|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: John 20 'Doubting' Thomas
|
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
A couple of preliminary observations -- first, Thomas was not alone in doubting: he was alone among the disciples in not having been there to see Christ the first time. Second, Jesus appeared to him and gave him the proof that the others had already received. The admonition "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" is not targeted to the disciples at all, but to those of us who came after. FWIW
--Tom Clune
[ 25. March 2010, 16:52: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
You might want to consider the character of Thomas as revealed in John 11:14-16 quote:
Then Jesus told them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead. For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.’ Thomas, who was called the Twin,* said to his fellow-disciples, ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him.’
Thomas did not have much faith at that time, but he had a staggering amount of loyalty. He didn't say, "Let's go so we can protect Jesus." He said, "Let's go so we may die with him."
I have great respect for Thomas.
The other thing to remember is that after he had touched Jesus he said, "My Lord and my God." This is the strongest expression of faith in Jesus anywhere in the NT. Moreover, I am ready to bet that this faith endured.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The other thing to remember is that after he had touched Jesus he said, "My Lord and my God." This is the strongest expression of faith in Jesus anywhere in the NT.
a) the text doesn't say he touched Jesus
b) Jesus appears to him and he shouts "my God!". Why is this a confession of faith, instead of an exclamation of surprise and astonishment?
c) many suggest that faith requires the absence of knowledge. How does this square with the apostles knowing for a fact Jesus resurrected?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The other thing to remember is that after he had touched Jesus he said, "My Lord and my God." This is the strongest expression of faith in Jesus anywhere in the NT.
a) the text doesn't say he touched Jesus
b) Jesus appears to him and he shouts "my God!". Why is this a confession of faith, instead of an exclamation of surprise and astonishment?
c) many suggest that faith requires the absence of knowledge. How does this square with the apostles knowing for a fact Jesus resurrected?
You're adorable. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
a) It's justifiable to assume he touched Jesus, since Jesus presented himself to be touched. However, it makes little difference if he actually touched him. He saw what he needed to see.
b) If you want to be a stickler for the text, the text says Thomas answered Jesus and said, "My Lord and my God." And he did so only after Jesus not only appeared, but spoke to him and showed him his wounds. A shout of surprise would've taken place when Jesus first appeared, one would think. If he did shout it as more of an expletive, as you suggest, it was in response to seeing the wounds in the resurrected Christ, so it still would be meaningful as faith - it would be the shock of recognition.
c) Just because some people say such obvious nonsense doesn't mean we have to answer on their terms. If someone suggests to me that faith requires the absence of knowledge, all I have to say to them is "No it doesn't." Theirs is the burden of proof, for having made that assertion in the first place.
I engage these issues only in case they're helpful to the OP.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
b) Jesus appears to him and he shouts "my God!". Why is this a confession of faith, instead of an exclamation of surprise and astonishment?
Andreas, this is an expression of faith, because Thomas was a Jew - it is inconceivable for a Second Temple Jew to casually take the name of God in vain. They didn't do blasphemy
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
Leo,
How about,
Jesus brings peace through his resurrection, but that peace is the driving force for mission. Because the Apostles have peace they are compelled to share that peace with the world. Jesus sends the apostles out into the world in the same way that He began his public ministry, that is, at his Baptism God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and here Jesus anoints the apostles with the same Spirit. We can expect the same outcome from the apostles’ mission as from Jesus’ mission: persecution and apparent failure, but also vindication from God.
And for us? We have to take that same Spirit of peace and share it with the World, in order to bring forgiveness to the World at whatever cost to ourselves. Need to think about what this means in your immediate situation.
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
b) Jesus appears to him and he shouts "my God!". Why is this a confession of faith, instead of an exclamation of surprise and astonishment?
Andreas, this is an expression of faith, because Thomas was a Jew - it is inconceivable for a Second Temple Jew to casually take the name of God in vain. They didn't do blasphemy
Although I agree that Thomas' remark was directed at Jesus, had it been directed at the Father I don't see why a vocative phrase like that should be seen as blasphemous - any more than Jesus' cry to God on the cross would. It could have been deeply felt recognition of what God had done through raising Jesus from the dead.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
Andreas, this is an expression of faith, because Thomas was a Jew - it is inconceivable for a Second Temple Jew to casually take the name of God in vain. They didn't do blasphemy
Why do you think it would be blasphemy? The bible is full of people speaking about God. It's not as if saying "God" was a big taboo.
And why isn't it an expression of faith if it's directed at God rather than at Christ? After all, wasn't it God the one supposed to have resurrected Christ, rather than Christ himself? At least that's what the Apostles are recorded to have said in the New Testament... God resurrected Jesus. So Jesus' resurrection could elicit an expression of faith to God.
I think to read "my Lord and my God" as an expression of faith in the divinity of Jesus is a much later misreading, a misreading that's very familiar to us because the trinitarian party won the controversies in the fourth century, but a misreading nevertheless which we shouldn't impose on that scriptural passage.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
a) It's justifiable to assume he touched Jesus, since Jesus presented himself to be touched. However, it makes little difference if he actually touched him. He saw what he needed to see.
In my view, touching someone is stronger than seeing someone. Although in both cases, you may feel you see or even touch someone even if you actually don't, but still the image of Thomas touching the wounds of Jesus is of a very powerful symbolism.
As for actually touching Jesus, I doubt anyone would dare to touch the resurrected Messiah of Israel, when he presents to him and points out that he doubted his resurrection...
quote:
b) If you want to be a stickler for the text, the text says Thomas answered Jesus and said, "My Lord and my God." And he did so only after Jesus not only appeared, but spoke to him and showed him his wounds. A shout of surprise would've taken place when Jesus first appeared, one would think. If he did shout it as more of an expletive, as you suggest, it was in response to seeing the wounds in the resurrected Christ, so it still would be meaningful as faith - it would be the shock of recognition.
The context of the text says that Thomas' faith in Jesus' resurrection was the issue. It doesn't say anything about Jesus' divinity or Thomas' faith in Jesus' teachings.
Thomas doubted the resurrection, he saw Jesus, and he expressed faith in the resurrection.
That's how I read Jesus' reply "because you saw me, Thomas, you believe". Now you believe that I resurrected, which is what Thomas doubted earlier. Not now you believe in me, nor now you believe that I am God, since that's not an issue the New Testament poses.
