival.
quote:[John 20.1-10]
Early on the first day of the wee, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." 3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in. and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples returned to their houses.
quote:Yes, I think so. But we have just read that the Beloved Disciple was a non-believer too, until he saw the empty tomb - and neither he nor Peter had understood the resurrection prophecies. It is tempting to wonder if either of them would have had the opportunity, or whether there would have been any church at all, without the intervention of Nicodemus and Joseph.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I've been reflecting on Joseph and Nicodemus and the 100 pounds of spices. I've come up with two possible meanings, although they are rather different.
a) Joseph and Nicodemus are "hidden" disciples, At no point do they declare faith in Jesus. And yet they, like Mary, go to great lengths of devotion to anoint Jesus' body, whilst the "real" disciples are nowhere to be seen.
b) The second meaning also starts from their status as "hidden" disciples, and brings in the way that one of the ongoing themes of John's gospel is how people believe and grow in their believing. Joseph and Nicodemus show great devotion to Jesus, but no faith. They anoint his body for burial, rather than prepare it for the resurrection, We never hear of them again in the gospel - they are not part of any of the resurrection accounts. (Indeed, we don't hear from them again in any part of the New Testament.) They reveal a "failed" form of discipleship - whereas the disciples come a deeper, fulfilled faith.
Does any of this make sense?
quote:[John 20.11-16a]
11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; 12 and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. 13 They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." 16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!"
quote:I had a flick through N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God to see what his research came up with. He couldn't find any reference in Judaism up to the time of Jesus to a messiah doing the sort of things Jesus did, let along being crucified and resurrected. Wright is keen to emphasise the point throughout his works that early Christianity was thoroughly messianic, so it opens up the question: Where did those early followers of Christ get the idea from of amalgamating 'messiah' with 'resurrection'?
Originally posted by Moo:
Was the idea of resurrection linked together with the idea of the Messiah in Judaism at that time?
Moo
quote:It's hardly surprising that people react in strange and different ways to the sight and sound of someone they "know" is dead. It was often a mixture of horror and fear at the outset, in spite of Jesus' efforts to calm them. Peter and the Beloved Disciple, having seen the grave clothes in the empty tomb, go home - each to his own apparently. No mention of their telling the other disciples. Mary Magdalene is given a message for Jesus' brothers (is the inference here that his sisters might get hysterical?) but she goes instead to the disciples. Probably a wise move. And many interpretations have been given to "Noli me tangere!" - Don't touch/cling to/hold on to me the Latin Bible. Do we have the Aramaic equivalent anywhere?
16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned to him and said in Hebrew [i.e. Aramaic], "Rabbouni!" (which means Teacher). "Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have nor yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father, and your Father, to my God and your God." 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord!"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.
quote:[John 20.19-20]
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
quote:Huh?!
Originally posted by pimple:
Here the disciples are glad to meet the risen Christ. In the next chapter we shall discover that the disciples at the "picnic" were terrified - scared even to ask who he was. Just sayin'.
quote:I assume that the vast majority of people did not have the means to be buried is such style, with well worked spices and a dugout rock tomb. Also, commentators usually deal with John's use of the word "Jews" in the gospel to say that John uses it in different ways in different places. I'm not so sure. I think he means to refer to the Jerusalem authorities when he uses that term, those Jews who were trained in the theologies and politics of the capital city and who had misinterpreted God's message in the scriptures.
Originally posted by pimple:
"according to the burial custom of the Jews..."
quote:Commissioning, empowering/authorising, and the strange case of - what? Bringing people back into God's family and shutting out others? Does John here map onto the synoptic gospels quotes from Jesus about forgiving and rejecting?
John 20:21-23
So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you.” And after he said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”
quote:The Greek word for 'breathe', πνεω, pneo, has the same root as the word for 'spirit' πνευμα, pneuma.
Originally posted by pimple:
"And after he said this, he breathed on them."
I'm sorry to be really mundane here, but what does that mean, exactly?
quote:Moo
When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.
quote:[John 20.24-25]
24 But Thomas (who was called Didymus - The Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails, and my hand in his side, I will not believe."
quote:[John 20.26-29]
26 A week later the disciples were again in the house,and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here nad see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe." 28 Thomas answered hime, "My Lord and my God" 29 Jesus said to him,"Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe."
quote:Hmm, that's a point. Poor you! Would the preparation of Jesus (crucified) for burial have involved any bandaging - well yes, that would be part of the embalming process, but would the wound have been stitched? If not - oh horrors!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
responding to a minor point--I too had major surgery and afterward they found they had to put in a chest drain (shudder!) while I was awake. It was pulled out ten days later, and I assure you, you could easily have put your hand (well, a couple fingers) in the hole where it had been. Took some stitches and heavy bandaging to close the wound up again.
I imagine a Roman spear would create a much larger wound.
quote:Yes, I think that's how Paul saw the resurrection. I wonder what he would have thought about the gospel accounts?
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
I don't see anything in the narrative to suggest that Jesus walked through the walls, simply that he appeared to them I.e. materialised in the room. This would correlate with the Emmaus story in Luke. A common theme in the gospels seem to be that Jesus post resurrection was neither just a dead person reanimated, or simply a ghost. His being alive was more transformation than simply reanimation.
quote:I'm not sure they stitched wounds in those days. Even if they did it to the living, I can't see the point of doing it to the dead.
Originally posted by pimple:
...would the wound have been stitched?
and is going to the Quotes File. I also imagine the laundry room scene: "Look at your clothes, Son! They're practically in shreds! I don't know why I bother buying you nice things...." quote:For sure, there are echoes of creation and light/dark themes weaving throughout John's gospel, which folks have come back to during the nine years (!!) that this thread has been running. So yes to the bookends, but I think if one pushes the Genesis structural analogy (or metaphor, I get the terms mixed up) too far it will break down sooner or later, and probably sooner.
John could be bookending creation, rather than trying to find exact parallels for each day
quote:(Not meaning to push us into the next verse prematurely - if folks still want to work through verse 29, have at it.)
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
quote:[John 21.1-2]
After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias; and he showed himself in this way. 2 Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas Didymus (The Twin), Nathaneal of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples.
quote:Plenty of debates in the past about whether John was writing for the benefit of non-believers (that you come-to-believe – treating the verb 'believe' as an aorist subjunctive), or to believers (that you may-continue-to-believe – treating the verb as a present subjunctive). The debate seems to have settled in favour of the latter; John was writing to Christians. It does seem to fit better with what John says in his introduction: “...to all who received him he gave the right to become God's children; to those believing in his name.” He's writing that to those who have already believed.
20:30-31
Now although Jesus certainly did many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, these are not recorded in this book. But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
quote:It is strange that the author doesn't specify here who these two are.
Originally posted by pimple:
...who were the other unnamed disciples?
quote:and
[Jesus said to Peter,] "Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go."(He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) (John 21:18-19)
quote:With regards to the first text above, it seems reasonable to assume that the Johannine community knew that Peter had been martyred by this time. And thus, that it might be some comfort to know that Jesus knew this would happen.
When Peter saw him [the Beloved Disciple], he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" (John 21:21-23)
quote:Still part of the background to Jesus' appearance to this group of disciples. Presumably they (including the unnamed ones) were fishermen by trade, which is whey they had decamped to the Sea of Tiberius and were all prepared to go out fishing. John isn't bother to tell us where the other disciples were, or how Jesus might have interacted with them after the resurrection.
John 21:3
Simon Peter told them, “I'm going to fish.” “We will go with you,” they replied. They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
