|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fess up! (John 1:20)
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
I'm working on the Gospel text for 3 Advent B.
The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to inquire of John. Verse 20 says "He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, 'I am not the Christ.'"
I'm interested in the use of the words confessed and deny there. Why would one confess the negative? Confession is admission of something wrong for which there may be consequences.
It would seem that John would not have to confess he is not the Christ but to deny that he is.
In the Greek confess is homologeo, which denotes admission and agreement, admission of bad behavior (Strong). It's Hebrew counterparts referred to confession of sin and acknowledgement of and thanksgiving for God's forgiveness (TDNT).
Deny means to say no or to deny (TDNT), disown, renounce (Strong).
I'm trying to understand the use of this particular order of words. Is he confessing a lesser status to maintain humility in a surge of great popularity? Or is there something else going on?
Still digging but I'd like your input.
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Confess also works for statements of faith ("we believe and confess") which sense homologeo would cover as well.
I noticed that too and thought it was weird. Does it maybe suggest that the people who came to John were phrasing it "You're not the Christ, are you?" (i.e. in a way that expects the answer "no")? If so, he could say "no" and still be homologeo-ing them, that is, agreeing with them.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Here is a link to a sampling of translations of the verse(s) in question.
I find the New Century version particularly interesting as it seems to read the "deny" portion as meaning "he did not refuse to answer" and the "confess" portion as "but said I am not the Christ."
However, my own impression is that the question asked of him was only "who are you?" without suggesting who he might be. As such, he literally could not "deny" that he was the Christ, because that was not the question. He had to affirmatively confess "I am not the Anointed One."
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Origin, late Middle English:
from Old French confesser, from Latin confessus, past participle of confiteri ‘acknowledge’, from con- (expressing intensive force) + fateri ‘declare, avow’.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I think it's right to read ὡμολόγησεν (hOmologEsen) here as more 'professed' than 'confessed' (at least, in the modern sense of confessing sins). It has the sense of a solemn declaration.
ἠρνήσατο (ErnEsato) is interesting, though. I can see a good case for reading it as 'refuse' ("he did not refuse to answer", as in Heb 11:24) or as 'deny' ("he did not deny that he wasn't the Christ", as in John 18:25).
It's more a question of translation than it is of meaning, though
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
There's probably also an element of legal language here in John, too. He is stressing that John the Baptist gave an actual witness (“This was John's testimony...” John 1:19). It's as though John (the author) is saying that John (the Baptist) swore on oath that he was not the messiah. A solemn guarantee of his position, cross his heart and hope to die, etc.
Something similar is going on elsewhere in John with this homologeo verb. In the section dealing with Jesus' healing of a blind man on the Sabbath in John 9, the text runs (John 9:18-24, NET version):
quote:
Now the Jewish religious leaders refused to believe that he had really been blind and had gained his sight until at last they summoned the parents of the man who had become able to see. They asked the parents, “Is this your son, whom you say was born blind? Then how does he now see?” So his parents replied, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. But we do not know how he is now able to see, nor do we know who caused him to see. Ask him, he is a mature adult. He will speak for himself.” 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. For this reason his parents said, “He is a mature adult, ask him.”
Then they summoned the man who used to be blind a second time and said to him, “Promise before God to tell the truth. ...
Language of summoning, confessing, earnest promising (as in an oath). Seems to be a rhetorical device with John.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