After the trinitarian party won, however, in the fourth and fifth century, most read into the text the controversies of those centuries. In my view, this is to impose later theories to the text, rather than understanding it in context.
[ 28. March 2010, 12:08: Message edited by: El Greco ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
a) It's justifiable to assume he touched Jesus, since Jesus presented himself to be touched. However, it makes little difference if he actually touched him. He saw what he needed to see.
In my view, touching someone is stronger than seeing someone. Although in both cases, you may feel you see or even touch someone even if you actually don't, but still the image of Thomas touching the wounds of Jesus is of a very powerful symbolism.
As for actually touching Jesus, I doubt anyone would dare to touch the resurrected Messiah of Israel, when he presents to him and points out that he doubted his resurrection...
quote:
b) If you want to be a stickler for the text, the text says Thomas answered Jesus and said, "My Lord and my God." And he did so only after Jesus not only appeared, but spoke to him and showed him his wounds. A shout of surprise would've taken place when Jesus first appeared, one would think. If he did shout it as more of an expletive, as you suggest, it was in response to seeing the wounds in the resurrected Christ, so it still would be meaningful as faith - it would be the shock of recognition.
The context of the text says that Thomas' faith in Jesus' resurrection was the issue. It doesn't say anything about Jesus' divinity or Thomas' faith in Jesus' teachings.
Thomas doubted the resurrection, he saw Jesus, and he expressed faith in the resurrection.
That's how I read Jesus' reply "because you saw me, Thomas, you believe". Now you believe that I resurrected, which is what Thomas doubted earlier. Not now you believe in me, nor now you believe that I am God, since that's not an issue the New Testament poses.
After the trinitarian party won, however, in the fourth and fifth century, most read into the text the controversies of those centuries. In my view, this is to impose later theories to the text, rather than understanding it in context.
This is interesting. I am currently reading the history of the 'lost Christians' of the east - nestorians and so on. Because they were regarded as monophysite heretics, their story is largely untold.
They valued the Gospel of Thomas and I think I am going to use it as a basis for a sermon on the lines of:
the baptismal candidates went to the font with only a basic outline of the faith
the easter season was a time of mystagogy - they were taught in more detail
the Gospel of Thomas was a mystical book of instruction - not written by Thomas but it arose from the Thomas tradition and emphasises experiential, over intellectual, belief - just as Tomas felt and touched and exclaimed, so we are invited into an emotional/mystical relationship with the risen Christ.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I am grateful for this thread since it has opened up avenues which I had not previously explored.
It seems to me that the words about blessed are those who have not seen but believe are addressed to John's audience (and us today) and suggest that faith is "the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews)
I think that Christian Faith can only be understood from the inside. Not that we understand in order to believe, but that we believe in order to understand.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on: ... here Jesus anoints the apostles with the same Spirit.
No, he commands them to receive the Spirit, the breathing on them is prophetic of the wind at Pentecost, when they were anointed and began to preach.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on: ... here Jesus anoints the apostles with the same Spirit.
No, he commands them to receive the Spirit, the breathing on them is prophetic of the wind at Pentecost, when they were anointed and began to preach.
How does that contradict what CHASO said?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on: ... here Jesus anoints the apostles with the same Spirit.
No, he commands them to receive the Spirit, the breathing on them is prophetic of the wind at Pentecost, when they were anointed and began to preach.
How does that contradict what CHASO said?
The anointing is when a person receives the Spirit, this happened at Pentecost, not "here" in John 20.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Not that we understand in order to believe, but that we believe in order to understand.
If you care to elaborate, I'd be interested to know more about what you mean. I would have thought that the goal is believing and that understanding is a means to help us achieve that goal, but it sounds to me like you're saying something very different.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
...[Jesus] commands them to receive the Spirit, the breathing on them is prophetic of the wind at Pentecost, when they were anointed and began to preach.
...and...
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
The anointing is when a person receives the Spirit, this happened at Pentecost, not "here" in John 20.
There was a discussion about this (there usually always is) not too long ago, wasn't there, I seem to remember? I've tried searching for the thread, but wasn't able to find it (I usually never can).
I think the language used in John strongly suggests that the receipt of the HS was indeed there and then. John, though, was concentrating on another aspect (or function) of the HS to that prioritised in Acts, so the two events are not contradictory.
I'll have another look for that thread...
Nigel
[ 29. March 2010, 20:45: Message edited by: Nigel M ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
...
I think the language used in John strongly suggests that the receipt of the HS was indeed there and then. ...
This language of John strongly suggests they couldn't be receiving the Spirit then:
"the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39)
"now I go my way to him that sent me ... if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (John 16:5-7)
[ 30. March 2010, 10:04: Message edited by: NJA ]
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
[Although I agree that Thomas' remark was directed at Jesus, had it been directed at the Father I don't see why a vocative phrase like that should be seen as blasphemous - any more than Jesus' cry to God on the cross would. It could have been deeply felt recognition of what God had done through raising Jesus from the dead. [/QB]
Yonaton , I didn’t think that Andreas was suggesting that Thomas was directing his comment to God. Andreas posited that Thomas’ shout of “My God!” was an expression of surprise. That’s why I think it would have been blasphemous. It’s not that saying, “God” was blasphemous. But in Second Temple Judaism people were very careful about the use of that word. For example, they wouldn’t say the word “YHWH” but would substitute “adonai” when reading. Similarly the Gospel according to Matthew frequently uses the Kingdom of Heaven rather than the Kingdom of God. Of course they would address God directly. But I can’t imagine a Second Temple Jew using God or any accepted substitute as an exclamation of surprise. What Andreas is suggesting is not the Thomas says “My God!” but rather “Omigod!”. Where I come from, that still counts as blasphemy.
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
This language of John strongly suggests they couldn't be receiving the Spirit then
The New Testament contains contradictory accounts. That's a big deal if you are trying to believe in it, but it's not that important if you aren't.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
[Although I agree that Thomas' remark was directed at Jesus, had it been directed at the Father I don't see why a vocative phrase like that should be seen as blasphemous - any more than Jesus' cry to God on the cross would. It could have been deeply felt recognition of what God had done through raising Jesus from the dead.
Yonaton , I didn’t think that Andreas was suggesting that Thomas was directing his comment to God. Andreas posited that Thomas’ shout of “My God!” was an expression of surprise. That’s why I think it would have been blasphemous. It’s not that saying, “God” was blasphemous. But in Second Temple Judaism people were very careful about the use of that word. For example, they wouldn’t say the word “YHWH” but would substitute “adonai” when reading. Similarly the Gospel according to Matthew frequently uses the Kingdom of Heaven rather than the Kingdom of God. Of course they would address God directly. But I can’t imagine a Second Temple Jew using God or any accepted substitute as an exclamation of surprise. What Andreas is suggesting is not the Thomas says “My God!” but rather “Omigod!”. Where I come from, that still counts as blasphemy. [/QB]
You are of course quite correct. I was getting confused with Andreas' debates on another thread. Going back over the thread, Andreas' reply to you (after my post) is compatible with the point I made. However he changed his argument. Initially Thomas' words were an "exclamation of surprise and astonishment", then they were directed at God rather than Jesus.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
There is nothing preventing it from being both, an exclamation of surprise directed at God... After all, it's God's power that supposedly resurrected Jesus!
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
An exclamation of surprise tends to be an impulsive, instantaneous response - not directed at anyone in particular.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
This language of John strongly suggests they couldn't be receiving the Spirit then:
"the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39)
"now I go my way to him that sent me ... if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (John 16:5-7)
Wasn't able to find the other thread, NJA, so I've ploughed through John to reconstruct the justification for my thinking. I'll start with the end – John 20:22, the immediate context for which is (NET version):-
quote:
On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the disciples had gathered together and locked the doors of the place because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 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.”
[1] The linguistic evidence. The verb translated “Receive” (lambano, = λαμβανō) is presented in the aorist imperative mood. The significance of this is that it commands a singular action expecting an immediate response. I have trawled through the first seven chapters of John to find all instances where the author uses the aorist imperative, to assess his usage. Hopefully seven chapters is enough to be statistically relevant. They all occur in direct quotes.
quote:
John 1:23 - “Make straight the way for the Lord.” This is a quote from Isaiah 40:3. I won't count it here as part of the data reflecting John's particular usage, as he may simply be drawing on another Greek version.
1:46 - Philip replied, “Come and see.”
2:5 - His mother told the servants, “Whatever he tells you, do.”
2:7 - Jesus told the servants, “Fill the water jars with water.”
2:8 - “Now draw some out...”
2:16 - “Take these things away from here! Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!”
2:19 - “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.”
4:7 - Jesus said to her, “Give me some water to drink.”
4:10 – A copy of 4:7.
4:15 - The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water...”
4:16 – He said to her, “Go call your husband and come back here.”
4:29 - “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did.”
4:31 - “Rabbi, eat something.”
4:35 - “I tell you, look up and see that the fields are already ripe for harvest!”
4:49 - “Come down before my child dies.”
5:8 - “Stand up! Pick up your mat and walk.”
5:11 – A copy of 5:8
5:12 - Ditto
6:10 - Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.”
6:12 - “Gather up the broken pieces that are left over...”
6:34 - “Sir, give us this bread all the time!”
7:3 - “Leave here and go to Judea...”
7:4 - “...show yourself to the world.”
7:8 - “You go up to the feast yourselves.”
7:52 - “Investigate carefully and see that no prophet comes from Galilee!”
I think the evidence in the contexts is overwhelming that when John uses an aorist imperative in his narrative, it is with the expectation that some action is expected by way of return. Indeed, in the narrative itself, John often supplies the requested response without permitting anything else to get in the way, e.g., Jesus commands the servants to fill jars with water – and they do; Jesus commands them to draw some out – and they do; etc. The one possible exception in the above list is at 6:34, which implies an continual series of 'givings', akin to the regular provision of manna in the wilderness. Again, though, there is an urgency implied – give because we need it.
Other uses of the aorist in John include:
(a) When John presents a string of imperatives denoting a sequence of actions / commands, John varies things, probably for stylistic reasons, either by starting with an aorist imperative and then continuing with a present imperative (e.g., 2:16), or vice versa (e.g., 1:46).
(b) When John wants to signify past actions in the narrative, he prefers to use the aorist indicative (e.g., “Jesus said...” or “Jesus replied...”).
So under this heading, John's usage is pretty consistent; it strongly suggests that the “Receive...” in 20:22 was a command from Jesus to his disciples that in the narrative carried an expectation that an immediate response was due, without a break in the narrative. If John had really wanted to communicate a more distant future receipt of the HS, he cold have done so quite easily by using the future indicative, as he does elsewhere: “You will receive...” (along the lines of 16:7 - “I will send...”).
[2] The contextual evidence. In John 20:22, the author doesn't confirm that the disciples received the HS. Nevertheless, we do have the statement that Jesus breathed (in) the disciples. We don't have many examples in John of the bodily or emotional functions of Jesus, but there are a few: Jesus spat, wept, loved, was deeply moved, and here he breathes.
Immediately before Jesus breathes in the disciples, John records that Jesus said “I am sending you.” This is in the present tense and John is at pains to link this with what follows: 'And saying this, Jesus breathed...' It was also part of one event. Jesus is sending now and offers the HS. The implication is one of support for mission. This ties in nicely with one of the functions of the HS that John emphasises – the One who provides the words to say and teach. Another part of the mission follows verse 22: the teaching of forgiveness, also linked with the Spirit's role in convicting the world of its sins.
The disciples joy upon seeing Jesus (verse 20) could also be a fulfilment of 16:22, where Jesus promises their grief will turn to joy when they see him again after the resurrection.
Contextually, therefore, 20:22 appears in a block that provides fulfilment to themes presented earlier in the so-called Farewell Discourse. Receipt of the HS would be part of that fulfilment.
[3] Pushing back further in the Gospel, there's 16:7 (“...if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you.”). Much depends here on whether one interprets the 'going' to refer to Jesus' death, or to his ascension to the Father's side. If the former, then it leaves open the possibility that 20:22 is an event in the narrative timeline. If the latter, then it would suggest a future event. Jesus does refer to his going to the Father, where the disciples will see him no more (16:10), but this should be balanced with the statement in 16:16 that they would indeed see him after a little while from the point when they will see him no more. This carries forward into Jesus promise that their grief would turn into joy (16:19-20), which as noted above, seems to have a fulfilment in chapter 20. The weight of evidence here, it seems to me, thus nudges more towards a promise that Jesus would send the HS after his resurrection, rather than an ascension.
[4] John 7:39 (Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified). Similar to [3] above, much depends on what John is referring to by Jesus' being 'glorified.' In his Gospel, John uses the word 'glory' to connote a sense of vindication. Jesus wouldn't vindicate himself - he needed the testimony of others to do that (8:54), including signs from God. Lazarus is raised from the dead to glorify Jesus (11:4), Jesus' own death is a glorification (12:23-24), announced as beginning before his arrest (13:31). This glorification, therefore, was a repeatable thing, occurring during Jesus' earthly ministry and also afterwards (12:28).
All this is at home with the law court imagery and language that John uses. At issue in his work is the 'truth' of Jesus, his validity. Witnesses to this are brought forward to testify. True testimonies lead to glorification.
Given the persistent role of this vindication / glorification in John, I hesitate to conclude that the author was referring to an ascension act in 7:39. In fact, I struggle to find a meaningful reference to an ascension as understood by Luke anywhere in John. Added to this is the reference to glory in John's Introduction (1:14), where he says that “we have seen (a past event) his glory...” If glorification (in John's Gospel) was a reference solely to Jesus' role in God' presence, then 1:14 is out of place and time.
There's quite a bit more that could be said on all this, e.g., possible links to relevant OT texts, but these things are written so that you may believe....!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I'm extremely grateful to W Hyatt who suggested an alternative way of accessing Ship of Fools threads that act like Jesus on the Emmaus road and disappear from sight.
It may be Banned in Boston, it may be Censored in China, but: What a Friend we have in Google, all our snivels and griefs to bear; what a privilege to carry, every search to Google in Prayer!
I should have checked my messages before doing that last post.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
An exclamation of surprise tends to be an impulsive, instantaneous response - not directed at anyone in particular.
And when you are religious, surprise and God may be connected. Unless all those Greek Orthodox saying "God and Lord!" when they are surprised are really nasty blasphemers that should be stoned for "taking the name of the Lord in vain"!
I think some use their imagination about what would constitute blasphemy in 1st century Palestine and they judge things by that imagination. This is something we shouldn't do, not unless we have lots of scholarly evidence to back our imagination.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
On the contrary, your argument reads backs from current Greek mores to Palestine.
And as your arguement is the one that departs from the traditional reading I'd suggest that you are the one that has to provide evidence that an expression such as "My Lord and my God!" could be used by a 1st century Jew as an expression of surprise.
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
On the contrary, your argument reads backs from current Greek mores to Palestine.
Actually, no, real life experience is not my argument.
Some people on the Ship suggest that Jesus' "you believe" refers to Thomas confessing his divinity. My reading of the text in its context suggests that this is a misreading of the text.
Thomas expresses doubts that Jesus resurrected, Jesus appears, asks to be touched, Thomas says "my God" and then Jesus tells him that now you have seen me, you believe... that I resurrected. To me that's the natural reading of the text.
It was never about Jesus' divinity. The text was used that way much later, when the trinitarian controversy erupted. It was about Jesus' resurrection. So that "my God and my Lord" refers to that, in my view, and not to the trinitarian debates of the fourth century. That's my argument.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
A couple of postscripts:
First, I don't have to provide with evidence for the absence of blasphemy in "my God!" The onus is on those who suggest that it was blasphemy. How many people have been stoned for saying "my God!"? And why on earth should it be blasphemous? If that's blasphemy, then what about real blasphemy?
Furthermore, I don't think it's accurate to speak of 1st century Jews here. It seems to me that it is more accurate to speak of late first century to early second century Greeks. I don't think that the gospel according to "John" is a Jewish text.
[ 30. March 2010, 19:40: Message edited by: El Greco ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
You're still not reading the text properly.
As has been pointed out here before, Thomas doesn't just say "My Lord and my God!" he answers Jesus with "My Lord and my God!" ISTM that this cannot be an expression of surprise, quite apart from being blasphemous, because this wouldn't be an answer to Jesus.
And it certainly wasn't directed to God the Father, because it was an answer to Jesus.
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Furthermore, I don't think it's accurate to speak of 1st century Jews here. It seems to me that it is more accurate to speak of late first century to early second century Greeks. I don't think that the gospel according to "John" is a Jewish text.
You are against the scholars on that. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls its become apparent just how Jewish the Fourth Gospel is - not only with its ethical dualism but also with the Semitisms within the text itself.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
El Greco, I think you are saying that a proper reading of this passage and the introduction to John's Gospel is that Jesus wasn't considered to be God?
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
What do Shipmates think about the idea that the passage is a theological rebuke to Thomasine ideas that Leo's touched on above? If it's been done somewhere else let me know.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
What do Shipmates think about the idea that the passage is a theological rebuke to Thomasine ideas that Leo's touched on above? If it's been done somewhere else let me know.
Which particular themes are you thinking of here, tomsk? Is it the connection with the forms of gnosticism contemporary to John? There was a time (most notably after the finding of texts at Nag Hammadi in 1945) when some scholars thought that John was immersed in gnostic ways of thinking. Then there was a reaction to this, with the consensus of thought being that John was, in fact, reacting against the forms of gnosticism he came across. His language use appears gnostic, but his semantics is semitic...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
El Greco, I think you are saying that a proper reading of this passage and the introduction to John's Gospel is that Jesus wasn't considered to be God?
a) a proper reading of the passage suggests that it's about the resurrection, and not the trinity, therefore it's not proof that Thomas worshipped Jesus as God,
b) the introduction to "John" suggests that a word is distinct to the one God, so you can't infer from that Jesus being God, and
c) throughout the gospel, a distinction is drawn between God and Jesus, unlike some modern Christians who say "God" and speak of the trinity or Jesus.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I find the whole passage very moving. And totally implausible. However, if someone (like me?) says "I'll believe Jesus is still alive when I see him" you can all pat me on the head and say, "Ah, yes. Thomas was like that..."
How very convenient.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
b) Jesus appears to him and he shouts "my God!". Why is this a confession of faith, instead of an exclamation of surprise and astonishment?
I'm sorry, but are you really this dense?
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
c) many suggest that faith requires the absence of knowledge. How does this square with the apostles knowing for a fact Jesus resurrected?
Who are these 'many people' of whom you speak? Yourself, perhaps?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I'm sorry, but are you really this dense?
Why am I dense? Because I don't read it as interpreted by those who won the trinitarian controversy? You are aware that there were other readings of that text available when the controversy erupted, aren't you?
If you want to make a confession of faith, you just say "Jesus you are God". Thomas didn't do that. There is no verb at all in his statement. And the context was about whether he believed Jesus resurrected, not whether he confessed Nicea's Creed!
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Who are these 'many people' of whom you speak? Yourself, perhaps?
All those Shipmates that shout "faith needs uncertainty" or "faith requires you don't know for sure", every time I point out they have no objective evidence for their faith, and their explanations satisfy their subjective requirements alone.
But perhaps you haven't read any of the countless posts that explain how it's all about faith, and for one to have faith one needs not to know for sure that what he believes in is actually true.
ETA: Even as a Christian, I was of the opinion expressed in the Philokalia, that faith follows knowledge; it doesn't precede it. So, no, I wasn't talking about myself.
[ 31. March 2010, 21:34: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Christ blesses Thomas, who has seen, and those to come who have not seen and still believe. I don't think we can say it has to be in any particular order.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
If you are looking to preach the passage from a different perspective than "doubting Thomas" perhaps you could work with the grace shown by Jesus in his words, "Peace be with you."
The first time he came to the upper room, he entered the presence of disciples who had run away, leaving him to die alone.
Judas, who was not there, had betrayed him, but Peter had denied him; John did at least stand at the foot of the cross, and the rest of them hid themselves away.
Jesus' first, grace-filled words to them? "Peace be with you."
Then, Thomas, who was not there, refused to believe.
Jesus, based on his comments to Thomas, knew that when he returned to them again.
Jesus' first, grace-fiilled words to all of them, including Thomas? "Peace be with you."
So - why not try to construct a sermon on unreserved grace?
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Yes, Nigel M, I think that's right, athough I'm a bit out of my depth with this sort of thing and may have got this a bit wrong.
There were gnostic traditions, of which the Gospel of Thomas (about what Jesus said) is related (if not squarely within them). Certainly, the Gospel of Thomas was later considered heretical. If the Thomasine tradition was about gaining knowledge to realise the Kingdom of God in one's self, that sounds rather different from the faith in Christ that, say, Paul promotes (about who Jesus is). John writes these things (and not others) down 'so that you may believe'. Is John's purpose here to make a point on this sort of thing?
Thanks El Greco. I've been reading the Gospels and am about to start John. Interesting to hear a different perspective on it.
Thomas is obviously a v. modern chap: a sceptic demanding empirical evidence. He doesn't get left out though, which is consistent with all the parable of the workers stuff.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
k-mann
I'm sorry, but are you really this dense?
That's not a very nice thing to say
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
If the Thomasine tradition was about gaining knowledge to realise the Kingdom of God in one's self, that sounds rather different from the faith in Christ that, say, Paul promotes (about who Jesus is). John writes these things (and not others) down 'so that you may believe'. Is John's purpose here to make a point on this sort of thing
I think you are right that John's intent in writing his work was to support belief (either on-going belief or new belief – or both). He spends some time talking about testimony, signs, witnessing, practical external evidence of God's rule, and so on.
Whether this is overtly in contrast to gnosticism or not, I'm not sure. John may simply have wanted to set out a pastoral support for Christians living in confrontational times, but without consciously being aware of anything gnostic in the offing. Difficult to say, isn't it, when John doesn't say anything along the lines of “These are written so you may not believe in gnosticism”?
I wonder if John's grounding was, like his fellow-Gospellers, more firmly fixed in the worldview and expectations of the Jewish Scriptures. The practical, external working of God on behalf of his people would then form the backdrop to John's way of thinking and would explain his themes, although the language may appear philosophically Greek.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Yes, I suppose that would make sense. Maybe John is much more about encouragement when times are hard than winning debates when things are less so. And if John is the disciple Jesus loved, or represents his tradition, then he would be steeped in the Jewish stuff.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
...[1] The linguistic evidence. ...
2:19 - “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.”
...The one possible exception in the above list is at 6:34,
You don't think that the 2:19 quote is a clearer example?
An exception (as well as 20:22) that denies a rule that use of this tense must mean that the action is immediate?
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
... If John had really wanted to communicate a more distant future receipt of the HS, he cold have done so quite easily by using the future indicative, as he does elsewhere: “You will receive...” (along the lines of 16:7 - “I will send...”).
In John 20 Jesus is linking the receiving of the Spirit to the breathing on/in them.
Many of the things Jesus did physicaly were prophetic of spiritual ministry in the future.
This is no exception.
Pentecost refers to a mighty wing (breath) just before they receive the Holy Spirit ... hence it makes sense to use this tense, to show the immediacy - it was the next think they should expect/ wait for.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
[2] The contextual evidence. ...
Immediately before Jesus breathes in the disciples, John records that Jesus said “I am sending you.” This is in the present tense
"as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you"
How did the Father send Jesus?
He anointed him with the Holy Spirit, whereupon a voice was heard declaring him to be the Son of God.
No voice is heard here, but at Pentecost they were all heard speaking in tongues as the Spirit gave tehm utterance, to which Peter responds:
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear" (Acts 2:33)
God bearing independant witness again!
This fits what Jesus said in John 3:8:
"The wind bloweth (the Spirit breathes) where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit"
And what Paul says in Romans 8:15-16 and Galatians 4:6 about the Spirit bearing witness crying "Abba father" (that's not someone repeating the words abba father with their spirit).
Abba is a word for one's one true father only and since God is a Spirit one would expent to hear something beyong human words... a spiritual language.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
and John is at pains to link this with what follows: 'And saying this, Jesus breathed...' It was also part of one event. Jesus is sending now and offers the HS. The implication is one of support for mission. This ties in nicely with one of the functions of the HS that John emphasises – the One who provides the words to say and teach.
Another glaring problem with your theory is that the disciples didn't immediately start the great commission!
They remained secluded / in fear, not out there preaching to the unsaved!
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Another part of the mission follows verse 22: the teaching of forgiveness, also linked with the Spirit's role in convicting the world of its sins.
The disciples joy upon seeing Jesus (verse 20) could also be a fulfilment of 16:22, where Jesus promises their grief will turn to joy when they see him again after the resurrection.
Yes, but Jesus repeatedly said that the Spirit would not be given until after he returned to the Father, which is after the ascention.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
[3] Pushing back further in the Gospel, there's 16:7 (“...if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you.”). Much depends here on whether one interprets the 'going' to refer to Jesus' death, or to his ascension to the Father's side.
Jesus would send the Spirit from heaven, not from hell.
Look what Jesus had previously said:
"I go unto my Father." (14:12, 28)
"now I go my way to him that sent me" (16:5)
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
If the former, then it leaves open the possibility that 20:22 is an event in the narrative timeline. If the latter, then it would suggest a future event. Jesus does refer to his going to the Father, where the disciples will see him no more (16:10), but this should be balanced with the statement in 16:16 that they would indeed see him after a little while from the point when they will see him no more. This carries forward into Jesus promise that their grief would turn into joy (16:19-20), which as noted above, seems to have a fulfilment in chapter 20. The weight of evidence here, it seems to me, thus nudges more towards a promise that Jesus would send the HS after his resurrection, rather than an ascension.
You miss the obvious - their grief turned to joy when they saw him resurrected from the dead ... that is enough reason to give them joy!
.. but no reason to jump to the conclusion that they therefore received the Spirit.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
[4] John 7:39 (Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified). Similar to [3] above, much depends on what John is referring to by Jesus' being 'glorified.' In his Gospel, John uses the word 'glory' to connote a sense of vindication. Jesus wouldn't vindicate himself - he needed the testimony of others to do that (8:54), including signs from God. Lazarus is raised from the dead to glorify Jesus (11:4), Jesus' own death is a glorification (12:23-24), announced as beginning before his arrest (13:31). This glorification, therefore, was a repeatable thing, occurring during Jesus' earthly ministry and also afterwards (12:28).
Jesus ministry and death glorified the Father (death was a shame to him but it glorified the Father by showing his love), the Father glorified Jesus by receiving him into glory.
You need to distinguish the two.
John and those he was with saw that, you seem to have missed it and muddled the two.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Given the persistent role of this vindication / glorification in John, I hesitate to conclude that the author was referring to an ascension act in 7:39. In fact, I struggle to find a meaningful reference to an ascension as understood by Luke anywhere in John.
What about this:
20:17: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father ?
Or this:
6:62: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before ?
Especially as he recorded:
"while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11)
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Added to this is the reference to glory in John's Introduction (1:14), where he says that “we have seen (a past event) his glory...” If glorification (in John's Gospel) was a reference solely to Jesus' role in God' presence, then 1:14 is out of place and time.
No, they beheld his glory while he was on earth, a vailed glory, not the full glory.
A Christian has God's glory in this earthen vessel for a while but the hope is to put off the mortal shell and be glothed in greater glory, like happened with Jesus.
I don't think you are "adding" to your case by saying these things, I think you are showing how you have to obscure things to make the idea that the Spirit was received before Acts 2 seem credible.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
You don't think that the 2:19 quote is a clearer example?
I don't think so because the immediacy is in the verb “Destroy!” - along the lines of, “Go on! I dare you! Do it now!!!” John says that in fact Jesus was issuing this challenge for them to kill him and see what happens. Metaphorically Jesus was standing right in front of his accusers, jutting out his jaw and saying, “Hit me then, if you dare!” An immediate response is required. The resulting action (rebuilding (with)in three days) is in the future tense, but doesn't detract from the urgency of the imperative.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Many of the things Jesus did physicaly were prophetic of spiritual ministry in the future.
This is no exception.
The problem with this is that 'many' does not necessarily indicate a rule. Jesus spat, Jesus wept, and Jesus wrote on the ground (also recorded in John). These physical acts may have been significant, but hardly prophetic of a spiritual ministry. I think John takes time to record these physical acts to show that Jesus has his two feet planted firmly on the ground; this nicely offsets the more esoteric passages / discourses in the Gospel, possibly to prevent John's intended readers (and some others in the not so distant past) from assuming Jesus was removed from everyday human existence. Some of the acts may have been symbolic, but not prophetic. In other words, they related to the associated event at that time.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
How did the Father send Jesus?
He anointed him with the Holy Spirit
These are two separate acts. Sending is one thing, empowering with the Spirit to support the purpose of that sending is another. One could happen without the other. John describes Jesus as the Word (chapter 1) who came from the Father and became flesh – but he became flesh before he 'received' the Spirit (1:32) according to John the Baptist. Sending preceded anointing in this case.
I would also be hesitant about reading Luke-Acts (or Paul) into John; better to try to understand John on his own terms first, then see how he squares up to other writers. We might misunderstand him otherwise. Seeing John's use of 'Spirit' in John's context helps, I think, to understand that he was talking a different function of the Spirit to that of Luke. Luke goes for the community-building-empowering Spirit of God, whereas John's field of vision is on the witnessing-testifying Spirit.
And that is why...
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Another glaring problem with your theory is that the disciples didn't immediately start the great commission!
They remained secluded / in fear, not out there preaching to the unsaved!
...John was not concerned to deal with the mission aspect; he had already achieved the goal of his Gospel, which was to set out proofs in support of Christian claims. Perhaps the Gospel itself could itself be said to be a mission but the history of the disciples/apostles further after the resurrection was not part of John's scope. Again, important to note that John was not presenting the aspect of a mission-empowering Spirit. If he had, he would have written something more like Luke-Acts.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
...but Jesus repeatedly said that the Spirit would not be given until after he returned to the Father, which is after the ascention.
I wondered about that, but John doesn't record the ascension event. He does record, however, the death and resurrection and it is this event that is the focus of 'returning to the Father.' John makes the point that Jesus regarded his work as being completed at the point of his death (“It is finished” ... he gave up his spirit – 19:30). In John's narrative, it makes sense to see him refer to death/resurrection as returning to the Father. This doesn't preclude the option of Jesus reappearing to his disciples along the lines of 16:16 (“In a little while you will see me no more, then after a little while you will see me”).
Jesus also said God the Father would send the Spirit (14:16, 26). Jesus did not have to be physically present anywhere for that to happen; he could be on earth or in his Father's presence. All he had to do was ask the Father.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
You miss the obvious - their grief turned to joy when they saw him resurrected from the dead ... that is enough reason to give them joy!
.. but no reason to jump to the conclusion that they therefore received the Spirit.
Yes, it was the sight of the resurrected Jesus that caused the joy. The point is, though, that this locates the chapter 20 passage as a fulfilment of chapter 16. What Jesus promised there (ch. 16) would happen on resurrection Sunday – they would see Jesus again, their grief would turn to joy, and the Spirit would come.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Jesus ministry and death glorified the Father (death was a shame to him but it glorified the Father by showing his love), the Father glorified Jesus by receiving him into glory.
You need to distinguish the two.
In addition to the references I quoted, chapter 17 also demonstrates how John uses the word group 'glory/glorify' quite well. There are many different senses, not just two (or one). All this means that it is not clear that John was referring to an ascension event in 7:39 when he said “Up to that time the Spirit had not been given since Jesus had not yet been glorified.” As pointed out above, John does not record an ascension event. It is far more likely that 'glorify' here refers to the death/resurrection event, the point at which Jesus consider his work to be finished. This is reinforced in 17:4, where Jesus links glorification with completion of his work.
About the Ascension. The word has come to us because of its association to Luke-Acts. Luke uses different verbs (and voice) to the one John uses in 20:17 and 6:62. Again we need to be careful we are not reading into John something ingrained into us from elsewhere. There is no 'ascension' event in John. Instead, in 20:17 Jesus says that he is ascending to the Father (present tense) – implying a process under way but not yet completed. This clarifies his word to Mary that he had not yet gone up; the process was not yet complete – a process of glorification begun with the completion of his work. We don't find Luke in John here.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
...they beheld his glory while he was on earth, a vailed glory, not the full glory.
A Christian has God's glory in this earthen vessel for a while but the hope is to put off the mortal shell and be glothed in greater glory, like happened with Jesus.
There is no reference to Jesus' glory being veiled in John 1. If anything, John is comparing a 'veiled' Moses (the law) to the completely unveiled Jesus. The law could not make the Father known, Jesus on the other hand revealed the Father. That's the thrust of John's Introduction: light shines in the darkness – not dimly. Jesus himself said that he came into the world as a light so that no one should stay in darkness (12:46); another example of John referring back to his Introduction.
This is not to deny that greater glory awaits us after death, but it is to be consistent with John to say that God's glory was fully present on earth in human form. This doesn't obscure the argument about when the Spirit was offered to the disciples. It throws light on it! Glory, in one sense, was not postponed to a future date. Similarly the Spirit is not postponed to a time beyond the end of John's Gospel. John completes the Glory theme within the scope of his work, and he also completes the Spirit theme in the same way. No loose ends to his narrative.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Thanks to all so far. I am going to pick up on Thomas as twin and as one who wants to touch and feel.
The orthodox call this Sunday AntiPascha - the Sunday facing/mirroring Easter. It is the start of mystagogy - baptismal candidates were taught the facts before the Easter Vigil but now they are invited into mystical experience.
The Gospel of Thomas and the whole of that tradition is about mystical experience, including our growth into the likeness of Christ. So, like Thomas, we can become twins of Jesus.
A bit strange, I know, but the fact that the lectionary gives this story for every year means that one runs out of things to say.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M: ... Jesus spat, Jesus wept, and Jesus wrote on the ground (also recorded in John). These physical acts may have been significant, but hardly prophetic of a spiritual ministry. I think John takes time to record these physical acts to show that Jesus has his two feet planted firmly on the ground;
what do you mean... that the Holy Spirit literally came from Jesus lungs into the disciples in John 20?
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Some of the acts may have been symbolic, but not prophetic. In other words, they related to the associated event at that time.
Not sure I see the distinction, can you give an example?
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M: quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
How did the Father send Jesus?
He anointed him with the Holy Spirit
These are two separate acts. Sending is one thing, empowering with the Spirit to support the purpose of that sending is another. One could happen without the other.
John describes Jesus as the Word (chapter 1) who came from the Father and became flesh – but he became flesh before he 'received' the Spirit (1:32) according to John the Baptist. Sending preceded anointing in this case.
So, what does Jesus mean by "as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."?
Did Jesus send the disciples without the Holy Spirit?
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
...but Jesus repeatedly said that the Spirit would not be given until after he returned to the Father, which is after the ascention.
I wondered about that, but John doesn't record the ascension event. He does record, however, the death and resurrection and it is this event that is the focus of 'returning to the Father.' John makes the point that Jesus regarded his work as being completed at the point of his death (“It is finished” ... he gave up his spirit – 19:30). In John's narrative, it makes sense to see him refer to death/resurrection as returning to the Father.
Joh:20:17: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:
In John 21 Jesus is still not yet returned to the Father, so the Spirit could not yet have been received by Jesus to send to the disciples.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Jesus also said God the Father would send the Spirit (14:16, 26). Jesus did not have to be physically present anywhere for that to happen; he could be on earth or in his Father's presence.
If Jesus didn't have to be physically present anywhere in particular, he didn't need to fulfil Old Testament patterns of the High Priest presenting the blood on the altar.
And many other verses don't seem to make sense:
"the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father" (14:12)
Having the Holy Spirit within would allow the disciples to do the "greater works" . . but Jesus needed to go to the father to enable this.
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (14:20)
That day was the day the Spirit would be in then. as distinct from just with them (v17)
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (14:26)
sending in my name makes perfect sense if you are asking/praying for the promised Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus, not if Jesus is there before you doing the talking and teaching you, as he had been for 3 years.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (15:26)
Again, "send unto you" is hardly correct if you are with the person. And again, Jesus testifies of himself while with them, they need the Spirit when he is gone.
... if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, (16:7-9)
How did the Spirit reprove the world of Sin in John 20 & 21?
He certainly did in Acts 2!
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Jesus ministry and death glorified the Father (death was a shame to him but it glorified the Father by showing his love), the Father glorified Jesus by receiving him into glory.
You need to distinguish the two.
... chapter 17 also demonstrates how John uses the word group 'glory/glorify' quite well. There are many different senses, not just two (or one). All this means that it is not clear that John was referring to an ascension event in 7:39 when he said “Up to that time the Spirit had not been given since Jesus had not yet been glorified.” As pointed out above, John does not record an ascension event. It is far more likely that 'glorify' here refers to the death/resurrection event, the point at which Jesus consider his work to be finished. This is reinforced in 17:4, where Jesus links glorification with completion of his work.
In John 7 John talks about Jesus being glorified. John 17 is clearly about Jesus glorifying the father. 2 distinct things.
You do your work well and after you receive the reward.
Jesus makes the distinction clearly here:
I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (17:4-5)
In addition, John was with the other disciples during and after the ascention, they believed and taught the same things, they were in unity and had been for years when John wrote this gospel account... the idea that he doesn't specifically mention the ascention therefore John 7:39 refers to Jesus death not ascention into glory ignores who John was & who he was writing to.
[ 08. April 2010, 03:06: Message edited by: NJA ]
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
what do you mean... that the Holy Spirit literally came from Jesus lungs into the disciples in John 20?
Thanks! The image of Jesus doing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on his disciples has not yet been completely exorcised from my mind!
Actually this probably fits well with the idea of symbolic (rather than prophetic) actions in the Gospel and your query about what I meant by that. I understand the use of 'prophetic' here to mean an action that has a future referent (obviously it can also involve words, but I'll stick to acts for our purposes). In other words, Jesus performs a physical action before an audience in order to demonstrate a principle relating to the way God works that will activated at some future point. In the example you use, Jesus breathes out and this is prophetic of God's sending of his Spirit at a future date.
By 'symbolic,' I was referring to an action that has a present referent. In other words, Jesus performs a physical action before an audience in order to demonstrate God's ways of working there and then. An example I have used is Jesus' breathing as a symbol of the passing (or offer) of God's Spirit to the disciples there and then. Some other examples from John's Gospel, not all necessarily performed by Jesus, could include the baptism act by John the B.; the turning of water into wine, which John (the writer - I wish he had a different name from John the Baptist – it gets too confusing) presents as a 'sign' that revealed there and then Jesus' glory; and a number of the other 'signs' that testify to the validity of Jesus' person and work. Some commentators have said about Jesus' spitting to form mud as part of his healing of the man born blind (John 9:1-7) that this was symbolic of creation, where God formed humans out of the ground dust, so Jesus now supplied 'from the ground' something that had been missing from the man's creation (his sight).
Coming back to Jesus' breathing in 20:22, the verb used for this act (emphusao = ἐμφυσαω), although not used anywhere else in the NT does appear in the Greek version of the OT at Gen. 2:7 as part of the translation: “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (NASV - italics mine). In classical Greek literature this verb is also used of the playing of wind instruments (e.g., the aulos). As such, the verb implies certainly more than mere breathing out (for which other compound verbs would be more appropriate), but it also means more than simply breathing on or upon. As with the aulos, there is a sense of breathing into as well. God breathed into the adam to create life, players breathed into the aulos to create sound, and perhaps here in John 20:22 Jesus breathed into the disciples to – what? Symbolic perhaps of the Spirit's moving into them? Literal perhaps of a passing of the Spirit from Jesus into the disciples? Whatever the mechanism (and John isn't interested in telling us about it), the word implies something is going on there and then. Semantically, the verb is closer to the idea present in 2 Tim. 3:16 of Scripture being 'God-breathed' – God has acted into it and given it life.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Did Jesus send the disciples without the Holy Spirit?
Luke, no less, records a sending of the disciples before Pentecost. In Luke 6:12-16 he says that Jesus deliberately chose twelve individuals from all his disciples to act as apostles. In chapter 9 he send those 12 out on a mission and in chapter 10 repeats the operation with a much larger number. They must have been effective because even demons submitted to them (10:17). I doubt that this meant that God's Spirit was not acting yet; in fact Luke is happy to report the Spirit's activity in humans from the word go (e.g., filling Elizabeth in 1:41 and Zechariah in 1:67).
Again, though, I think John is presenting a different function of the Spirit to that of Luke. Luke's focus is on the 'power from on high' that God sent. This power enabled the apostles to further Jesus' mission based on Isaiah 61 (“...preach good news to the poor, bind up broken-hearted, proclaim freedom for captives, release for prisoners, etc.). For John, however, sending the disciples would also involve coping with divisions between those who believe and those who don't. It would require power to answer accusations and defend the faith. Same Spirit, different functions. Both continue aspects of the mission of the one Jesus, both functions are part of the one Spirit (I'm sure John and Luke would agree) because the Spirit comes from the same one God.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
In John 21 Jesus is still not yet returned to the Father, so the Spirit could not yet have been received by Jesus to send to the disciples.
“Going to the Father” for John is linked to Jesus' death/resurrection event. Hence the sending of the Spirit could happen at any point after that. At 14:28 Jesus reminds his disciples that me must do away and then come back to them – and he links the going away with going to the Father. Again in chapter 16 Jesus says that the disciples will see him no more – but then after a little while will see him again. The only place in John's plot where this happens is when Jesus appears to the disciples after his resurrection. So the plot runs: Jesus goes away to the Father (= death), then he comes back to see the disciples again (after resurrection). The world does not see him again, only the disciples.
Having recorded the sending of the Spirit, John is content to wind the plot down because he has achieved his purpose in writing. He does not need to go on to record the ascension or the future missionary activities of the disciples with the Spirit – how that might have worked out in terms of convicting the world of sin and so on. John has done what he told us he would do in his Introduction: established the validity of Jesus' mission from God. We don't have a follow-up work from John along the lines of Luke's Acts of the Apostles. It would be speculation to wonder what might look like.
Mind you, having said that, I wonder if Revelation was John's follow-up work? It would be a nice companion to Acts: as I mentioned above, Luke/Acts focusses on the power to save (with associated healings and community-building), John/Revelation on the opposition the church would face and the power to speak out the truth under persecution.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
